# Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality



## georgephillip

*Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part? 

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'. 

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income. 

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

*There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*


----------



## Godboy

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.


----------



## georgephillip

Godboy said:


> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.


*Do you have any proof of that statement?*

"In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality


----------



## Spiderman

georgephillip said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


I don't really care about other countries.

Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Seeing how much of modern technology wouldn't exist if not for capitalism and freedom of thought. I'll just have to say that life would be utter hell without capitalism.

When has pure socialism been successful? The human economy works like a engine...You need input and out put. Socialism is only good at output....


----------



## Mac1958

georgephillip said:


> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*




Great, so what would you like to see?

Specifically?

.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Increasing growth = growth of hope and living standards.

What could be better for the poor?


----------



## BobPlumb

Want income equality, move to Haiti!


----------



## Seawytch

Spiderman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
Click to expand...


Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!


----------



## midcan5

Read this book or even just the chapters on Capitalism.  It is twenty years old and reads like it was written this past year.  

"The idea of Capitalism as a venture within society or between societies based upon cooperation and mutual profit is thus absent from the multinational model, and increasingly it is absent from the smaller managed corporations. Precisely that cooperation has made Japan's success possible. All the Japanese particular peculiarities, which we are now attempting to imitate, are merely consequences of that cooperation. That is why our efforts to imitate them resemble parody more than they do reorganization. You cannot have a Friedmanite view of market forces or a business school idea of business as structure and then expect to benefit from the cooperative methods proper to the Japanese or to the Swedes or even to the Koreans, to take three very different examples. *The market approach and the cooperative approach are mutually destructive.*"  p390 John Ralston Saul, 'Voltaire's Bastards' 


"The effect of this tandem is to put downward competitive pressures on the northern United States; on Canada, now linked southward by a continental economic integration pact; and on other countries who wish to compete in these markets, or to compete with their exports. The Maquiladora experiment has been so successful that corporations have pushed the American and Mexican governments towards a full-scale economic pact. The Mexicans hope that this will lead to an influx of capital, new jobs and an improved economy. But the interest of the investors is primarily in cheap, unsecured labour and unregulated industrial production standards. 

Why would sophisticated, technocratic employees seek aggressively to destabilize the structures of their own countries in order to give comfort to the sort of social systems which their fathers rejected as criminal less than a century ago? And why would they or we entrust any part of our fundamental needs to unstable societies which have not yet gone through the economic and political turbulence which surrounds most industrial revolutions? No doubt the managers in government and industry looked at their flowcharts and thought there was no other way. It apparently did not occur to them to question the effects of this strategy on their own society."   John Ralston Saul, 'Voltaire's Bastards'


----------



## ScienceRocks

Education and ability to hold onto more wealth is the way to grow the middle class.

infrastructure, science, r@D, education, etc is balanced with a system that allows people to create businesses @ wealth.


----------



## Mac1958

.

I'll try again.

Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.  

So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:


New regulations you'd like to see on business
Specific marginal income tax rates
Macro comparisons with other countries
Constitutional amendments, if any
New culturally-oriented laws, if any
Any other specifics of any kind

Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?

And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.

Thanks.

.


----------



## Geaux4it

Income inequality builds ambition which makes for a strong United States

-Geaux


----------



## BobPlumb

Seawytch said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!
Click to expand...


And electricity and running water and food to eat........a hell of a lot more food than what is considered poor in third world, non-capitalist countries.


----------



## Stephanie

they want us all "poor" so they can crow we are now all EQUAL

While our masters in government who oversees all the "poor"  who are the worker bees they assign jobs in their kingdom are living the lifestyles of the RICH AND SHAMELESS


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Capitalism has done more good for the poor than any other system combined.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

It is always funny (and telling) that all anti-capitalist books are written by people who have never done anything outside of the theoretical world. This professor or that professor, or some political think-tank etc. make up 99% of socialist and anti-capitalism material.
 What is also funny, is the people who fall for their ludicrous idealism is people who also have never accomplished anything.


----------



## peach174

http://www.policymic.com/articles/47817/the-one-chart-that-proves-capitalism-works

Capitalism is getting the poor in South Africa out of poverty.

It's big Government control & interference that causes more inequality.


----------



## Seawytch

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .



Well golly batman, you got me. I'm just a poor stupid election worker and not an economist, but even a poor stupid fucking election worker can see that the income inequality in this country is unsustainable. This moron also knows that we've had this kind of inequality before. What did we do then?


----------



## occupied

There used to be an incentive for the wealth to somewhat trickle down as a consumer with disposable income was the goal of capitalism but today the financial markets are so rigged that we are in effect paying tribute to these people and the goal is simply to skim off the top of everything while contributing little to overall prosperity.


----------



## PredFan

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



Capitalism guarantees *equality of opportunity*, not equality of outcome. The quality of your outcome is totally dependent on you.


----------



## Mac1958

Seawytch said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well golly batman, you got me. I'm just a poor stupid election worker and not an economist, but even a poor stupid fucking election worker can see that the income inequality in this country is unsustainable. This moron also knows that we've had this kind of inequality before. What did we do then?
Click to expand...



I asked a sincere, straightforward question.  If you don't have specific ideas, that's fine.  I would love to know the answers to these questions -- who knows, maybe I'll learn something -- and I'm thinking that if I can't get any answers here I'll try a new thread.

.


----------



## Stephanie

occupied said:


> There used to be an incentive for the wealth to somewhat trickle down as a consumer with disposable income was the goal of capitalism but today the financial markets are so rigged that we are in effect paying tribute to these people and the goal is simply to skim off the top of everything while contributing little to overall prosperity.



go make your OWN prosperity and quit wanting other to do it for you..that's what is dooming this country and our Freedoms


----------



## PredFan

Seawytch said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!
Click to expand...


Wrong argument. He was making the point that our poor are richer than they used to be and richer than the poor of other countries. Because of capitalism.


----------



## PredFan

Seawytch said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well golly batman, you got me. I'm just a poor stupid election worker and not an economist, but even a poor stupid fucking election worker can see that the income inequality in this country is unsustainable. This moron also knows that we've had this kind of inequality before. What did we do then?
Click to expand...


No, you can't see it. You are just regurgitating what you've been told by the media and politicians that you like. Learn the difference.


----------



## Stephanie

Inequality is the new progressive/Democrat/commie talking point to PIT the people in this country AGAINST each other

another form of Class Warfare

people better get a clue already


----------



## PredFan

occupied said:


> There used to be an incentive for the wealth to somewhat trickle down as a consumer with disposable income was the goal of capitalism but today the financial markets are so rigged that we are in effect paying tribute to these people and the goal is simply to skim off the top of everything while contributing little to overall prosperity.



Capitalism isn't about wealth trickling down. That is a side effect. If the middle class is waiting for trickle down wealth well then they are pretty stupid and that's why they are stuck.


----------



## peach174

It's plain old common sense.
Does someone who is getting aid actually get out of poverty or does it keep you dependent on that aid?
It keeps you dependent.
Free markets help the poor.
History and statistics have proved it over and over, again and again.

Free Markets Help the Poor Better Than Aid Does | Michel Kelly-Gagnon

It is just amazing how many people buy into the lies that Socialists put out there on inequality.


----------



## georgephillip

Spiderman said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
Click to expand...

Do you care that the US has 5% of the world's population yet consumes 30% of natural resources?


----------



## Stephanie

georgephillip said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you care that the US has 5% of the world's population yet consumes 30% of natural resources?
Click to expand...


holy smokes
so how do you suggest we stop from doing that?
all move back into caves? grass huts, burn elephant dung for heating? so we can be, Equal


----------



## Stephanie

this is from truthout, a commie propaganda site


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Once again...an appropriate place to put this famous debate with Milton Friedman


----------



## peach174

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "*The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'. *
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*




What type of system of Government started to rise in the 70's and 80's in those countries?
Socialism. Government assistance programs.


----------



## Seawytch

We created the inequality, we can fix it.


----------



## georgephillip

Matthew said:


> Seeing how much of modern technology wouldn't exist if not for capitalism and freedom of thought. I'll just have to say that life would be utter hell without capitalism.
> 
> When has pure socialism been successful? The human economy works like a engine...You need input and out put. Socialism is only good at output....


How are you defining "input" and "output"?
Modern technology stems from human labor and much of the research that has made it possible comes from public and not private capital.


----------



## editec

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism does not necessarily lead to evil but it _must _lead to wealth inequity.  Capitalism require *capital formation.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business -
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see us change the way we treat corporations.  Specifically we need to rethink the LIMITED LIABILITY corporation.  Also corporations are NOT people and money  is NOT speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progreessive taxation works and suit a capitalist society.  We simply need to mess with the numbers a bit.  right now the stupidly rich pay almost no taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [*]Macro comparisons with other countries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [*]Constitutional amendments, if any
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [*]New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [*]Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should treat ALL INCOME the same as it regards taxes.
Click to expand...


----------



## Stephanie

Seawytch said:


> We created the inequality, we can fix it.



Yeah, we can give everyone unicorns too

they tried FIXING poverty and we still have the same amount and worse today

You people go take YOUR money and go FIX inequality...We are sick of your pie in sky ideas of some liberal utopia and sucking our blood, sweat and tears and monies from OUR FAMILES


----------



## georgephillip

peach174 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "*The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'. *
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What type of system of Government started to rise in the 70's and 80's in those countries?
> Socialism. Government assistance programs.
Click to expand...

*Reagan and Thatcher were not socialists.*

"Income and wealth inequality have always existed. However, the worldwide gap between the 'rich and the rest', as Stiglitz puts it, 'widened even more, right up through about World War II'. 

"But it took the combined doctrinal political idealism of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (in power during 1979-90) and US President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) to hyper-accelerate levels of inequality, and set the divisive competitive tone for the years that followed."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality


----------



## Seawytch

Stephanie said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> We created the inequality, we can fix it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we can give everyone unicorns too
> 
> they tried FIXING poverty and we still have the same amount and worse today
> 
> You people go take YOUR money and go FIX inequality...We are sick of your pie in sky ideas of some liberal utopia and sucking our blood, sweat and tears and monies from OUR FAMILES
Click to expand...


When we fought the war on poverty, we were winning. When we stopped fighting, we started losing again. Imagine that?

According to Joseph Califano, who worked in the Johnson White House, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century. Thats a staggering 43 percent reduction. In six years.​
Marco Rubio Is Wrong: The War on Poverty Worked

The War on Povertys surprising success

Don't you get SS?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

One thing the socialist morons always ignore (besides every conceivable and historical fact pointing the opposite since the dawn of man) - is the "evils" of capitalism don not arise from capitalism itself. 
Extreme inequality arises from crony-capitalism. Or if you prefer a corrupt capitalist system. 
 Capitalism can only be corrupt with the help of government. Or the duplicity of government.
And this is what we have today. We do not have proper capitalism anymore. We have a bastardized corrupt system that extracts wealth rather than builds it.


----------



## The Rabbi

Seawytch said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well golly batman, you got me. I'm just a poor stupid election worker and not an economist, but even a poor stupid fucking election worker can see that the income inequality in this country is unsustainable. This moron also knows that we've had this kind of inequality before. What did we do then?
Click to expand...


There has been income inequality for 200 years.  What part of that sounds unsustainable to you?  Why do you care what someone else earns if you're making more than you were last year, last decade?
Why does the Left promote the politics of envy and greed?  Yes, greed.  The Left is the greedy party, defining greed as wanting something that doesn't belong to you.  High income earners mostly earned their income.  People clamoring for gov't redistribution didnt. That's greed.


----------



## The Rabbi

Seawytch said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> We created the inequality, we can fix it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we can give everyone unicorns too
> 
> they tried FIXING poverty and we still have the same amount and worse today
> 
> You people go take YOUR money and go FIX inequality...We are sick of your pie in sky ideas of some liberal utopia and sucking our blood, sweat and tears and monies from OUR FAMILES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we fought the war on poverty, we were winning. When we stopped fighting, we started losing again. Imagine that?
> 
> According to Joseph Califano, who worked in the Johnson White House, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century. Thats a staggering 43 percent reduction. In six years.​
> Marco Rubio Is Wrong: The War on Poverty Worked
> 
> The War on Povertys surprising success
> 
> Don't you get SS?
Click to expand...

Never mind the figures are wrong and misleading.
When did we stop fighting a war on poverty?  What poverty related program has been cut back or eliminated?


----------



## deltex1

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



Thank gawd The Gonad has solved that problem.


----------



## Seawytch

The Rabbi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well golly batman, you got me. I'm just a poor stupid election worker and not an economist, but even a poor stupid fucking election worker can see that the income inequality in this country is unsustainable. This moron also knows that we've had this kind of inequality before. What did we do then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been income inequality for 200 years.  What part of that sounds unsustainable to you?  Why do you care what someone else earns if you're making more than you were last year, last decade?
> Why does the Left promote the politics of envy and greed?  Yes, greed.  The Left is the greedy party, defining greed as wanting something that doesn't belong to you.  High income earners mostly earned their income.  People clamoring for gov't redistribution didnt. That's greed.
Click to expand...


Yes, some inequality is natural and necessary. Never before in our history has it been this great. Deny it to all of our peril. 







See how the lines used to be conjoined? See how they aren't anymore? 

An even broader range


----------



## CrusaderFrank

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



So Capitalism works?

OK TY


----------



## Seawytch

The Rabbi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we can give everyone unicorns too
> 
> they tried FIXING poverty and we still have the same amount and worse today
> 
> You people go take YOUR money and go FIX inequality...We are sick of your pie in sky ideas of some liberal utopia and sucking our blood, sweat and tears and monies from OUR FAMILES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we fought the war on poverty, we were winning. When we stopped fighting, we started losing again. Imagine that?
> 
> According to Joseph Califano, who worked in the Johnson White House, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century. Thats a staggering 43 percent reduction. In six years.​
> Marco Rubio Is Wrong: The War on Poverty Worked
> 
> The War on Povertys surprising success
> 
> Don't you get SS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind the figures are wrong and misleading.
> When did we stop fighting a war on poverty?  What poverty related program has been cut back or eliminated?
Click to expand...


Wait...aren't you the same guy that said not adjusting for inflation is a pay cut? Think about that for a minute...


----------



## georgephillip

Mac1958 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great, so what would you like to see?
> 
> Specifically?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

*At a minimum:*

"It is now more than four years since the financial 
crisis struck, and the mood has changed. At the 
time, the conventional wisdom was that, while the 
crisis was serious, we would see a similar pattern to 
previous recessions: a two- to three-year period in 
which output was below its pre-crisis peak, followed 
by a return to growth. It hasnt happened. The scale 
of the financial sectors losses, the level of debt in 
richer economies and the austerity policies pursued 
by many governments have combined to create a 
slowdown that is longer and deeper than anticipated."

http://www.wpp.com/~/media/sharedwpp/readingroom/consumer%20insights/succeeding_in_lowgrowth_markets_feb13.pdf

*Business and individuals should change their thinking in order to profit in a low growth world*


----------



## The Rabbi

Seawytch said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well golly batman, you got me. I'm just a poor stupid election worker and not an economist, but even a poor stupid fucking election worker can see that the income inequality in this country is unsustainable. This moron also knows that we've had this kind of inequality before. What did we do then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been income inequality for 200 years.  What part of that sounds unsustainable to you?  Why do you care what someone else earns if you're making more than you were last year, last decade?
> Why does the Left promote the politics of envy and greed?  Yes, greed.  The Left is the greedy party, defining greed as wanting something that doesn't belong to you.  High income earners mostly earned their income.  People clamoring for gov't redistribution didnt. That's greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some inequality is natural and necessary. Never before in our history has it been this great. Deny it to all of our peril.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Never mind your charts are bullshit.  What is the optimal point of income inequality?  What is the problem if it goes over that point?
> That seems to be the thing the left just can't quite explain.  What difference does it make?  All the "explanations" have been bullshit and easily debunked.  The truth is much more bad happens when gov't tries to regulate how much people make than the opposite.
Click to expand...


----------



## The Rabbi

Seawytch said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we fought the war on poverty, we were winning. When we stopped fighting, we started losing again. Imagine that?
> 
> According to Joseph Califano, who worked in the Johnson White House, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century. Thats a staggering 43 percent reduction. In six years.​
> Marco Rubio Is Wrong: The War on Poverty Worked
> 
> The War on Povertys surprising success
> 
> Don't you get SS?
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind the figures are wrong and misleading.
> When did we stop fighting a war on poverty?  What poverty related program has been cut back or eliminated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait...aren't you the same guy that said not adjusting for inflation is a pay cut? Think about that for a minute...
Click to expand...

Wait, was that supposed to be an answer to my question of what programs have been cut?


----------



## Stephanie

what the hell is that suppose to mean? 





> Deny it to all of our peril.



is that some sort of threat?

like you better extend unemployment monies or they will riot and blunder what you have?


----------



## The Rabbi

Stephanie said:


> what the hell is that suppose to mean,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deny it to all of our peril.
> 
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...


It means that something scaaary is going to happen.  What that is I have no idea.  Because middle class people are better off now than they were 10 years ago, even accounting for the shitty performance of the economy under Obama, Mr. Spread the wealth.  Who is going to riot because their standard of living has improved?


----------



## kiwiman127

I*ncome inequality is biggest global risk, World Economic Forum says *
<snip>
The World Economic Forum, which hosts the annual high-profile gathering of top business and political leaders, asked 700 global experts to assess global risks.
For the third straight year, income disparity topped the list of the five most likely global risks over the next 10 years. The others in this year's report were extreme weather events, unemployment and underemployment, climate change and cyber attacks.
Income inequality is biggest global risk, World Economic Forum says - latimes.com

But lets just go ahead and make excuses and think everything is fine.  The world's greatest experts see a problem, but what do they know. Right?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Seawytch said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well golly batman, you got me. I'm just a poor stupid election worker and not an economist, but even a poor stupid fucking election worker can see that the income inequality in this country is unsustainable. This moron also knows that we've had this kind of inequality before. What did we do then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been income inequality for 200 years.  What part of that sounds unsustainable to you?  Why do you care what someone else earns if you're making more than you were last year, last decade?
> Why does the Left promote the politics of envy and greed?  Yes, greed.  The Left is the greedy party, defining greed as wanting something that doesn't belong to you.  High income earners mostly earned their income.  People clamoring for gov't redistribution didnt. That's greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some inequality is natural and necessary. Never before in our history has it been this great. Deny it to all of our peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See how the lines used to be conjoined? See how they aren't anymore?
> 
> An even broader range
Click to expand...


You are absolutely correct.
Wealth concentration is inarguable. 
But this is not the result of capitalism.
This is the result of corrupt/oligarchical governance. Our entire federal government is thoroughly corrupt via special interest made up of the central banks/super corporations.
 The problem is not capitalism. The problem is corruption in our entire financial system.
Of which - both parties are duplicitous.


----------



## The Rabbi

kiwiman127 said:


> I*ncome inequality is biggest global risk, World Economic Forum says *
> <snip>
> The World Economic Forum, which hosts the annual high-profile gathering of top business and political leaders, asked 700 global experts to assess global risks.
> For the third straight year, income disparity topped the list of the five most likely global risks over the next 10 years. The others in this year's report were extreme weather events, unemployment and underemployment, climate change and cyber attacks.
> Income inequality is biggest global risk, World Economic Forum says - latimes.com
> 
> But lets just go ahead and make excuses and think everything is fine.  The world's greatest experts see a problem, but what do they know. Right?



Risk of what?


----------



## BobPlumb

iamwhatiseem said:


> One thing the socialist morons always ignore (besides every conceivable and historical fact pointing the opposite since the dawn of man) - is the "evils" of capitalism don not arise from capitalism itself.
> Extreme inequality arises from crony-capitalism. Or if you prefer a corrupt capitalist system.
> Capitalism can only be corrupt with the help of government. Or the duplicity of government.
> And this is what we have today. We do not have proper capitalism anymore. We have a bastardized corrupt system that extracts wealth rather than builds it.



I agree that crony-capitalism is a problem.  However, I disagree with the concept that wealth inequality is a problem.  Bill Gates didn't become one of the richest men in the world because of crony capitalism.  He developed the operating system that was used in most of the personal computers in the late twentieth century.  He rode that wave to earn billions while in the process employing thousands of people.  He was a wealth creator.  

The person who invents the better mouse trap and becomes an entrepreneur to bring that better mousetrap to the masses is able to become filty rich in a capitalistic society.  I don't see a problem with that.


----------



## Seawytch

The Rabbi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind the figures are wrong and misleading.
> When did we stop fighting a war on poverty?  What poverty related program has been cut back or eliminated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...aren't you the same guy that said not adjusting for inflation is a pay cut? Think about that for a minute...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait, was that supposed to be an answer to my question of what programs have been cut?
Click to expand...


If you keep something at the same funding or don't adjust for inflation, isn't that a cut? 

And how can you say programs haven't been cut? Isn't that what the GOP claims to do? Are you saying the GOP has been an abject failure for the last 50 years?

Does the GOP want to cut SS and Medicare, yes or no? Has the GOP cut SNAP and Head Start programs, yes or no? Do they want to even more, yes or no?

I like how you just threw out "those numbers are misleading" but don't actually provide facts to the contrary. Hmmm...


----------



## georgephillip

Matthew said:


> Increasing growth = growth of hope and living standards.
> 
> What could be better for the poor?


A socio-economic system that doesn't reward the richest 3 individuals on the planet with more assets than the combined GDPs of 47 nation states.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality


----------



## Seawytch

Stephanie said:


> what the hell is that suppose to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deny it to all of our peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is that some sort of threat?
> 
> like you better extend unemployment monies or they will riot and blunder what you have?
Click to expand...


I'm saying that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. What has happened in societies where the income inequality grew too great?

Don't you collect Social Security? Would you be in poverty without that money?


----------



## The Rabbi

Seawytch said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...aren't you the same guy that said not adjusting for inflation is a pay cut? Think about that for a minute...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, was that supposed to be an answer to my question of what programs have been cut?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you keep something at the same funding or don't adjust for inflation, isn't that a cut?
> 
> And how can you say programs haven't been cut? Isn't that what the GOP claims to do? Are you saying the GOP has been an abject failure for the last 50 years?
> 
> Does the GOP want to cut SS and Medicare, yes or no? Has the GOP cut SNAP and Head Start programs, yes or no? Do they want to even more, yes or no?
> 
> I like how you just threw out "those numbers are misleading" but don't actually provide facts to the contrary. Hmmm...
Click to expand...

Which programs have been kept at the same level or cut?  You seem unable to answer this simple question.  I'm not asking what the GOP platform is.  The GOP can not and has not been able to implement any program for over 5 years.
You made the claim, defend it or admit you made the whole thing up.


----------



## The Rabbi

Seawytch said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell is that suppose to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deny it to all of our peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is that some sort of threat?
> 
> like you better extend unemployment monies or they will riot and blunder what you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. What has happened in societies where the income inequality grew too great?
> 
> Don't you collect Social Security? Would you be in poverty without that money?
Click to expand...


That's a pretty simplistic formulation.  What happened to societies that normalized homosexuality?
She paid into social security.  How much better off would she have been if she had been able to keep that money and invest it for 40 years?


----------



## kiwiman127

The Rabbi said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I*ncome inequality is biggest global risk, World Economic Forum says *
> <snip>
> The World Economic Forum, which hosts the annual high-profile gathering of top business and political leaders, asked 700 global experts to assess global risks.
> For the third straight year, income disparity topped the list of the five most likely global risks over the next 10 years. The others in this year's report were extreme weather events, unemployment and underemployment, climate change and cyber attacks.
> Income inequality is biggest global risk, World Economic Forum says - latimes.com
> 
> But lets just go ahead and make excuses and think everything is fine.  The world's greatest experts see a problem, but what do they know. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Risk of what?
Click to expand...


Have you ever thought of putting some effort into reading?  It's just as easy a posting, try it, you'll like it.


----------



## BobPlumb

georgephillip said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing growth = growth of hope and living standards.
> 
> What could be better for the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> A socio-economic system that doesn't reward the richest 3 individuals on the planet with more assets than the combined GDPs of 47 nation states.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


Yeah!  All the weath should be held by the government and distributed to the people in a fair way.


----------



## BobPlumb

kiwiman127 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I*ncome inequality is biggest global risk, World Economic Forum says *
> <snip>
> The World Economic Forum, which hosts the annual high-profile gathering of top business and political leaders, asked 700 global experts to assess global risks.
> For the third straight year, income disparity topped the list of the five most likely global risks over the next 10 years. The others in this year's report were extreme weather events, unemployment and underemployment, climate change and cyber attacks.
> Income inequality is biggest global risk, World Economic Forum says - latimes.com
> 
> But lets just go ahead and make excuses and think everything is fine.  The world's greatest experts see a problem, but what do they know. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Risk of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever thought of putting some effort into reading?  It's just as easy a posting, try it, you'll like it.
Click to expand...


Some of us are not as smart as you.....  Can you answer the question so we can understand?


----------



## Seawytch

The Rabbi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell is that suppose to mean?
> 
> is that some sort of threat?
> 
> like you better extend unemployment monies or they will riot and blunder what you have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. What has happened in societies where the income inequality grew too great?
> 
> Don't you collect Social Security? Would you be in poverty without that money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a pretty simplistic formulation.  What happened to societies that normalized homosexuality?
> She paid into social security.  How much better off would she have been if she had been able to keep that money and invest it for 40 years?
Click to expand...


Nothing happened to societies that "normalized homosexuality". Rome didn't fall because "the gheys"...one of the main reasons though?

Income inequality.


----------



## The Rabbi

kiwiman127 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I*ncome inequality is biggest global risk, World Economic Forum says *
> <snip>
> The World Economic Forum, which hosts the annual high-profile gathering of top business and political leaders, asked 700 global experts to assess global risks.
> For the third straight year, income disparity topped the list of the five most likely global risks over the next 10 years. The others in this year's report were extreme weather events, unemployment and underemployment, climate change and cyber attacks.
> Income inequality is biggest global risk, World Economic Forum says - latimes.com
> 
> But lets just go ahead and make excuses and think everything is fine.  The world's greatest experts see a problem, but what do they know. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Risk of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever thought of putting some effort into reading?  It's just as easy a posting, try it, you'll like it.
Click to expand...

I read it.  It didnt answer the question risk of what.  That's why I'm asking you.  You obviously didnt read the article but Googled income inequality risk and came up with that turd.


----------



## The Rabbi

Seawytch said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. What has happened in societies where the income inequality grew too great?
> 
> Don't you collect Social Security? Would you be in poverty without that money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a pretty simplistic formulation.  What happened to societies that normalized homosexuality?
> She paid into social security.  How much better off would she have been if she had been able to keep that money and invest it for 40 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing happened to societies that "normalized homosexuality". Rome didn't fall because "the gheys"...one of the main reasons though?
> 
> Income inequality.
Click to expand...


Rome, Greece, Europe.  See, normalizing homosexuality breed effiminacy and opens a civilization to destruction.
But anyway, please detail which programs have been cut that accounts for more poverty.


----------



## georgephillip

BobPlumb said:


> Want income equality, move to Haiti!


"Haiti ranks 59.5[8] in the Gini Coefficient index, with the richest 10% of Haitians receiving 47.83% of the nation's income, while the poorest 10% receive less than 0.9%"
*After you, Bob.*

Poverty in Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Seawytch

The Rabbi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, was that supposed to be an answer to my question of what programs have been cut?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you keep something at the same funding or don't adjust for inflation, isn't that a cut?
> 
> And how can you say programs haven't been cut? Isn't that what the GOP claims to do? Are you saying the GOP has been an abject failure for the last 50 years?
> 
> Does the GOP want to cut SS and Medicare, yes or no? Has the GOP cut SNAP and Head Start programs, yes or no? Do they want to even more, yes or no?
> 
> I like how you just threw out "those numbers are misleading" but don't actually provide facts to the contrary. Hmmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which programs have been kept at the same level or cut?  You seem unable to answer this simple question.  I'm not asking what the GOP platform is.  The GOP can not and has not been able to implement any program for over 5 years.
> You made the claim, defend it or admit you made the whole thing up.
Click to expand...


Ah, so you can say "those numbers are bogus" and don't have to back it up, but I have to back up my statement that social safety nets have been cut? 

Head Start hit with worst cuts in its history

47M Americans hit by food stamp cuts starting today

The Minimum Wage Is Stuck

Reagan&#8217;s Legacy: Homelessness in America


----------



## georgephillip

Seawytch said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!
Click to expand...

AND our poor can "choose" between Republican OR Democrat when voting on how to make their childrens' futures EVEN better!


----------



## Geaux4it

The Retail Death Rattle
By: The Burning Platform | Sun, Jan 19, 2014

If ever a chart provided unequivocal proof the economic recovery storyline is a fraud, the one below is the smoking gun. November and December retail sales account for 20% to 40% of annual retail sales for most retailers. The number of visits to retail stores has plummeted by 50% since 2010. Please note this was during a supposed economic recovery. Also note consumer spending accounts for 70% of GDP. Also note credit card debt outstanding is 7% lower than its level in 2010 and 16% below its peak in 2008. Retailers like J.C. Penney, Best Buy, Sears, Radio Shack and Barnes & Noble continue to report appalling sales and profit results, along with listings of store closings. Even the heavyweights like Wal-Mart and Target continue to report negative comp store sales. How can the government and mainstream media be reporting an economic recovery when the industry that accounts for 70% of GDP is in free fall? The answer is that 99% of America has not had an economic recovery. Only Bernanke&#8217;s 1% owner class have benefited from his QE/ZIRP induced stock market levitation.



The Retail Death Rattle | The Burning Platform | Safehaven.com


----------



## Seawytch

The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire (Page 58)


----------



## kiwiman127

BobPlumb said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Risk of what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever thought of putting some effort into reading?  It's just as easy a posting, try it, you'll like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of us are not as smart as you.....  Can you answer the question so we can understand?
Click to expand...


I'm sure our intelligence is on an equal plain.
"But Schwab says the issue cannot be ducked: "The slowdown is taking place against the backdrop of rising economic inequality, owing to the declining share of national income going to labour, a worldwide phenomenon  resulting from globalisation and technological progress  that poses a serious challenge to policymakers. Systems that propagate inequality, or that seem unable to stem its rise, contain the seeds of their own destruction. But in an interdependent world, there is no obvious solution, as the high mobility of capital fuels global tax competition."
Davos faces up to weak growth and rising inequality | Business | The Observer
Quite a few US economists have also echoed this same reaction to income inequality. 
"WASHINGTON -- The growing gap between the richest Americans and everyone else isn't bad just for individuals. 
It's hurting the U.S. economy.
So says a majority of more than three dozen economists surveyed last week by The Associated Press. Their concerns tap into a debate that's intensified as middle-class pay has stagnated while wealthier households have thrived.
A key source of the economists' concern: Higher pay and outsize stock market gains are flowing mainly to affluent Americans. Yet these households spend less of their money than do low- and middle-income consumers who make up most of the population but whose pay is barely rising. 
"What you want is a broader spending base," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James, a financial advisory firm. "You want more people spending money." 
Income inequality is harming U.S. economy, experts say - San Jose Mercury News


----------



## BobPlumb

georgephillip said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want income equality, move to Haiti!
> 
> 
> 
> "Haiti ranks 59.5[8] in the Gini Coefficient index, with the richest 10% of Haitians receiving 47.83% of the nation's income, while the poorest 10% receive less than 0.9%"
> *After you, Bob.*
> 
> Poverty in Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


You make a good point.  Haiti needs a good dose of capitalism, available to everyone to solve that problem.


----------



## georgephillip

midcan5 said:


> Read this book or even just the chapters on Capitalism.  It is twenty years old and reads like it was written this past year.
> 
> "The idea of Capitalism as a venture within society or between societies based upon cooperation and mutual profit is thus absent from the multinational model, and increasingly it is absent from the smaller managed corporations. Precisely that cooperation has made Japan's success possible. All the Japanese particular peculiarities, which we are now attempting to imitate, are merely consequences of that cooperation. That is why our efforts to imitate them resemble parody more than they do reorganization. You cannot have a Friedmanite view of market forces or a business school idea of business as structure and then expect to benefit from the cooperative methods proper to the Japanese or to the Swedes or even to the Koreans, to take three very different examples. *The market approach and the cooperative approach are mutually destructive.*"  p390 John Ralston Saul, 'Voltaire's Bastards'
> 
> 
> "The effect of this tandem is to put downward competitive pressures on the northern United States; on Canada, now linked southward by a continental economic integration pact; and on other countries who wish to compete in these markets, or to compete with their exports. The Maquiladora experiment has been so successful that corporations have pushed the American and Mexican governments towards a full-scale economic pact. The Mexicans hope that this will lead to an influx of capital, new jobs and an improved economy. But the interest of the investors is primarily in cheap, unsecured labour and unregulated industrial production standards.
> 
> Why would sophisticated, technocratic employees seek aggressively to destabilize the structures of their own countries in order to give comfort to the sort of social systems which their fathers rejected as criminal less than a century ago? And why would they or we entrust any part of our fundamental needs to unstable societies which have not yet gone through the economic and political turbulence which surrounds most industrial revolutions? No doubt the managers in government and industry looked at their flowcharts and thought there was no other way. It apparently did not occur to them to question the effects of this strategy on their own society."   John Ralston Saul, 'Voltaire's Bastards'


*So, "(w)hy would sophisticated, technocratic employees seek aggressively to destabilize the structures of their own countries in order to give comfort to the sort of social systems which their fathers rejected as criminal less than a century ago?

What sort of world have they produced?*

"The world of income and wealth inequality is awash with shocking statistics. 

"Figures disclosed by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, and reported by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, are shocking and revealing: 'Eight per cent of humanity takes home 50 per cent of global income, the top 1 per cent alone takes home 15 percent.' 

"America, he states, 'provides a particularly grim example for the world.' 

"It is where income and wealth inequality reach their zenith, and where one in four children live in poverty. 

"The countrys wealthiest 1 per cent (incomes above 394,000 dollars) take 'home 22 per cent of the nations income; the top 0.1 per cent, make do with a colossal 11 per cent. Stiglitz goes on to make the staggering point that an average American worker earns less today than he did 45 years ago (inflation adjusted), and that men without a university degree earn 'almost 40 per cent less than they did four decades ago'

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

*Something for the next generation American Dream?*


----------



## georgephillip

Matthew said:


> Education and ability to hold onto more wealth is the way to grow the middle class.
> 
> infrastructure, science, r@D, education, etc is balanced with a system that allows people to create businesses @ wealth.


How do you propose to accomplish that in an economic system incapable of providing enough good paying jobs?


----------



## The Rabbi

Seawytch said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you keep something at the same funding or don't adjust for inflation, isn't that a cut?
> 
> And how can you say programs haven't been cut? Isn't that what the GOP claims to do? Are you saying the GOP has been an abject failure for the last 50 years?
> 
> Does the GOP want to cut SS and Medicare, yes or no? Has the GOP cut SNAP and Head Start programs, yes or no? Do they want to even more, yes or no?
> 
> I like how you just threw out "those numbers are misleading" but don't actually provide facts to the contrary. Hmmm...
> 
> 
> 
> Which programs have been kept at the same level or cut?  You seem unable to answer this simple question.  I'm not asking what the GOP platform is.  The GOP can not and has not been able to implement any program for over 5 years.
> You made the claim, defend it or admit you made the whole thing up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you can say "those numbers are bogus" and don't have to back it up, but I have to back up my statement that social safety nets have been cut?
> 
> Head Start hit with worst cuts in its history
> 
> 47M Americans hit by food stamp cuts starting today
> 
> The Minimum Wage Is Stuck
> 
> Reagans Legacy: Homelessness in America
Click to expand...


OK
Headstart has not been shown to reduce poverty or increase achievements.  The effects last for a few years and then dissipate.
One down.
Food stamps were cut back to what they were before the temporary increase under the stimulus.  There has been no overall cut back
The min wage is nonsense.  Some very small percentage of workers earn min wage, and most of them do so only for 18 months before earning raises.
Reagan's legacy was the fall of the Soviet Union and reducing inflation, not homelessness.
So four tries, four strikes.  Yer outtathere!


----------



## georgephillip

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .


*Why not think outside the box?

"Workers' self-directed enterprises (WSDEs) are a response to capitalism's failure to deliver economic prosperity and socialism's failure to deliver economic democracy.

"Among factors impeding formation of an organized, politically effective new left in the United States are deep frustrations among activists interested in doing that. 

"The decline since the 1970s (and since 2008 especially) of capitalism's ability to 'deliver the goods' to most citizens has opened many minds to question, criticize and challenge the capitalist system. 

"The remarkable Pew Research Center poll of December 2011 showed large percentages of Americans favorably disposed toward socialism. 

"Many more would agree today. 

"Yet left activists are increasingly frustrated by their lack of a viable systemic alternative that could attract those disaffected from capitalism."

Economic Prosperity and Economic Democracy: The Worker Co-Op Solution | Professor Richard D. Wolff

Workers Self-Directed Enterprises represent one possible solution to the failures of capitalism and socialism.*


----------



## georgephillip

Stephanie said:


> they want us all "poor" so they can crow we are now all EQUAL
> 
> While our masters in government who oversees all the "poor"  who are the worker bees they assign jobs in their kingdom are living the lifestyles of the RICH AND SHAMELESS


Is that the Kingdom of Koch or Murdoch?


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



So that begs the question [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION] - why is it you don't defect to Cuba? No, seriously - get the _fuck_ out of the United States. Nobody wants you here anyway and you clearly don't want to be here. So why are you still here?

Oh yeah, that's right, because you're lazy, greedy ass loves the wealth that capitalism builds and then hands to you....


----------



## iamwhatiseem

[MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]
What can you not get through your thick head?
There is no failure of capitalism. At the same time, there is no real failure in history of socialism either.
The failure stems from corruption. Capitalism and the free market system has completely and totally improved societies across the globe.
 What has changed - is not capitalism, but rather the corruption thereof. 
And what is there about WDSE's that are corruption-proof??


----------



## georgephillip

BobPlumb said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And electricity and running water and food to eat........a hell of a lot more food than what is considered poor in third world, non-capitalist countries.
Click to expand...

How do you know how much food the poor in the US have?
Are you speaking from personal experience?
Our system exploits the rest of the world, especially its poor; that explains why the poor in this country have roofs over their heads (sometimes) and running water (usually). What you seem indifferent to is how inequality is rising and not falling in this country.


----------



## georgephillip

iamwhatiseem said:


> [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]
> What can you not get through your thick head?
> There is no failure of capitalism. At the same time, there is no real failure in history of socialism either.
> The failure stems from corruption. Capitalism and the free market system has completely and totally improved societies across the globe.
> What has changed - is not capitalism, but rather the corruption thereof.
> And what is there about WDSE's that are corruption-proof??


Capitalism IS corruption.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

georgephillip said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]
> What can you not get through your thick head?
> There is no failure of capitalism. At the same time, there is no real failure in history of socialism either.
> The failure stems from corruption. Capitalism and the free market system has completely and totally improved societies across the globe.
> What has changed - is not capitalism, but rather the corruption thereof.
> And what is there about WDSE's that are corruption-proof??
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism IS corruption.
Click to expand...


Ohhhhhhhh...I see.
I didn't know I was talking to a devout idealist...and as with all devout idealist...facts are optional.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

PredFan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well golly batman, you got me. I'm just a poor stupid election worker and not an economist, but even a poor stupid fucking election worker can see that the income inequality in this country is unsustainable. This moron also knows that we've had this kind of inequality before. What did we do then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't see it. You are just regurgitating what you've been told by the media and politicians that you like. Learn the difference.
Click to expand...


They can't see it. Something that simple is way beyond their comprehension. Its sad.


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> *Why not think outside the box?
> 
> "Workers' self-directed enterprises (WSDEs) are a response to capitalism's failure to deliver economic prosperity and socialism's failure to deliver economic democracy.
> 
> "Among factors impeding formation of an organized, politically effective new left in the United States are deep frustrations among activists interested in doing that.
> 
> "The decline since the 1970s (and since 2008 especially) of capitalism's ability to 'deliver the goods' to most citizens has opened many minds to question, criticize and challenge the capitalist system.
> 
> "The remarkable Pew Research Center poll of December 2011 showed large percentages of Americans favorably disposed toward socialism.
> 
> "Many more would agree today.
> 
> "Yet left activists are increasingly frustrated by their lack of a viable systemic alternative that could attract those disaffected from capitalism."
> 
> Economic Prosperity and Economic Democracy: The Worker Co-Op Solution | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> Workers Self-Directed Enterprises represent one possible solution to the failures of capitalism and socialism.*
Click to expand...

*

Don't you love these lazy, useless fuck'n liberals?

Indeed georgephillip's - why don't you think "outside of the box".


First of all, where is "income equality" written, guaranteed, promised, or otherwise inferred?


If you don't like the U.S., why don't you defect to Cuba where you will experience "income equality" first hand?


The beauty of capitalism is that you control your income. So if you don't like it, get up off of your lazy, useless ass and make more money. Start your own business. Not only will you enjoy wealth, but you'll also provide high paying jobs to your fellow Americans (have you ever done anything for your fellow Americans you selfish piece of shit?). Stop crying that someone else owe's you a job and you start providing the jobs.
*


----------



## gipper

georgephillip said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> *Why not think outside the box?
> 
> "Workers' self-directed enterprises (WSDEs) are a response to capitalism's failure to deliver economic prosperity and socialism's failure to deliver economic democracy.
> 
> "Among factors impeding formation of an organized, politically effective new left in the United States are deep frustrations among activists interested in doing that.
> 
> "The decline since the 1970s (and since 2008 especially) of capitalism's ability to 'deliver the goods' to most citizens has opened many minds to question, criticize and challenge the capitalist system.
> 
> "The remarkable Pew Research Center poll of December 2011 showed large percentages of Americans favorably disposed toward socialism.
> 
> "Many more would agree today.
> 
> "Yet left activists are increasingly frustrated by their lack of a viable systemic alternative that could attract those disaffected from capitalism."
> 
> Economic Prosperity and Economic Democracy: The Worker Co-Op Solution | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> Workers Self-Directed Enterprises represent one possible solution to the failures of capitalism and socialism.*
Click to expand...

*

Blaming capitalism for our economic problems, is foolish.  America has not operated under a free market capitalist system for many decades.  What we have today is regularly called Crony Capitalism, but in reality, it is quasi Fascism.  

As the central government gets bigger and more powerful, we will experience ever increasing economic problems.  Income inequality is but one.  Placing unlimited power into the hands of a small elite consisting of corrupt politicians and government bureaucrats, ALWAYS leads to disaster.

The answer is simple.  Very small limited government, rule of law, and free market capitalism.  Maximum individual liberty for all.*


----------



## peach174

georgephillip said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> they want us all "poor" so they can crow we are now all EQUAL
> 
> While our masters in government who oversees all the "poor"  who are the worker bees they assign jobs in their kingdom are living the lifestyles of the RICH AND SHAMELESS
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the Kingdom of Koch or Murdoch?
Click to expand...


No it's the Kingdom of Soros and Microsoft & NBC Universal.


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]
> What can you not get through your thick head?
> There is no failure of capitalism. At the same time, there is no real failure in history of socialism either.
> The failure stems from corruption. Capitalism and the free market system has completely and totally improved societies across the globe.
> What has changed - is not capitalism, but rather the corruption thereof.
> And what is there about WDSE's that are corruption-proof??
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism IS corruption.
Click to expand...


I've got news for you, you lazy, useless, fuck'n moron - *nothing* is more corrupt than communism/marxism/socialism....


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality



Socialism guarantees rising poverty


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> *Why not think outside the box?
> 
> "Workers' self-directed enterprises (WSDEs) are a response to capitalism's failure to deliver economic prosperity and socialism's failure to deliver economic democracy.
> 
> "Among factors impeding formation of an organized, politically effective new left in the United States are deep frustrations among activists interested in doing that.
> 
> "The decline since the 1970s (and since 2008 especially) of capitalism's ability to 'deliver the goods' to most citizens has opened many minds to question, criticize and challenge the capitalist system.
> 
> "The remarkable Pew Research Center poll of December 2011 showed large percentages of Americans favorably disposed toward socialism.
> 
> "Many more would agree today.
> 
> "Yet left activists are increasingly frustrated by their lack of a viable systemic alternative that could attract those disaffected from capitalism."
> 
> Economic Prosperity and Economic Democracy: The Worker Co-Op Solution | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> Workers Self-Directed Enterprises represent one possible solution to the failures of capitalism and socialism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Blaming capitalism for our economic problems, is foolish.  America has not operated under a free market capitalist system for many decades.  What we have today is regularly called Crony Capitalism, but in reality, it is quasi Fascism.
> 
> As the central government gets bigger and more powerful, we will experience ever increasing economic problems.  Income inequality is but one.  Placing unlimited power into the hands of a small elite consisting of corrupt politicians and government bureaucrats, ALWAYS leads to disaster.
> 
> The answer is simple.  Very small limited government, rule of law, and free market capitalism.  Maximum individual liberty for all.*
Click to expand...

*

    *


----------



## peach174

georgephillip said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]
> What can you not get through your thick head?
> There is no failure of capitalism. At the same time, there is no real failure in history of socialism either.
> The failure stems from corruption. Capitalism and the free market system has completely and totally improved societies across the globe.
> What has changed - is not capitalism, but rather the corruption thereof.
> And what is there about WDSE's that are corruption-proof??
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism IS corruption.
Click to expand...


Socialism is corruption.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

gipper said:


> Blaming capitalism for our economic problems, is foolish.  America has not operated under a free market capitalist system for many decades.  What we have today is regularly called Crony Capitalism, but in reality, it is quasi Fascism.
> 
> As the central government gets bigger and more powerful, we will experience ever increasing economic problems.  Income inequality is but one.  Placing unlimited power into the hands of a small elite consisting of corrupt politicians and government bureaucrats, ALWAYS leads to disaster.
> 
> The answer is simple.  Very small limited government, rule of law, and free market capitalism.  Maximum individual liberty for all.



We have a winner


----------



## LordBrownTrout

georgephillip said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]
> What can you not get through your thick head?
> There is no failure of capitalism. At the same time, there is no real failure in history of socialism either.
> The failure stems from corruption. Capitalism and the free market system has completely and totally improved societies across the globe.
> What has changed - is not capitalism, but rather the corruption thereof.
> And what is there about WDSE's that are corruption-proof??
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism IS corruption.
Click to expand...


No, its not. The individual who chooses to break laws, has no accountability, isn't responsible is corrupt....not capitalism. Ive built up and sold three companies. Ive provided jobs, benefits, healthcare, bonuses, vacation, matching 401 etc.  No other system could allow for that much prosperity. 

You're being completely disingenuous and quite frankly, deceitful.


----------



## iamwhatiseem




----------



## georgephillip

LordBrownTrout said:


> Capitalism has done more good for the poor than any other system combined.


Capitalism has also created more poor people than any other system.


----------



## The Rabbi

georgephillip said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has done more good for the poor than any other system combined.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has also created more poor people than any other system.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Socialism/Communism has brought nothing but death, disease and starvation to millions of people.


----------



## georgephillip

iamwhatiseem said:


> It is always funny (and telling) that all anti-capitalist books are written by people who have never done anything outside of the theoretical world. This professor or that professor, or some political think-tank etc. make up 99% of socialist and anti-capitalism material.
> What is also funny, is the people who fall for their ludicrous idealism is people who also have never accomplished anything.


*Capitalism's failures should count for at least as much as its successes, right?*

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

"The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth. 

"According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets&#8221;'.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/21312-spotlight-on-worldwide-inequality

*"The disparity between the wealth minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been."

Get it?

Capitalism has created an oligarchy in the US.

Democracy and oligarchy are not compatible.*

http://truth-out.org/news/item/21312-spotlight-on-worldwide-inequality


----------



## The Rabbi

The Rabbi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which programs have been kept at the same level or cut?  You seem unable to answer this simple question.  I'm not asking what the GOP platform is.  The GOP can not and has not been able to implement any program for over 5 years.
> You made the claim, defend it or admit you made the whole thing up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you can say "those numbers are bogus" and don't have to back it up, but I have to back up my statement that social safety nets have been cut?
> 
> Head Start hit with worst cuts in its history
> 
> 47M Americans hit by food stamp cuts starting today
> 
> The Minimum Wage Is Stuck
> 
> Reagans Legacy: Homelessness in America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK
> Headstart has not been shown to reduce poverty or increase achievements.  The effects last for a few years and then dissipate.
> One down.
> Food stamps were cut back to what they were before the temporary increase under the stimulus.  There has been no overall cut back
> The min wage is nonsense.  Some very small percentage of workers earn min wage, and most of them do so only for 18 months before earning raises.
> Reagan's legacy was the fall of the Soviet Union and reducing inflation, not homelessness.
> So four tries, four strikes.  Yer outtathere!
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

The Rabbi said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has done more good for the poor than any other system combined.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has also created more poor people than any other system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Socialism/Communism has brought nothing but death, disease and starvation to millions of people.
Click to expand...

*Ancient history.
Capitalism is currently bringing death, disease, and starvation to BILLIONS of people:*

"The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth. 

"According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.

"At the other, more densely populated, less perfumed end of the scale, Global Issues reports that: almost half the worlds people (over 3.5 billion) live on less than 2.50 US dollars a day; and 80 per cent live on less than 10 dollars a day. 

"The largest proportion of those living in poverty are in India, rural China and sub-Saharan Africa, where despite the fact that some countries within the last decade or two have seen economic growth, poverty rates have remained unchanged and '*some countries  Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Gabon  have actually seen an increase in the percentage of their population living in extreme poverty*'. And there would seem to be no light at the end of the tunnel..."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality


----------



## gipper

georgephillip said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is always funny (and telling) that all anti-capitalist books are written by people who have never done anything outside of the theoretical world. This professor or that professor, or some political think-tank etc. make up 99% of socialist and anti-capitalism material.
> What is also funny, is the people who fall for their ludicrous idealism is people who also have never accomplished anything.
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism's failures should count for at least as much as its successes, right?*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *
> Capitalism has created an oligarchy in the US.
> 
> *
> 
> http://truth-out.org/news/item/21312-spotlight-on-worldwide-inequality
Click to expand...


Capitalism did not create the oligarchy we now suffer under.  The opposite of capitalism did...collectivism and cronyism created the disaster.

The culprit is right in front of you, yet you refuse to see it.  It is big uncontrolled government run by corrupt power hungry elites.  And yet, you think more big government is the answer....what IS the definition of INSANITY?


----------



## LordBrownTrout

georgephillip said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has done more good for the poor than any other system combined.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has also created more poor people than any other system.
Click to expand...


To illustrate how false your statement is, I was poor when I was in college. I worked about 8O hours a week to pay for school, food, apartment but never once did i blame someone else for my plight. I wasnt bitter because i didnt have this or that. I knew that it was a means to an end.  The thought of having nothing, very little, paycheck to paycheck, for the rest of my life was enough to motivate me.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> *


*

We need a form of government where the three worst parasites have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries.

.*


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

georgephillip said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


I think it's obvious... just look at the status of poor people today compared of poor people say, just 100 years ago.  The poorest of our poor have cable, TV's, cell phones, etc.


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has done more good for the poor than any other system combined.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has also created more poor people than any other system.
Click to expand...


That is a flat out *lie* and he _knows_ it...

This buffoon is simply trying to be a troll now.


----------



## georgephillip

peach174 said:


> The One Chart That Proves Capitalism Works - PolicyMic
> 
> Capitalism is getting the poor in South Africa out of poverty.
> 
> It's big Government control & interference that causes more inequality.


Your link:

"That being said, this chart really does put things into perspective. While we take for granted the simple things in life, nearly 1 billion people throughout the globe are currently struggling to survive on less than $1.25 a day. While it's great to get involved and donate your time, talents, and resources to local charities, what's really going to help these families is economic liberty."

*Capitalism and the governments it controls are consigning more individuals to poverty today than at any time in its history:* 

"The figures depicting poverty and hardship are many and varied. Over 20 per cent of the worlds population (that is 1.4 billion people) live on less than 1.25 dollars a day, 75 cents below the official World Bank poverty threshold. 

"UNICEF states that 22,000 children (under the age of five; if it was six or seven the numbers would be even higher) die every day due to poverty-related issues. 

"Of the two billion children in the world, half are currently living their lives in extreme poverty, with limited or no access to clean water or sanitation, healthcare and education worth the name. 

"The greatest concentrations of people living below the 2-dollars-per-day poverty line are to be found in rural areas, where three in every four of those below the poverty line are to be found. Life is little better in the cities, where over half the worlds 7.2 billion population now live, one in three of whom are living in a slum."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has done more good for the poor than any other system combined.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has also created more poor people than any other system.
Click to expand...


The following are facts about persons defined as poor by the *Census Bureau* as taken from various government reports:

80% of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.



92% of poor households have a microwave.


Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31% have two or more cars or trucks.


Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.


Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70% have a VCR.


Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.


More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.


43% have Internet access.


One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.


One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.

Understanding Poverty in the United States: Poverty USA


----------



## Spiderman

Seawytch said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!
Click to expand...


microwaves, cars cell phones etc etc. free education

The "poor" in America have it pretty fucking good


----------



## BobPlumb

When words are in bold font, they must be true.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

georgephillip said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The One Chart That Proves Capitalism Works - PolicyMic
> 
> Capitalism is getting the poor in South Africa out of poverty.
> 
> It's big Government control & interference that causes more inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> Your link:
> 
> "That being said, this chart really does put things into perspective. While we take for granted the simple things in life, nearly 1 billion people throughout the globe are currently struggling to survive on less than $1.25 a day. While it's great to get involved and donate your time, talents, and resources to local charities, what's really going to help these families is economic liberty."
> 
> *Capitalism and the governments it controls are consigning more individuals to poverty today than at any time in its history:*
> 
> "The figures depicting poverty and hardship are many and varied. Over 20 per cent of the worlds population (that is 1.4 billion people) live on less than 1.25 dollars a day, 75 cents below the official World Bank poverty threshold.
> 
> "UNICEF states that 22,000 children (under the age of five; if it was six or seven the numbers would be even higher) die every day due to poverty-related issues.
> 
> "Of the two billion children in the world, half are currently living their lives in extreme poverty, with limited or no access to clean water or sanitation, healthcare and education worth the name.
> 
> "The greatest concentrations of people living below the 2-dollars-per-day poverty line are to be found in rural areas, where three in every four of those below the poverty line are to be found. Life is little better in the cities, where over half the worlds 7.2 billion population now live, one in three of whom are living in a slum."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


Nope, that would be dictators and tyrants that create such slum conditions.


----------



## P@triot

Seawytch said:


> Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!



First of all [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION], there is *no* "income inequality" and there _never_ has been. There is only *effort* inequality - something Dumbocrats don't want to talk about.

Second, playing the game and using your false narrative of "income inequality", where was it written that people shall have equal incomes?


----------



## BobPlumb

I could have greater income if I were doing something productive, rather than sitting on my ass posting in this forum.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> *Capitalism and the governments it controls are *consigning more individuals to poverty today than at any time in its history:[/B]



Excuse the fuck out of me dingle berry, CAPITALISM do not control governments - nor is Capitalism being practiced anywhere in the world at this point in time. Nor has it been practiced in the US since , circa, 1913.

.


----------



## georgephillip

occupied said:


> There used to be an incentive for the wealth to somewhat trickle down as a consumer with disposable income was the goal of capitalism but today the financial markets are so rigged that we are in effect paying tribute to these people and the goal is simply to skim off the top of everything while contributing little to overall prosperity.


*Finance capitalism has replaced its industrial cousin to such an extent that one in four children in the US live in poverty, where the richest 1% take home 22 percent of the nation's income, and the hyper-rich 0.1% garner 11 percent.

The average US worker earns less than he did 45 years ago, and that is also the legacy of capitalism in this country*


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism and the governments it controls are *consigning more individuals to poverty today than at any time in its history:[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse the fuck out of me dingle berry, CAPITALISM do not control governments - nor is Capitalism being practiced anywhere in the world at this point in time. Nor has it been practiced in the US since , circa, 1913.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Private wealth has controlled all governments since the very first.
No economic system has ever generated private fortunes as effectively as capitalism.
Why don't you give me your definition of "capitalism?"


----------



## LordBrownTrout

GP, why dont you elaborate on a system that is better than capitalism. Capitalism has lifted more out of poverty than all others combined. Tell us how that can be improved upon.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

georgephillips:


----------



## georgephillip

PredFan said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism guarantees *equality of opportunity*, not equality of outcome. The quality of your outcome is totally dependent on you.
Click to expand...

*More and more in the US capitalism guarantees the single most important factor in deciding the trajectory of your life is picking the right parents.

Don't believe it?

Ask Rick:*

"But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. 

"The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.

"Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement 'up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?hp&_r=0

*This won't get better under capitalism.
It is a vicious, venal economic system that has outlived whatever usefulness it once had.*


----------



## healthmyths

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



Sure that is right!
How many of the RICHEST people of the world in 1901 had 
1) cell phones ?  In 2012 six million poor people have cell phones in the USA paid for by people like me that pay our cell phone bill!
Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies - WSJ.com

2) Internet access? NONE in 1901 right?
The world population: 7.0 billion internet uses 2.4 billion... hmmm...
World Internet Users Statistics Usage and World Population Stats
92 million Americans access Internet for FREE at libraries..
http://www.imls.gov/assets/1/assetmanager/opportunityforall.pdf

FREE!!  Free cell phones that DIDN"T exist for the RICHEST in 1901   Free Internet didn't exist in 1901 for millionaires even!

MY point is when the USA GDP grows from  $476 million in 1800 (2005 dollars) or per person $90
To 2016 GDP $16 trillion or an average of $51,000 per person.. a 57,348% increase!  Wow 
Measuring Worth - GDP result.

Certainly didn't grow because of communism!


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism and the governments it controls are *consigning more individuals to poverty today than at any time in its history:[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse the fuck out of me dingle berry, CAPITALISM do not control governments - nor is Capitalism being practiced anywhere in the world at this point in time. Nor has it been practiced in the US since , circa, 1913.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private wealth has controlled all governments since the very first.
> No economic system has ever generated private fortunes as effectively as capitalism.
> *Why don't you give me your definition of "capitalism?"*
Click to expand...



Capitalism


*Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.*

*The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships*: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man&#8217;s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man&#8217;s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.


*If the government is involved in any way shape or form then Capitalism does NOT exist. *

.


----------



## georgephillip

LordBrownTrout said:


> GP, why dont you elaborate on a system that is better than capitalism. Capitalism has lifted more out of poverty than all others combined. Tell us how that can be improved upon.


Do you believe capitalism should be held accountable for its failures as well as its successes?

Capitalism's periodic crisis always increase poverty, as 2008 has recently reproven. I'm glad you've achieved the success you claim; however, that doesn't change the malignant effect corporate capitalism has produced over the last 40 years.

Currently (May 2005) the richest three individuals on the planet have more assets than the combined GDPs of 47 countries.

Do you think that's Democratic or Capitalistic?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

georgephillip said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism guarantees *equality of opportunity*, not equality of outcome. The quality of your outcome is totally dependent on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *More and more in the US capitalism guarantees the single most important factor in deciding the trajectory of your life is picking the right parents.
> 
> Don't believe it?
> 
> Ask Rick:*
> 
> "But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe.
> 
> "The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.
> 
> "Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement 'up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.'"
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?hp&_r=0
> 
> *This won't get better under capitalism.
> It is a vicious, venal economic system that has outlived whatever usefulness it once had.*
Click to expand...


Do you lie awake at night dreaming this stupid shit up?  I mean _really_?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

georgephillip said:


> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*



Yeah, dick head.  Go visit Africa some time, or South America, or China.


----------



## georgephillip

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, dick head.  Go visit Africa some time, or South America, or China.
Click to expand...

Visit Camden, Cracker.


----------



## healthmyths

georgephillip said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> There used to be an incentive for the wealth to somewhat trickle down as a consumer with disposable income was the goal of capitalism but today the financial markets are so rigged that we are in effect paying tribute to these people and the goal is simply to skim off the top of everything while contributing little to overall prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> *Finance capitalism has replaced its industrial cousin to such an extent that one in four children in the US live in poverty, where the richest 1% take home 22 percent of the nation's income, and the hyper-rich 0.1% garner 11 percent.
> 
> The average US worker earns less than he did 45 years ago, and that is also the legacy of capitalism in this country*
Click to expand...


AGAIN..
The average worker didn't have cell phones.  Didn't have internet.  Didn't have dishwashers.
I lived in an average worker's home in the 50s and 60s.
We bathed in a metal tub.  Took showers at school after sports.
We raised chickens.  My dad made $250/week.  Raised a family of 4 kids. I worked in gardens and we raised our food and chickens.
And I didn't feel poor!
BUT we didn't have free cell phones.  Free internet.  Free rent.  Free child care credit.  Didn't have free food..(SNAP).  
So again did we feel poor?  NOPE!


----------



## georgephillip

PredFan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong argument. He was making the point that our poor are richer than they used to be and richer than the poor of other countries. Because of capitalism.
Click to expand...

Because capitalism was forced by labor to pay workers a living wage in the US during the decades immediately after WWII. Capitalism is now impoverishing workers in this country and elsewhere on the planet just as it did centuries ago when Adam Smith warned about the Masters of Mankind and their Vile Maxim: everything for ourselves and nothing for others.


----------



## georgephillip

healthmyths said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> There used to be an incentive for the wealth to somewhat trickle down as a consumer with disposable income was the goal of capitalism but today the financial markets are so rigged that we are in effect paying tribute to these people and the goal is simply to skim off the top of everything while contributing little to overall prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> *Finance capitalism has replaced its industrial cousin to such an extent that one in four children in the US live in poverty, where the richest 1% take home 22 percent of the nation's income, and the hyper-rich 0.1% garner 11 percent.
> 
> The average US worker earns less than he did 45 years ago, and that is also the legacy of capitalism in this country*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AGAIN..
> The average worker didn't have cell phones.  Didn't have internet.  Didn't have dishwashers.
> I lived in an average worker's home in the 50s and 60s.
> We bathed in a metal tub.  Took showers at school after sports.
> We raised chickens.  My dad made $250/week.  Raised a family of 4 kids. I worked in gardens and we raised our food and chickens.
> And I didn't feel poor!
> BUT we didn't have free cell phones.  Free internet.  Free rent.  Free child care credit.  Didn't have free food..(SNAP).
> So again did we feel poor?  NOPE!
Click to expand...

I grew up during the same decades you list, when the richest 1% of Americans captured about 8% of US income; today the rich capture close to 25% of income every year. You and I had the option of moving up the economic ladder during our working life. Today's generation of Americans doesn't have the same chance we did. The reason is partially because the level of inequality in this country stifles economic and educational opportunities for a much greater percentage of the population of this country than it once did.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

georgephillip said:


> Currently (May 2005) the richest three individuals on the planet have more assets than the combined GDPs of 47 countries.
> 
> Do you think that's Democratic or Capitalistic?



Neither one you dunderhead.
This is what everyone has been trying to pound into your thick head.
We are not a Democracy. Never have been.
We are not a capitalism either. Haven't been for generations.
What we are supposed to be is a Republic with a free market economy.
Today, we are neither one. 
Our governance is an oligarchy pretending to be a republic, our economic system is no longer a free market system - it is now a corporatist/centralized leech system. One that extracts wealth rather than produces it.


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism guarantees *equality of opportunity*, not equality of outcome. The quality of your outcome is totally dependent on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *More and more in the US capitalism guarantees the single most important factor in deciding the trajectory of your life is picking the right parents.
> 
> Don't believe it?
> 
> Ask Rick:*
> 
> "But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe.
> 
> "The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.
> 
> "Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement 'up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.'"
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?hp&_r=0
> 
> *This won't get better under capitalism.
> It is a vicious, venal economic system that has outlived whatever usefulness it once had.*
Click to expand...


Then why don't you get the fuck out of the U.S. and go enjoy European socialism? _Exactly_....


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Finance capitalism has replaced its industrial cousin to such an extent that one in four children in the US live in poverty, where the richest 1% take home 22 percent of the nation's income, and the hyper-rich 0.1% garner 11 percent.
> 
> The average US worker earns less than he did 45 years ago, and that is also the legacy of capitalism in this country*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN..
> The average worker didn't have cell phones.  Didn't have internet.  Didn't have dishwashers.
> I lived in an average worker's home in the 50s and 60s.
> We bathed in a metal tub.  Took showers at school after sports.
> We raised chickens.  My dad made $250/week.  Raised a family of 4 kids. I worked in gardens and we raised our food and chickens.
> And I didn't feel poor!
> BUT we didn't have free cell phones.  Free internet.  Free rent.  Free child care credit.  Didn't have free food..(SNAP).
> So again did we feel poor?  NOPE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I grew up during the same decades you list, when the richest 1% of Americans captured about 8% of US income; today the rich capture close to 25% of income every year*. You and I had the option of moving up the economic ladder during our working life. Today's generation of Americans doesn't have the same chance we did. The reason is partially because the level of inequality in this country stifles economic and educational opportunities for a much greater percentage of the population of this country than it once did.
Click to expand...


Which is just evidence of two things:


How lazy you Dumbocrats have become


And how much your new socialist crony-capitalism system is failing America


----------



## P@triot

The following are facts about persons defined as &#8220;poor&#8221; by the *Census Bureau* as taken from various government reports:



80% of poor households have air conditioning (in 1970, only 36% of the *entire* U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.)


92% of poor households have a microwave.


Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31% have two or more cars or trucks.


Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.


Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70% have a VCR.


Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.


More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.


43% have Internet access.


One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.


One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.

Understanding Poverty in the United States: Poverty USA


----------



## ron4342

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*


The basic goal of the board game Monopoly is to accumulate as much money and property as you can. The game is over when one person ends up with all the money and property and everyone else in the game is "poor." It seems that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

I guess monopoly should start adding food stamps and welfare to their game.  Maybe you could trade in a few food stamps before you rolled the dice.  This could exempt you from paying the hefty fees on park place. Or, maybe you could hang out in jail for a few weeks and receive unemployment.


----------



## Redfish

ron4342 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> The basic goal of the board game Monopoly is to accumulate as much money and property as you can. The game is over when one person ends up with all the money and property and everyone else in the game is "poor." It seems that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal.
Click to expand...


Oh, you poor little victim, the evil rich are holding you down.   Grow the fuck up and make your own life,  WE and the govt don't owe you shit.


----------



## ron4342

Redfish said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> The basic goal of the board game Monopoly is to accumulate as much money and property as you can. The game is over when one person ends up with all the money and property and everyone else in the game is "poor." It seems that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you poor little victim, the evil rich are holding you down. Grow the fuck up and make your own life, WE and the govt don't owe you shit.
Click to expand...

When you speak of growing "the fuck up," look to yourself. If you had a brain and the ability to use it you would have noted I asked for NOTHING. I merely pointed out that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal. That goal is to accumulate as much money as possible leaving everyone else with no money (poor).


----------



## CrusaderFrank

georgephillip said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, dick head.  Go visit Africa some time, or South America, or China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Visit Camden, Cracker.
Click to expand...


Camden: run into the dirt by Democrats.

Well done, Komrades!


----------



## The T

Redfish said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> The basic goal of the board game Monopoly is to accumulate as much money and property as you can. The game is over when one person ends up with all the money and property and everyone else in the game is "poor." It seems that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you poor little victim, the evil rich are holding you down. Grow the fuck up and make your own life, WE and the govt don't owe you shit.
Click to expand...

These Liberal asses play the Victim card and Wealth envy well, don't they? YOU are absolutely correct. They need to get off their dead asses.


----------



## kaz

ron4342 said:


> I merely pointed out that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal. That goal is to accumulate as much money as possible leaving everyone else with no money (poor).[/SIZE]



Capitalism is merely economic freedom.  Capitalists make everyone rich.  We drive market efficiency.  It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."


----------



## Clementine

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*




Capitalism requires people to aim high, educate themselves and participate to get somewhere.     It would work far better if government hadn't allowed certain wealthy donors to take over running the country.   Capitalism needs fair rules that are upheld.   It's government, not the private sector, that messed that up.   No politician has ever bitten the hand that feeds them and that means always obeying the real 1%, which is not corporations, but the Federal Reserve.    We are all slaves to them.  We need to abolish the Federal Reserve.   

Socialism requires people to merely exist and everyone gets the basics to survive.    The basics decrease as the wealth creation decreases over time.   Then you have communism.

At least capitalism helps a country grow and if people are lazy, they go no where.   And I mean real capitalism, not crony capitalism that we have now, thanks to government.    Socialism is unsustainable.    I'd rather have the ability to grow and succeed than be trapped in world where limits are placed on every aspect of our lives.


----------



## The T

kaz said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I merely pointed out that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal. That goal is to accumulate as much money as possible leaving everyone else with no money (poor).[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is merely economic freedom. Capitalists make everyone rich. We drive market efficiency. It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."
Click to expand...

 
 Everyone but the Elites...like Members of Congress...Obama, The Clintons...the list is WIDE and long.


----------



## kaz

The T said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I merely pointed out that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal. That goal is to accumulate as much money as possible leaving everyone else with no money (poor).[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is merely economic freedom. Capitalists make everyone rich. We drive market efficiency. It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone but the Elites...like Members of Congress...Obama, The Clintons...the list is WIDE and long.
Click to expand...


Yes, everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others...


----------



## georgephillip

iamwhatiseem said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently (May 2005) the richest three individuals on the planet have more assets than the combined GDPs of 47 countries.
> 
> Do you think that's Democratic or Capitalistic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one you dunderhead.
> This is what everyone has been trying to pound into your thick head.
> We are not a Democracy. Never have been.
> We are not a capitalism either. Haven't been for generations.
> What we are supposed to be is a Republic with a free market economy.
> Today, we are neither one.
> Our governance is an oligarchy pretending to be a republic, our economic system is no longer a free market system - it is now a corporatist/centralized leech system. One that extracts wealth rather than produces it.
Click to expand...

The economic aim of both major parties in the US is to reinforce "capitalism." Neither party is willing to suggest it has outlived its usefulness. Capitalism was created to consolidate more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation. 

Your definition of capitalism as a "free marker" system doesn't really distinguish what the market is supposed to be "free" of. Undue rentier influence as Adam Smith had in mind or is it supposed to be free of democratic (governmental) restrictions?

Capitalism's inherent weaknesses include business cycles and the production of extreme inequalities of income, and both have plagued the institution since its founding hundreds of years ago. 

I'm really not clear on what solution you're calling for the replace "an oligarchy pretending to be a Republic." If you imagine this can be accomplished by the further weakening of democratic regulatory and enforcement mechanisms, the oligarchs will no longer have to pretend.


----------



## The T

kaz said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is merely economic freedom. Capitalists make everyone rich. We drive market efficiency. It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone but the Elites...like Members of Congress...Obama, The Clintons...the list is WIDE and long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others...
Click to expand...

Precisely...and the same elites craft law in an attempt to keep those they rule DOWN. The OP should direct his apparent anger toward those he seems to LOVE...he sure as HELL defends his oppressors, doesn't he?


----------



## georgephillip

Rottweiler said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism guarantees *equality of opportunity*, not equality of outcome. The quality of your outcome is totally dependent on you.
> 
> 
> 
> *More and more in the US capitalism guarantees the single most important factor in deciding the trajectory of your life is picking the right parents.
> 
> Don't believe it?
> 
> Ask Rick:*
> 
> "But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe.
> 
> "The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.
> 
> "Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement 'up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.'"
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?hp&_r=0
> 
> *This won't get better under capitalism.
> It is a vicious, venal economic system that has outlived whatever usefulness it once had.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why don't you get the fuck out of the U.S. and go enjoy European socialism? _Exactly_....
Click to expand...

Because Fascists don't scare me.
What's your excuse?


----------



## Dragonlady

While capitalism is good, unrestrained capitalism is the road to income inequity and deep divisions between rich and poor.  Friedman encourage countries to cut the social safety net and set business free from restraint.  Every country which had adopted Friedman's economic model has seen wages for the general population fall, and wealth for the top 5% increase.  

Capitalism requires a strong social safety net and strong labour protection laws, for the whole economy to thrive.  Higher taxes to the most successful are needed to provide the social safety net needed to protect the lower income levels from the cycles of boom and recession which inevitably happen in a capitalistic society.

This notion of blaming the poor for being poor, distracts middle income people from the fleecing they're getting at the hands of the wealthy.  The poor aren't bleeding you white, the rich are.  As long as you're distracted by the so-called freebies going to the lowest income earners, you completely miss the real robbery by the wealthy.


----------



## PredFan

The fact that this thread is still going shows that liberals cannot learn.


----------



## PredFan

Equality of Opportunity = Capitalism
Equality of outcome = Socialism

No one is entitled to equality of outcome.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> [
> 
> Capitalism's periodic crisis always increase poverty, as 2008 has recently reproven.?



Actually crisis are caused by stupidity , such as the one you have demonstrated in this post. Blaming CAPITALISM for the disasters caused by corporatism, fascism, socialism.

.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Rottweiler said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has done more good for the poor than any other system combined.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has also created more poor people than any other system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The following are facts about persons defined as poor by the *Census Bureau* as taken from various government reports:
> 
> 80% of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
> 
> 
> 
> 92% of poor households have a microwave.
> 
> 
> Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31% have two or more cars or trucks.
> 
> 
> Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
> 
> 
> Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70% have a VCR.
> 
> 
> Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
> 
> 
> More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
> 
> 
> 43% have Internet access.
> 
> 
> One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
> 
> 
> One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.
> 
> Understanding Poverty in the United States: Poverty USA
Click to expand...


Well said... the "poor" in the US are the wealthiest poor on earth.  The notion of "poor" in the US is a joke.  While destitution is possible, one really has to go out of their way to screw it up, to get there.  Under those circumstances, without exception, the individual themselves bears the bulk of that RESPONSIBILITY.

And it is in that one concept: RESPONSIBILITY, that the Ideological Left protests the loudest.

Conservativism... OKA: Being a decent, hardworking person of at least a modicum of common sense, IS HARD!  And 'it's not fair that being such a person should be that hard.'

The notion that the freedom to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties has on ANY LEVEL resulted in poverty, is ABSURD!  

With 'feelings' to the contrary, notwithstanding.


----------



## The T

PredFan said:


> The fact that this thread is still going shows that liberals cannot learn.


They never do. This Republic is going to HELL in an Obama/Statist/Progressive-led handcart...and the idiot OP is trying to make the case why it is good.


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire (Page 58)



It only goes to page 20


----------



## georgephillip

Clementine said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism requires people to aim high, educate themselves and participate to get somewhere.     It would work far better if government hadn't allowed certain wealthy donors to take over running the country.   Capitalism needs fair rules that are upheld.   It's government, not the private sector, that messed that up.   No politician has ever bitten the hand that feeds them and that means always obeying the real 1%, which is not corporations, but the Federal Reserve.    We are all slaves to them.  We need to abolish the Federal Reserve.
> 
> Socialism requires people to merely exist and everyone gets the basics to survive.    The basics decrease as the wealth creation decreases over time.   Then you have communism.
> 
> At least capitalism helps a country grow and if people are lazy, they go no where.   And I mean real capitalism, not crony capitalism that we have now, thanks to government.    Socialism is unsustainable.    I'd rather have the ability to grow and succeed than be trapped in world where limits are placed on every aspect of our lives.
Click to expand...

Why do you blame government for crony capitalism when it's capitalism the creates the private fortunes that corrupt government? Every government yet devised has served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority; no economic system ever devised creates a few massive private fortunes as effectively as capitalism does.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The One Chart That Proves Capitalism Works - PolicyMic
> 
> Capitalism is getting the poor in South Africa out of poverty.
> 
> It's big Government control & interference that causes more inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> Your link:
> 
> "That being said, this chart really does put things into perspective. While we take for granted the simple things in life, nearly 1 billion people throughout the globe are currently struggling to survive on less than $1.25 a day. While it's great to get involved and donate your time, talents, and resources to local charities, what's really going to help these families is economic liberty."
> 
> *Capitalism and the governments it controls are consigning more individuals to poverty today than at any time in its history:*
> 
> "The figures depicting poverty and hardship are many and varied. Over 20 per cent of the worlds population (that is 1.4 billion people) live on less than 1.25 dollars a day, 75 cents below the official World Bank poverty threshold.
> 
> "UNICEF states that 22,000 children (under the age of five; if it was six or seven the numbers would be even higher) die every day due to poverty-related issues.
> 
> "Of the two billion children in the world, half are currently living their lives in extreme poverty, with limited or no access to clean water or sanitation, healthcare and education worth the name.
> 
> "The greatest concentrations of people living below the 2-dollars-per-day poverty line are to be found in rural areas, where three in every four of those below the poverty line are to be found. Life is little better in the cities, where over half the worlds 7.2 billion population now live, one in three of whom are living in a slum."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


This chart shows that the number of people living on $1.25 or less has been decreasing drastically thanks to capitalism.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

The ridiculous premise of the rancid OP is very simplistic and totally wrong.

To reiterate the thesis of Ge0rgiePorgie, "Capitalism = Bad!"

In REALITY, the lot of almost ALL people has been ELEVATED by virtue of the predictable outcomes of a capitalist system.

If jokers wish to quiblee, they will point out that capitalism can be abused and what not.  No shit.  What "system" is immune to that?

And yes, it is true that the outcome of capitalism will not yield "equality" whatever that vague word might mean when used in such a broad-based context. What system does yield any kind of "equality" if we are speaking about systems under which we'd ever want to have to live?

When WE say that "all men are created equal" and have or should have equal rights, we are NOT saying that all people are equal in all respects.  Some are taller, some are faster, some are smarter.  And none of that is bad.

Capitalism will not fix any of that even if we deem it 'bad."  But then again, no other system will "fix" it either.

The rambling incoherent thesis of the OP simply does not survive any kind of scrutiny.  It is sophomoric and just plain silly.


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I merely pointed out that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal. That goal is to accumulate as much money as possible leaving everyone else with no money (poor).[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is merely economic freedom.  Capitalists make everyone rich.  We drive market efficiency.  It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."
Click to expand...

*And some of the most "successful" among you are greedy beyond belief:*

"2. The Richest 400 Took $300 Billion in 2013, Approximately the ENTIRE Safety Net

The total budget for SNAP, WIC (Women, Infants, children), Child Nutrition, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Housing is less than the $300 billion 'earned' by the Forbes 400."

Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams

*Capitalists get rich by impoverishing millions of workers.*


----------



## whitehall

Socialism guarantees equality. Everybody is poor with the exception of the socialists who run the system. Didn't Stalin teach you low information lefties anything?


----------



## The T

whitehall said:


> Socialism guarantees equality. Everybody is poor with the exception of the socialists who run the system. Didn't Stalin teach you low information lefties anything?


And joining... being a party TOOL guarantees BETTER "equality".


----------



## IlarMeilyr

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I merely pointed out that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal. That goal is to accumulate as much money as possible leaving everyone else with no money (poor).[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is merely economic freedom.  Capitalists make everyone rich.  We drive market efficiency.  It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And some of the most "successful" among you are greedy beyond belief:*
> 
> "2. The Richest 400 Took $300 Billion in 2013, Approximately the ENTIRE Safety Net
> 
> The total budget for SNAP, WIC (Women, Infants, children), Child Nutrition, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Housing is less than the $300 billion 'earned' by the Forbes 400."
> 
> Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams
> 
> *Capitalists get rich by impoverishing millions of workers.*
Click to expand...


HOW exactly do you figure that the wealth of the rich capitalists has deprived the poor of anything?

Your zero sum game gag is stale and has always been dishonest.

In reality, the very poorest in our country are vastly more wealthy than the poor folks of years gone by.  

The wealth of Gates (even before he started giving vast amounts of it away) NEVER deprived anybody of anything.  Indeed, BECAUSE of him and the work he did (and the work of others whose contributions he utilized) TONS of people got great jobs and their increased disposable income led to other people deriving lots of economic benefits, too.

A rising tide lifts all boats.  That Gates got fabulously wealthy didn't cause any poor person to lose anything.

Your thesis is predicated entirely on dishonesty, Georgie.


----------



## The T

And the OP is a paid TOOL making the case to KILL this Republic. YES OP...you are. Whom is paying you to be here? WHOM do you work for?


----------



## The T

IlarMeilyr said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is merely economic freedom. Capitalists make everyone rich. We drive market efficiency. It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."
> 
> 
> 
> *And some of the most "successful" among you are greedy beyond belief:*
> 
> "2. The Richest 400 Took $300 Billion in 2013, Approximately the ENTIRE Safety Net
> 
> The total budget for SNAP, WIC (Women, Infants, children), Child Nutrition, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Housing is less than the $300 billion 'earned' by the Forbes 400."
> 
> Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams
> 
> *Capitalists get rich by impoverishing millions of workers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HOW exactly do you ffigure that the wealth of the rich capitalists has deprived the poor of anything?
> 
> *Your zero sum game gag is stale and has always been dishonest.
> 
> In reality, the very poorest in our country are vastly more wealthy than the poor folks of years gone by.
> 
> *The wealth of Gates (even before he started giving vast amounts of it away) NEVER deprived anybody of anything. Indeed, BECAUSE of him and the work he did (and the work of others whose contributions he utilized) TONS of people got great jobs and their increased disposable income led to other people deriving lots of economic benefits, too.
> 
> A rising tide lifts all boats. That Gates got fabulously wealthy didn't cause any poor person to lose anything.
> 
> Your thesis is predicated entirely on dishonesty, Georgie.
Click to expand...

 
 Georgie is making the case for NOT making a bigger pie as we Americans have always done but can't because of those he defends.


----------



## georgephillip

whitehall said:


> Socialism guarantees equality. Everybody is poor with the exception of the socialists who run the system. Didn't Stalin teach you low information lefties anything?


*Enough to know Stalin did everything he could to discourage socialism in practice:*

"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. 

"One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. 

"In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.

"It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. 

"Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. 

"One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. 

"The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism."

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky


----------



## IlarMeilyr

I have CITED Georgie's silly thread as Exhibit "A."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8483654-post1.html

Thanks Georgie.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I merely pointed out that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal. That goal is to accumulate as much money as possible leaving everyone else with no money (poor).[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is merely economic freedom.  Capitalists make everyone rich.  We drive market efficiency.  It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And some of the most "successful" among you are greedy beyond belief:*
> 
> "2. The Richest 400 Took $300 Billion in 2013, Approximately the ENTIRE Safety Net
> 
> The total budget for SNAP, WIC (Women, Infants, children), Child Nutrition, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Housing is less than the $300 billion 'earned' by the Forbes 400."
> 
> Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams
> 
> *Capitalists get rich by impoverishing millions of workers.*
Click to expand...


And some of the most successful socialists are greedy beyond belief.  Actually, based on this board, socialists don't need to be successful at all to be greedy beyond belief...


----------



## Shrimpbox

Ok let's talk about some facts about America the terrible, the bastion of that evil capitalism. According to the article half the world lives on 2.50 a day or less. Eighty percent make  ten dollars or less a day. Hmmmmm. That would put all Americans in the upper twenty percentile of people in the world. Hmmmm. That puts all Americans in better shape than 75 percent of the world and that god damn capitalism is responsible for it.
List of countries by number of mobile phones in use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now let's take a look at an interesting stat. Cell phones in the world. There are almost as many cell phones in china as there are people. So I guess those people on 1.50 a day mist be saving all year to buy a phone and all the next year in order to buy minutes. Now let's see, wouldn't you have to have some ed to be able to work a phone?  And maybe you could connect with all your other poor friends to advance yourself. Not in china you say, a land that has allowed the bare minimum of capitalist practices to catapult its economy to I believe the second largest economy in the world. So I guess those poor people are in such bad shape they will be eating samsung sushi to survive.

If anyone is truly serious about making America more equitable then they have to be serious about getting rid of Obama and the dems. If the inequity documented in his administration does not persuade you than nothing is going to.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


Communism didn't raise the standard of living of hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians, it was capitalism.

Suck it, commie boy.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

georgephillip said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, dick head.  Go visit Africa some time, or South America, or China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Visit Camden, Cracker.
Click to expand...


 Camden just bolsters my case even more you stupid fuck.


----------



## georgephillip

IlarMeilyr said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is merely economic freedom.  Capitalists make everyone rich.  We drive market efficiency.  It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."
> 
> 
> 
> *And some of the most "successful" among you are greedy beyond belief:*
> 
> "2. The Richest 400 Took $300 Billion in 2013, Approximately the ENTIRE Safety Net
> 
> The total budget for SNAP, WIC (Women, Infants, children), Child Nutrition, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Housing is less than the $300 billion 'earned' by the Forbes 400."
> 
> Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams
> 
> *Capitalists get rich by impoverishing millions of workers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HOW exactly do you figure that the wealth of the rich capitalists has deprived the poor of anything?
> 
> Your zero sum game gag is stale and has always been dishonest.
> 
> In reality, the very poorest in our country are vastly more wealthy than the poor folks of years gone by.
> 
> The wealth of Gates (even before he started giving vast amounts of it away) NEVER deprived anybody of anything.  Indeed, BECAUSE of him and the work he did (and the work of others whose contributions he utilized) TONS of people got great jobs and their increased disposable income led to other people deriving lots of economic benefits, too.
> 
> A rising tide lifts all boats.  That Gates got fabulously wealthy didn't cause any poor person to lose anything.
> 
> Your thesis is predicated entirely on dishonesty, Georgie.
Click to expand...

*Your corporate butt-sniffing doesn't even quality as a thesis, Greedy.*

"Conclusion: The System Is Broken

The overall calculations reveal that, to the best approximation:

--The richest 400 individuals made an average of $750,000,000 each in 2013.
--The .01% (12,000 families) made about $40,000,000 each.
--The .1% (120,000 families) made about $3,600,000 each.
--The rest of the 1% (1,068,000 families) made over $830,000 each.
--The 2-5% (4,800,000 households) made about $300,000 each.
--The 6-10% (6,000,000 households) made about $95,000 each.
--The 11-20% (12,000,000 households) made about $39,000 each.
--The 21-40% (24,000,000 households) made about $13,000 each.
--The 41-60% (24,000,000 households) made about $4,000 each.
--The 61-80% (24,000,000 households) made about $333 each.
--The bottom 20% (24,000,000 households) made nothing.

Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity. 

"But it hasn't worked that way for the past 35 years. 

"Today only the people who already have money can increase their wealth. 

"Congress doesn't seem to recognize, or doesn't care, that the system is horribly distorted in favor of a small group of people who need to do very little to take most of the wealth."

Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Why do you blame government for crony capitalism when it's capitalism the creates the private fortunes that corrupt government? Every government yet devised has served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority; no economic system ever devised creates a few massive private fortunes as effectively as capitalism does.



Mr Dingle Berry, Sir.

That's bullshit.

Congress decided to regulate the economy - WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY - in order to grandstand for the masses and industries who were ineffective.

Read about the STANDARD OIL OF NEW JERSEY CASE. ESSO didn't pay the fuckers to be regulated.

.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The One Chart That Proves Capitalism Works - PolicyMic
> 
> Capitalism is getting the poor in South Africa out of poverty.
> 
> It's big Government control & interference that causes more inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> Your link:
> 
> "That being said, this chart really does put things into perspective. While we take for granted the simple things in life, nearly 1 billion people throughout the globe are currently struggling to survive on less than $1.25 a day. While it's great to get involved and donate your time, talents, and resources to local charities, what's really going to help these families is economic liberty."
> 
> *Capitalism and the governments it controls are consigning more individuals to poverty today than at any time in its history:*
> 
> "The figures depicting poverty and hardship are many and varied. Over 20 per cent of the worlds population (that is 1.4 billion people) live on less than 1.25 dollars a day, 75 cents below the official World Bank poverty threshold.
> 
> "UNICEF states that 22,000 children (under the age of five; if it was six or seven the numbers would be even higher) die every day due to poverty-related issues.
> 
> "Of the two billion children in the world, half are currently living their lives in extreme poverty, with limited or no access to clean water or sanitation, healthcare and education worth the name.
> 
> "The greatest concentrations of people living below the 2-dollars-per-day poverty line are to be found in rural areas, where three in every four of those below the poverty line are to be found. Life is little better in the cities, where over half the worlds 7.2 billion population now live, one in three of whom are living in a slum."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This chart shows that the number of people living on $1.25 or less has been decreasing drastically thanks to capitalism.
Click to expand...

Do you have any figures for the last six years?


----------



## Toro

georgephillip said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


This is a little old but it's valid.





















http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...K:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html


----------



## Toro

Also
















Finance & Development, September 2001 - Trade, Growth, and Poverty


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you blame government for crony capitalism when it's capitalism the creates the private fortunes that corrupt government? Every government yet devised has served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority; no economic system ever devised creates a few massive private fortunes as effectively as capitalism does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Dingle Berry, Sir.
> 
> That bullshit.
> 
> Congress decided to regulate the economy - WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY - in order to grandstand for the masses and industries who were ineffective.
> 
> Read about the STANDARD OIL OF NEW JERSEY CASE. ESSO didn't pay the fuckers to be regulated.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

georgephillip said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism requires people to aim high, educate themselves and participate to get somewhere.     It would work far better if government hadn't allowed certain wealthy donors to take over running the country.   Capitalism needs fair rules that are upheld.   It's government, not the private sector, that messed that up.   No politician has ever bitten the hand that feeds them and that means always obeying the real 1%, which is not corporations, but the Federal Reserve.    We are all slaves to them.  We need to abolish the Federal Reserve.
> 
> Socialism requires people to merely exist and everyone gets the basics to survive.    The basics decrease as the wealth creation decreases over time.   Then you have communism.
> 
> At least capitalism helps a country grow and if people are lazy, they go no where.   And I mean real capitalism, not crony capitalism that we have now, thanks to government.    Socialism is unsustainable.    I'd rather have the ability to grow and succeed than be trapped in world where limits are placed on every aspect of our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you blame government for crony capitalism when it's capitalism the creates the private fortunes that corrupt government? Every government yet devised has served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority; no economic system ever devised creates a few massive private fortunes as effectively as capitalism does.
Click to expand...


Why is government responsible for their expenditures, specifically the expenditures which removes major liabilities, from major donors who fund their campaigns?

Are you being serious or playing the fool here?

I ask because government is taking an action, therefore government is responsible for that action.  This isn't even a debatable point.  Yet your query makes it appear that you're oblivious of this very simple and otherwise incontrovertible point.

Beyond that, Crony Capitalism is a term born from the Left designed to separate themselves from their responsibility for DOING IT!  It's the axiomatic result of Progressivism, which is a name the same group came up with to avoid being known as fascist.  Fascism is a term which the Left hi-jacked to keep from knowing that they're socialists.

Socialism rests upon Relativism.

Relativism rejects objectivity.

Objectivity is essential to truth, trust, justice and morality.

As a result of their inability to be objective, its adherence, being incapable of recognizing truth, they're incapable of living moral lives, and where power is added to their equation, they're incapable of serving justice.  

And THAT is why your government is corrupt.  The people comprising the government are corrupt.  And they're corrupt because they have bought into deceitful ideas, which are built upon fraudulence, designed to influence people just like them, ignorant people looking for an easier way.

Socialism is a lie.  It promises what doesn't exist, to foolish people who need it to exist, because they can't face the effort required to do the right thing.  'Cause it's HARD!


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you blame government for crony capitalism when it's capitalism the creates the private fortunes that corrupt government? Every government yet devised has served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority; no economic system ever devised creates a few massive private fortunes as effectively as capitalism does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Dingle Berry, Sir.
> 
> That bullshit.
> 
> Congress decided to regulate the economy - WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY - in order to grandstand for the masses and industries who were ineffective.
> 
> Read about the STANDARD OIL OF NEW JERSEY CASE. ESSO didn't pay the fuckers to be regulated.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.
Click to expand...


WHO the fuck paid Congress to regulate ESSO? 

WHO paid congress to regulate credit and banking with the creation of the Federal Reserve Board?

.


----------



## ScienceRocks

capitalism is the only system that works. End of story. WE can regulate and demand a minimum wage but pure socialism doesn't work as it is only a output.

YOU NEED INPUT. capitalism is that input...

You can't better society without input. Understand?


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I merely pointed out that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal. That goal is to accumulate as much money as possible leaving everyone else with no money (poor).[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is merely economic freedom.  Capitalists make everyone rich.  We drive market efficiency.  It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And some of the most "successful" among you are greedy beyond belief:*
> 
> "2. The Richest 400 *Took* $300 Billion in 2013, Approximately the ENTIRE Safety Net
> 
> The total budget for SNAP, WIC (Women, Infants, children), Child Nutrition, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Housing is less than the $300 billion 'earned' by the Forbes 400."
> 
> Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams
> 
> *Capitalists get rich by impoverishing millions of workers.*
Click to expand...


They didn't "take" anything asshat. They *earned* it.


----------



## P@triot

Matthew said:


> capitalism is the only system that works. End of story. WE can regulate and demand a minimum wage but pure socialism doesn't work as it is only a output.
> 
> YOU NEED INPUT. capitalism is that input...
> 
> You can't better society without input. Understand?


----------



## blackhawk

If you feel capitalism is so horrible for the poor please give us a better alternative for it and don't say tax the rich more.


----------



## SAYIT

georgephillip said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how much of modern technology wouldn't exist if not for capitalism and freedom of thought. I'll just have to say that life would be utter hell without capitalism.
> 
> When has pure socialism been successful? The human economy works like a engine...You need input and out put. Socialism is only good at output....
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "input" and "output"?
> Modern technology stems from human labor and much of the research that has made it possible comes from public and not private capital.
Click to expand...


And what is public capital but that wealth which gov't extorts from productive individuals and companies?


----------



## SAYIT

kaz said:


> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I merely pointed out that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal. That goal is to accumulate as much money as possible leaving everyone else with no money (poor).[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is merely economic freedom.  Capitalists make everyone rich.  We drive market efficiency.  It is in fact socialism that takes without giving and leaves "everyone else with no money."
Click to expand...


Russians living in their "Workers' Paradise" had a funny saying:
"We pretend to work and the gov't pretends to pay us."
Socialism in a nutshell.


----------



## Jroc

Seawytch said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well golly batman, you got me. I'm just a poor stupid election worker and not an economist, but even a poor stupid fucking election worker can see that the income inequality in this country is unsustainable. This moron also knows that we've had this kind of inequality before. What did we do then?
Click to expand...


Income inequality has increase under Obama..  


> *As Obama hammers income inequality, gap grows under his presidency*
> 
> Between then and now, the share of income gains captured by top earners grew. The top 1 percent saw a 45 percent increase under Clinton and a 65 percent increase under Bush.
> 
> That number has dramatically increased since Obama's inauguration in 2009. By 2012, the top 1 percent was back to where it was decades ago -- taking in about a quarter of all pre-tax income. Yet the bottom 90 percent saw their share fall below 50 percent for the first time in history.
> 
> Some analysts say this is because Obama was more focused on health care than alleviating unemployment and poverty.





> In 2012, the bottom 90 percent was earning an average "real income" of about $30,000 a year. That's similar to what they were earning back in 1980.
> 
> But the top 10 percent of earners typically made over a quarter of a million dollars in 2012. And the top 1 percent averaged over $1.2 million in earnings that year. That is where the most dramatic fluctuation can be seen over time, as the gap between lower and top earners has widened.
> 
> According to the work of Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, during the post-recession years of 2009-2012, top earners snagged a greater share of total income growth than during the boom years of 2002-2007.
> 
> In other words, income inequality has become more pronounced since the Bush administration, not less.
> 
> *"Rich people have pulled away, largely because the top 1 percent has been doing quite well -- and disproportionately doing quite well under President Obama," Brooks said. "Remember that the stock market has doubled in value since President Obama took office, and at least 80 percent of those gains have gone to the top 10 percent of the income distribution."*



As Obama hammers ?income inequality,? gap grows under his presidency | Fox News


----------



## ilia25

Godboy said:


> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.



Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.


----------



## Geaux4it




----------



## georgephillip

Matthew said:


> capitalism is the only system that works. End of story. WE can regulate and demand a minimum wage but pure socialism doesn't work as it is only a output.
> 
> YOU NEED INPUT. capitalism is that input...
> 
> You can't better society without input. Understand?


Your still haven't defined "input" and "output."


----------



## gipper

When America was a truly free market capitalist nation, it generated the largest middle class and the greatest generation of wealth ever seen in all of world history.

Then...things changed decades ago when America turned away from capitalism and followed the path of collectivism...which has resulted in drops in income and wealth for most Americans, to say nothing of lost liberty.  Yet, there are those who condemn capitalism for this decline, when in fact, the decline is the result of the opposite of capitalism.


----------



## Stephanie

Little georgie is the Bagdad Bob for Socialist/Communist

Inequality=the new meme for pushing Socialism/communism on you

people better wake up in this country


----------



## georgephillip

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism requires people to aim high, educate themselves and participate to get somewhere.     It would work far better if government hadn't allowed certain wealthy donors to take over running the country.   Capitalism needs fair rules that are upheld.   It's government, not the private sector, that messed that up.   No politician has ever bitten the hand that feeds them and that means always obeying the real 1%, which is not corporations, but the Federal Reserve.    We are all slaves to them.  We need to abolish the Federal Reserve.
> 
> Socialism requires people to merely exist and everyone gets the basics to survive.    The basics decrease as the wealth creation decreases over time.   Then you have communism.
> 
> At least capitalism helps a country grow and if people are lazy, they go no where.   And I mean real capitalism, not crony capitalism that we have now, thanks to government.    Socialism is unsustainable.    I'd rather have the ability to grow and succeed than be trapped in world where limits are placed on every aspect of our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you blame government for crony capitalism when it's capitalism the creates the private fortunes that corrupt government? Every government yet devised has served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority; no economic system ever devised creates a few massive private fortunes as effectively as capitalism does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is government responsible for their expenditures, specifically the expenditures which removes major liabilities, from major donors who fund their campaigns?
> 
> Are you being serious or playing the fool here?
> 
> I ask because government is taking an action, therefore government is responsible for that action.  This isn't even a debatable point.  Yet your query makes it appear that you're oblivious of this very simple and otherwise incontrovertible point.
> 
> Beyond that, Crony Capitalism is a term born from the Left designed to separate themselves from their responsibility for DOING IT!  It's the axiomatic result of Progressivism, which is a name the same group came up with to avoid being known as fascist.  Fascism is a term which the Left hi-jacked to keep from knowing that they're socialists.
> 
> Socialism rests upon Relativism.
> 
> Relativism rejects objectivity.
> 
> Objectivity is essential to truth, trust, justice and morality.
> 
> As a result of their inability to be objective, its adherence, being incapable of recognizing truth, they're incapable of living moral lives, and where power is added to their equation, they're incapable of serving justice.
> 
> And THAT is why your government is corrupt.  The people comprising the government are corrupt.  And they're corrupt because they have bought into deceitful ideas, which are built upon fraudulence, designed to influence people just like them, ignorant people looking for an easier way.
> 
> Socialism is a lie.  It promises what doesn't exist, to foolish people who need it to exist, because they can't face the effort required to do the right thing.  'Cause it's HARD!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the points you're trying to make here.
Let's take it from the top.

When you say: "Why is government responsible for their expenditures, specifically the expenditures which removes major liabilities from major donors who fund their campaigns?

Are you asking who benefits from those major donations?

I would answer that question by saying the richest 1% of citizens benefit just as they have in every government yet devised, and very few of that 1% of citizens are on the Left.


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Dingle Berry, Sir.
> 
> That bullshit.
> 
> Congress decided to regulate the economy - WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY - in order to grandstand for the masses and industries who were ineffective.
> 
> Read about the STANDARD OIL OF NEW JERSEY CASE. ESSO didn't pay the fuckers to be regulated.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHO the fuck paid Congress to regulate ESSO?
> 
> WHO paid congress to regulate credit and banking with the creation of the Federal Reserve Board?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about Exxon; however, IMHO your second query isn't too hard to answer:
Nelson Aldrich
JP Morgan
John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Frank A. Vanderlip
Henry Davison
Charles D. Norton
Colonel Edward House
Paul Warburg

In short, the one percent of its day paid congress to regulate credit and banking with the creation of the Fed.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity



Not only does capitalism work in that regard, but it's the only system that works.  Your blind support of socialism only allows those chosen by government to succeed, and the rulers of government always chose themselves first.

You are confusing "opportunity" with "results."  There are some butt lazy people out there, Virginia, who don't take advantage of the endless opportunities they have.  They just whine and point their greedy fingers and say, "I want."  You know, like you and most of the other leftists on this site.  Anyone who can't succeed in this country, even still with what you and Obama have done to it, is a Loser with a capital "L."


----------



## gipper

Thomas Sowell nails it....



> Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they are discussing what happens to actual human beings over time.
> 
> All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians' warning that correlation is not causation.
> 
> For example the New York Times crusaded for government-provided prenatal care, citing the fact that black mothers had prenatal care less often than white mothers -- and that there were higher rates of infant mortality among blacks.
> 
> But was correlation causation? American women of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino ancestry also had less prenatal care than whites -- and lower rates of infant mortality than either blacks or whites.
> 
> When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans -- and no one thinks that is racial discrimination.
> 
> *Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is. *


----------



## Redfish

ron4342 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ron4342 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic goal of the board game Monopoly is to accumulate as much money and property as you can. The game is over when one person ends up with all the money and property and everyone else in the game is "poor." It seems that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you poor little victim, the evil rich are holding you down. Grow the fuck up and make your own life, WE and the govt don't owe you shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you speak of growing "the fuck up," look to yourself. If you had a brain and the ability to use it you would have noted I asked for NOTHING. I merely pointed out that capitalism and Monopoly have the same goal. That goal is to accumulate as much money as possible leaving everyone else with no money (poor).
Click to expand...


Monopoly is a game.  Capitalism is the most successful economic system in the history of the world.  Under freedom and capitalism the USA became the greatest nation in the history of the world.  Everyone is better of because of it.

Yes, when people are free some will succeed more than others---------thats life, deal with it.


----------



## editec

gipper said:


> When America was a truly free market capitalist nation, it generated the largest middle class and the greatest generation of wealth ever seen in all of world history.



WRONGO, lad.  Read your nation's history.



> Then...things changed decades ago when America turned away from capitalism and followed the path of collectivism...which has resulted in drops in income and wealth for most Americans, to say nothing of lost liberty.  Yet, there are those who condemn capitalism for this decline, when in fact, the decline is the result of the opposite of capitalism.



the rise of the working class into a MIDDLE CLASS was the result of UNIONISM.

Unionism is that collectivism that you so fear, lad.

Open a book, kid.

Educate yourself.


MACROEconomic is way more complex that the comic book version you seem to buy into.


----------



## gipper

editec said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When America was a truly free market capitalist nation, it generated the largest middle class and the greatest generation of wealth ever seen in all of world history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONGO, lad.  Read your nation's history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then...things changed decades ago when America turned away from capitalism and followed the path of collectivism...which has resulted in drops in income and wealth for most Americans, to say nothing of lost liberty.  Yet, there are those who condemn capitalism for this decline, when in fact, the decline is the result of the opposite of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the rise of the working class into a MIDDLE CLASS was the result of UNIONISM.
> 
> Unionism is that collectivism that you so fear, lad.
> 
> Open a book, kid.
> 
> Educate yourself.
> 
> 
> MACROEconomic is way more complex that the comic book version you seem to buy into.
Click to expand...


The fault lies with the very institution you so love and desire that it continues to grow in size and power...the very thing that will destroy America.  Why do you want to destroy America?  

Please read this and try to comprehend....



> The American middle class is fast disappearing, not because there is anything particularly wrong with the people involved  they are every bit as talented as their parents and grandparents were  but because the ruling class of the United States has pushed them into this position.
> 
> This middle class was once composed of proud and productive people the kind who now exist primarily in advertisements for trucks. These people and their abilities remain, but Washington has taken power over nearly every choice they have and thinks of them only for the purposes of voting, fighting in wars, and creating more debt (aka buying stuff they dont need).
> 
> These people are at a crossroads, facing fundamental choices about who they are and what they will be. The big threat in front of them is that by not stopping, thinking, and choosing (and its always easier to do nothing), theyll stay on the path that has been grinding them into the dirt.
> The Death (and Rebirth) of the American Middle Class


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism guarantees equality. Everybody is poor with the exception of the socialists who run the system. Didn't Stalin teach you low information lefties anything?
> 
> 
> 
> *Enough to know Stalin did everything he could to discourage socialism in practice:*
> 
> "When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.
> 
> "One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.
> 
> "In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.
> 
> "It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy.
> 
> "Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power.
> 
> "One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime.
> 
> "The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
Click to expand...


When you start quoting Noam Chomsky, you lose all credibility.  Noam defended the Khmer Rouge slaughter of 3 million Cambodians.

Where's the evidence that the Soviet Union wasn't socialist?  You certainly didn't post any.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And some of the most "successful" among you are greedy beyond belief:*
> 
> "2. The Richest 400 Took $300 Billion in 2013, Approximately the ENTIRE Safety Net
> 
> The total budget for SNAP, WIC (Women, Infants, children), Child Nutrition, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Housing is less than the $300 billion 'earned' by the Forbes 400."
> 
> Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams
> 
> *Capitalists get rich by impoverishing millions of workers.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOW exactly do you figure that the wealth of the rich capitalists has deprived the poor of anything?
> 
> Your zero sum game gag is stale and has always been dishonest.
> 
> In reality, the very poorest in our country are vastly more wealthy than the poor folks of years gone by.
> 
> The wealth of Gates (even before he started giving vast amounts of it away) NEVER deprived anybody of anything.  Indeed, BECAUSE of him and the work he did (and the work of others whose contributions he utilized) TONS of people got great jobs and their increased disposable income led to other people deriving lots of economic benefits, too.
> 
> A rising tide lifts all boats.  That Gates got fabulously wealthy didn't cause any poor person to lose anything.
> 
> Your thesis is predicated entirely on dishonesty, Georgie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your corporate butt-sniffing doesn't even quality as a thesis, Greedy.*
> 
> "Conclusion: The System Is Broken
> 
> The overall calculations reveal that, to the best approximation:
> 
> --The richest 400 individuals made an average of $750,000,000 each in 2013.
> --The .01% (12,000 families) made about $40,000,000 each.
> --The .1% (120,000 families) made about $3,600,000 each.
> --The rest of the 1% (1,068,000 families) made over $830,000 each.
> --The 2-5% (4,800,000 households) made about $300,000 each.
> --The 6-10% (6,000,000 households) made about $95,000 each.
> --The 11-20% (12,000,000 households) made about $39,000 each.
> --The 21-40% (24,000,000 households) made about $13,000 each.
> --The 41-60% (24,000,000 households) made about $4,000 each.
> --The 61-80% (24,000,000 households) made about $333 each.
> --The bottom 20% (24,000,000 households) made nothing.
> 
> Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity.
> 
> "But it hasn't worked that way for the past 35 years.
> 
> "Today only the people who already have money can increase their wealth.
> 
> "Congress doesn't seem to recognize, or doesn't care, that the system is horribly distorted in favor of a small group of people who need to do very little to take most of the wealth."
> 
> Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams
Click to expand...


the figures you are quoting are for the entire world, a large percentage of which is not capitalist.  Yet, you go on to refer to the capitalism in the United States.  That makes anything based on that bullshit.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link:
> 
> "That being said, this chart really does put things into perspective. While we take for granted the simple things in life, nearly 1 billion people throughout the globe are currently struggling to survive on less than $1.25 a day. While it's great to get involved and donate your time, talents, and resources to local charities, what's really going to help these families is economic liberty."
> 
> *Capitalism and the governments it controls are consigning more individuals to poverty today than at any time in its history:*
> 
> "The figures depicting poverty and hardship are many and varied. Over 20 per cent of the worlds population (that is 1.4 billion people) live on less than 1.25 dollars a day, 75 cents below the official World Bank poverty threshold.
> 
> "UNICEF states that 22,000 children (under the age of five; if it was six or seven the numbers would be even higher) die every day due to poverty-related issues.
> 
> "Of the two billion children in the world, half are currently living their lives in extreme poverty, with limited or no access to clean water or sanitation, healthcare and education worth the name.
> 
> "The greatest concentrations of people living below the 2-dollars-per-day poverty line are to be found in rural areas, where three in every four of those below the poverty line are to be found. Life is little better in the cities, where over half the worlds 7.2 billion population now live, one in three of whom are living in a slum."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This chart shows that the number of people living on $1.25 or less has been decreasing drastically thanks to capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any figures for the last six years?
Click to expand...


Do you imagine they returned to 1981 levels in the last 6 years?  Not a chance.  Most of the improvement occurred in China, and its economy is still booming.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you blame government for crony capitalism when it's capitalism the creates the private fortunes that corrupt government? Every government yet devised has served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority; no economic system ever devised creates a few massive private fortunes as effectively as capitalism does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Dingle Berry, Sir.
> 
> That bullshit.
> 
> Congress decided to regulate the economy - WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY - in order to grandstand for the masses and industries who were ineffective.
> 
> Read about the STANDARD OIL OF NEW JERSEY CASE. ESSO didn't pay the fuckers to be regulated.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.
Click to expand...


It was the 99% who gave Congress that authority.


----------



## bripat9643

ilia25 said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.
Click to expand...


That's family income, numskull.  Families have been shrinking because of all the welfare queens who can't keep their legs together and have illegitimate children.  One sure way to grow up poor is for your mother to have never been married to your father.

Don't blame capitalism for that.  Blame the welfare state.


----------



## bripat9643

Stephanie said:


> Little georgie is the Bagdad Bob for Socialist/Communist
> 
> Inequality=the new meme for pushing Socialism/communism on you
> 
> people better wake up in this country



Yep, the "inequality" meme is a con designed to separate you from your money.


----------



## bripat9643

editec said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When America was a truly free market capitalist nation, it generated the largest middle class and the greatest generation of wealth ever seen in all of world history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONGO, lad.  Read your nation's history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then...things changed decades ago when America turned away from capitalism and followed the path of collectivism...which has resulted in drops in income and wealth for most Americans, to say nothing of lost liberty.  Yet, there are those who condemn capitalism for this decline, when in fact, the decline is the result of the opposite of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the rise of the working class into a MIDDLE CLASS was the result of UNIONISM.
Click to expand...


Dead wrong.  Unions don't increase worker productivity one iota.  So how do they increase our standard of living?


----------



## racewright

Outcome is up to those who work the hardest, plain and simple.
Should we tell Seattle how many touchdowns the can score on Feb 2nd or maybe also tell Denver to not run up the score (cause that's what's going to happen) lolololo

No why would you want equality in one area and not in all---Because of race that's why--if you wish I will explain further.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

racewright said:


> Outcome is up to those who work the hardest, plain and simple.
> Should we tell Seattle how many touchdowns the can score on Feb 2nd or maybe also tell Denver to not run up the score (cause that's what's going to happen) lolololo
> 
> No why would you want equality in one area and not in all---Because of race that's why--if you wish I will explain further.



We need scoring equality too.  Everybody wins. Yea.


----------



## Contumacious

ilia25 said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.
Click to expand...


The super rich can easily insulate their wealth from the welfare/warfare state.

The middle class can not.

.


----------



## georgephillip

gipper said:


> When America was a truly free market capitalist nation, it generated the largest middle class and the greatest generation of wealth ever seen in all of world history.
> 
> Then...things changed decades ago when America turned away from capitalism and followed the path of collectivism...which has resulted in drops in income and wealth for most Americans, to say nothing of lost liberty.  Yet, there are those who condemn capitalism for this decline, when in fact, the decline is the result of the opposite of capitalism.


How are you defining "free market"? Do you mean a market free of undue speculator influence like the one between FDR and Ronald Reagan? Do you believe Reagan was a collectivist? It was on his watch when income inequality began to widen, and the US middle class watched many of its good paying jobs shipped off to Mexico and China.

Giving a group priority over each individual in it tends to produce a stable economy where a rising tide actually lifts all boats, as opposed to the rugged individualism practiced by Wall Street speculators and abetted by their hired political hacks.


----------



## georgephillip

Stephanie said:


> this is from truthout, a commie propaganda site


*Do you find the following content untruthful?*

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

"*The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.*

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth. 

"According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.

*Is Wikipedia another commie propaganda site?*

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Dingle Berry, Sir.
> 
> That bullshit.
> 
> Congress decided to regulate the economy - WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY - in order to grandstand for the masses and industries who were ineffective.
> 
> Read about the STANDARD OIL OF NEW JERSEY CASE. ESSO didn't pay the fuckers to be regulated.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the 99% who gave Congress that authority.
Click to expand...

It was the 1% that payed for congressional elections campaigns and retirements.
Best congress money can buy.


----------



## georgephillip

Geaux4it said:


>


" A 2011 study by the CBO[13] found that the top earning 1 percent of households increased their income by about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[13] 

"Other sources find that the trend has continued since then.[14] 

*"In spite of this data, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[15]* 

"In 2012, the gap between the richest 1 percent and the remaining 99 percent was the widest it's been since the 1920s.[16] Incomes of the wealthiest 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent, whereas the income of the remaining 99 percent rose 1 percent in comparison.[16]"

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Less than half of all American believe income inequality has increased during the last ten years.

What have they been reading?*


----------



## georgephillip

Stephanie said:


> Little georgie is the Bagdad Bob for Socialist/Communist
> 
> Inequality=the new meme for pushing Socialism/communism on you
> 
> people better wake up in this country


*You are living proof.*

"Yale professor and economist Robert J. Shiller, who was among three Americans who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2013, believes that rising economic inequality in the United States and other countries is 'the most important problem that we are facing now today.'[22] 

"Pope Francis echoed this sentiment in his Evangelii Gaudium, stating that 'as long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the worlds problems or, for that matter, to any problems.'"[23]

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only does capitalism work in that regard, but it's the only system that works.  Your blind support of socialism only allows those chosen by government to succeed, and the rulers of government always chose themselves first.
> 
> You are confusing "opportunity" with "results."  There are some butt lazy people out there, Virginia, who don't take advantage of the endless opportunities they have.  They just whine and point their greedy fingers and say, "I want."  You know, like you and most of the other leftists on this site.  Anyone who can't succeed in this country, even still with what you and Obama have done to it, is a Loser with a capital "L."
Click to expand...

*Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.

The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*

"The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.

*^^^Does that work for you?*

Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO the fuck paid Congress to regulate ESSO?
> 
> WHO paid congress to regulate credit and banking with the creation of the Federal Reserve Board?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure about Exxon; however, IMHO your second query isn't too hard to answer:
> Nelson Aldrich
> JP Morgan
> John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
> Frank A. Vanderlip
> Henry Davison
> Charles D. Norton
> Colonel Edward House
> Paul Warburg
> 
> In short, the one percent of its day paid congress to regulate credit and banking with the creation of the Fed.
Click to expand...


The *Federal Reserve Act* was a BIPARTISAN (progressive) legislation adopted the same way obama hellcare was - in secret.

The gentlemen you identified above did not pay the legislators directly - INdirectly the Congress critters benefited because  because the demagogues could then claim that thanks to them Americans  would thereafter enjoy  easy credit and cash.

When the market crashed in 1935 and gold was removed from our currency the motherfuckers were dead and gone.

.

.


----------



## racewright

Contumacious said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The super rich can easily insulate their wealth from the welfare/warfare state.
> 
> The middle class can not.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Very True--super Rich can take a 8 year vacation and wait till the politics are more to there liking....Sounds familiar to me  like 2008 to 2016


----------



## racewright

ilia25 said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.
Click to expand...


Yea so maybe if ya want to play football you should get along with the guy who owns the ball instead of pissing him off.  If you take the ball away from him than who is going to replace it when it runs out of air--you I doubt it.


----------



## georgephillip

gipper said:


> Thomas Sowell nails it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they are discussing what happens to actual human beings over time.
> 
> All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians' warning that correlation is not causation.
> 
> For example the New York Times crusaded for government-provided prenatal care, citing the fact that black mothers had prenatal care less often than white mothers -- and that there were higher rates of infant mortality among blacks.
> 
> But was correlation causation? American women of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino ancestry also had less prenatal care than whites -- and lower rates of infant mortality than either blacks or whites.
> 
> When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans -- and no one thinks that is racial discrimination.
> 
> *Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is. *
Click to expand...

""It is staggering that in the 21st century, half of the world's population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all sit comfortably in a single train carriage," said Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's executive director.

"'Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table,' Byanyima said.

"The bottom half of the population  about 3.5 billion people  account for about $1.7 trillion, or about 0.7% of the world's wealth, according to the Oxfam report, titled 'Working for the Few.'"

Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com

*Seven-tenths of one percent of this world's wealth is owned by half of humanity.
Correlation or causation or cosmic greed?*


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the 99% who gave Congress that authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the 1% that payed for congressional elections campaigns and retirements.
> Best congress money can buy.
Click to expand...


Is it the fault of the 1% that Congress is for sale?  Rich people and corporations are not buying Congress.  The reality is that Congress uses the threat of harmful regulations to shake down corporations and their executives for cash.  It's an extortion racket.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism guarantees equality. Everybody is poor with the exception of the socialists who run the system. Didn't Stalin teach you low information lefties anything?
> 
> 
> 
> *Enough to know Stalin did everything he could to discourage socialism in practice:*
> 
> "When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.
> 
> "One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.
> 
> "In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.
> 
> "It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy.
> 
> "Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power.
> 
> "One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime.
> 
> "The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you start quoting Noam Chomsky, you lose all credibility.  Noam defended the Khmer Rouge slaughter of 3 million Cambodians.
> 
> Where's the evidence that the Soviet Union wasn't socialist?  You certainly didn't post any.
Click to expand...

*Noam never defended the mass murders of the Khmer Rouge.
If you believe he did so, post his words.
Socialism began as a movement meant to foster worker control of the means of production. 
Lenin substituted the state in place of the worker:*

"Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation. 

"As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, 'this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,' but can only be 'realized by the workers themselves being master over production.' 

"*Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism,* and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances. 

"But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.

"The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda. 

"They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who 'pre-empt the developing revolutionary process' and distort it to their ends of domination; 'Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests,' which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of *mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life.* 

"For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx)." 

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only does capitalism work in that regard, but it's the only system that works.  Your blind support of socialism only allows those chosen by government to succeed, and the rulers of government always chose themselves first.
> 
> You are confusing "opportunity" with "results."  There are some butt lazy people out there, Virginia, who don't take advantage of the endless opportunities they have.  They just whine and point their greedy fingers and say, "I want."  You know, like you and most of the other leftists on this site.  Anyone who can't succeed in this country, even still with what you and Obama have done to it, is a Loser with a capital "L."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.
> 
> *^^^Does that work for you?*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
Click to expand...


*It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.

The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*

In the US, the top 10% paid over 70% of the income taxes collected in 2010.
A heck of a lot more than the 90% paid.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> HOW exactly do you figure that the wealth of the rich capitalists has deprived the poor of anything?
> 
> Your zero sum game gag is stale and has always been dishonest.
> 
> In reality, the very poorest in our country are vastly more wealthy than the poor folks of years gone by.
> 
> The wealth of Gates (even before he started giving vast amounts of it away) NEVER deprived anybody of anything.  Indeed, BECAUSE of him and the work he did (and the work of others whose contributions he utilized) TONS of people got great jobs and their increased disposable income led to other people deriving lots of economic benefits, too.
> 
> A rising tide lifts all boats.  That Gates got fabulously wealthy didn't cause any poor person to lose anything.
> 
> Your thesis is predicated entirely on dishonesty, Georgie.
> 
> 
> 
> *Your corporate butt-sniffing doesn't even quality as a thesis, Greedy.*
> 
> "Conclusion: The System Is Broken
> 
> The overall calculations reveal that, to the best approximation:
> 
> --The richest 400 individuals made an average of $750,000,000 each in 2013.
> --The .01% (12,000 families) made about $40,000,000 each.
> --The .1% (120,000 families) made about $3,600,000 each.
> --The rest of the 1% (1,068,000 families) made over $830,000 each.
> --The 2-5% (4,800,000 households) made about $300,000 each.
> --The 6-10% (6,000,000 households) made about $95,000 each.
> --The 11-20% (12,000,000 households) made about $39,000 each.
> --The 21-40% (24,000,000 households) made about $13,000 each.
> --The 41-60% (24,000,000 households) made about $4,000 each.
> --The 61-80% (24,000,000 households) made about $333 each.
> --The bottom 20% (24,000,000 households) made nothing.
> 
> Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity.
> 
> "But it hasn't worked that way for the past 35 years.
> 
> "Today only the people who already have money can increase their wealth.
> 
> "Congress doesn't seem to recognize, or doesn't care, that the system is horribly distorted in favor of a small group of people who need to do very little to take most of the wealth."
> 
> Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the figures you are quoting are for the entire world, a large percentage of which is not capitalist.  Yet, you go on to refer to the capitalism in the United States.  That makes anything based on that bullshit.
Click to expand...

*Where's that large percentage of the world that isn't capitalist?
How many of the Forbes 400 do business there?*

"The Richest 400 Individuals Own More Than Three-Fifths of America

"The richest 400 now own over $2 trillion among them, or about 2.8% of the country's wealth of $72 trillion. This is more than the holdings of three-fifths of America, or 72 million families."

Another Shocking Wealth Grab by the Rich -- In Just One Year | Common Dreams


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Enough to know Stalin did everything he could to discourage socialism in practice:*
> 
> "When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.
> 
> "One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.
> 
> "In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.
> 
> "It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy.
> 
> "Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power.
> 
> "One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime.
> 
> "The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you start quoting Noam Chomsky, you lose all credibility.  Noam defended the Khmer Rouge slaughter of 3 million Cambodians.
> 
> Where's the evidence that the Soviet Union wasn't socialist?  You certainly didn't post any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Noam never defended the mass murders of the Khmer Rouge.
> If you believe he did so, post his words.*
Click to expand...

*

Noam Chomsky's admirers should consider these statements | Times Opinion on Tumblr

"In 1977, Chomsky and his collaborator Edward Herman wrote an article for The Nation in which they pointedly referred to  alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities in Cambodia, disputed that the rule of Pol Pot was analogous to Nazi Germany, and suggested that it was instead more nearly correct to compare Cambodia to France after liberation, where many thousands of people were massacred within a few months under far less rigorous conditions than those left by the American war [in Indochina].​
The man is a despicable piece of filth.*


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only does capitalism work in that regard, but it's the only system that works.  Your blind support of socialism only allows those chosen by government to succeed, and the rulers of government always chose themselves first.
> 
> You are confusing "opportunity" with "results."  There are some butt lazy people out there, Virginia, who don't take advantage of the endless opportunities they have.  They just whine and point their greedy fingers and say, "I want."  You know, like you and most of the other leftists on this site.  Anyone who can't succeed in this country, even still with what you and Obama have done to it, is a Loser with a capital "L."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.
> 
> *^^^Does that work for you?*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
Click to expand...


Just more communist manifesto rhetoric with no basis in logic or reality.  That is how you enslave the population, not free them.


----------



## g5000

_Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more_


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? *IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes* that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.



But here's the problem junior - nobody gives a damn about your opinion because you openly admitted your opinion is the result of willful ignorance. You told everyone that you disregard facts because facts are "created by the wealthy" 

Here's the bottom line - you hate wealthy people because they have more than you. And in that sick, twisted, Adolf-Hitler-punish-the-Jews manner, you just want to punish them for having more than you.

If you hated someone you didn't know simply because the color of their skin, you would be shunned by society as a racist. Yet you think it's perfectly ok to hate people you don't know simply because they worked harder than you did and became successful. You disgust me. You're full of hate and envy because you're a loser. Point the disdain where it belong junior - at the lazy asshat in the mirror.


----------



## jasonnfree

gipper said:


> When America was a truly free market capitalist nation, it generated the largest middle class and the greatest generation of wealth ever seen in all of world history.
> 
> Then...things changed decades ago when America turned away from capitalism and followed the path of collectivism...which has resulted in drops in income and wealth for most Americans, to say nothing of lost liberty.  Yet, there are those who condemn capitalism for this decline, when in fact, the decline is the result of the opposite of capitalism.



When has America ever been a truly free market capitalist nation?   Got some dates?


----------



## jasonnfree

georgephillip said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is from truthout, a commie propaganda site
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you find the following content untruthful?*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "*The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.*
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.
> 
> *Is Wikipedia another commie propaganda site?*
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


You say:
"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth."  
This is because they work harder and smarter than the rest of us.  Ask any republican. And if these wealthy people  end up owning 99.9% of everything eventually?  Then they  still deserve it because they work harder and smarter now stop being so jealous.


----------



## racewright

jasonnfree said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is from truthout, a commie propaganda site
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you find the following content untruthful?*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "*The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.*
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.
> 
> *Is Wikipedia another commie propaganda site?*
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say:
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth."
> This is because they work harder and smarter than the rest of us.  Ask any republican. And if these wealthy people  end up owning 99.9% of everything eventually?  Then they  still deserve it because they work harder and smarter now stop being so jealous.
Click to expand...


That's right and follow human nature its not your money so go earn it by having your government get out of the way. Andyou too might get rich


----------



## Whig_Out

Rottweiler said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? *IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes* that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But here's the problem junior - nobody gives a damn about your opinion because you openly admitted your opinion is the result of willful ignorance. You told everyone that you disregard facts because facts are "created by the wealthy"
> 
> Here's the bottom line - you hate wealthy people because they have more than you. And in that sick, twisted, Adolf-Hitler-punish-the-Jews manner, you just want to punish them for having more than you.
> 
> If you hated someone you didn't know simply because the color of their skin, you would be shunned by society as a racist. Yet you think it's perfectly ok to hate people you don't know simply because they worked harder than you did and became successful. You disgust me. You're full of hate and envy because you're a loser. Point the disdain where it belong junior - at the lazy asshat in the mirror.
Click to expand...


Always calling people junior?  Internet badass folks. Watch out.  Pathetic human for sure.  On a forum all day.  Good job!


----------



## gipper

georgephillip said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Sowell nails it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they are discussing what happens to actual human beings over time.
> 
> All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians' warning that correlation is not causation.
> 
> For example the New York Times crusaded for government-provided prenatal care, citing the fact that black mothers had prenatal care less often than white mothers -- and that there were higher rates of infant mortality among blacks.
> 
> But was correlation causation? American women of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino ancestry also had less prenatal care than whites -- and lower rates of infant mortality than either blacks or whites.
> 
> When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans -- and no one thinks that is racial discrimination.
> 
> *Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ""It is staggering that in the 21st century, half of the world's population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all sit comfortably in a single train carriage," said Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's executive director.
> 
> "'Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table,' Byanyima said.
> 
> "The bottom half of the population  about 3.5 billion people  account for about $1.7 trillion, or about 0.7% of the world's wealth, according to the Oxfam report, titled 'Working for the Few.'"
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> *Seven-tenths of one percent of this world's wealth is owned by half of humanity.
> Correlation or causation or cosmic greed?*
Click to expand...


AGAIN...this is NOT the fault of Capitalism.  The fault lies with a corrupt power elite that controls governments and economies throughout the world.  

You, like many on the Left, fail to see that the very thing you want more of, is the thing causing poverty, income inequality, wars, and so much more that is detrimental to the human condition.


----------



## gipper

jasonnfree said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When America was a truly free market capitalist nation, it generated the largest middle class and the greatest generation of wealth ever seen in all of world history.
> 
> Then...things changed decades ago when America turned away from capitalism and followed the path of collectivism...which has resulted in drops in income and wealth for most Americans, to say nothing of lost liberty.  Yet, there are those who condemn capitalism for this decline, when in fact, the decline is the result of the opposite of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When has America ever been a truly free market capitalist nation?   Got some dates?
Click to expand...


We were very close to a truly free market capitalist nation for about the first one hundred years.  But, as the central government grew and was allowed to pick winners and losers, this all changed.  It really changed in a big way with the asshole Wilson, who imposed the Federal Reserve and the income tax resulting in the omnipresent huge tyrannical central government we suffer under today.


----------



## mudwhistle

Seawytch said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!
Click to expand...


Our poor don't get HD cable. 

This must stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the 99% who gave Congress that authority.
> 
> 
> 
> It was the 1% that payed for congressional elections campaigns and retirements.
> Best congress money can buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it the fault of the 1% that Congress is for sale?  Rich people and corporations are not buying Congress.  The reality is that Congress uses the threat of harmful regulations to shake down corporations and their executives for cash.  It's an extortion racket.
Click to expand...

Congress extorted the repeal of Glass-Steagall from Wall Street, is that right?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only does capitalism work in that regard, but it's the only system that works.  Your blind support of socialism only allows those chosen by government to succeed, and the rulers of government always chose themselves first.
> 
> You are confusing "opportunity" with "results."  There are some butt lazy people out there, Virginia, who don't take advantage of the endless opportunities they have.  They just whine and point their greedy fingers and say, "I want."  You know, like you and most of the other leftists on this site.  Anyone who can't succeed in this country, even still with what you and Obama have done to it, is a Loser with a capital "L."
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.
> 
> *^^^Does that work for you?*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> In the US, the top 10% paid over 70% of the income taxes collected in 2010.
> A heck of a lot more than the 90% paid.
Click to expand...

What percentage of US workers earn enough to be required to pay income taxes?
The total percentage of income paid in taxes of all kinds is much greater for the 90%, and so is the total percentage of US blood wasted on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

georgephillip said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Sowell nails it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they are discussing what happens to actual human beings over time.
> 
> All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians' warning that correlation is not causation.
> 
> For example the New York Times crusaded for government-provided prenatal care, citing the fact that black mothers had prenatal care less often than white mothers -- and that there were higher rates of infant mortality among blacks.
> 
> But was correlation causation? American women of Chinese, Japanese and Filipino ancestry also had less prenatal care than whites -- and lower rates of infant mortality than either blacks or whites.
> 
> When statistics showed that black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants, the media went ballistic crying racial discrimination. But whites were turned down almost twice as often as Asian Americans -- and no one thinks that is racial discrimination.
> 
> *Facts are not liberals' strong suit. Rhetoric is. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ""It is staggering that in the 21st century, half of the world's population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all sit comfortably in a single train carriage," said Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's executive director.
> 
> "'Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table,' Byanyima said.
> 
> "The bottom half of the population &#8212; about 3.5 billion people &#8212; account for about $1.7 trillion, or about 0.7% of the world's wealth, according to the Oxfam report, titled 'Working for the Few.'"
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> *Seven-tenths of one percent of this world's wealth is owned by half of humanity.
> Correlation or causation or cosmic greed?*
Click to expand...


Human nature.  

Those that don't have it, either didn't have the ambition to go get it, as is the case in the US, as nothing except themselves is preventing them from doing so, OR elsewhere in the world, they live in a culture governed by relativism, which places the subjective in positions of power, that precludes them from exercising their natural right to do so, inevitably misinforming those individuals through fraudulent notions, that they're entitled to subsistent or in the worst case, they can't do for themselves and will only take what is given to them.

Now the simple truth is that just about any nature conservancy will tell you how destructive entitlement subsidies are.  Particularly for creatures that can't reason soundly.  

It's not truly not even a debatable point.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you start quoting Noam Chomsky, you lose all credibility.  Noam defended the Khmer Rouge slaughter of 3 million Cambodians.
> 
> Where's the evidence that the Soviet Union wasn't socialist?  You certainly didn't post any.
> 
> 
> 
> *Noam never defended the mass murders of the Khmer Rouge.
> If you believe he did so, post his words.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Noam Chomsky's admirers should consider these statements | Times Opinion on Tumblr
> 
> "In 1977, Chomsky and his collaborator Edward Herman wrote an article for The Nation in which they pointedly referred to  alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities in Cambodia, disputed that the rule of Pol Pot was analogous to Nazi Germany, and suggested that it was instead more nearly correct to compare Cambodia to France after liberation, where many thousands of people were massacred within a few months under far less rigorous conditions than those left by the American war [in Indochina].​
> The man is a despicable piece of filth.*
Click to expand...

*
So says the lazy turd who probably didn't bother to read Herman's and Noam's 1976 article "Distortions at Fourth Hand" which appeared in The Nation magazine:

"If, indeed, postwar Cambodia is, as he believes, similar to Nazi Germany, then his comment is perhaps just, though we may add that he has produced no evidence to support this judgement. But if postwar Cambodia is more similar to France after liberation, where many thousands of people were massacred within a few months under far less rigorous conditions than those left by the American war, then perhaps a rather different judgement is in order. That the latter conclusion may be more nearly correct is suggested by the analyses mentioned earlier..."

Khmer Rouge rule in Cambodia extended from 1975-'79.
Chomsky and Herman published their article in 1976.
No one at that time knew for sure how many Cambodians died at the hands of Pol Pot.
Just as today nobody remember how the US military helped bring Pol Pot to power.

"We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable."*


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only does capitalism work in that regard, but it's the only system that works.  Your blind support of socialism only allows those chosen by government to succeed, and the rulers of government always chose themselves first.
> 
> You are confusing "opportunity" with "results."  There are some butt lazy people out there, Virginia, who don't take advantage of the endless opportunities they have.  They just whine and point their greedy fingers and say, "I want."  You know, like you and most of the other leftists on this site.  Anyone who can't succeed in this country, even still with what you and Obama have done to it, is a Loser with a capital "L."
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.
> 
> *^^^Does that work for you?*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just more communist manifesto rhetoric with no basis in logic or reality.  That is how you enslave the population, not free them.
Click to expand...

You enslave the population through debt and war.
Two Evils capitalism can't exist without.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.
> 
> *^^^Does that work for you?*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> In the US, the top 10% paid over 70% of the income taxes collected in 2010.
> A heck of a lot more than the 90% paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What percentage of US workers earn enough to be required to pay income taxes?
> The total percentage of income paid in taxes of all kinds is much greater for the 90%.
Click to expand...


You're full of it.  No possible way you could back that nonsense up.



georgephillip said:


> so is the total percentage of US blood wasted on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.



What a flagrant red herring.  I oppose the wars, but what an irrelevant point to the discussion.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.
> 
> *^^^Does that work for you?*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just more communist manifesto rhetoric with no basis in logic or reality.  That is how you enslave the population, not free them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You enslave the population through debt and war.
> Two Evils capitalism can't exist without.
Click to expand...


blah blah, Marx rocks, freedom sucks...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

mudwhistle said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our poor don't get HD cable.
> 
> This must stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


The Obamaphone monthly plans are just another way "The Man" is keepin' the brother down!


----------



## Bombur

Income inequality is growing in large part because the poor people in China and other nations are much better off than they used to be. The combination of globalization and technology growth put a fair amount of downward pressure on wages. Even if education levels are improving from one generation to the next.

The problem with income inequality is in part that global economics relies on demand for production to increase right along with these increases in production capacity. Those who are greedy and self centered don't realize how important it is for wages to increase because they consider rising wages to be a bad thing for them. As long as these type of people are making decisions the entire world is in trouble.

Also if you are stuck in the communism versus capitalism paradigm you are stuck in the past.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.
> 
> *^^^Does that work for you?*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> In the US, the top 10% paid over 70% of the income taxes collected in 2010.
> A heck of a lot more than the 90% paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What percentage of US workers earn enough to be required to pay income taxes?
> The total percentage of income paid in taxes of all kinds is much greater for the 90%, and so is the total percentage of US blood wasted on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Click to expand...


*What percentage of US workers earn enough to be required to pay income taxes?*

You're right, the Bush tax cuts made the code too progressive. 

*The total percentage of income paid in taxes of all kinds is much greater for the 90%*

Prove it.


----------



## Bombur

You can tell someone really doesn't have anything to add to a conversation when they focus on who pays Federal income taxes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> You can tell someone really doesn't have anything to add to a conversation when they focus on who pays Federal income taxes.



You mean when they claim something opposite of the truth. But enough about George.


----------



## editec

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the 99% who gave Congress that authority.
> 
> 
> 
> It was the 1% that payed for congressional elections campaigns and retirements.
> Best congress money can buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it the fault of the 1% that Congress is for sale?  Rich people and corporations are not buying Congress.  The reality is that Congress uses the threat of harmful regulations to shake down corporations and their executives for cash.  It's an extortion racket.
Click to expand...


That might have been  a reasonable complaint.

Or at least it might have been if the RICH hadn't ALWAYS dominated who takes office in the USA.


----------



## f252863

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



This is an incredibly simplistic analysis.

First and foremost, we have mixed economies and the U.S. is no exception.  In capitalism you don't have:

Bank Bailouts
Subsidies to Politically Favored Businesses 
Wealth Redistribution
Minimum Wage
Social Security
Medicare
etc.

Also, wealth is not a zero sum game.   The fact that I get richer doesn't mean that someone else must become poorer.

Inequality is a natural outcome, we are all very different in terms of intelligence, motivation, emotional maturity, and ingenuity.  That being said, a great deal of inequality also arises from political forces which act to protect entrenched businesses (e.g., crony capitalism).   In many other countries you can set up a roadside stand, or peddle products through neighborhoods, this is how you get started.   Here in the U.S. the cost is prohibitive.   A laundry list of licenses, regulations, high taxes (the self employed have to take out 15.4% just for Social Security and Medicare!), all these serve to keep the little guy out.


----------



## Bombur

f252863 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an incredibly simplistic analysis.
> 
> First and foremost, we have mixed economies and the U.S. is no exception.  In capitalism you don't have:
> 
> Bank Bailouts
> Subsidies to Politically Favored Businesses
> Wealth Redistribution
> Minimum Wage
> Social Security
> Medicare
> etc.
> 
> Also, wealth is not a zero sum game.   The fact that I get richer doesn't mean that someone else must become poorer.
> 
> Inequality is a natural outcome, we are all very different in terms of intelligence, motivation, emotional maturity, and ingenuity.  That being said, a great deal of inequality also arises from political forces which act to protect entrenched businesses (e.g., crony capitalism).   In many other countries you can set up a roadside stand, or peddle products through neighborhoods, this is how you get started.   Here in the U.S. the cost is prohibitive.   A laundry list of licenses, regulations, high taxes (the self employed have to take out 15.4% just for Social Security and Medicare!), all these serve to keep the little guy out.
Click to expand...


If anything US labor would be better off with UHC than without.

Trends in income inequality are a result of market trends. Wealth doesn't have to be a zero sum game for one person to benefit from a market trend and another person be harmed by it. Wealth doesn't have to be a zero sum game for there to be inequalities in the system that favor one group over the other.

Also one of the biggest advantages capital has over labor is the power of compound interest. Once wealth is established a growing divide is inevitable unless countered by government.


----------



## Contumacious

f252863 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an incredibly simplistic analysis.
> 
> First and foremost, we have mixed economies and the U.S. is no exception. * In capitalism you don't have:
> 
> Bank Bailouts
> Subsidies to Politically Favored Businesses
> Wealth Redistribution
> Minimum Wage
> Social Security
> Medicare
> etc.*
> 
> Also, wealth is not a zero sum game.   The fact that I get richer doesn't mean that someone else must become poorer.
> 
> Inequality is a natural outcome, we are all very different in terms of intelligence, motivation, emotional maturity, and ingenuity.  That being said, a great deal of inequality also arises from political forces which act to protect entrenched businesses (e.g., crony capitalism).   In many other countries you can set up a roadside stand, or peddle products through neighborhoods, this is how you get started.   Here in the U.S. the cost is prohibitive.   A laundry list of licenses, regulations, high taxes (the self employed have to take out 15.4% just for Social Security and Medicare!), all these serve to keep the little guy out.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

WHY the fuck is that so hard to understand?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Um, just move to Cuba or China where they don't have Capitalism.


----------



## Bombur

The2ndAmendment said:


> Um, just move to Cuba or China where they don't have Capitalism.



The biggest threat to capitalism is capitalism.


----------



## The Rabbi

Bombur said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, just move to Cuba or China where they don't have Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest threat to capitalism is capitalism.
Click to expand...


That's why more capitalistic systems tend to shade into socialism? Capitalism is the victim of its own success, not its own failure.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.
> 
> *^^^Does that work for you?*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just more communist manifesto rhetoric with no basis in logic or reality.  That is how you enslave the population, not free them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You enslave the population through debt and war.
> Two Evils capitalism can't exist without.
Click to expand...


Absolute nonsense.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, just move to Cuba or China where they don't have Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest threat to capitalism is capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why more capitalistic systems tend to shade into socialism? Capitalism is the victim of its own success, not its own failure.
Click to expand...


Where do you people get this crap?

Capitalism is incapable of failure.  All capitalism is, is the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties.

The principles are immutable.

What fails are individuals who shirk their responsibilities.  

In truth, there is not a single example of capitalism having failed anywhere on earth, throughout human history.

This in contrast to socialism, in all of its innumerable, chronically shifting facets: Collectivism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism, Communism, Crony-Capitalism... has never realized a single point of success anywhere, at any point in human history.

Agree with it or disagree.  It remains a fact.


----------



## Bombur

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest threat to capitalism is capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why more capitalistic systems tend to shade into socialism? Capitalism is the victim of its own success, not its own failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you people get this crap?
> 
> Capitalism is incapable of failure.  All capitalism is, is the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties.
> 
> The principles are immutable.
> 
> What fails are individuals who shirk their responsibilities.
> 
> In truth, there is not a single example of capitalism having failed anywhere on earth, throughout human history.
> 
> This in contrast to socialism, in all of its innumerable, chronically shifting facets: Collectivism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism, Communism, Crony-Capitalism... has never realized a single point of success anywhere, at any point in human history.
> 
> Agree with it or disagree.  It remains a fact.
Click to expand...


lol

So the entire industrialized world is a failure now?

Your world view is so horribly convoluted I doubt this conversation will go anywhere.


----------



## Redfish

Bombur said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, just move to Cuba or China where they don't have Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest threat to capitalism is capitalism.
Click to expand...


Horseshit.   China and Russia are moving towards more capitalism and freedom because they are realizing that socialism, marxism, leninism, and maoism are not working.  Their economies are booming while ours is stagnating.  

We are trying to repeat what caused their economies to fail

i.e. we are stupid.


----------



## Redfish

Bombur said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why more capitalistic systems tend to shade into socialism? Capitalism is the victim of its own success, not its own failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you people get this crap?
> 
> Capitalism is incapable of failure.  All capitalism is, is the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties.
> 
> The principles are immutable.
> 
> What fails are individuals who shirk their responsibilities.
> 
> In truth, there is not a single example of capitalism having failed anywhere on earth, throughout human history.
> 
> This in contrast to socialism, in all of its innumerable, chronically shifting facets: Collectivism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism, Communism, Crony-Capitalism... has never realized a single point of success anywhere, at any point in human history.
> 
> Agree with it or disagree.  It remains a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> So the entire industrialized world is a failure now?
> 
> Your world view is so horribly convoluted I doubt this conversation will go anywhere.
Click to expand...


probably not because you lack a basic understanding of history and what systems have been successful and what has failed.


----------



## Bombur

Redfish said:


> probably not because you lack a basic understanding of history and what systems have been successful and what has failed.



Ohh please educate all of us.


----------



## Bombur

Redfish said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, just move to Cuba or China where they don't have Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest threat to capitalism is capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   China and Russia are moving towards more capitalism and freedom because they are realizing that socialism, marxism, leninism, and maoism are not working.  Their economies are booming while ours is stagnating.
> 
> We are trying to repeat what caused their economies to fail
> 
> i.e. we are stupid.
Click to expand...


You didn't even come close to logically addressing my post let alone refuting it.


----------



## boedicca

Georgey Porgey is ignoring the Inconvenient Truth that as the Progs have made markets in the U.S. Less Free, Inequality has increased.


----------



## boedicca

Bombur said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest threat to capitalism is capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   China and Russia are moving towards more capitalism and freedom because they are realizing that socialism, marxism, leninism, and maoism are not working.  Their economies are booming while ours is stagnating.
> 
> We are trying to repeat what caused their economies to fail
> 
> i.e. we are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't even come close to logically addressing my post let alone refuting it.
Click to expand...



It's rather difficult to address your post logically as what you said is sheer nonsense, bub.


----------



## WelfareQueen

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*





What is your alternative?


----------



## boedicca

I can help you out there.  His alternatives are to make everyone equally poor and miserable.


----------



## Bombur

boedicca said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   China and Russia are moving towards more capitalism and freedom because they are realizing that socialism, marxism, leninism, and maoism are not working.  Their economies are booming while ours is stagnating.
> 
> We are trying to repeat what caused their economies to fail
> 
> i.e. we are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't even come close to logically addressing my post let alone refuting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's rather difficult to address your post logically as what you said is sheer nonsense, bub.
Click to expand...


I admit it is a hard point to understand if you don't understand the nature of capitalism and society.

What part are you all confused about?


----------



## Iceweasel

The uber wealthy are very politically connected. That isn't a capitalism problem, it's a government problem. The less influence government has over our lives, business and finances the less opportunity there is for corruption. Typical liberal spin, blame it on capitalism to misdirect attention to the true cause.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> The uber wealthy are very politically connected. That isn't a capitalism problem, it's a government problem. The less influence government has over our lives, business and finances the less opportunity there is for corruption. Typical liberal spin, blame it on capitalism to misdirect attention to the true cause.



Government is not the only source of power over our lives.

Our government is not the only government in the world.

The Nation is still better off as a Nation when the government performs certain duties.

Free capitalism is often seen as a cure all. The problem is that it mostly just exists in text books and chalk boards.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Government is not the only source of power over our lives.
> 
> Our government is not the only government in the world.


Government makes and inforces laws so they have more influence than WalMart. And yes, that stuff it happens elsewhere, even worse.


> The Nation is still better off as a Nation when the government performs certain duties.
> 
> Free capitalism is often seen as a cure all. The problem is that it mostly just exists in text books and chalk boards.


Do you mean free market capitalism? True, but it can exist more or less as it's encouraged or discouraged. Just as there's no perfect socialist country (and I still wouldn't want to live there) no perfect capitalist country will ever exist. I'd rather have the freedom to suceed or fail (only to try again) than not have the opportunity for "fairness" or safeties sake. 

I don't want a wetnurse for a government.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is not the only source of power over our lives.
> 
> Our government is not the only government in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Government makes and inforces laws so they have more influence than WalMart. And yes, that stuff it happens elsewhere, even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> The Nation is still better off as a Nation when the government performs certain duties.
> 
> Free capitalism is often seen as a cure all. The problem is that it mostly just exists in text books and chalk boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you mean free market capitalism? True, but it can exist more or less as it's encouraged or discouraged. Just as there's no perfect socialist country (and I still wouldn't want to live there) no perfect capitalist country will ever exist. I'd rather have the freedom to suceed or fail (only to try again) than not have the opportunity for "fairness" or safeties sake.
> 
> I don't want a wetnurse for a government.
Click to expand...


How about a government that favors the rich and powerful?

How about a government that allows our trade and labor markets be manipulated by foreign powers including governments?

The biggest threat to capitalism is capitalism because capitalism favors the capitalist. 

Economic theory that supports free market capitalism is based on perfect or near perfect markets. In the real world markets are not perfect and capitalism is rarely if ever really free.


----------



## georgephillip

g5000 said:


> _Tax the rich, feed the poor
> Till there are no rich no more_


"Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more"

Ten Years After - I'd Love to Change the World Lyrics | SongMeanings


----------



## Bombur

georgephillip said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Tax the rich, feed the poor
> Till there are no rich no more_
> 
> 
> 
> "Everywhere is freaks and hairies
> Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
> Tax the rich, feed the poor
> Till there are no rich no more"
> 
> Ten Years After - I'd Love to Change the World Lyrics | SongMeanings
Click to expand...


And we live in a world where the rich are thriving and the middle class are becoming the poor.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> How about a government that favors the rich and powerful?


I just spoke out against it. That's corruption not capitalism.


> How about a government that allows our trade and labor markets be manipulated by foreign powers including governments?
> 
> The biggest threat to capitalism is capitalism because capitalism favors the capitalist.
> 
> Economic theory that supports free market capitalism is based on perfect or near perfect markets. *In the real world markets are not perfect and capitalism is rarely if ever really fre*e.


I addressed that as well, are you reading the posts? It's impossible to be totally free in any society as the terms are mutually exclusive. The biggest threat to capitalism is a big corrupt power mad government. Of course capitalism favors the capitalist, who would it favor, the socialist? 

The more you work the more you earn, what's wrong with that?


----------



## georgephillip

Rottweiler said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? *IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes* that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But here's the problem junior - nobody gives a damn about your opinion because you openly admitted your opinion is the result of willful ignorance. You told everyone that you disregard facts because facts are "created by the wealthy"
> 
> Here's the bottom line - you hate wealthy people because they have more than you. And in that sick, twisted, Adolf-Hitler-punish-the-Jews manner, you just want to punish them for having more than you.
> 
> If you hated someone you didn't know simply because the color of their skin, you would be shunned by society as a racist. Yet you think it's perfectly ok to hate people you don't know simply because they worked harder than you did and became successful. You disgust me. You're full of hate and envy because you're a loser. Point the disdain where it belong junior - at the lazy asshat in the mirror.
Click to expand...

Point out exactly where I "openly admitted" my opinion "is the result of willful ingnorance" and "facts are created by the wealthy."

If 13 Americans with a different skin color made more from their 2013 investments than the entire SNAP Budget,  do you imagine I would be a racist to condemn their greed?

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/01/20

The disdain belongs to those who privatize profit and socialize cost, just as it has since the first government came into existence: All for ourselves and nothing for others has been the Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind since the time of Adam Smith.

It still is, and Ignorant Slaves like you feel the need to apologize for it.

Get off your knees, Junior.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> And we live in a world where the rich are thriving and the middle class are becoming the poor.


And the better the economy gets the better the middle class gets. 

That's the way it works.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about a government that favors the rich and powerful?
> 
> 
> 
> I just spoke out against it. That's corruption not capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> How about a government that allows our trade and labor markets be manipulated by foreign powers including governments?
> 
> The biggest threat to capitalism is capitalism because capitalism favors the capitalist.
> 
> Economic theory that supports free market capitalism is based on perfect or near perfect markets. *In the real world markets are not perfect and capitalism is rarely if ever really fre*e.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I addressed that as well, are you reading the posts? It's impossible to be totally free in any society as the terms are mutually exclusive. The biggest threat to capitalism is a big corrupt power mad government. Of course capitalism favors the capitalist, who would it favor, the socialist?
> 
> The more you work the more you earn, what's wrong with that?
Click to expand...


In what world does money not matter? Saying that is not capitalism makes no sense.

I didn't just say they were not free, I said they were not perfect. 

Capitalism as an economic system was more about taking power away from those who owned the means of production by giving the power of government over to the people. The default is not a clear separation of government and those who own the means of production. When this country was founded it was only the land owners voting.

Your history and the way of the world is backwards.


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.
> 
> *^^^Does that work for you?*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just more communist manifesto rhetoric with no basis in logic or reality.  That is how you enslave the population, not free them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You enslave the population through debt and war.
> Two Evils capitalism can't exist without.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because communism/socialism/marxism never created debt & war and it certainly never enslaved anyone....


----------



## georgephillip

jasonnfree said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is from truthout, a commie propaganda site
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you find the following content untruthful?*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "*The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.*
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.
> 
> *Is Wikipedia another commie propaganda site?*
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say:
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth."
> This is because they work harder and smarter than the rest of us.  Ask any republican. And if these wealthy people  end up owning 99.9% of everything eventually?  Then they  still deserve it because they work harder and smarter now stop being so jealous.
Click to expand...

*How could I have been so blind?
Now, can we all just get along and move to Davos?*

"As business and political leaders gather in Davos, Switzerland, to discuss the improving world economy, new evidence emerged about how much the rich have become richer  and how much further the poor are falling behind.

"The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."

Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we live in a world where the rich are thriving and the middle class are becoming the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> And the better the economy gets the better the middle class gets.
> 
> That's the way it works.
Click to expand...


Last I checked income inequality was getting worse and worse. Let me guess you blame government and ignore the imperfections in our markets.


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Tax the rich, feed the poor
> Till there are no rich no more_
> 
> 
> 
> "Everywhere is freaks and hairies
> Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
> Tax the rich, feed the poor
> Till there are no rich no more"
> 
> Ten Years After - I'd Love to Change the World Lyrics | SongMeanings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we live in a world where the rich are thriving and the middle class are becoming the poor.
Click to expand...


Because the Marxist asshats like you and Obama are *taxing* the _fuck_ out of the middle class with your socialism - taxing them right into poverty (which, lets be honest, is what you two asshats want so that everyone is "equal" - equal in _poverty_). 

God Almighty, Dumbocrats create the problem with their ignorant share-the-wealth socialism and then cry the loudest about the problem that they created!


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we live in a world where the rich are thriving and the middle class are becoming the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> And the better the economy gets the better the middle class gets.
> 
> That's the way it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last I checked income inequality was getting worse and worse. Let me guess you blame government and ignore the imperfections in our markets.
Click to expand...


Can you articulate even _one_ "imperfection" in our market? The fact that you don't speaks volumes...


----------



## georgephillip

gipper said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Sowell nails it....
> 
> 
> 
> ""It is staggering that in the 21st century, half of the world's population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all sit comfortably in a single train carriage," said Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's executive director.
> 
> "'Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table,' Byanyima said.
> 
> "The bottom half of the population  about 3.5 billion people  account for about $1.7 trillion, or about 0.7% of the world's wealth, according to the Oxfam report, titled 'Working for the Few.'"
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> *Seven-tenths of one percent of this world's wealth is owned by half of humanity.
> Correlation or causation or cosmic greed?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AGAIN...this is NOT the fault of Capitalism.  The fault lies with a corrupt power elite that controls governments and economies throughout the world.
> 
> You, like many on the Left, fail to see that the very thing you want more of, is the thing causing poverty, income inequality, wars, and so much more that is detrimental to the human condition.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is the dominant economic system on this planet.
Capitalism is the source of the vast private fortunes that dominate all governments.
Capitalism is why the richest 85 people on the planet has the same amount of wealth as the bottom 50% of global humanity.
Many on the Left see the solution in terms of increasing democracy in government and the workplace.
Many on the Right see the solution as decreasing democratic control of both.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

georgephillip said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


How many countries in Africa (Madagascar, South Africa, Libya, Egypt, etc) offer their poor free cell phones and minutes paid by the working class taxpayer, government housing, free health care, food stamps, government welfare income, all for those who don't work? However, paying for those who don't work for themselves is often manipulated under the thought that it's somehow the "Christian" thing to do.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Seawytch said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!
Click to expand...


I thought liberals were against nation building?


----------



## georgephillip

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Sowell nails it....
> 
> 
> 
> ""It is staggering that in the 21st century, half of the world's population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all sit comfortably in a single train carriage," said Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's executive director.
> 
> "'Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table,' Byanyima said.
> 
> "The bottom half of the population  about 3.5 billion people  account for about $1.7 trillion, or about 0.7% of the world's wealth, according to the Oxfam report, titled 'Working for the Few.'"
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> *Seven-tenths of one percent of this world's wealth is owned by half of humanity.
> Correlation or causation or cosmic greed?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human nature.
> 
> Those that don't have it, either didn't have the ambition to go get it, as is the case in the US, as nothing except themselves is preventing them from doing so, OR elsewhere in the world, they live in a culture governed by relativism, which places the subjective in positions of power, that precludes them from exercising their natural right to do so, inevitably misinforming those individuals through fraudulent notions, that they're entitled to subsistent or in the worst case, they can't do for themselves and will only take what is given to them.
> 
> Now the simple truth is that just about any nature conservancy will tell you how destructive entitlement subsidies are.  Particularly for creatures that can't reason soundly.
> 
> It's not truly not even a debatable point.
Click to expand...

*If human nature isn't a debatable point, what is?*

"At the core of every social, political, and economic system is a picture of human nature (to paraphrase 20th-century columnist Walter Lippmann). 

"The suppositions we begin withthe ways in which that picture is developeddetermine the lives we lead, the institutions we build, and the civilizations we create. 

"They are the foundation stone.

"*Three Views of Human Nature*

"During the 18th centurya period that saw the advent of modern capitalismthere were several different currents of thought about the nature of the human person. Three models were particularly significant.

"One model was that humans, while flawed, are perfectible. 

"A second was that we are flawed, and fatally so; we need to accept and build our society around this unpleasant reality. 

"A third view was that although human beings are flawed, we are capable of virtuous acts and self-governmentthat under the right circumstances, human nature can work to the advantage of the whole."

*What's your choice?*

Human Nature and Capitalism ? The American Magazine


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> ""It is staggering that in the 21st century, half of the world's population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all sit comfortably in a single train carriage," said Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's executive director.
> 
> "'Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table,' Byanyima said.
> 
> "The bottom half of the population  about 3.5 billion people  account for about $1.7 trillion, or about 0.7% of the world's wealth, according to the Oxfam report, titled 'Working for the Few.'"
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> *Seven-tenths of one percent of this world's wealth is owned by half of humanity.
> Correlation or causation or cosmic greed?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human nature.
> 
> Those that don't have it, either didn't have the ambition to go get it, as is the case in the US, as nothing except themselves is preventing them from doing so, OR elsewhere in the world, they live in a culture governed by relativism, which places the subjective in positions of power, that precludes them from exercising their natural right to do so, inevitably misinforming those individuals through fraudulent notions, that they're entitled to subsistent or in the worst case, they can't do for themselves and will only take what is given to them.
> 
> Now the simple truth is that just about any nature conservancy will tell you how destructive entitlement subsidies are.  Particularly for creatures that can't reason soundly.
> 
> It's not truly not even a debatable point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If human nature isn't a debatable point, what is?*
> 
> "At the core of every social, political, and economic system is a picture of human nature (to paraphrase 20th-century columnist Walter Lippmann).
> 
> "The suppositions we begin withthe ways in which that picture is developeddetermine the lives we lead, the institutions we build, and the civilizations we create.
> 
> "They are the foundation stone.
> 
> "*Three Views of Human Nature*
> 
> "During the 18th centurya period that saw the advent of modern capitalismthere were several different currents of thought about the nature of the human person. Three models were particularly significant.
> 
> "One model was that humans, while flawed, are perfectible.
> 
> "A second was that we are flawed, and fatally so; we need to accept and build our society around this unpleasant reality.
> 
> "A third view was that although human beings are flawed, we are capable of virtuous acts and self-governmentthat under the right circumstances, human nature can work to the advantage of the whole."
> 
> *What's your choice?*
> 
> Human Nature and Capitalism ? The American Magazine
Click to expand...


Humans obviously aren't perfectible and they obviously aren't capable of governing themselves.  Leastwise, you aren't capable of governing me.

So what does that leave you?


----------



## gipper

georgephillip said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> ""It is staggering that in the 21st century, half of the world's population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all sit comfortably in a single train carriage," said Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's executive director.
> 
> "'Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table,' Byanyima said.
> 
> "The bottom half of the population  about 3.5 billion people  account for about $1.7 trillion, or about 0.7% of the world's wealth, according to the Oxfam report, titled 'Working for the Few.'"
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> *Seven-tenths of one percent of this world's wealth is owned by half of humanity.
> Correlation or causation or cosmic greed?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN...this is NOT the fault of Capitalism.  The fault lies with a corrupt power elite that controls governments and economies throughout the world.
> 
> You, like many on the Left, fail to see that the very thing you want more of, is the thing causing poverty, income inequality, wars, and so much more that is detrimental to the human condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism is the dominant economic system on this planet.
> Capitalism is the source of the vast private fortunes that dominate all governments.
> Capitalism is why the richest 85 people on the planet has the same amount of wealth as the bottom 50% of global humanity.
> Many on the Left see the solution in terms of increasing democracy in government and the workplace.
> Many on the Right see the solution as decreasing democratic control of both.
Click to expand...


People like you amaze me.  How can you be so blind?

America today does NOT operate under a capitalist system.  America today is a quasi Fascist state....a combination of socialism and big government cronyism.  Funny...I thought you would like this.

It is impossible to effectively operate an economy under the rules of Capitalism, with the welfare warfare statist big centralized government we now have. 

To think America is a capitalist nation, is not to think.  Please THINK!!! 

Here is an excellent book for you.  I beg you to read it.
*Fascism versus Capitalism 
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. (Author)*


----------



## itfitzme

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



It also guaranteed poverty.  That's the thing about the free markets, they aren't perfectly efficient.


----------



## RandomVariable

Should we choose socialism and give the country to the poor or choose capitalism and give the country to the rich?


----------



## Contumacious

Redfish said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, just move to Cuba or China where they don't have Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest threat to capitalism is capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   China and Russia are moving towards more capitalism and freedom because they are realizing that socialism, marxism, leninism, and maoism are not working.  Their economies are booming while ours is stagnating.
> 
> We are trying to repeat what caused their economies to fail
> 
> i.e. we are stupid.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.

China and Russia are moving towards mercantilism.

.


----------



## francoHFW

This started in the early 80's in the USA and the UK because that's when pander to the rich voodoo tax rates started under Reagan and Thatcher. They've stayed basically the same in those most savage capitalist countries. That's what needs to change, and it's now started, thank god. O-care also helps. At the moment in the US, the bottom fifth pays 16 per cent in ALL taxes and fees, and the top 2 percent at least triples their wealth while the rest and the country go to hell. Vote DEM, stupid.


----------



## georgephillip

racewright said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you find the following content untruthful?*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "*The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.*
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.
> 
> *Is Wikipedia another commie propaganda site?*
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say:
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth."
> This is because they work harder and smarter than the rest of us.  Ask any republican. And if these wealthy people  end up owning 99.9% of everything eventually?  Then they  still deserve it because they work harder and smarter now stop being so jealous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right and follow human nature its not your money so go earn it by having your government get out of the way. Andyou too might get rich
Click to expand...

The private fortunes that capitalism produces are always a result of government privatizing profit and socializing cost. Do you detect a vestige of human nature in that arrangement? Think back to the collapse of 2008 if you're still in denial about how capitalism needs government to "get out of the way".

BTW, as it ever occurred to you that getting rich might be the problem?


----------



## RandomVariable

Contumacious said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest threat to capitalism is capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   China and Russia are moving towards more capitalism and freedom because they are realizing that socialism, marxism, leninism, and maoism are not working.  Their economies are booming while ours is stagnating.
> 
> We are trying to repeat what caused their economies to fail
> 
> i.e. we are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> China and Russia are moving towards mercantilism.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I found this paragraph from your referenced article an excellent assessment of capitalism and the state.



> A vital question is who is likely to get control of the state? As the
> articles by Florence Babb on Peru and Barbara Lessinger on India
> make clear, it is the wealthy merchants, or "capitalists," who are often
> in a position to use their wealth to gain control of the state. But it is
> here that the distinction between capitalism as an economic system
> and the actions of the so-called "capitalists" is fundamental. The
> "capitalists" have little interest in free trade, as such; their goal is to
> make money. In fact, it is because the never-ending threat of compe-
> tition on the free market renders their position perpetually insecure
> that the "capitalists" strive to control the state. Put differently, far
> from the market being an institution of power on a par with the state,
> as the Marxists believe, the only reason the "capitalists" seek to
> control the state is precisely because the vaunted notion of "market
> power" or "economic domination" simply does not exist on the unham-
> pered market. Thus, it is only through control of the state that the
> "capitalists" are able to control access to the market, thereby institu-
> tionalizing their economic positions.



*David Osterfeld is professor of political science at Saint Joseph's College.
The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1991): 107-114
ISSN 0889-3047


----------



## francoHFW

Socialism these days, btw hater dupes, is basically well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. Without that, you get a banana republic that works for just 1 per cent...


----------



## deltex1

Cut the crap.  Human beings/human activity creates inequality.  Some are smarter than others.  Some work harder than others.  Some make better choices.  Some are selfish.  Some are greedy.  Some are lazy.  Some are stupid.  Some are lucky...some not.  Inequality is.  That is why the nuns told me to concentrate on saving my soul...so as to be happy with God in heaven...and not to fret over who has what.  Pax vobiscum.


----------



## georgephillip

gipper said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When America was a truly free market capitalist nation, it generated the largest middle class and the greatest generation of wealth ever seen in all of world history.
> 
> Then...things changed decades ago when America turned away from capitalism and followed the path of collectivism...which has resulted in drops in income and wealth for most Americans, to say nothing of lost liberty.  Yet, there are those who condemn capitalism for this decline, when in fact, the decline is the result of the opposite of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When has America ever been a truly free market capitalist nation?   Got some dates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were very close to a truly free market capitalist nation for about the first one hundred years.  But, as the central government grew and was allowed to pick winners and losers, this all changed.  It really changed in a big way with the asshole Wilson, who imposed the Federal Reserve and the income tax resulting in the omnipresent huge tyrannical central government we suffer under today.
Click to expand...

*Do you consider tariffs a sign of free market capitalism?*

"The Tariff of 1828 was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States. 

"It was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy.

"The major goal of the tariff was to protect industries in the northern United States (which were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods) by putting a tax on them. 

"The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the US made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South.[1] 

"The reaction in the South, particularly in South Carolina, would lead to the Nullification Crisis that began in late 1832.[2]

"The tariff marked the high point of US tariffs. It was approached, but not exceeded, by the SmootHawley Tariff Act of 1930.[3]"

Tariff of Abominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> This started in the early 80's in the USA and the UK because that's when pander to the rich voodoo tax rates started under Reagan and Thatcher. They've stayed basically the same in those most savage capitalist countries. That's what needs to change, and it's now started, thank god. O-care also helps. At the moment in the US, the bottom fifth pays 16 per cent in ALL taxes and fees, and the top 2 percent at least triples their wealth while the rest and the country go to hell. Vote DEM, stupid.



*At the moment in the US, the bottom fifth pays 16 per cent in ALL taxes and fees,*

Show me.


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> In the US, the top 10% paid over 70% of the income taxes collected in 2010.
> A heck of a lot more than the 90% paid.
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of US workers earn enough to be required to pay income taxes?
> The total percentage of income paid in taxes of all kinds is much greater for the 90%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're full of it.  No possible way you could back that nonsense up.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> so is the total percentage of US blood wasted on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a flagrant red herring.  I oppose the wars, but what an irrelevant point to the discussion.
Click to expand...

"Roughly half of Americans who pay no Federal income tax do so because they simply don't earn enough money. 

"The other half doesn't pay taxes because of special provisions in the tax code that benefit certain taxpayers, notably the elderly and working families with children. 

"For example, the tax code excludes a portion of Social Security income and gives larger standard deductions and tax credits to the elderly. 

"And many working families with children qualify for both the child credit and the earned income tax credit. 

"Together, the elderly and working families with children account for 74 percent of all nontaxable households that aren't excluded by income level alone [source: Williams].

"So who are the 49 percent of Americans who don't pay income taxes? 

"The vast majority are the lowest income households, the elderly and young working families with children."

HowStuffWorks "Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?"

*Arms sales and oil sales are the two biggest money makers on the planet.
Can you connect those dots in the New Middle East?*


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> When has America ever been a truly free market capitalist nation?   Got some dates?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were very close to a truly free market capitalist nation for about the first one hundred years.  But, as the central government grew and was allowed to pick winners and losers, this all changed.  It really changed in a big way with the asshole Wilson, who imposed the Federal Reserve and the income tax resulting in the omnipresent huge tyrannical central government we suffer under today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you consider tariffs a sign of free market capitalism?*
> 
> "The Tariff of 1828 was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States.
> 
> "It was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy.
> 
> "The major goal of the tariff was to protect industries in the northern United States (which were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods) by putting a tax on them.
> 
> "The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the US made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South.[1]
> 
> "The reaction in the South, particularly in South Carolina, would lead to the Nullification Crisis that began in late 1832.[2]
> 
> "The tariff marked the high point of US tariffs. It was approached, but not exceeded, by the SmootHawley Tariff Act of 1930.[3]"
> 
> Tariff of Abominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


You think one tariff means it was socialist?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

georgephillip said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how much of modern technology wouldn't exist if not for capitalism and freedom of thought. I'll just have to say that life would be utter hell without capitalism.
> 
> When has pure socialism been successful? The human economy works like a engine...You need input and out put. Socialism is only good at output....
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "input" and "output"?
> Modern technology stems from human labor and much of the research that has made it possible comes from public and not private capital.
Click to expand...


Try telling that to those creative entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs.


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human nature.
> 
> Those that don't have it, either didn't have the ambition to go get it, as is the case in the US, as nothing except themselves is preventing them from doing so, OR elsewhere in the world, they live in a culture governed by relativism, which places the subjective in positions of power, that precludes them from exercising their natural right to do so, inevitably misinforming those individuals through fraudulent notions, that they're entitled to subsistent or in the worst case, they can't do for themselves and will only take what is given to them.
> 
> Now the simple truth is that just about any nature conservancy will tell you how destructive entitlement subsidies are.  Particularly for creatures that can't reason soundly.
> 
> It's not truly not even a debatable point.
> 
> 
> 
> *If human nature isn't a debatable point, what is?*
> 
> "At the core of every social, political, and economic system is a picture of human nature (to paraphrase 20th-century columnist Walter Lippmann).
> 
> "The suppositions we begin withthe ways in which that picture is developeddetermine the lives we lead, the institutions we build, and the civilizations we create.
> 
> "They are the foundation stone.
> 
> "*Three Views of Human Nature*
> 
> "During the 18th centurya period that saw the advent of modern capitalismthere were several different currents of thought about the nature of the human person. Three models were particularly significant.
> 
> "One model was that humans, while flawed, are perfectible.
> 
> "A second was that we are flawed, and fatally so; we need to accept and build our society around this unpleasant reality.
> 
> "A third view was that although human beings are flawed, we are capable of virtuous acts and self-governmentthat under the right circumstances, human nature can work to the advantage of the whole."
> 
> *What's your choice?*
> 
> Human Nature and Capitalism ? The American Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans obviously aren't perfectible and they obviously aren't capable of governing themselves.  Leastwise, you aren't capable of governing me.
> 
> So what does that leave you?
Click to expand...


  

As the great Ronald Reagan said: "*If no man among us is capable of governing themselves, who among us is capable of governing others*"?


----------



## P@triot

RandomVariable said:


> Should we choose socialism and give the country to the poor or choose capitalism and give the country to the rich?



Well since the wealthy has proven their ability to create wealth, navigate the waters, and innovate, while the poor has proven their inability to do all of that, I'd say the choice is painfully obvious.....


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

ilia25 said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.
Click to expand...


I doubt the poor in the United States really knows what it means to be living in destitute behind those cell phones, cheap computers roaming the internet, and lobster from government food stamps. 

Program offers $9.95 Internet to poor RI families - Metro - The Boston Globe


----------



## P@triot

During his CBC show on Monday, Shark Tank star and mega-wealthy investor Kevin OLeary responded to a report that the 85 richest people in the world currently have as much wealth as the bottom half of the worlds population, calling it fantastic news.

*This is a great thing because it inspires everybody, gets them motivation to look up to the 1% and say, I want to become one of those people, Im going to fight hard to get up to the top. This is fantastic news and of course I applaud it. What can be wrong with this?* he said of the new report.

Shark Tank Star's Response to News That 85 Richest People Have Same Wealth as Half the World Will Drive the Left Insane


----------



## P@triot

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt the poor in the United States really knows what it means to be living in destitute behind those cell phones, cheap computers roaming the internet, and lobster from government food stamps.
> 
> Program offers $9.95 Internet to poor RI families - Metro - The Boston Globe
Click to expand...


The fact that the "poor" in America have such an ungodly amount of completely frivolous luxuries is glaring evidence that capitalism is flawless and that these asshats whining in this thread are just envious little haters.


----------



## P@triot

Even the Huffington Post realize how stupid you people are.... 

Lisa Earle McLeod: Why Hating Rich People Is Making You Broke


----------



## Publius1787

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



Capitalism does increase income inequality. Before capitalism the 99.9999% was equally dirt poor. Now we have massive income inequality but the standard of living for everyone has dramatically risen. 

You may thank capitalism for the following. Who knew that greed could benefit man kind to such an extent? It seems to me that "selfishness" has done more to life people out of poverty than any other virtue. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo]Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dirk the Daring

In a capitalistic economy, we have a system that rewards people monetarily for their hard work, their ingenuity, their perservence, etc.  And in that system, we STILL have those who are unwilling to work, unwilling to fight for their reward.  

Those who subscribe to socialism however believe that when the opportunity for reward is removed from the equation, those who were unwilling to work for their personal benefit will suddenly and incredibly CHOOSE to work not for themselves, but for everyone else.  Such a silly notion that could only be dreamed of by someone as ignorant as a liberal.  But hey, maybe someday they'll get their wish, and we can continue this debate when we are EQUALLY in line at our local soup kitchen.


----------



## francoHFW

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> This started in the early 80's in the USA and the UK because that's when pander to the rich voodoo tax rates started under Reagan and Thatcher. They've stayed basically the same in those most savage capitalist countries. That's what needs to change, and it's now started, thank god. O-care also helps. At the moment in the US, the bottom fifth pays 16 per cent in ALL taxes and fees, and the top 2 percent at least triples their wealth while the rest and the country go to hell. Vote DEM, stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *At the moment in the US, the bottom fifth pays 16 per cent in ALL taxes and fees,*
> 
> Show me.
Click to expand...


Connie Reich
Bill Mahers new rule regarding the Duck Dynasty fisaco: 

Using the Duck Dynasty fiasco as his analogy for what Republicans have done to this country with smoke and mirrors, he had some advice.

And finally, a resolution I have been asking America to make for a long time, he said. Be more cynical. Be less easily fooled. Case in point, all the people that are fans of these guys, heroes to all the rural heartland traditional values gun nuts out there. Except here is what we recently found out these guys really look like before they got their TV show, preppy assholes at the golf club wearing Tommy Bahama. Thats right. It is all an act, fat cats pretending to be just folks. And you fell for it. Take a hint, Tea Partiers. This is what the Republican Party is always doing to you.

Americans should heed his comment. It is okay to be fooled once. It is okay that one has been misled. When one is informed and refuses to see the light, then that becomes willful ignorance.

OH, SORRY hERE'S THE LINK TO STATS

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## auditor0007

BobPlumb said:


> Want income equality, move to Haiti!



Not very many people want income equality.  What many do want is a strong middle class and good opportunities for those in the lower income levels to actually have a shot at moving upward.  When we have nearly doubled individual productivity over the past forty years, yet only those at the very top have benefited, then we have a problem, and we have a problem.  

More than anything, our struggling economy has proven one very specific thing, and that is that the economy grows from the bottom up.  When the bottom half of Americans don't have money to spend, the economy stagnates.   When the bottom half of Americans have extra money, the economy thrives, creating more and better opportunities for everyone.


----------



## The Rabbi

auditor0007 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want income equality, move to Haiti!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very many people want income equality.  What many do want is a strong middle class and good opportunities for those in the lower income levels to actually have a shot at moving upward.  When we have nearly doubled individual productivity over the past forty years, yet only those at the very top have benefited, then we have a problem, and we have a problem.
> 
> More than anything, our struggling economy has proven one very specific thing, and that is that the economy grows from the bottom up.  When the bottom half of Americans don't have money to spend, the economy stagnates.   When the bottom half of Americans have extra money, the economy thrives, creating more and better opportunities for everyone.
Click to expand...


Typically you get it exactly wrong.
If Obama and all the libs on this board are screaming about income inequality then obviously they want income equality.  Realizing that real equality is impossible they want some number less than what it is now.  Of course they cannot say what that number is, or why it is the magic number.
The economy grows from business investment,not consumer spending.  This has been shown so many times it is amazing anyone thinks differently.


----------



## bayoubill

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



If you're ever able to pull your head outta your ass, pick up a textbook on basic economics (which is the study of the principles of human interaction)...

read it over carefully... then read it over carefully again...

and if, afterward, you come away unchanged, stick your head back up your ass...


----------



## The Rabbi

bayoubill said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're ever able to pull your head outta your ass, pick up a textbook on basic economics (which is the study of the principles of human interaction)...
> 
> read it over carefully... then read it over carefully again...
> 
> and if, afterward, you come away unchanged, stick your head back up your ass...
Click to expand...


He's a certified anti-Semite.  That should tell you everything you need to know.


----------



## bayoubill

The Rabbi said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're ever able to pull your head outta your ass, pick up a textbook on basic economics (which is the study of the principles of human interaction)...
> 
> read it over carefully... then read it over carefully again...
> 
> and if, afterward, you come away unchanged, stick your head back up your ass...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a certified anti-Semite.  That should tell you everything you need to know.
Click to expand...


ummm... no... that claim actually tells me nothing about him...

but mebbe a li'l bit about you...


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only does capitalism work in that regard, but it's the only system that works.  Your blind support of socialism only allows those chosen by government to succeed, and the rulers of government always chose themselves first.
> 
> You are confusing "opportunity" with "results."  There are some butt lazy people out there, Virginia, who don't take advantage of the endless opportunities they have.  They just whine and point their greedy fingers and say, "I want."  You know, like you and most of the other leftists on this site.  Anyone who can't succeed in this country, even still with what you and Obama have done to it, is a Loser with a capital "L."
Click to expand...



Despite those among the poor who choose not to take opportunities provided to them, like public education, the American taxpayer has done a very good job of "carrying" them compared to the rest of the world.


----------



## Geaux4it

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



And this is a problem?

-Geaux


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

georgephillip said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is from truthout, a commie propaganda site
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you find the following content untruthful?*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "*The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.*
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.
> 
> *Is Wikipedia another commie propaganda site?*
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


You're right, some of the other countries poor only wished they lived as well as those within the United States. That's putting wealth inequality in it's proper perspective. Our nation is so technology hungry and materialistic, we have no real comprehension of what it truly means to be among the poor and destitute.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one percent of US voters paid congress to regulate the economy without constitutional authority? IMHO, the problem begins with vast private fortunes that are able to buy the congress, courts, and white house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the 99% who gave Congress that authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the 1% that payed for congressional elections campaigns and retirements.
> Best congress money can buy.
Click to expand...


So do those among the AFL-CIO


----------



## georgephillip

bayoubill said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're ever able to pull your head outta your ass, pick up a textbook on basic economics (which is the study of the principles of human interaction)...
> 
> read it over carefully... then read it over carefully again...
> 
> and if, afterward, you come away unchanged, stick your head back up your ass...
Click to expand...

How many basic Economic text books have you read?


----------



## P@triot

auditor0007 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want income equality, move to Haiti!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very many people want income equality.  What many do want is a strong middle class and good opportunities for those in the lower income levels to actually have a shot at moving upward.  When we have nearly doubled individual productivity over the past forty years, yet only those at the very top have benefited, then we have a problem, and we have a problem.
> 
> More than anything, *our struggling economy has proven one very specific thing, and that is that the economy grows from the bottom up*.  When the bottom half of Americans don't have money to spend, the economy stagnates.   When the bottom half of Americans have extra money, the economy thrives, creating more and better opportunities for everyone.
Click to expand...


Oh the irony.... 

Our economy is struggling exactly because of this profoundly ignorant "bottom up" mentality. Poor people do not create jobs. Poor people do not have disposable income. Poor people do not pay taxes.

As long as Dumbocrats continue to believe that we should punish success and reward failure, we will end up with failure. It's simply astounding how stupid you people are....


----------



## georgephillip

The Rabbi said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want income equality, move to Haiti!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very many people want income equality.  What many do want is a strong middle class and good opportunities for those in the lower income levels to actually have a shot at moving upward.  When we have nearly doubled individual productivity over the past forty years, yet only those at the very top have benefited, then we have a problem, and we have a problem.
> 
> More than anything, our struggling economy has proven one very specific thing, and that is that the economy grows from the bottom up.  When the bottom half of Americans don't have money to spend, the economy stagnates.   When the bottom half of Americans have extra money, the economy thrives, creating more and better opportunities for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically you get it exactly wrong.
> If Obama and all the libs on this board are screaming about income inequality then obviously they want income equality.  Realizing that real equality is impossible they want some number less than what it is now.  Of course they cannot say what that number is, or why it is the magic number.
> The economy grows from business investment,not consumer spending.  This has been shown so many times it is amazing anyone thinks differently.
Click to expand...

Business invests to meet rising consumer demand.
No demand.
No investment.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Capitalism as an economic system was more about taking power away from those who owned the means of production by giving the power of government over to the people. The default is not a clear separation of government and those who own the means of production. When this country was founded it was only the land owners voting.
> 
> Your history and the way of the world is backwards.


Yours is socialist poly-sci propanganda horse manure. There is nothing inherant about capitalism that dictates make slaves of the poor helpless unwashed masses. Put down your Marx Manifesto. Your theory assumes a finite amount of wealth and a Darwinian power struggle to rake it in. That's childish and wrongheaded. A country can become wealthy with all citizens benefiting. We in the US proved it. Our poor have a standard of living far above a third world socialist poor. Even in a down economy.

As business goes, so goes the economy. History proves it, liberals can't see it. And the farther we go towards their childish redistribationist, anti-business/capitalist ideology the worse we are.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism as an economic system was more about taking power away from those who owned the means of production by giving the power of government over to the people. The default is not a clear separation of government and those who own the means of production. When this country was founded it was only the land owners voting.
> 
> Your history and the way of the world is backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is socialist poly-sci propanganda horse manure. There is nothing inherant about capitalism that dictates make slaves of the poor helpless unwashed masses. Put down your Marx Manifesto. Your theory assumes a finite amount of wealth and a Darwinian power struggle to rake it in. That's childish and wrongheaded. A country can become wealthy with all citizens benefiting. We in the US proved it. Our poor have a standard of living far above a third world socialist poor. Even in a down economy.
> 
> As business goes, so goes the economy. History proves it, liberals can't see it. And the farther we go towards their childish redistribationist, anti-business/capitalist ideology the worse we are.
Click to expand...


Actually as the middle class goes so goes business. History proves that. 

There have been times where production increases have happened but the failure to see a rise in the middle class has resulted in stagnation due to limited demand. Capitalism doesn't always favor the middle class and a healthy growth in demand because demand is tied so closely to wage growth.

As for your lack of understanding of basic history I am in no way surprised. I used to read history and be honestly confused how peasants could so easily be made to follow the land owners. Then I read people's opinions on message boards and it becomes clear that some people are plenty eager to bend the knee to land owners, Lords, Masters, capital owners, job creators, or whatever else we will call them in the future. 

On one thing I am sure we agree, government should not be bought. I would also point out that laissez faire economics is being pushed by billionaires who know it will help them. Government as a power relies on force. Land owners rely on the threat of starvation.


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the better the economy gets the better the middle class gets.
> 
> That's the way it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked income inequality was getting worse and worse. Let me guess you blame government and ignore the imperfections in our markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you articulate even _one_ "imperfection" in our market? The fact that you don't speaks volumes...
Click to expand...


Inelasticity with regards to high and low end salaries, manipulation of currency by foreign nations and powers, inelasticity of demand in our healthcare markets (on multiple levels), inelasticity with regards to higher education, a tax code that favors certain classes over others, a government that is for sale, State governments who are given little choice but to pay businesses to invest in their state, failures with regards to regulation, distribution of healthcare costs on our labor market compared to other countries.... do you want more?


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Everywhere is freaks and hairies
> Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
> Tax the rich, feed the poor
> Till there are no rich no more"
> 
> Ten Years After - I'd Love to Change the World Lyrics | SongMeanings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we live in a world where the rich are thriving and the middle class are becoming the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Marxist asshats like you and Obama are *taxing* the _fuck_ out of the middle class with your socialism - taxing them right into poverty (which, lets be honest, is what you two asshats want so that everyone is "equal" - equal in _poverty_).
> 
> God Almighty, Dumbocrats create the problem with their ignorant share-the-wealth socialism and then cry the loudest about the problem that they created!
Click to expand...


I think we should shift the tax burden off the middle class. 

That is hardly the only reason our nation has problems with inequality though.

I don't really consider myself a member of any party. I do think the problem of our age is an unhealthy labor market.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're ever able to pull your head outta your ass, pick up a textbook on basic economics (which is the study of the principles of human interaction)...
> 
> read it over carefully... then read it over carefully again...
> 
> and if, afterward, you come away unchanged, stick your head back up your ass...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many basic Economic text books have you read?
Click to expand...


It's obvious that you've never read one because you don't understand the most basic principles of economics.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not very many people want income equality.  What many do want is a strong middle class and good opportunities for those in the lower income levels to actually have a shot at moving upward.  When we have nearly doubled individual productivity over the past forty years, yet only those at the very top have benefited, then we have a problem, and we have a problem.
> 
> More than anything, our struggling economy has proven one very specific thing, and that is that the economy grows from the bottom up.  When the bottom half of Americans don't have money to spend, the economy stagnates.   When the bottom half of Americans have extra money, the economy thrives, creating more and better opportunities for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typically you get it exactly wrong.
> If Obama and all the libs on this board are screaming about income inequality then obviously they want income equality.  Realizing that real equality is impossible they want some number less than what it is now.  Of course they cannot say what that number is, or why it is the magic number.
> The economy grows from business investment,not consumer spending.  This has been shown so many times it is amazing anyone thinks differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business invests to meet rising consumer demand.
> No demand.
> No investment.
Click to expand...


What was the demand for smart phones before Steve Jobs invented it?


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Actually as the middle class goes so goes business. History proves that.


You've got the cart before the horse. Economies don't happen from thin air or grow from government trees. 


> There have been times where production increases have happened but the failure to see a rise in the middle class has resulted in stagnation due to limited demand. Capitalism doesn't always favor the middle class and a healthy growth in demand because demand is tied so closely to wage growth.


That makes no sense. As the business climate does better the more they have to pay the worker. Or he goes elsewhere. It wasn't long ago companies were desperate for workers and had to offer decent incentives besides good pay.


> As for your lack of understanding of basic history I am in no way surprised. I used to read history and be honestly confused how peasants could so easily be made to follow the land owners. Then I read people's opinions on message boards and it becomes clear that some people are plenty eager to bend the knee to land owners, Lords, Masters, capital owners, job creators, or whatever else we will call them in the future.


I've been a business owner for twenty seven years. How about you? What land owner am I following? I payed mine off decades ahead of sceadule while the housing risis was underway. it sounds like you have insults instead of facts or real world experience. Which is liberalism 101.


> On one thing I am sure we agree, government should not be bought. I would also point out that laissez faire economics is being pushed by billionaires who know it will help them. Government as a power relies on force. Land owners rely on the threat of starvation.


So billionaires prefer a free market approach? Is it possible they know more about economics or your poly-sci professor than you do? Those that can't do, teach.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually as the middle class goes so goes business. History proves that.
> 
> 
> 
> You've got the cart before the horse. Economies don't happen from thin air or grow from government trees.
> 
> 
> 
> There have been times where production increases have happened but the failure to see a rise in the middle class has resulted in stagnation due to limited demand. Capitalism doesn't always favor the middle class and a healthy growth in demand because demand is tied so closely to wage growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense. As the business climate does better the more they have to pay the worker. Or he goes elsewhere. It wasn't long ago companies were desperate for workers and had to offer decent incentives besides good pay.
> 
> 
> 
> As for your lack of understanding of basic history I am in no way surprised. I used to read history and be honestly confused how peasants could so easily be made to follow the land owners. Then I read people's opinions on message boards and it becomes clear that some people are plenty eager to bend the knee to land owners, Lords, Masters, capital owners, job creators, or whatever else we will call them in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been a business owner for twenty seven years. How about you? What land owner am I following? I payed mine off decades ahead of sceadule while the housing risis was underway. it sounds like you have insults instead of facts or real world experience. Which is liberalism 101.
> 
> 
> 
> On one thing I am sure we agree, government should not be bought. I would also point out that laissez faire economics is being pushed by billionaires who know it will help them. Government as a power relies on force. Land owners rely on the threat of starvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So billionaires prefer a free market approach? Is it possible they know more about economics or your poly-sci professor than you do? Those that can't do, teach.
Click to expand...


The middle class is a government tree?

Supply and demand have always had to walk hand in hand. If the US had a major supply issue I would be asking for that to be addressed but we don't. The clear problem is demand and the demand problem is clearly tied to wage growth.

I can explain how increases in productivity without increases in demand can result in a downward spiral if you want but I thought it was obvious.

Congratulations on being a business owner. You owe your business in large part to demand. No matter how awesome you are you have no business without it. Learn to respect it IMO. 

We are living through a massive economic correction that is a direct result of the issues I have talked about. It doesn't matter if I have all the experience in the world or none. I am right and the present is proving me right.

I think billionaires know more about what helps them.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only does capitalism work in that regard, but it's the only system that works.  Your blind support of socialism only allows those chosen by government to succeed, and the rulers of government always chose themselves first.
> 
> You are confusing "opportunity" with "results."  There are some butt lazy people out there, Virginia, who don't take advantage of the endless opportunities they have.  They just whine and point their greedy fingers and say, "I want."  You know, like you and most of the other leftists on this site.  Anyone who can't succeed in this country, even still with what you and Obama have done to it, is a Loser with a capital "L."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> It works for about 1% - 10% of the population.
> 
> The other 90% pay the taxes and fight the wars that capitalism can't exist without.*
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International.
> 
> *^^^Does that work for you?*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
Click to expand...



So does death and land estate taxes on farmers, for example. Passing down less and less farm land with each generation, that tries to transfer ownership of the farm to their surviving family members.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

georgephillip said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not very many people want income equality.  What many do want is a strong middle class and good opportunities for those in the lower income levels to actually have a shot at moving upward.  When we have nearly doubled individual productivity over the past forty years, yet only those at the very top have benefited, then we have a problem, and we have a problem.
> 
> More than anything, our struggling economy has proven one very specific thing, and that is that the economy grows from the bottom up.  When the bottom half of Americans don't have money to spend, the economy stagnates.   When the bottom half of Americans have extra money, the economy thrives, creating more and better opportunities for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typically you get it exactly wrong.
> If Obama and all the libs on this board are screaming about income inequality then obviously they want income equality.  Realizing that real equality is impossible they want some number less than what it is now.  Of course they cannot say what that number is, or why it is the magic number.
> The economy grows from business investment,not consumer spending.  This has been shown so many times it is amazing anyone thinks differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Business invests to meet rising consumer demand.
> No demand.
> No investment.
Click to expand...


Employees depend upon their business or manufacturing plant to be there. Whenever a plant or steel mill closes their doors and moves out of the state, workers get laid off and disperse hoping to make up for that sudden loss in income. Customers still get their steel, they still get their manufactured goods, but from another plant in another state. People settle for what jobs are available, or move out of the state to where those businesses ARE opening or setting up shop. That's the reality of "jobs" the employees face that you don't quite understand. Employees depend upon their employers to have a profitable business, in a global economy where corporations pursue those countries which supports them, and encourages their growth. You raise their taxes there is nothing forcing them to stay, or keep them from reestablishing themselves with a government that wants their business.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

I'd like to take this moment to repeat my "thanks" to georgiePorgie for having this silly thread of his serve as a prime exhibit of "liberal" thinking.


----------



## Bombur

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Employees depend upon their business or manufacturing plant to be there. Whenever a plant or steel mill closes their doors and moves out of the state, workers get laid off and disperse hoping to make up for that sudden loss in income. Customers still get their steel, they still get their manufactured goods, but from another plant in another state. People settle for what jobs are available, or move out of the state to where those businesses ARE opening or setting up shop. That's the reality of "jobs" the employees face that you don't quite understand. Employees depend upon their employers to have a profitable business, in a global economy where corporations pursue those countries which supports them, and encourages their growth. You raise their taxes there is nothing forcing them to stay, or keep them from reestablishing themselves with a government that wants their business.



Thus lies the contradiction in economics that makes it very hard for people to understand.

Growth depends on the individual employer finding the best way to reduce costs including the amount they are spending on labor. Growth also depends on all labor having money to spend so that productivity can increase and production can increase.

All governments want their business. That can lead to bad outcomes though. Pollution, working conditions, stagnant wages, inability to tax effectively and fairly, etc.


----------



## Contumacious

francoHFW said:


> OH, SORRY hERE'S THE LINK TO STATS
> 
> Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



The "STATS" were provided by the *Center on Budget and Policy Priorities*

which is funded by *Billionaire Socialist George Göring Soros*

'nuff said

.


----------



## Indeependent

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typically you get it exactly wrong.
> If Obama and all the libs on this board are screaming about income inequality then obviously they want income equality.  Realizing that real equality is impossible they want some number less than what it is now.  Of course they cannot say what that number is, or why it is the magic number.
> The economy grows from business investment,not consumer spending.  This has been shown so many times it is amazing anyone thinks differently.
> 
> 
> 
> Business invests to meet rising consumer demand.
> No demand.
> No investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the demand for smart phones before Steve Jobs invented it?
Click to expand...


Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.


----------



## Bombur

Indeependent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Business invests to meet rising consumer demand.
> No demand.
> No investment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the demand for smart phones before Steve Jobs invented it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.
Click to expand...


When talking about demand in a discussion about macro economics it is generally understood to be about aggregate demand. A new technology doesn't represent an increase in aggregate demand.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Business invests to meet rising consumer demand.
> No demand.
> No investment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was the demand for smart phones before Steve Jobs invented it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.
Click to expand...


Those aren't smart phones.  Muttering a laundry list of other products proves exactly nothing about the demand for the product mentioned.


----------



## Indeependent

Bombur said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was the demand for smart phones before Steve Jobs invented it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When talking about demand in a discussion about macro economics it is generally understood to be about aggregate demand. A new technology doesn't represent an increase in aggregate demand.
Click to expand...


The magic of a once in a lifetime visionary like Jobs is that he was able to manage the creation of the "toys" he wanted and it wound up that everyone else also wanted those "toys".


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> The middle class is a government tree?


Huh?


> Supply and demand have always had to walk hand in hand. If the US had a major supply issue I would be asking for that to be addressed but we don't. The clear problem is demand and the demand problem is clearly tied to wage growth.


If people can't afford goods, demand goes down. So does business. The better the economy, the more money goes around and people increase buying. The economy doesn't simply exist on its' own accord.


> I can explain how increases in productivity without increases in demand can result in a downward spiral if you want but I thought it was obvious.


Huh?


> Congratulations on being a business owner. You owe your business in large part to demand. No matter how awesome you are you have no business without it. Learn to respect it IMO.


You have a lot of arrogance I see. But you didn't answer my question. I asked what your business experience is. Obviously it's zilch. You don't know what you're talking about.


> We are living through a massive economic correction that is a direct result of the issues I have talked about. It doesn't matter if I have all the experience in the world or none. I am right and the present is proving me right.
> 
> I think billionaires know more about what helps them.


You are right about the slowest economic recovery in recent times? More people unemployed today than when Obama took office. Most new jobs are part time and liberals overlook that detail to make their idiotic theories look good. Dishonesty and arrogance is a poor substitute for knowledge and results. You couldn't run a one man hot dog stand with your economic understanding. Lecture someone else.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was the demand for smart phones before Steve Jobs invented it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When talking about demand in a discussion about macro economics it is generally understood to be about aggregate demand. A new technology doesn't represent an increase in aggregate demand.
Click to expand...


Economists can only measures sales.  There's no way to measure "demand," especially for a product that doesn't exist yet.  Nevertheless, there was clearly demand for the smart phone.

All you're proving is that your economic theories were conjured up by a coven of witch doctors.


----------



## Indeependent

bripat9643 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was the demand for smart phones before Steve Jobs invented it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't smart phones.  Muttering a laundry list of other products proves exactly nothing about the demand for the product mentioned.
Click to expand...


Nobody wanted to be limited to the crappy car phones and everyone wanted something more intuitive than a beeper.


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism as an economic system was more about taking power away from those who owned the means of production by giving the power of government over to the people. The default is not a clear separation of government and those who own the means of production. When this country was founded it was only the land owners voting.
> 
> Your history and the way of the world is backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is socialist poly-sci propanganda horse manure. There is nothing inherant about capitalism that dictates make slaves of the poor helpless unwashed masses. Put down your Marx Manifesto. Your theory assumes a finite amount of wealth and a Darwinian power struggle to rake it in. That's childish and wrongheaded. A country can become wealthy with all citizens benefiting. We in the US proved it. Our poor have a standard of living far above a third world socialist poor. Even in a down economy.
> 
> As business goes, so goes the economy. History proves it, liberals can't see it. And the farther we go towards their childish redistribationist, anti-business/capitalist ideology the worse we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually as the middle class goes so goes business. History proves that.
> 
> There have been times where production increases have happened but the failure to see a rise in the middle class has resulted in stagnation due to limited demand. Capitalism doesn't always favor the middle class and a healthy growth in demand because demand is tied so closely to wage growth.
> 
> As for your lack of understanding of basic history I am in no way surprised. I used to read history and be honestly confused how peasants could so easily be made to follow the land owners. Then I read people's opinions on message boards and *it becomes clear that some people are plenty eager to bend the knee to land owners, Lords, Masters, capital owners, job creators, or whatever else we will call them in the future*.
> 
> On one thing I am sure we agree, government should not be bought. I would also point out that laissez faire economics is being pushed by billionaires who know it will help them. Government as a power relies on force. Land owners rely on the threat of starvation.
Click to expand...


Again, the *irony*..... 

The Dumbocrats in this country are willing to surrender their rights for government table scraps. They are willing to give up freedom for handouts. They are willing to bow to the federal government and become their "subjects" if they can have shitty government healthcare, shitty government housing, shitty government cheese, etc.

When NORMAL people go to work Bombur (ie *not* Dumbocrat parasites such as Georgie and you), they do not do so on a "bent knee". They walk in proud to be so skilled, someone will pay them to perform their craft (whether that is plumbing, carpentry, accounting, or executive leadership), and they are excited about what they will accomplish for the day. Furthermore, if they do not like the direction of things, they are FREE to quit any time they want. They can walk out and start their own business. They can walk out and accept a new job. They can walk out and refuse to work at all (like you and Georgie). But they are FREE.

Tell me chief, can you quit the federal government? Can you refuse to pay your taxes? Can you refuse to obey their laws? So who is the one on "bent knee" here junior?


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When talking about demand in a discussion about macro economics it is generally understood to be about aggregate demand. A new technology doesn't represent an increase in aggregate demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The magic of a once in a lifetime visionary like Jobs is that he was able to manage the creation of the "toys" he wanted and it wound up that everyone else also wanted those "toys".
Click to expand...


That's how most ground breaking products get invented.  The marketing gurus are too stupid and unimaginative to think up products that don't exist yet or that aren't just minor variations on exiting products.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't smart phones.  Muttering a laundry list of other products proves exactly nothing about the demand for the product mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wanted to be limited to the crappy car phones and everyone wanted something more intuitive than a beeper.
Click to expand...


But according to you there was no "demand" for it until Steve Jobs invented it.  If there was, then why wasn't anyone selling them?

The bottom line is that "demand" doesn't create products.  Entrepreneurs create products.  All the demand in the universe doesn't mean a thing until someone with vision devises the product and a way to manufacture and market it.  Umbrellas don't suddenly pop into existence because it rains.


----------



## GISMYS

Capitalism as an economic system THAT IS GREAT FOR ALL THAT WILL GET A JOB AND WORK.


----------



## Iceweasel

GISMYS said:


> Capitalism as an economic system THAT IS GREAT FOR ALL THAT WILL GET A JOB AND WORK.


Now you're done it. You used the W word. That's hate speech.


----------



## westwall

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*







No, it doesn't.  Unfettered capitalism does, as does unfettered socialism.  Something the collectivists here refuse to acknowledge.  Unfettered collectivism has also led to the largest mass murders in the history of mankind.

That's why the best policy for a government is a healthy mix of both capitalist AND socialist principles.

Anyone who claims otherwise is politically naïve.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walkie-Talkies, car phones, ham radio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When talking about demand in a discussion about macro economics it is generally understood to be about aggregate demand. A new technology doesn't represent an increase in aggregate demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Economists can only measures sales.  There's no way to measure "demand," especially for a product that doesn't exist yet.  Nevertheless, there was clearly demand for the smart phone.
> 
> All you're proving is that your economic theories were conjured up by a coven of witch doctors.
Click to expand...


I literally just pointed out that the demand being talked about isn't limited to the demand for a single product. 

It is like you are taunting me by saying ridiculously ignorant things.


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is socialist poly-sci propanganda horse manure. There is nothing inherant about capitalism that dictates make slaves of the poor helpless unwashed masses. Put down your Marx Manifesto. Your theory assumes a finite amount of wealth and a Darwinian power struggle to rake it in. That's childish and wrongheaded. A country can become wealthy with all citizens benefiting. We in the US proved it. Our poor have a standard of living far above a third world socialist poor. Even in a down economy.
> 
> As business goes, so goes the economy. History proves it, liberals can't see it. And the farther we go towards their childish redistribationist, anti-business/capitalist ideology the worse we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually as the middle class goes so goes business. History proves that.
> 
> There have been times where production increases have happened but the failure to see a rise in the middle class has resulted in stagnation due to limited demand. Capitalism doesn't always favor the middle class and a healthy growth in demand because demand is tied so closely to wage growth.
> 
> As for your lack of understanding of basic history I am in no way surprised. I used to read history and be honestly confused how peasants could so easily be made to follow the land owners. Then I read people's opinions on message boards and *it becomes clear that some people are plenty eager to bend the knee to land owners, Lords, Masters, capital owners, job creators, or whatever else we will call them in the future*.
> 
> On one thing I am sure we agree, government should not be bought. I would also point out that laissez faire economics is being pushed by billionaires who know it will help them. Government as a power relies on force. Land owners rely on the threat of starvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the *irony*.....
> 
> The Dumbocrats in this country are willing to surrender their rights for government table scraps. They are willing to give up freedom for handouts. They are willing to bow to the federal government and become their "subjects" if they can have shitty government healthcare, shitty government housing, shitty government cheese, etc.
> 
> When NORMAL people go to work Bombur (ie *not* Dumbocrat parasites such as Georgie and you), they do not do so on a "bent knee". They walk in proud to be so skilled, someone will pay them to perform their craft (whether that is plumbing, carpentry, accounting, or executive leadership), and they are excited about what they will accomplish for the day. Furthermore, if they do not like the direction of things, they are FREE to quit any time they want. They can walk out and start their own business. They can walk out and accept a new job. They can walk out and refuse to work at all (like you and Georgie). But they are FREE.
> 
> Tell me chief, can you quit the federal government? Can you refuse to pay your taxes? Can you refuse to obey their laws? So who is the one on "bent knee" here junior?
Click to expand...


Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.

I have pointed this out many times already. 

My argument isn't that government can't be a threat to liberty. I am simply pointing out that it is not the only threat. If corporations are a threat to your liberty who will you turn to? What will you do when the corporations are allowed to buy government?

We also have more control over our government than corporations, markets, and foreign governments.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.
> 
> I have pointed this out many times already.


Individuals ARE the market.


> My argument isn't that government can't be a threat to liberty. I am simply pointing out that it is not the only threat. If corporations are a threat to your liberty who will you turn to? What will you do when the corporations are allowed to buy government?
> 
> We also have more control over our government than corporations, markets, and foreign governments.


We influence foreign government a great deal with money. It's called foreign aid. Corporations fail or change when people stop voting with their dollars. Government takes longer to change since has no competition or profits to meet. And apparently little regard for its' shareholders since everything is backwards. 

Instead of the way it was formed, government for the people has become people for the government. We work and exist to feed the ever growing government do manage us in increasing detail. 

Why blame the business that buys government and give the government guys a pass?


----------



## P@triot

Indeependent said:


> The magic of a once in a lifetime visionary like Jobs is that he was able to manage the creation of the "toys" he wanted and it wound up that everyone else also wanted those "toys".



It *wasn't* "magic" you fuck'n buffoon. Steve Jobs was *driven* to succeed. It took ungodly hours, tremendous effort, and many failures.

It's so irritating listening to asshat, worthless, couch-potatoe losers like you claim that someone else's success was "luck", or "magic", or "fortune" simply because you're not willing to acknowledge your own failures and lack of effort.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The middle class is a government tree?
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Supply and demand have always had to walk hand in hand. If the US had a major supply issue I would be asking for that to be addressed but we don't. The clear problem is demand and the demand problem is clearly tied to wage growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If people can't afford goods, demand goes down. So does business. The better the economy, the more money goes around and people increase buying. The economy doesn't simply exist on its' own accord.
> Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations on being a business owner. You owe your business in large part to demand. No matter how awesome you are you have no business without it. Learn to respect it IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a lot of arrogance I see. But you didn't answer my question. I asked what your business experience is. Obviously it's zilch. You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> We are living through a massive economic correction that is a direct result of the issues I have talked about. It doesn't matter if I have all the experience in the world or none. I am right and the present is proving me right.
> 
> I think billionaires know more about what helps them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are right about the slowest economic recovery in recent times? More people unemployed today than when Obama took office. Most new jobs are part time and liberals overlook that detail to make their idiotic theories look good. Dishonesty and arrogance is a poor substitute for knowledge and results. You couldn't run a one man hot dog stand with your economic understanding. Lecture someone else.
Click to expand...


You really don't know what I am talking about do you?

I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand. If government involvement is needed then so be it. 

As a business owner you understand the needs of a business and what you can control as a business owner so I will try and talk to you in those terms. Imagine all the factors that go into you producing and delivering your product. Think about your employees and your customers. Think about your potential customers and your potential employees.

It is your job in the marketplace as a purchaser to put downward pressure on wages and other costs. All things remaining equal the lower the costs the better it is for you. 

It is also your job in the marketplace as a supplier to maximize profit which pushes up prices and pushes up production. All things remaining equal the more demand for your product the better in terms of both a higher price and quantity demanded.

On an individual level there is really no clear conflict between your two roles. On the national level or the global level there is a clear conflict between the downward pressure on wages and your desire to see demand grow. If I was to argue that the key to increasing employment in the US is to increase wages most business owners would object based on their understanding of their business. The problem is that over time if wages are not growing then demand is not growing and if demand is not growing and productivity is you start getting large inefficiencies as employment goes down.

On the flip side if wages go up too fast then costs will exceed prices and production will decrease leading to unemployment or underemployment.

This all gets back to my initial point that the two need to walk hand in hand. We (as a nation) have to understand all the various things that can impact these markets and prevent the two from improving. It is also important to understand the capacity of capital or debt to hide serious problems within these markets. Capital inflows into a country both hurt the labor market and hide those problems by artificially and temporarily boosting demand. 

One year of this isn't so bad. A decade of this probably isn't that bad either. The real question our nation faces is how many decades of this can the US take?


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.
> 
> I have pointed this out many times already.
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals ARE the market.
Click to expand...


lol

BTW I am not giving the government guys the pass. If anything I am clearly demanding that those government guys make different decisions.


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually as the middle class goes so goes business. History proves that.
> 
> There have been times where production increases have happened but the failure to see a rise in the middle class has resulted in stagnation due to limited demand. Capitalism doesn't always favor the middle class and a healthy growth in demand because demand is tied so closely to wage growth.
> 
> As for your lack of understanding of basic history I am in no way surprised. I used to read history and be honestly confused how peasants could so easily be made to follow the land owners. Then I read people's opinions on message boards and *it becomes clear that some people are plenty eager to bend the knee to land owners, Lords, Masters, capital owners, job creators, or whatever else we will call them in the future*.
> 
> On one thing I am sure we agree, government should not be bought. I would also point out that laissez faire economics is being pushed by billionaires who know it will help them. Government as a power relies on force. Land owners rely on the threat of starvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the *irony*.....
> 
> The Dumbocrats in this country are willing to surrender their rights for government table scraps. They are willing to give up freedom for handouts. They are willing to bow to the federal government and become their "subjects" if they can have shitty government healthcare, shitty government housing, shitty government cheese, etc.
> 
> When NORMAL people go to work Bombur (ie *not* Dumbocrat parasites such as Georgie and you), they do not do so on a "bent knee". They walk in proud to be so skilled, someone will pay them to perform their craft (whether that is plumbing, carpentry, accounting, or executive leadership), and they are excited about what they will accomplish for the day. Furthermore, if they do not like the direction of things, they are FREE to quit any time they want. They can walk out and start their own business. They can walk out and accept a new job. They can walk out and refuse to work at all (like you and Georgie). But they are FREE.
> 
> Tell me chief, can you quit the federal government? Can you refuse to pay your taxes? Can you refuse to obey their laws? So who is the one on "bent knee" here junior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.
> 
> I have pointed this out many times already.
> 
> My argument isn't that government can't be a threat to liberty. I am simply pointing out that it is not the only threat. If corporations are a threat to your liberty who will you turn to? What will you do when the corporations are allowed to buy government?
Click to expand...


The fact that Barack Obama sits in the White House, Harry Reid sits in as majority speaker of the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi was the last Speaker of the House, it's safe to say that corporations are *not* "buying government" (what corporation in their right mind would support radical marxists who vilify corporations and want to tax them at 99%?!?!?).



Bombur said:


> We also have more control over our government than corporations, markets, and foreign governments.



You have zero control over your government and you have zero control over corporations. And frankly, that's *not* what matters.

What matters is how much control they have over *you*. And our unconstitutional, monstrosity of a federal government now has complete and total control over you. Corporations? They have zero control over you. Zero. None. They can't make you do anything. They can't make you buy their products (while the federal government makes you pay them taxes), they can't make you obey their idea (while the federal government makes you obey their legislation), they can't take away your rights (while the federal government has taken most of them away already and will continue until they are ALL gone), etc.


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the *irony*.....
> 
> The Dumbocrats in this country are willing to surrender their rights for government table scraps. They are willing to give up freedom for handouts. They are willing to bow to the federal government and become their "subjects" if they can have shitty government healthcare, shitty government housing, shitty government cheese, etc.
> 
> When NORMAL people go to work Bombur (ie *not* Dumbocrat parasites such as Georgie and you), they do not do so on a "bent knee". They walk in proud to be so skilled, someone will pay them to perform their craft (whether that is plumbing, carpentry, accounting, or executive leadership), and they are excited about what they will accomplish for the day. Furthermore, if they do not like the direction of things, they are FREE to quit any time they want. They can walk out and start their own business. They can walk out and accept a new job. They can walk out and refuse to work at all (like you and Georgie). But they are FREE.
> 
> Tell me chief, can you quit the federal government? Can you refuse to pay your taxes? Can you refuse to obey their laws? So who is the one on "bent knee" here junior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.
> 
> I have pointed this out many times already.
> 
> My argument isn't that government can't be a threat to liberty. I am simply pointing out that it is not the only threat. If corporations are a threat to your liberty who will you turn to? What will you do when the corporations are allowed to buy government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that Barack Obama sits in the White House, Harry Reid sits in as majority speaker of the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi was the last Speaker of the House, it's safe to say that corporations are *not* "buying government" (what corporation in their right mind would support radical marxists who vilify corporations and want to tax them at 99%?!?!?).
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also have more control over our government than corporations, markets, and foreign governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have zero control over your government and you have zero control over corporations. And frankly, that's *not* what matters.
> 
> What matters is how much control they have over *you*. And our unconstitutional, monstrosity of a federal government now has complete and total control over you. Corporations? They have zero control over you. Zero. None. They can't make you do anything. They can't make you buy their products (while the federal government makes you pay them taxes), they can't make you obey their idea (while the federal government makes you obey their legislation), they can't take away your rights (while the federal government has taken most of them away already and will continue until they are ALL gone), etc.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

westwall said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Unfettered capitalism does, as does unfettered socialism.  Something the collectivists here refuse to acknowledge.  Unfettered collectivism has also led to the largest mass murders in the history of mankind.
> 
> That's why the best policy for a government is a healthy mix of both capitalist AND socialist principles.
> 
> Anyone who claims otherwise is politically naïve.
Click to expand...


I'll claim "otherwise" right here and now. And while you might _accuse_ me of being "politically naïve", I can assure you that you are economically naïve.

Government can only give something to someone when it takes it from someone else. That is *not* healthy (there's a reason your mother taught you not to steal). Every dime the federal government takes for socialism is a dime removed from a productive member of society who is an innovator or producer in _some_ capacity. And every dime the federal government gives for socialism is a dime given to an unproductive member of society who is being subsidized to _not_ produce anything of value to the market, to the country, and to society. That is a *problem*.

True capitalism does *not* mean anarchy. We can have true capitalism and still have proper, effective regulations which make sense to ensure ethical practices. Furthermore, in this day and age of technology, 24x7 news, and social media - regulations are required less than ever since intense public pressure can consume and devastate a corporation in the blink of an eye. Just ask Target - which is currently experiencing a P.R. nightmare over their inability to protect their customers credit cards and information. And that wasn't even the result of something devious by that organization.


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.
> 
> I have pointed this out many times already.
> 
> My argument isn't that government can't be a threat to liberty. I am simply pointing out that it is not the only threat. If corporations are a threat to your liberty who will you turn to? What will you do when the corporations are allowed to buy government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Barack Obama sits in the White House, Harry Reid sits in as majority speaker of the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi was the last Speaker of the House, it's safe to say that corporations are *not* "buying government" (what corporation in their right mind would support radical marxists who vilify corporations and want to tax them at 99%?!?!?).
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also have more control over our government than corporations, markets, and foreign governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have zero control over your government and you have zero control over corporations. And frankly, that's *not* what matters.
> 
> What matters is how much control they have over *you*. And our unconstitutional, monstrosity of a federal government now has complete and total control over you. Corporations? They have zero control over you. Zero. None. They can't make you do anything. They can't make you buy their products (while the federal government makes you pay them taxes), they can't make you obey their idea (while the federal government makes you obey their legislation), they can't take away your rights (while the federal government has taken most of them away already and will continue until they are ALL gone), etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The fact that you can't even articulate what was "cuckoo" about what I just stated kind of says it all.

The reality is, you know I'm right (but apparently not mature enough to admit it?). Like all liberals, you're entire focus has been on *control*. You're furious that you can't *control* the free market and corporations.


----------



## Bombur

I will take you more seriously when you take yourself more seriously.

I am ok with you barking away. Your name is fitting.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> You really don't know what I am talking about do you?
> 
> I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand. If government involvement is needed then so be it.


Supporting a smaller more efficient government isn't anti-government. We need a government. It should limit itself to why it was formed, to provide for national security with a military, take care of infrastructure police, fire, EMS, food safety, environmental oversight, etc. The things business can't do.  


> As a business owner you understand the needs of a business and what you can control as a business owner so I will try and talk to you in those terms. Imagine all the factors that go into you producing and delivering your product. Think about your employees and your customers. Think about your potential customers and your potential employees.
> 
> It is your job in the marketplace as a purchaser to put downward pressure on wages and other costs. All things remaining equal the lower the costs the better it is for you.


No, the lower the cost the better for the customer. It's called competition, I provide a good product at a reasonable price and he decides to shop with me. 

The lowest cost often is not the best deal and the smart buyer knows it. Employees need to be payed enough to keep them around, or they look elsewhere. The worse the economy, the less opportunity for them and the less there is to pay. Many companies drop to part timers or eliminate jobs. How does that help the economy? 


> It is also your job in the marketplace as a supplier to maximize profit which pushes up prices and pushes up production. All things remaining equal the more demand for your product the better in terms of both a higher price and quantity demanded.


No, my job is not to maximize profit because that guarentees someone will come along and "steal" my customer. It's a balancing act and it's something all sucessfull business owners do. 

Demand happens when people decide it's worth it. They, not some external force, dictate pricing. The problem with government, like with the ACA health care scam is that it attempts to price services with no control over actual costs. Governments can't set prices effectively, they are too top heavy, beaurocratic, slow and unmotivated to do so. It makes a difference when your ass and your employees asses are on the line, vs a government lackey that gets payed the same no matter the outcome. 


> On an individual level there is really no clear conflict between your two roles. On the national level or the global level there is a clear conflict between the downward pressure on wages and your desire to see demand grow. If I was to argue that the key to increasing employment in the US is to increase wages most business owners would object based on their understanding of their business. The problem is that over time if wages are not growing then demand is not growing and if demand is not growing and productivity is you start getting large inefficiencies as employment goes down.
> 
> On the flip side if wages go up too fast then costs will exceed prices and production will decrease leading to unemployment or underemployment.
> 
> This all gets back to my initial point that the two need to walk hand in hand. We (as a nation) have to understand all the various things that can impact these markets and prevent the two from improving. It is also important to understand the capacity of capital or debt to hide serious problems within these markets. Capital inflows into a country both hurt the labor market and hide those problems by artificially and temporarily boosting demand.
> 
> One year of this isn't so bad. A decade of this probably isn't that bad either. The real question our nation faces is how many decades of this can the US take?


You can't artificially set wages in the marketplace either. Government does but government doesn't make money, it spends it. Businesses need to make money and if people don't want to pay enough to pay a guy $15 an hour flipping burgers then they don't buy the burgers. Period. The business owner can't turn around a tax the community to make up the difference. 

We've been through this experiment before with the same results. Big government stiffles business and the economy goes down. And you can't tax it back up to speed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employees depend upon their business or manufacturing plant to be there. Whenever a plant or steel mill closes their doors and moves out of the state, workers get laid off and disperse hoping to make up for that sudden loss in income. Customers still get their steel, they still get their manufactured goods, but from another plant in another state. People settle for what jobs are available, or move out of the state to where those businesses ARE opening or setting up shop. That's the reality of "jobs" the employees face that you don't quite understand. Employees depend upon their employers to have a profitable business, in a global economy where corporations pursue those countries which supports them, and encourages their growth. You raise their taxes there is nothing forcing them to stay, or keep them from reestablishing themselves with a government that wants their business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus lies the contradiction in economics that makes it very hard for people to understand.
> 
> Growth depends on the individual employer finding the best way to reduce costs including the amount they are spending on labor. Growth also depends on all labor having money to spend so that productivity can increase and production can increase.
> 
> All governments want their business. That can lead to bad outcomes though. Pollution, working conditions, stagnant wages, inability to tax effectively and fairly, etc.
Click to expand...


*Thus lies the contradiction in economics that makes it very hard for people to understand.*

That's the problem with liberalism.
You think you're stickin' it to the man, you're really stickin' it to the workers.


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand.* If government involvement is needed then so be it.*



In what circumstances is government needed?

.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't know what I am talking about do you?
> 
> I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand. If government involvement is needed then so be it.
> 
> 
> 
> Supporting a smaller more efficient government isn't anti-government. We need a government. It should limit itself to why it was formed, to provide for national security with a military, take care of infrastructure police, fire, EMS, food safety, environmental oversight, etc. The things business can't do.
> 
> 
> 
> As a business owner you understand the needs of a business and what you can control as a business owner so I will try and talk to you in those terms. Imagine all the factors that go into you producing and delivering your product. Think about your employees and your customers. Think about your potential customers and your potential employees.
> 
> It is your job in the marketplace as a purchaser to put downward pressure on wages and other costs. All things remaining equal the lower the costs the better it is for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the lower the cost the better for the customer. It's called competition, I provide a good product at a reasonable price and he decides to shop with me.
> 
> The lowest cost often is not the best deal and the smart buyer knows it. Employees need to be payed enough to keep them around, or they look elsewhere. The worse the economy, the less opportunity for them and the less there is to pay. Many companies drop to part timers or eliminate jobs. How does that help the economy?
> 
> 
> 
> It is also your job in the marketplace as a supplier to maximize profit which pushes up prices and pushes up production. All things remaining equal the more demand for your product the better in terms of both a higher price and quantity demanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, my job is not to maximize profit because that guarentees someone will come along and "steal" my customer. It's a balancing act and it's something all sucessfull business owners do.
> 
> Demand happens when people decide it's worth it. They, not some external force, dictate pricing. The problem with government, like with the ACA health care scam is that it attempts to price services with no control over actual costs. Governments can't set prices effectively, they are too top heavy, beaurocratic, slow and unmotivated to do so. It makes a difference when your ass and your employees asses are on the line, vs a government lackey that gets payed the same no matter the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> On an individual level there is really no clear conflict between your two roles. On the national level or the global level there is a clear conflict between the downward pressure on wages and your desire to see demand grow. If I was to argue that the key to increasing employment in the US is to increase wages most business owners would object based on their understanding of their business. The problem is that over time if wages are not growing then demand is not growing and if demand is not growing and productivity is you start getting large inefficiencies as employment goes down.
> 
> On the flip side if wages go up too fast then costs will exceed prices and production will decrease leading to unemployment or underemployment.
> 
> This all gets back to my initial point that the two need to walk hand in hand. We (as a nation) have to understand all the various things that can impact these markets and prevent the two from improving. It is also important to understand the capacity of capital or debt to hide serious problems within these markets. Capital inflows into a country both hurt the labor market and hide those problems by artificially and temporarily boosting demand.
> 
> One year of this isn't so bad. A decade of this probably isn't that bad either. The real question our nation faces is how many decades of this can the US take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't artificially set wages in the marketplace either. Government does but government doesn't make money, it spends it. Businesses need to make money and if people don't want to pay enough to pay a guy $15 an hour flipping burgers then they don't buy the burgers. Period. The business owner can't turn around a tax the community to make up the difference.
> 
> We've been through this experiment before with the same results. Big government stiffles business and the economy goes down. And you can't tax it back up to speed.
Click to expand...


I agree it is the presence of conflict between buyer and seller as well as competition that determine price. That doesn't negate what I said about your role when purchasing labor and selling a product. I was intentionally only talking about one side of the market equation.

In economics the phrase "Ceteris paribus" is used to describe this kind of approach. It means everything else remaining equal. Everything else remaining equal it is in your interest to pay your employees less. I understand that reality is complicated and wage can impact things like productivity and turnover. That doesn't change your role in the market though. The market depends on this conflict of interest and it is that conflict that creates those good prices and those good decisions.  

A lot of your other comments get into you assuming a solution to the problem that I never suggested. The first step in this discussion is to establish a common understanding of how markets work and how different actors in the market try and maximize benefit to themselves. 

I would also say that the act of maximizing profit should be about maximizing profit long term. You could also replace profit with benefit if you want but there is no getting around the fact that market economics is based on the premise that people act in their own self interest to maximize the benefit to them.

The point I was trying to make here is that you are subject to two larger markets(the labor market and the consumer/consumption market) and it in your direct interest to have different things happen in those markets. This direct interest is in conflict with the broader interest of the economy and ultimately the long term interest of the employer. 

You are also confusing the demand of an individual to the demand of an entire economy. A group may demand a certain basket of goods and that basket of goods may change in makeup overtime and it may change in size over time. The size of the group may also change. The key idea here is not about what is in the basket but how big that basket is. If you want to talk about the US economy then you are looking at the basket of goods demanded by the US consumer and the basket of goods that has US production in it. (Imagine the Venn diagram)

Even if the government did nothing it would be impacting the markets being talked about by being passive relative to the world around it.


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employees depend upon their business or manufacturing plant to be there. Whenever a plant or steel mill closes their doors and moves out of the state, workers get laid off and disperse hoping to make up for that sudden loss in income. Customers still get their steel, they still get their manufactured goods, but from another plant in another state. People settle for what jobs are available, or move out of the state to where those businesses ARE opening or setting up shop. That's the reality of "jobs" the employees face that you don't quite understand. Employees depend upon their employers to have a profitable business, in a global economy where corporations pursue those countries which supports them, and encourages their growth. You raise their taxes there is nothing forcing them to stay, or keep them from reestablishing themselves with a government that wants their business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus lies the contradiction in economics that makes it very hard for people to understand.
> 
> Growth depends on the individual employer finding the best way to reduce costs including the amount they are spending on labor. Growth also depends on all labor having money to spend so that productivity can increase and production can increase.
> 
> All governments want their business. That can lead to bad outcomes though. Pollution, working conditions, stagnant wages, inability to tax effectively and fairly, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Thus lies the contradiction in economics that makes it very hard for people to understand.*
> 
> That's the problem with liberalism.
> You think you're stickin' it to the man, you're really stickin' it to the workers.
Click to expand...


Ohh there is no doubt that this can happen. So can the other side of the coin. Too much downward pressure on wages and economic stagnation can happen. We are living in an age where the problem is wage stagnation relative to productivity growth. We have seen such large increases in global production that global demand has fallen behind. 

It is very hard to convince China that they need to increase wages more quickly but a lot of the world economy is relying on countries who focus on production shifting towards consumption and countries like the US who are focused on consumption and debt moving towards production and capital flows outward.


----------



## Bombur

Contumacious said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand.* If government involvement is needed then so be it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what circumstances is government needed?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality. I will start with just some of the efficiency reasons.  

When foreign governments are involved. When markets become too inelastic. When there is a contraction in the effective supply of money. When there is a temporary correction happening with regards to demand. When it is difficult to monetize the benefit (This applies to things like infrastructure and education). Safety. Health. 

From a moral standpoint I think the government can justify things like healthcare but there is also an efficiency component to healthcare. Especially for the youth and the workers. I consider disability benefits to be a moral stance.

I also think that the best help that can be provided to the poor is a better wage. This is a battle of perception as much as reality.


----------



## georgephillip

deltex1 said:


> Cut the crap.  Human beings/human activity creates inequality.  Some are smarter than others.  Some work harder than others.  Some make better choices.  Some are selfish.  Some are greedy.  Some are lazy.  Some are stupid.  Some are lucky...some not.  Inequality is.  That is why the nuns told me to concentrate on saving my soul...so as to be happy with God in heaven...and not to fret over who has what.  Pax vobiscum.


Which only works if god and heaven exist.
Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. Solutions include stronger regulation of markets to promote sustainable and equitable growth along with curbing the power of the rich to influence political processes and policies that best suit their interests. Build a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, or use the state to tax private wealth into extinction. There are alternatives.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were very close to a truly free market capitalist nation for about the first one hundred years.  But, as the central government grew and was allowed to pick winners and losers, this all changed.  It really changed in a big way with the asshole Wilson, who imposed the Federal Reserve and the income tax resulting in the omnipresent huge tyrannical central government we suffer under today.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you consider tariffs a sign of free market capitalism?*
> 
> "The Tariff of 1828 was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States.
> 
> "It was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy.
> 
> "The major goal of the tariff was to protect industries in the northern United States (which were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods) by putting a tax on them.
> 
> "The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the US made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South.[1]
> 
> "The reaction in the South, particularly in South Carolina, would lead to the Nullification Crisis that began in late 1832.[2]
> 
> "The tariff marked the high point of US tariffs. It was approached, but not exceeded, by the SmootHawley Tariff Act of 1930.[3]"
> 
> Tariff of Abominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think one tariff means it was socialist?
Click to expand...

I think it means US manufacturing grew up behind tariffs just as the earlier free market capitalists in the UK did.


----------



## francoHFW

Breaking for GOP VOTERS- The bottom fifth pays 16 per cent in ALL taxes and fees, the rest pays 21 per cent, and the richest AT LEAST triple their wealth while everyone else and the country goes to hell under Reaganist/Voodoo tax rates...

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## LogikAndReazon

What those poor, disenfranchised , victimized, illiterates really need are totalitarian communist scumbags to come to their rescue !!!  Hail Che Guevara !


----------



## Indeependent

LogikAndReazon said:


> What those poor, disenfranchised , victimized, illiterates really need are totalitarian communist scumbags to come to their rescue !!!  Hail Che Guevara !



Why are you bringing up Rush Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's audiences?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the crap.  Human beings/human activity creates inequality.  Some are smarter than others.  Some work harder than others.  Some make better choices.  Some are selfish.  Some are greedy.  Some are lazy.  Some are stupid.  Some are lucky...some not.  Inequality is.  That is why the nuns told me to concentrate on saving my soul...so as to be happy with God in heaven...and not to fret over who has what.  Pax vobiscum.
> 
> 
> 
> Which only works if god and heaven exist.
> Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. Solutions include stronger regulation of markets to promote sustainable and equitable growth along with curbing the power of the rich to influence political processes and policies that best suit their interests. Build a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, or use the state to tax private wealth into extinction. There are alternatives.
Click to expand...


*Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *

Inequality exists because people are not equal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Breaking for GOP VOTERS- The bottom fifth pays 16 per cent in ALL taxes and fees, the rest pays 21 per cent, and the richest AT LEAST triple their wealth while everyone else and the country goes to hell under Reaganist/Voodoo tax rates...
> 
> Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



*Breaking for GOP VOTERS- The bottom fifth pays 16 per cent in ALL taxes and fees, the rest pays 21 per cent*

And those pesky rich people pay even more.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Preferably a totalitarian communist whose identity profile includes that of a person of color, homosexual, aged, female, overweight, midget....REPRESENT   Lol


----------



## Dirk the Daring

> Why blame the business that buys government and give the government guys a pass?



Exactly; the liberal logic - 

If I offer you money, and you take it, the blame for you taking it lies on me for having offered.  

Unreal...


----------



## itfitzme

Dirk the Daring said:


> Why blame the business that buys government and give the government guys a pass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly; the liberal logic -
> 
> If I offer you money, and you take it, the blame for you taking it lies on me for having offered.
> 
> Unreal...
Click to expand...


You mean like buying cocaine and methamphetamines?


----------



## georgephillip

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how much of modern technology wouldn't exist if not for capitalism and freedom of thought. I'll just have to say that life would be utter hell without capitalism.
> 
> When has pure socialism been successful? The human economy works like a engine...You need input and out put. Socialism is only good at output....
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "input" and "output"?
> Modern technology stems from human labor and much of the research that has made it possible comes from public and not private capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try telling that to those creative entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs.
Click to expand...

Steve's not taking any calls, but he would probably be among the first to credit public funding of the internet to explain much of his $ucce$$.


----------



## deltex1

deltex1 said:


> Cut the crap.  Human beings/human activity creates inequality.  Some are smarter than others.  Some work harder than others.  Some make better choices.  Some are selfish.  Some are greedy.  Some are lazy.  Some are stupid.  Some are lucky...some not.  Inequality is.  That is why the nuns told me to concentrate on saving my soul...so as to be happy with God in heaven...and not to fret over who has what.  Pax vobiscum.



Bump


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the crap.  Human beings/human activity creates inequality.  Some are smarter than others.  Some work harder than others.  Some make better choices.  Some are selfish.  Some are greedy.  Some are lazy.  Some are stupid.  Some are lucky...some not.  Inequality is.  That is why the nuns told me to concentrate on saving my soul...so as to be happy with God in heaven...and not to fret over who has what.  Pax vobiscum.
> 
> 
> 
> Which only works if god and heaven exist.
> Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. Solutions include stronger regulation of markets to promote sustainable and equitable growth along with curbing the power of the rich to influence political processes and policies that best suit their interests. Build a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, or use the state to tax private wealth into extinction. There are alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
Click to expand...

"The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."

*They're not that unequal.*

Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand.* If government involvement is needed then so be it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what circumstances is government needed?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality. I will start with just some of the efficiency reasons.
> 
> When foreign governments are involved. When markets become too inelastic. When there is a contraction in the effective supply of money. When there is a temporary correction happening with regards to demand. When it is difficult to monetize the benefit (This applies to things like infrastructure and education). Safety. Health.
> 
> From a *moral* *standpoint* I think the *government* can justify things like healthcare but there is also an efficiency component to healthcare. Especially for the youth and the workers. I consider disability benefits to be a moral stance.
> 
> I also think that the best help that can be provided to the poor is a better wage. This is a battle of perception as much as reality.
Click to expand...


You want government involved for "morality"?!? Bwahahahahahahahhahah!!!! Yeah - Obama and our government are soooo "moral".


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> I will take you more seriously when you take yourself more seriously.
> 
> I am ok with you barking away. Your name is fitting.



You can't be more than 12 junior. You can't defend your position. You can't articulate what is wrong with someone else's position. And you think the federal government is "moral"...

Aren't kids cute? They say the darndest things!


----------



## deltex1

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which only works if god and heaven exist.
> Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. Solutions include stronger regulation of markets to promote sustainable and equitable growth along with curbing the power of the rich to influence political processes and policies that best suit their interests. Build a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, or use the state to tax private wealth into extinction. There are alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
Click to expand...


And if god and heaven don't exist what incentive is there to be virtuous...especially if you are comfortable?


----------



## The T

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand.* If government involvement is needed then so be it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what circumstances is government needed?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality. I will start with just some of the efficiency reasons.
> 
> When foreign governments are involved. When markets become too inelastic. When there is a contraction in the effective supply of money. When there is a temporary correction happening with regards to demand. When it is difficult to monetize the benefit (This applies to things like infrastructure and education). Safety. Health.
> 
> From a moral standpoint I think the government can justify things like healthcare but there is also an efficiency component to healthcare. Especially for the youth and the workers. I consider disability benefits to be a moral stance.
> 
> I also think that the best help that can be provided to the poor is a better wage. This is a battle of perception as much as reality.
Click to expand...


Idiot. Government's place is NOT to legislate morality. HOW did prohibition do? Hmm? YOU  know nothing of the Founders and true liberty. NOTHING.


----------



## The T

deltex1 said:


> Cut the crap. Human beings/human activity creates inequality. Some are smarter than others. Some work harder than others. Some make better choices. Some are selfish. Some are greedy. Some are lazy. Some are stupid. Some are lucky...some not. Inequality is. That is why the nuns told me to concentrate on saving my soul...so as to be happy with God in heaven...and not to fret over who has what. Pax vobiscum.


Indeed. You have the liberty to be smart, dumb, pursue whatever motivates you while understanding the consequences of your actions. When your stupidity infringes upon MY liberty and those of my fellow citizens and WE have to pay for your stupidity for NO fault of our own? Then Houston? WE have a problem.


----------



## deltex1

If you consider disability payments a moral stance...I have two family members...each with a combined family income of 200k ...both working full time...each getting about $1500 disability check each month...they earned it...and if I were in their shoes I'd take it...and it may be moral...but is it affordable?


----------



## The T

deltex1 said:


> If you consider disability payments a moral stance...I have two family members...each with a combined family income of 200k ...both working full time...each getting about $1500 disability check each month...they earned it...and if I were in their shoes I'd take it...and it may be moral...but is it affordable?


If they earned it? What's the problem?


----------



## The T

As a past member of the US Armed Forces? I have YET to collect on what I earned in service to my country...I intend to collect in time.


----------



## georgephillip

Dirk the Daring said:


> Why blame the business that buys government and give the government guys a pass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly; the liberal logic -
> 
> If I offer you money, and you take it, the blame for you taking it lies on me for having offered.
> 
> Unreal...
Click to expand...

Legally and morally if I accept your bribe we are both guilty of corruption.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



If you don't like being part of the 2% of the worlds richest people give your money away, move to the Central African Republic, and stop posting on the internet.


----------



## The T

Quantum Windbag said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like being part of the 2% of the worlds richest people give your money away, move to the Central African Republic, and stop posting on the internet.
Click to expand...

I'll start a collection for a ONE WAY ticket to get him there.


----------



## deltex1

The T said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider disability payments a moral stance...I have two family members...each with a combined family income of 200k ...both working full time...each getting about $1500 disability check each month...they earned it...and if I were in their shoes I'd take it...and it may be moral...but is it affordable?
> 
> 
> 
> If they earned it? What's the problem?
Click to expand...


I am just posing the question of whether we are too generous...there are many people out there who are 100 percent disabled who work...maybe the check should come after you stop working...just asking...


----------



## itfitzme

deltex1 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider disability payments a moral stance...I have two family members...each with a combined family income of 200k ...both working full time...each getting about $1500 disability check each month...they earned it...and if I were in their shoes I'd take it...and it may be moral...but is it affordable?
> 
> 
> 
> If they earned it? What's the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am just posing the question of whether we are too generous...there are many people out there who are 100 percent disabled who work...maybe the check should come after you stop working...just asking...
Click to expand...


Well, in fact, OASDI is an insurance, not a savings account. So, there is no rational that they are due that $1500. OASDI just isn't means tested.


----------



## The T

deltex1 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider disability payments a moral stance...I have two family members...each with a combined family income of 200k ...both working full time...each getting about $1500 disability check each month...they earned it...and if I were in their shoes I'd take it...and it may be moral...but is it affordable?
> 
> 
> 
> If they earned it? What's the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am just posing the question of whether we are too generous...there are many people out there who are 100 percent disabled who work...maybe the check should come after you stop working...just asking...
Click to expand...

 
 10-4. If it is earned, then there's no problem regardless. Don't fall into the wealth envy crap.


----------



## itfitzme

The T said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they earned it? What's the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just posing the question of whether we are too generous...there are many people out there who are 100 percent disabled who work...maybe the check should come after you stop working...just asking...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 10-4. If it is earned, then there's no problem regardless. Don't fall into the wealth envy crap.
Click to expand...


There is no "wealthy envy crap".  That is simply your subjective bullshit rationalization.


----------



## The T

itfitzme said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just posing the question of whether we are too generous...there are many people out there who are 100 percent disabled who work...maybe the check should come after you stop working...just asking...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10-4. If it is earned, then there's no problem regardless. Don't fall into the wealth envy crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "wealthy envy crap". That is simply your subjective bullshit rationalization.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. You are ignorant. WHAT will Obama be talking about in the SOTU? "INCOME INEQUALITY"

 Moron.


----------



## georgephillip

deltex1 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if god and heaven don't exist what incentive is there to be virtuous...especially if you are comfortable?
Click to expand...

If by virtuous you mean the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (right) and those that are "bad" (wrong), the best example of secular morality is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: "The idea that actions can only be considered moral if they could be imitated by anyone else and produce good results."

Secular morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which only works if god and heaven exist.
> Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. Solutions include stronger regulation of markets to promote sustainable and equitable growth along with curbing the power of the rich to influence political processes and policies that best suit their interests. Build a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, or use the state to tax private wealth into extinction. There are alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
Click to expand...


Back before civilization, the gap between the guy who owned a horse and the guy who didn't, was huge.

The gap between the guy who gathered enough food and the guy who didn't (the dead guy), was huge.

The fact that hard work now can earn larger amounts and the fact that not working doesn't end in starvation and death, does not mean things are worse now than ever.
Despite socialist whining to the contrary.


----------



## The T

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Back before civilization, the gap between the guy who owned a horse and the guy who didn't, was huge.*
> 
> The gap between the guy who gathered enough food and the guy who didn't (the dead guy), was huge.
> 
> The fact that hard work now can earn larger amounts and the fact that not working doesn't end in starvation and death, does not mean things are worse now than ever.
> Despite socialist whining to the contrary.
Click to expand...

 
 Look at the American Indian tribes that prized horses as wealth...and their increased mobility?

 Dead ON.


----------



## georgephillip

Quantum Windbag said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like being part of the 2% of the worlds richest people give your money away, move to the Central African Republic, and stop posting on the internet.
Click to expand...

*What do you imagine that would accomplish?*

"The United States, for example, with a mere 5 per cent of the worlds population, uses 30 per cent of natural resources..." 

"Not only do the wealthy countries usurp and waste 80 per cent of the worlds resources but, according to a United Nations report, their 'voracious consumption of resources cannot be sustained.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

*If you don't like being part of a political message board where you're guaranteed to encounter views opposed to yours, polish your Mandarin and move to China.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which only works if god and heaven exist.
> Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. Solutions include stronger regulation of markets to promote sustainable and equitable growth along with curbing the power of the rich to influence political processes and policies that best suit their interests. Build a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, or use the state to tax private wealth into extinction. There are alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
Click to expand...


*They're not that unequal.*

How much more productive is Bill Gates than a Chinese farmer living in a mud hut?
Than an illiterate person in India shoveling shit for a living?


----------



## The T

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back before civilization, the gap between the guy who owned a horse and the guy who didn't, was huge.
> 
> The gap between the guy who gathered enough food and the guy who didn't (the dead guy), was huge.
> 
> The fact that hard work now can earn larger amounts and the fact that not working doesn't end in starvation and death, does not mean things are worse now than ever.
> Despite socialist whining to the contrary.
Click to expand...

 
 The OP lives in a ZERO SUM GAME world while applauding those against making the pie LARGER through Capitalism. It appears HE would be comfy in killing it and letting Government run it all. The OP is an extreme Socialist.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like being part of the 2% of the worlds richest people give your money away, move to the Central African Republic, and stop posting on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What do you imagine that would accomplish?*
> 
> "The United States, for example, with a mere 5 per cent of the worlds population, uses 30 per cent of natural resources..."
> 
> "Not only do the wealthy countries usurp and waste 80 per cent of the worlds resources but, according to a United Nations report, their 'voracious consumption of resources cannot be sustained.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *If you don't like being part of a political message board where you're guaranteed to encounter views opposed to yours, polish your Mandarin and move to China.*
Click to expand...


*"The United States, for example, with a mere 5 per cent of the worlds population, uses 30 per cent of natural resources..." *

"The United States, for example, with a mere 5 per cent of the worlds population, produces 30 per cent of world economic output..."


----------



## Dirk the Daring

georgephillip said:


> Dirk the Daring said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why blame the business that buys government and give the government guys a pass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly; the liberal logic -
> 
> If I offer you money, and you take it, the blame for you taking it lies on me for having offered.
> 
> Unreal...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legally and morally if I accept your bribe we are both guilty of corruption.
Click to expand...


Bribe?  Who said anything about bribes?  I was referring...


...'contributions.'  

Do you get it now?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

georgephillip said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "input" and "output"?
> Modern technology stems from human labor and much of the research that has made it possible comes from public and not private capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try telling that to those creative entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Steve's not taking any calls, but he would probably be among the first to credit public funding of the internet to explain much of his $ucce$$.
Click to expand...


Oh I'm sure you'd find if it wasn't for inventors like Henry Ford, through the support of private investors, there wouldn't be a reason to establish bridges and infrastructure. Government didn't build the need, it was through the creative efforts of inventors and private investors.


----------



## The T

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try telling that to those creative entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve's not taking any calls, but he would probably be among the first to credit public funding of the internet to explain much of his $ucce$$.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I'm sure you'd find if it wasn't for inventors like Henry Ford, through the support of private investors, there wouldn't be a reason to establish bridges and infrastructure. Government didn't build the need, it was through the creative efforts of inventors and private investors.
Click to expand...

 
 But the OP and those he supports intend on killing it. The American dream is fast approaching a nightmare.


----------



## Mr. H.

We all have a capitalist "bent".  

And that is how it should be. In this country, anyway. 

The individual capitalist in us all is what defines us. 

As individuals.

You either shit... of your get off your pot. 

Or you can sit on your pot and do jack shit while the world passes you by.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

georgephillip said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like being part of the 2% of the worlds richest people give your money away, move to the Central African Republic, and stop posting on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What do you imagine that would accomplish?*
> 
> "The United States, for example, with a mere 5 per cent of the worlds population, uses 30 per cent of natural resources..."
> 
> "Not only do the wealthy countries usurp and waste 80 per cent of the worlds resources but, according to a United Nations report, their 'voracious consumption of resources cannot be sustained.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *If you don't like being part of a political message board where you're guaranteed to encounter views opposed to yours, polish your Mandarin and move to China.*
Click to expand...


I actually enjoy mocking the viewpoint that capitalism causes income inequality, feel free to make some more threads about it.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> I will take you more seriously when you take yourself more seriously.
> 
> I am ok with you barking away. Your name is fitting.



No one takes you seriously, numskull.  You're an ignoramus and a buffoon.  You don't have any facts or logic to support your parasite economic theories, so you quickly devolve to insulting your critics.


----------



## bripat9643

Dirk the Daring said:


> Why blame the business that buys government and give the government guys a pass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly; the liberal logic -
> 
> If I offer you money, and you take it, the blame for you taking it lies on me for having offered.
> 
> Unreal...
Click to expand...


The guys who dreamed up the theory that business corrupts government were all on the government payroll.  You didn't imagine they would blame themselves, did you?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "input" and "output"?
> Modern technology stems from human labor and much of the research that has made it possible comes from public and not private capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try telling that to those creative entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Steve's not taking any calls, but he would probably be among the first to credit public funding of the internet to explain much of his $ucce$$.
Click to expand...


Jobs didn't make most of his money from the internet.  I doubt he would credit public funding.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Dirk the Daring said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why blame the business that buys government and give the government guys a pass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly; the liberal logic -
> 
> If I offer you money, and you take it, the blame for you taking it lies on me for having offered.
> 
> Unreal...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legally and morally if I accept your bribe we are both guilty of corruption.
Click to expand...


It's not a bribe.  Politicians deliberately write legislation designed to harm specific industries so they can milk them for donations.


----------



## MikeK

Spiderman said:


> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.


At this stage of decline it is.  But as the situation worsens we will be seeing morgue wagons making morning sweeps as they did during the Great Depression and our national prison census, which already is the highest in the world, will easily triple as millions choose larceny over starvation.  Instead of police there will be soldiers patrolling our streets, martial law will prevail, the Great American Middle Class will quickly become a vague memory, and life in America will someday vastly exceed Orwell's morbid vision of the future.  

The U.S. is the least capable of the world's societies to deal with widespread poverty because our culture has been poisoned by excess.


----------



## georgephillip

MikeK said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
> 
> 
> 
> At this stage of decline it is.  But as the situation worsens we will be seeing morgue wagons making morning sweeps as they did during the Great Depression and our national prison census, which already is the highest in the world, will easily triple as millions choose larceny over starvation.  Instead of police there will be soldiers patrolling our streets, martial law will prevail, the Great American Middle Class will quickly become a vague memory, and life in America will someday vastly exceed Orwell's morbid vision of the future.
> 
> The U.S. is the least capable of the world's societies to deal with widespread poverty because our culture has been poisoned by excess.
Click to expand...

"On Monday, the New York Times featured, on the front page of its website, a long piece of giddy gush about the latest trend in luxury hoteling: super-suites for the super-rich, costing up to $28,000 a night.

"For more than 1,100 words, the Times gives us an uncritical (indeed, adoring) panorama of the new high-swankery expected by our owners as they perambulate around the global plantation. 

"Theres the $25,000-per-night room in the New York Palace, a three-story 'penthouse Versailles,' the Times, all atremble with excitement, tells us, which comes complete with a million dollars worth of designer jewellery on display to refresh the weary eyes of the travelling titan. Or New Yorks Mandarin Oriental, 3,300 square feet of even greater opulence  a steal at $28,000 a night..."

*The poison a "Penthouse Versailles" inflicts on the majority of the global population has recently come to light again, this time from Oxfam:*

"On the same day  the same day  that the NYTs grovel-and-gush piece appeared, Oxfam released a report on the astonishing, well-nigh incomprehensible level of inequality between the Times celebrated super-rich and the rest of the human race.

"The Oxfam study showed that the richest 85 individuals on earth have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people on the planet. 85 people control as much wealth as 3.5 billion.

"This is not the natural fruit of the markets mythical invisible hand. It is the result of carefully crafted, deliberate policies put in place over the past 40 years by elected leaders who have been bought, like chattel, by the rich, and have used the power of the state to skew the political, economic and social structure of nation after nation toward the ever-increasing domination of an ever-smaller circle of elites. As Larry Elliot points out in the Guardian:

"For much of the 20th century..."

Class War Victors Get Higher on the Hog » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names 

*The rich, you see, really are different.
They're swanky slaves, and the only thing worse are the mindless slave wannabees who apologize for every elite hog pen their role models construct*


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back before civilization, the gap between the guy who owned a horse and the guy who didn't, was huge.
> 
> The gap between the guy who gathered enough food and the guy who didn't (the dead guy), was huge.
> 
> The fact that hard work now can earn larger amounts and the fact that not working doesn't end in starvation and death, does not mean things are worse now than ever.
> Despite socialist whining to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Back before capitalism that guy who gathered enough food shared with the guy who didn't. Do you think chattel slavery played a role in the formation of the first private fortunes?


----------



## georgephillip

The T said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10-4. If it is earned, then there's no problem regardless. Don't fall into the wealth envy crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "wealthy envy crap". That is simply your subjective bullshit rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes there is. You are ignorant. WHAT will Obama be talking about in the SOTU? "INCOME INEQUALITY"
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...

*Absolutely correct, imho, regarding Wall Street's Boy's next SOTU, and won't we all be morons if we don't remember how the richest 1% of US citizens have captured 95% of post-financial crisis growth since 2009 while the bottom 90% got poorer?*

Class War Victors Get Higher on the Hog » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> How much more productive is Bill Gates than a Chinese farmer living in a mud hut?
> Than an illiterate person in India shoveling shit for a living?
Click to expand...

The ratio of outputs to inputs doesn't affect the Chinese farmer's or Indian illiterate's natural rights. Bill Gates is one of the "takers" living large off the exploitation of billions of his fellow human beings.


----------



## georgephillip

The T said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back before civilization, the gap between the guy who owned a horse and the guy who didn't, was huge.
> 
> The gap between the guy who gathered enough food and the guy who didn't (the dead guy), was huge.
> 
> The fact that hard work now can earn larger amounts and the fact that not working doesn't end in starvation and death, does not mean things are worse now than ever.
> Despite socialist whining to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP lives in a ZERO SUM GAME world while applauding those against making the pie LARGER through Capitalism. It appears HE would be comfy in killing it and letting Government run it all. The OP is an extreme Socialist.
Click to expand...

The OP lives in the same capitalist world you do.
The one where the richest 1% of US citizens have appropriated 95% of the post-financial crisis growth since your boy moved into the White House. Only devout slaves, like you, deny that extreme.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> I agree it is the presence of conflict between buyer and seller as well as competition that determine price. That doesn't negate what I said about your role when purchasing labor and selling a product. I was intentionally only talking about one side of the market equation.


Why? We were discussing the market, not just the one aspect of the market.


> In economics the phrase "Ceteris paribus" is used to describe this kind of approach. It means everything else remaining equal. Everything else remaining equal it is in your interest to pay your employees less. I understand that reality is complicated and wage can impact things like productivity and turnover. That doesn't change your role in the market though. The market depends on this conflict of interest and it is that conflict that creates those good prices and those good decisions.


I reject your classroom anaysis for what it is. It is not a conflict. Providing a service for a fair market price and paying employees what they're worth economically or more isn't a conflict. Taking their hard earned money and giving it to others is more of a conflict if you want to use that term. They want to hold onto their money, the government confiscates it.


> A lot of your other comments get into you assuming a solution to the problem that I never suggested. The first step in this discussion is to establish a common understanding of how markets work and how different actors in the market try and maximize benefit to themselves.
> 
> I would also say that the act of maximizing profit should be about maximizing profit long term. You could also replace profit with benefit if you want but there is no getting around the fact that market economics is based on the premise that people act in their own self interest to maximize the benefit to them.


That's a lot of saying nothing. People start business to make money, not provide jobs. Why would that be news or wrong or even worthy of mention?


> The point I was trying to make here is that you are subject to two larger markets(the labor market and the consumer/consumption market) and it in your direct interest to have different things happen in those markets. This direct interest is in conflict with the broader interest of the economy and ultimately the long term interest of the employer.


If you feel that you are worth more you ask for a raise. If you don't get the raise you stay or you leave. You can consider that a conflict but that attitude might explain your salary. 


> You are also confusing the demand of an individual to the demand of an entire economy. A group may demand a certain basket of goods and that basket of goods may change in makeup overtime and it may change in size over time. The size of the group may also change. The key idea here is not about what is in the basket but how big that basket is. If you want to talk about the US economy then you are looking at the basket of goods demanded by the US consumer and the basket of goods that has US production in it. (Imagine the Venn diagram)


Imagine a beanie cap with a propeller on it.


> Even if the government did nothing it would be impacting the markets being talked about by being passive relative to the world around it.


Huh?


----------



## Redfish

georgephillip said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back before civilization, the gap between the guy who owned a horse and the guy who didn't, was huge.
> 
> The gap between the guy who gathered enough food and the guy who didn't (the dead guy), was huge.
> 
> The fact that hard work now can earn larger amounts and the fact that not working doesn't end in starvation and death, does not mean things are worse now than ever.
> Despite socialist whining to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP lives in a ZERO SUM GAME world while applauding those against making the pie LARGER through Capitalism. It appears HE would be comfy in killing it and letting Government run it all. The OP is an extreme Socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OP lives in the same capitalist world you do.
> The one where the richest 1% of US citizens have appropriated 95% of the post-financial crisis growth since your boy moved into the White House. Only devout slaves, like you, deny that extreme.
Click to expand...


Have you told Oprah and Beyonce and J Zee and Beiber that you hate them for being rich and successful?   Have you demanded that they give up half of what they have for the "common good" ?


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "wealthy envy crap". That is simply your subjective bullshit rationalization.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is. You are ignorant. WHAT will Obama be talking about in the SOTU? "INCOME INEQUALITY"
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely correct, imho, regarding Wall Street's Boy's next SOTU, *and won't we all be morons if we don't remember how the richest 1% of US citizens have captured 95% of post-financial crisis growth since 2009 while the bottom 90% got poorer*?
> 
> Class War Victors Get Higher on the Hog » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
Click to expand...


Exactly! So lets remember! Lets remember that occurred under a radical marxist Dumbocrat president. Lets remember that occurred under a radical marxist Dumbocrat Senate majority leader. Lets remember that occurred under a radical marxist Dumbocrat speaker of the house.

Lets remember that it was Dumbocrat failed policy which expanded unemployment. Lets remember that it was Dumbocrat failed policy which expanded poverty. Lets remember that it was Dumbocrat failed policy which aims to do all of this so as to ensure their power through an electorate dependent on government for their every need.

And then....lets remember not to vote for Dumbocrats and their failed "trickle up poverty" economic policies ever again!


----------



## Bombur

The T said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what circumstances is government needed?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality. I will start with just some of the efficiency reasons.
> 
> When foreign governments are involved. When markets become too inelastic. When there is a contraction in the effective supply of money. When there is a temporary correction happening with regards to demand. When it is difficult to monetize the benefit (This applies to things like infrastructure and education). Safety. Health.
> 
> From a moral standpoint I think the government can justify things like healthcare but there is also an efficiency component to healthcare. Especially for the youth and the workers. I consider disability benefits to be a moral stance.
> 
> I also think that the best help that can be provided to the poor is a better wage. This is a battle of perception as much as reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot. Government's place is NOT to legislate morality. HOW did prohibition do? Hmm? YOU  know nothing of the Founders and true liberty. NOTHING.
Click to expand...


Uh the justification for the revolution was based on very strong statements of morality.

I guess you might need a better understanding of ethics to have this conversation.

I would also point out that we live in a nation where the people can and will vote their morality whether you like it or not. Once that morality is established the only thing left is to decide what is the best way to meet those moral standards. 

So yeah you are totally wrong in every way possible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> How much more productive is Bill Gates than a Chinese farmer living in a mud hut?
> Than an illiterate person in India shoveling shit for a living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ratio of outputs to inputs doesn't affect the Chinese farmer's or Indian illiterate's natural rights. Bill Gates is one of the "takers" living large off the exploitation of billions of his fellow human beings.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about natural rights?
I'm talking about productivity.

Exploitation? 
Commies are funny.
You may not like Windows or other Microsoft products, that doesn't mean Gates exploited anyone.
You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff.
Whiner.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back before civilization, the gap between the guy who owned a horse and the guy who didn't, was huge.
> 
> The gap between the guy who gathered enough food and the guy who didn't (the dead guy), was huge.
> 
> The fact that hard work now can earn larger amounts and the fact that not working doesn't end in starvation and death, does not mean things are worse now than ever.
> Despite socialist whining to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP lives in a ZERO SUM GAME world while applauding those against making the pie LARGER through Capitalism. It appears HE would be comfy in killing it and letting Government run it all. The OP is an extreme Socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OP lives in the same capitalist world you do.
> The one where the richest 1% of US citizens have appropriated 95% of the post-financial crisis growth since your boy moved into the White House. Only devout slaves, like you, deny that extreme.
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> How much more productive is Bill Gates than a Chinese farmer living in a mud hut?
> Than an illiterate person in India shoveling shit for a living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ratio of outputs to inputs doesn't affect the Chinese farmer's or Indian illiterate's natural rights. Bill Gates is one of the "takers" living large off the exploitation of billions of his fellow human beings.
Click to expand...


Bill Gates never "took" a thing.  Every transaction involved in building Bill Gates' fortune was entirely voluntary.  Taking requires the use of force.

You don't get to redefine English so you can put looters on the same ethical plane as honest men.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back before civilization, the gap between the guy who owned a horse and the guy who didn't, was huge.
> 
> The gap between the guy who gathered enough food and the guy who didn't (the dead guy), was huge.
> 
> The fact that hard work now can earn larger amounts and the fact that not working doesn't end in starvation and death, does not mean things are worse now than ever.
> Despite socialist whining to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP lives in a ZERO SUM GAME world while applauding those against making the pie LARGER through Capitalism. It appears HE would be comfy in killing it and letting Government run it all. The OP is an extreme Socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OP lives in the same capitalist world you do.
> The one where the richest 1% of US citizens have appropriated 95% of the post-financial crisis growth since your boy moved into the White House. Only devout slaves, like you, deny that extreme.
Click to expand...


That statistic is pure horseshit.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality. I will start with just some of the efficiency reasons.
> 
> When foreign governments are involved. When markets become too inelastic. When there is a contraction in the effective supply of money. When there is a temporary correction happening with regards to demand. When it is difficult to monetize the benefit (This applies to things like infrastructure and education). Safety. Health.
> 
> From a moral standpoint I think the government can justify things like healthcare but there is also an efficiency component to healthcare. Especially for the youth and the workers. I consider disability benefits to be a moral stance.
> 
> I also think that the best help that can be provided to the poor is a better wage. This is a battle of perception as much as reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot. Government's place is NOT to legislate morality. HOW did prohibition do? Hmm? YOU  know nothing of the Founders and true liberty. NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh the justification for the revolution was based on very strong statements of morality.
> 
> I guess you might need a better understanding of ethics to have this conversation.
> 
> I would also point out that we live in a nation where the people can and will vote their morality whether you like it or not. Once that morality is established the only thing left is to decide what is the best way to meet those moral standards.
> 
> So yeah you are totally wrong in every way possible.
Click to expand...


People also vote out of envy and hatred.  That's what motivates the votes of almost every Democrat.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it is the presence of conflict between buyer and seller as well as competition that determine price. That doesn't negate what I said about your role when purchasing labor and selling a product. I was intentionally only talking about one side of the market equation.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? We were discussing the market, not just the one aspect of the market.
> 
> 
> 
> In economics the phrase "Ceteris paribus" is used to describe this kind of approach. It means everything else remaining equal. Everything else remaining equal it is in your interest to pay your employees less. I understand that reality is complicated and wage can impact things like productivity and turnover. That doesn't change your role in the market though. The market depends on this conflict of interest and it is that conflict that creates those good prices and those good decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I reject your classroom anaysis for what it is. It is not a conflict. Providing a service for a fair market price and paying employees what they're worth economically or more isn't a conflict. Taking their hard earned money and giving it to others is more of a conflict if you want to use that term. They want to hold onto their money, the government confiscates it.
> That's a lot of saying nothing. People start business to make money, not provide jobs. Why would that be news or wrong or even worthy of mention?
> If you feel that you are worth more you ask for a raise. If you don't get the raise you stay or you leave. You can consider that a conflict but that attitude might explain your salary.
> 
> 
> 
> You are also confusing the demand of an individual to the demand of an entire economy. A group may demand a certain basket of goods and that basket of goods may change in makeup overtime and it may change in size over time. The size of the group may also change. The key idea here is not about what is in the basket but how big that basket is. If you want to talk about the US economy then you are looking at the basket of goods demanded by the US consumer and the basket of goods that has US production in it. (Imagine the Venn diagram)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imagine a beanie cap with a propeller on it.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the government did nothing it would be impacting the markets being talked about by being passive relative to the world around it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?
Click to expand...


It is that "classroom analysis" which is the basis of laissez faire economics. It is kind of hard to have a discussion with someone where they are so set on arguing with you that they reject the foundation of their own position.

Markets produce good results because there is a conflict of interest. If you reject this then you reject the reason we trust markets to produce good results. You are also rejecting the foundation of the reasoning which establishes that government involvement gets in the way of those good results. 

The reason I am talking about things the way I am is to establish common ground and to talk about markets that are not healthy and are not producing good results. The way you are arguing is incorrectly assuming a healthy market to the point where you reject the nature of markets and undermine your own position.

I don't know how I can explain demand any better so I will provide a link.

Aggregate demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for my comments about the government doing nothing.... I am pointing out that the US government is not the only thing to consider. The lack of action by the government does not guarantee perfect healthy markets because there are other governments at work. China for example manipulates the value of the USD. Another example is the global labor market where other nations will make laws that favor their labor market over ours. You can also look at the history of mercantilism as an example of how inactivity by one nation doesn't really mean much.


----------



## racewright

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot. Government's place is NOT to legislate morality. HOW did prohibition do? Hmm? YOU  know nothing of the Founders and true liberty. NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh the justification for the revolution was based on very strong statements of morality.
> 
> I guess you might need a better understanding of ethics to have this conversation.
> 
> I would also point out that we live in a nation where the people can and will vote their morality whether you like it or not. Once that morality is established the only thing left is to decide what is the best way to meet those moral standards.
> 
> So yeah you are totally wrong in every way possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People also vote out of envy and hatred.  That's what motivates the votes of almost every Democrat.
Click to expand...



Do not forget jealousy it is getting so that people who earn six figures or more have to deal with the Jealous fools who think you do not deserve to have more than me. And call you rich...
 I want a brand new Caddy toooo.   

How much does someone have to have to be called RICH anyway???


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand.* If government involvement is needed then so be it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what circumstances is government needed?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality.
Click to expand...



How does the US Constitution defines Efficiency and Morality  .



The Declaration of Independence - which was incorporated into the Ninth Amendment states 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. * That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, *deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 

Gee, it doesn't say anything about "Efficiency and Morality  ". Why do were those things omitted?

.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> It is that "classroom analysis" which is the basis of laissez faire economics. It is kind of hard to have a discussion with someone where they are so set on arguing with you that they reject the foundation of their own position.


I'm not arguing at all. You are trying to dazzle people with classroom theories and I'm saying the real world doesn't work that way and have 27 years in business to base my opinion on. You don't have anything but theories and insults.


> Markets produce good results because there is a conflict of interest.


Wrong. No matter how many times to regurgitate it. Markets produce good results because people want the goods and services and are willing to part with their money. It isn't a conflict, it's the exact opposite. It a symbiotic relationship.


> If you reject this then you reject the reason we trust markets to produce good results. You are also rejecting the foundation of the reasoning which establishes that government involvement gets in the way of those good results.


I don't trust the government, period. They seem to eff up whatever they get their hands on, that's the conflict, not the consumer and business.


> The reason I am talking about things the way I am is to establish common ground and to talk about markets that are not healthy and are not producing good results. The way you are arguing is incorrectly assuming a healthy market to the point where you reject the nature of markets and undermine your own position.


You're talking in circles and think it's smart. I don't think the market is healthy, why don't you read the posts instead of reciting from your handbook? You are undermining your credibility when you don't understand the point. I said the more government gets involved, the bigger it grows, the worse the economy gets.

I said governments don't make money. It comes from the private sector, the public sector just spends it. If the public sector grows the private sector shrinks. It isn't the rocket science you make it out to be. Not that economies are simple, but you've missed the main point be trying to be intellectual instead.


> As for my comments about the government doing nothing.... I am pointing out that the US government is not the only thing to consider. The lack of action by the government does not guarantee perfect healthy markets because there are other governments at work. China for example manipulates the value of the USD. Another example is the global labor market where other nations will make laws that favor their labor market over ours. You can also look at the history of mercantilism as an example of how inactivity by one nation doesn't really mean much.


We've had a thriving economy with all that so your point is moot. And I never claimed government inaction was any guarantee to success. You brought that up apparently so you could argue against it.


----------



## Bombur

Contumacious said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what circumstances is government needed?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How does the US Constitution defines Efficiency and Morality  .
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence - which was incorporated into the Ninth Amendment states
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. * That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, *deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 
> 
> Gee, it doesn't say anything about "Efficiency and Morality  ". Why do were those things omitted?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Good grief, our education system sucks. 

Rights are statements of moral principles. The Declaration is saying that in order to defend these moral principle governments are created. As in the absolute purpose of government is to defend these critically important moral principles that we call rights.


----------



## Dragonlady

The conservatives in this thread keep acting like the left wants everyone to make the same amount - levelling incomes for everyone.  That's not what changing income inequity is all about at all.  People are smarter and whose efforts create more jobs and whose efforts are more valued SHOULD earn more than those who simply toil, but the issue is how much more.

The problem is that those who toil - the low income service workers who are easily replaced, have seen the buying power of their incomes erode over the past 30 years to the point where those jobs no longer pay enough money to sustain the wage earner without government assistance.  Fast food workers didn't needd SNAP to buy their groceries 30 years ago, but they do now.  In the meantime, fast food companies profits have grown to the point where these corporations are among the most profitable in the US.

When full-time workers require a second job and/or public assistance to provide the most basic necessitities of life for themselves or their families, while their employers enjoy record profits, the assistance given is a wage subsidy to their employer.  Middle class taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of companies like Walmart and MacDonalds.

If these employers were marginally profitable or in danger of failing because of high wages, we would ask that the employees take a wage cut to keep the corporations afloat.  These companies could afford to pay their workers more money and still make a huge profit, just not as much as they are now.  Why should the middle class subsidize the profits of these large multi-nationals?

The US has transferred entire sectors of manufacturing to Third World countries, leaving millions of Americans unemployed.  Millions more low skill workers are being replaced by automation.  The competition for the manufacturing jobs which remain, is brutal.  Outside of the defence industry, there is little manufacturing left in the US.  If production can be outsourced, it has been.  

It is now impossible to fine textiles, clothing or bedding and towels which are manufactured in North America, and the quality of the clothing is much lower than it was when manufacturing was doing here.  This means that the clothing has to be replaced more frequently, which is fine by the retailers.  Conservatives say "If you can't find a job, go back to school and upgrade your skills", but for manufacturing workers in their 50's, this isn't a viable solution.  For those with families and mortgages, how are they to support their families while they upgrade their skills?

What has happened, is that those who used to work iin manufacturing, are now going into the service sector, which never lacked for workers in the first place.  Recently there was a news story which said that 5,000 people lined up to apply for jobs at a new mall which was opening.  These are minimum wage jobs, with little hope of advancement.  

There used to be a lot of what my mother would have called "good jobs".  Relatively low skill, low education, manufacturing jobs where a person who was willing to work hard and behave responsibly could earn enough money to buy a modest home, a basic car, and support his/her family.   Those are the jobs that have been lost.  And the service jobs which remain, don't pay enough to do any of these things without government assistance.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is that "classroom analysis" which is the basis of laissez faire economics. It is kind of hard to have a discussion with someone where they are so set on arguing with you that they reject the foundation of their own position.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing at all. You are trying to dazzle people with classroom theories and I'm saying the real world doesn't work that way and have 27 years in business to base my opinion on. You don't have anything but theories and insults.
> 
> 
> 
> Markets produce good results because there is a conflict of interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. No matter how many times to regurgitate it. Markets produce good results because people want the goods and services and are willing to part with their money. It isn't a conflict, it's the exact opposite. It a symbiotic relationship.
> I don't trust the government, period. They seem to eff up whatever they get their hands on, that's the conflict, not the consumer and business.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I am talking about things the way I am is to establish common ground and to talk about markets that are not healthy and are not producing good results. The way you are arguing is incorrectly assuming a healthy market to the point where you reject the nature of markets and undermine your own position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're talking in circles and think it's smart. I don't think the market is healthy, why don't you read the posts instead of reciting from your handbook? You are undermining your credibility when you don't understand the point. I said the more government gets involved, the bigger it grows, the worse the economy gets.
> 
> I said governments don't make money. It comes from the private sector, the public sector just spends it. If the public sector grows the private sector shrinks. It isn't the rocket science you make it out to be. Not that economies are simple, but you've missed the main point be trying to be intellectual instead.
> 
> 
> 
> As for my comments about the government doing nothing.... I am pointing out that the US government is not the only thing to consider. The lack of action by the government does not guarantee perfect healthy markets because there are other governments at work. China for example manipulates the value of the USD. Another example is the global labor market where other nations will make laws that favor their labor market over ours. You can also look at the history of mercantilism as an example of how inactivity by one nation doesn't really mean much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've had a thriving economy with all that so your point is moot. And I never claimed government inaction was any guarantee to success. You brought that up apparently so you could argue against it.
Click to expand...


I will limit my comments because you are having trouble with the basics. Just because they come to a mutually agreed upon trade that doesn't mean there is no conflict. The two are not mutually exclusive.

There is no point in talking further unless you grasp this simple concept.


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two major justifications for government involvement. Efficiency and Morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does the US Constitution defines Efficiency and Morality  .
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence - which was incorporated into the Ninth Amendment states
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. &#8212;* That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, *deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, &#8212;
> 
> Gee, it doesn't say anything about "Efficiency and Morality  ". Why do were those things omitted?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are statements of moral principles. The Declaration is saying that in order to defend these moral principle governments are created. As in the absolute purpose of government is to defend these critically important moral principles that we call rights.
Click to expand...


Good grief, our education system sucks.

Do I really have a right to life, liberty , property and to pursue happiness if the government can force me to participate in the scam known as Obama Hellcare?

.


----------



## Bombur

Contumacious said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the US Constitution defines Efficiency and Morality  .
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence - which was incorporated into the Ninth Amendment states
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. * That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, *deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 
> 
> Gee, it doesn't say anything about "Efficiency and Morality  ". Why do were those things omitted?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are statements of moral principles. The Declaration is saying that in order to defend these moral principle governments are created. As in the absolute purpose of government is to defend these critically important moral principles that we call rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief, our education system sucks.
> 
> Do I really have a right to life, liberty , property and to pursue happiness is the government can force me to participate in the scam known as Obama Hellcare?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


lol you dropped that line of reasoning pretty fast.

If you feel compelled to complain about how Obamacare is infringing on your rights you do that more effectively in one of the many threads about Obamacare.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Progressives want everyone (not including party bosses) to be equal

They're so loving and tolerant and accepting that way


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dragonlady said:


> The conservatives in this thread keep acting like the left wants everyone to make the same amount - levelling incomes for everyone.  That's not what changing income inequity is all about at all.  People are smarter and whose efforts create more jobs and whose efforts are more valued SHOULD earn more than those who simply toil, but the issue is how much more.
> 
> The problem is that those who toil - the low income service workers who are easily replaced, have seen the buying power of their incomes erode over the past 30 years to the point where those jobs no longer pay enough money to sustain the wage earner without government assistance.  Fast food workers didn't needd SNAP to buy their groceries 30 years ago, but they do now.  In the meantime, fast food companies profits have grown to the point where these corporations are among the most profitable in the US.
> 
> When full-time workers require a second job and/or public assistance to provide the most basic necessitities of life for themselves or their families, while their employers enjoy record profits, the assistance given is a wage subsidy to their employer.  Middle class taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of companies like Walmart and MacDonalds.
> 
> If these employers were marginally profitable or in danger of failing because of high wages, we would ask that the employees take a wage cut to keep the corporations afloat.  These companies could afford to pay their workers more money and still make a huge profit, just not as much as they are now.  Why should the middle class subsidize the profits of these large multi-nationals?
> 
> The US has transferred entire sectors of manufacturing to Third World countries, leaving millions of Americans unemployed.  Millions more low skill workers are being replaced by automation.  The competition for the manufacturing jobs which remain, is brutal.  Outside of the defence industry, there is little manufacturing left in the US.  If production can be outsourced, it has been.
> 
> It is now impossible to fine textiles, clothing or bedding and towels which are manufactured in North America, and the quality of the clothing is much lower than it was when manufacturing was doing here.  This means that the clothing has to be replaced more frequently, which is fine by the retailers.  Conservatives say "If you can't find a job, go back to school and upgrade your skills", but for manufacturing workers in their 50's, this isn't a viable solution.  For those with families and mortgages, how are they to support their families while they upgrade their skills?
> 
> What has happened, is that those who used to work iin manufacturing, are now going into the service sector, which never lacked for workers in the first place.  Recently there was a news story which said that 5,000 people lined up to apply for jobs at a new mall which was opening.  These are minimum wage jobs, with little hope of advancement.
> 
> There used to be a lot of what my mother would have called "good jobs".  Relatively low skill, low education, manufacturing jobs where a person who was willing to work hard and behave responsibly could earn enough money to buy a modest home, a basic car, and support his/her family.   Those are the jobs that have been lost.  And the service jobs which remain, don't pay enough to do any of these things without government assistance.



The Obama economy sucks, it's as bad as the FDR Depression and for the same reasons: Soviet Style Democrat Central Planned economy is a 100% Guaranteed Fail

Your economic ideas suck, just deal with it


----------



## Iceweasel

Dragonlady said:


> The conservatives in this thread keep acting like the left wants everyone to make the same amount - levelling incomes for everyone.  That's not what changing income inequity is all about at all.  People are smarter and whose efforts create more jobs and whose efforts are more valued SHOULD earn more than those who simply toil, but the issue is how much more.


Which conservative made the point that the left wants all income the same? The point is that the government is in no position to decide who should make what. It's impossible. They would have to know all the details of every business all the time. 


> The problem is that those who toil - the low income service workers who are easily replaced, have seen the buying power of their incomes erode over the past 30 years to the point where those jobs no longer pay enough money to sustain the wage earner without government assistance.  Fast food workers didn't needd SNAP to buy their groceries 30 years ago, but they do now.  In the meantime, fast food companies profits have grown to the point where these corporations are among the most profitable in the US.


You are only examining the aspects that suits the agenda. Bear in mind also that companies are multi-national like never before. McDonalds are in Japan, Russia, hell probably Antartica, now too. Corporations also have their hands in many pies and own many other businesses. 

That doesn't translate to the corner McDs owner. He buys the franchise and has to try to make it work. He also may be in deeper debt. The buying public will only pay so much for a burger, he can't pay the employee what the employee needs to raise a family (that isn't what a burger flipper job is for anyway) and pass the higher cost onto the customer. 

Also the government has mandated full time worker compensation already so he hires two part timers instead. That's his fault? 


> When full-time workers require a second job and/or public assistance to provide the most basic necessitities of life for themselves or their families, while their employers enjoy record profits, the assistance given is a wage subsidy to their employer.  Middle class taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of companies like Walmart and MacDonalds.


The middle class helped vote in those that put those programs in place so don't blame Walmart for the tax hit. The average full time employee makes $25,000 a year. That's more than I made some years running a business more than full time, including the risk and stress, after expenses. 


> If these employers were marginally profitable or in danger of failing because of high wages, we would ask that the employees take a wage cut to keep the corporations afloat.  These companies could afford to pay their workers more money and still make a huge profit, just not as much as they are now.  Why should the middle class subsidize the profits of these large multi-nationals?


Why should the middle class subsidize anyone else, period? 


> The US has transferred entire sectors of manufacturing to Third World countries, leaving millions of Americans unemployed.  Millions more low skill workers are being replaced by automation.  The competition for the manufacturing jobs which remain, is brutal.  Outside of the defence industry, there is little manufacturing left in the US.  If production can be outsourced, it has been.


Yep, because Americans won't pay $600 for an electronic doodad made by a US union worker when they can buy the one from China for $200. The corporation that follows your thinking disappears and has no employees.  


> ... low skill, low education, manufacturing jobs where a person who was willing to work hard and behave responsibly could earn enough money to buy a modest home, a basic car, and support his/her family.   Those are the jobs that have been lost.  And the service jobs which remain, don't pay enough to do any of these things without government assistance.


Big government and Americans voting with their dollars are the culprit. I'm sad to see it, I'd love to buy an American made TV for example. But there are none. Who's to blame? RCA? Magnavox? Or is it Japan's fault?


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is that "classroom analysis" which is the basis of laissez faire economics. It is kind of hard to have a discussion with someone where they are so set on arguing with you that they reject the foundation of their own position.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing at all. You are trying to dazzle people with classroom theories and I'm saying the real world doesn't work that way and have 27 years in business to base my opinion on. You don't have anything but theories and insults.
> Wrong. No matter how many times to regurgitate it. Markets produce good results because people want the goods and services and are willing to part with their money. It isn't a conflict, it's the exact opposite. It a symbiotic relationship.
> I don't trust the government, period. They seem to eff up whatever they get their hands on, that's the conflict, not the consumer and business.
> You're talking in circles and think it's smart. I don't think the market is healthy, why don't you read the posts instead of reciting from your handbook? You are undermining your credibility when you don't understand the point. I said the more government gets involved, the bigger it grows, the worse the economy gets.
> 
> I said governments don't make money. It comes from the private sector, the public sector just spends it. If the public sector grows the private sector shrinks. It isn't the rocket science you make it out to be. Not that economies are simple, but you've missed the main point be trying to be intellectual instead.
> 
> 
> 
> As for my comments about the government doing nothing.... I am pointing out that the US government is not the only thing to consider. The lack of action by the government does not guarantee perfect healthy markets because there are other governments at work. China for example manipulates the value of the USD. Another example is the global labor market where other nations will make laws that favor their labor market over ours. You can also look at the history of mercantilism as an example of how inactivity by one nation doesn't really mean much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've had a thriving economy with all that so your point is moot. And I never claimed government inaction was any guarantee to success. You brought that up apparently so you could argue against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will limit my comments because you are having trouble with the basics. Just because they come to a mutually agreed upon trade that doesn't mean there is no conflict. The two are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> There is no point in talking further unless you grasp this simple concept.
Click to expand...


Yes they are mutually exclusive.  If an exchange is entirely voluntary, then there is no "conflict."  By that I am assuming you are attempting to avoid saying "coercion, " which would be the more accurate term.  The word "conflict" is deliberately vague.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> I will limit my comments because you are having trouble with the basics. Just because they come to a mutually agreed upon trade that doesn't mean there is no conflict. The two are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> There is no point in talking further unless you grasp this simple concept.


You contradicted yourself but don't realize it. Put down the Marxist Manifesto and open up an espresso stand, you'll learn much more about how the real world works.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Yes they are mutually exclusive.  If an exchange is entirely voluntary, then there is no "conflict."  By that I am assuming you are attempting to avoid saying "coercion, " which would be the more accurate term.  The word "conflict" is deliberately vague.



No I mean conflict. Coercion can and does happen if the market is unhealthy though.

Another way to say it is that the supply curve and the demand curve "slope" in opposite directions. 

There seems to be an assumption that conflict is bad. Conflict and death/destruction are incredibly important in economics. Especially laissez faire economics. Conflict is good and the real problems occur when the conflict is one sided (inelasticity). 

For example a person who is dying of thirst in the desert will have inelastic demand for water. People can also have inelastic demand for a wage/job. Some people will even sell their children into slavery when pressed hard enough.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will limit my comments because you are having trouble with the basics. Just because they come to a mutually agreed upon trade that doesn't mean there is no conflict. The two are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> There is no point in talking further unless you grasp this simple concept.
> 
> 
> 
> You contradicted yourself but don't realize it. Put down the Marxist Manifesto and open up an espresso stand, you'll learn much more about how the real world works.
Click to expand...


lol

If you don't want to learn basic economics then just admit it.


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are statements of moral principles. The Declaration is saying that in order to defend these moral principle governments are created. As in the absolute purpose of government is to defend these critically important moral principles that we call rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief, our education system sucks.
> 
> Do I really have a right to life, liberty , property and to pursue happiness is the government can force me to participate in the scam known as Obama Hellcare?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol you dropped that line of reasoning pretty fast.
> 
> If you feel compelled to complain about how Obamacare is infringing on your rights you do that more effectively in one of the many threads about Obamacare.
Click to expand...


NO STONEWALLING


Do I really have a right to life, liberty , property and to pursue happiness is the government can force me to participate in the scam known as Obama Hellcare?

.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> No I mean conflict. Coercion can and does happen if the market is unhealthy though.


Now you are shifting your point, earlier you stated it was a principle function of a capitalist system.


> Another way to say it is that the supply curve and the demand curve "slope" in opposite directions.
> 
> There seems to be an assumption that conflict is bad. Conflict and death/destruction are incredibly important in economics. Especially laissez faire economics. Conflict is good and the real problems occur when the conflict is one sided (inelasticity).
> 
> For example a person who is dying of thirst in the desert will have inelastic demand for water. People can also have inelastic demand for a wage/job. Some people will even sell their children into slavery when pressed hard enough.


And all that has to do with capitalism..how? No, conflict is not good. You are misusing the term to try to butress your argument.



Bombur said:


> lol
> 
> If you don't want to learn basic economics then just admit it.


All we're going to learn from you is what not to do in the business world and how screwed up the education system is today.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are mutually exclusive.  If an exchange is entirely voluntary, then there is no "conflict."  By that I am assuming you are attempting to avoid saying "coercion, " which would be the more accurate term.  The word "conflict" is deliberately vague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I mean conflict. Coercion can and does happen if the market is unhealthy though.
Click to expand...



"Conflict" would include an argument about who takes out the garbage.  You only use it because it's vague.  "Coercion" is a more precise term.  Everyone agrees that "coercion" should be banned from human relations, but I doubt anyone would claim we should make arguments illegal.

There is no "coercion" involved in market exchanges.  Only government can legally use coercion.  



Bombur said:


> [Another way to say it is that the supply curve and the demand curve "slope" in opposite directions.



That's a fundamental principle of economics.  What your saying is that buying and selling is evil somehow.



Bombur said:


> [There seems to be an assumption that conflict is bad. Conflict and death/destruction are incredibly important in economics. Especially laissez faire economics. Conflict is good and the real problems occur when the conflict is one sided (inelasticity).



As I said, the word "conflict" is vague.  That's why you use it.  There is no coercion in the market.  Any discussion of "conflict" is just meaningless blather.



Bombur said:


> [For example a person who is dying of thirst in the desert will have inelastic demand for water. People can also have inelastic demand for a wage/job. Some people will even sell their children into slavery when pressed hard enough.



More meaningless blather.   People dying of thirst in the dessert aren't relevant to economics.


----------



## Bern80

georgephillip said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


Do you have any proof for yours? It seems not. Two things happening at the same time does not a correlation make.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I mean conflict. Coercion can and does happen if the market is unhealthy though.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are shifting your point, earlier you stated it was a principle function of a capitalist system.
> 
> 
> 
> Another way to say it is that the supply curve and the demand curve "slope" in opposite directions.
> 
> There seems to be an assumption that conflict is bad. Conflict and death/destruction are incredibly important in economics. Especially laissez faire economics. Conflict is good and the real problems occur when the conflict is one sided (inelasticity).
> 
> For example a person who is dying of thirst in the desert will have inelastic demand for water. People can also have inelastic demand for a wage/job. Some people will even sell their children into slavery when pressed hard enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And all that has to do with capitalism..how? No, conflict is not good. You are misusing the term to try to butress your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> If you don't want to learn basic economics then just admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All we're going to learn from you is what not to do in the business world and how screwed up the education system is today.
Click to expand...


I am not misusing the term but for some reason you can't get past it.

Here look at this. 






See how one goes from the upper left to the bottom right. Now see how one goes from the bottom left to the upper right. See how they are different?

That difference is what I am talking about.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Any other system make wealth and match human nature??? We can control the variables of capitalism but we sure as hell can't replace it.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I mean conflict. Coercion can and does happen if the market is unhealthy though.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are shifting your point, earlier you stated it was a principle function of a capitalist system.
> And all that has to do with capitalism..how? No, conflict is not good. You are misusing the term to try to butress your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> If you don't want to learn basic economics then just admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All we're going to learn from you is what not to do in the business world and how screwed up the education system is today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not misusing the term but for some reason you can't get past it.
> 
> Here look at this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See how one goes from the upper left to the bottom right. Now see how one goes from the bottom left to the upper right. See how they are different?
> 
> That difference is what I am talking about.
Click to expand...


How does the slope of a line equate to "conflict?"


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are mutually exclusive.  If an exchange is entirely voluntary, then there is no "conflict."  By that I am assuming you are attempting to avoid saying "coercion, " which would be the more accurate term.  The word "conflict" is deliberately vague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I mean conflict. Coercion can and does happen if the market is unhealthy though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Conflict" would include an argument about who takes out the garbage.  You only use it because it's vague.  "Coercion" is a more precise term.  Everyone agrees that "coercion" should be banned from human relations, but I doubt anyone would claim we should make arguments illegal.
> 
> There is no "coercion" involved in market exchanges.  Only government can legally use coercion.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fundamental principle of economics.  What your saying is that buying and selling is evil somehow.
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> [There seems to be an assumption that conflict is bad. Conflict and death/destruction are incredibly important in economics. Especially laissez faire economics. Conflict is good and the real problems occur when the conflict is one sided (inelasticity).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, the word "conflict" is vague.  That's why you use it.  There is no coercion in the market.  Any discussion of "conflict" is just meaningless blather.
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> [For example a person who is dying of thirst in the desert will have inelastic demand for water. People can also have inelastic demand for a wage/job. Some people will even sell their children into slavery when pressed hard enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More meaningless blather.   People dying of thirst in the dessert aren't relevant to economics.
Click to expand...


I never knew people would be so sensitive to the word conflict but I will play along. I will use any word you want be to use to describe how suppliers and demanders have opposing roles in the market economy.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I mean conflict. Coercion can and does happen if the market is unhealthy though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Conflict" would include an argument about who takes out the garbage.  You only use it because it's vague.  "Coercion" is a more precise term.  Everyone agrees that "coercion" should be banned from human relations, but I doubt anyone would claim we should make arguments illegal.
> 
> There is no "coercion" involved in market exchanges.  Only government can legally use coercion.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a fundamental principle of economics.  What your saying is that buying and selling is evil somehow.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, the word "conflict" is vague.  That's why you use it.  There is no coercion in the market.  Any discussion of "conflict" is just meaningless blather.
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> [For example a person who is dying of thirst in the desert will have inelastic demand for water. People can also have inelastic demand for a wage/job. Some people will even sell their children into slavery when pressed hard enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More meaningless blather.   People dying of thirst in the dessert aren't relevant to economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never knew people would be so sensitive to the word conflict but I will play along. I will use any word you want be to use to describe how suppliers and demanders have opposing roles in the market economy.
Click to expand...


They aren't "opposing" roles.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> How does the slope of a line equate "conflict?"



In reality both will struggle for power in the negotiation as their desires are the opposite.

Sometimes one group loses power and another gains it.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never knew people would be so sensitive to the word conflict but I will play along. I will use any word you want be to use to describe how suppliers and demanders have opposing roles in the market economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't "opposing" roles.
Click to expand...


Yes they are. Failure of one to fulfill their role results in inefficiency. Downward and upward pressures on prices are key to a healthy market. Those opposing pressures is the conflict. Each side has a role to provide the appropriate pressure.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Yes they are. Failure of one to fulfill their role results in inefficiency. Downward and upward pressures on prices are key to a healthy market. Those opposing pressures is the conflict. Each side has a role to provide the appropriate pressure.


Define "inefficiency".


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are. Failure of one to fulfill their role results in inefficiency. Downward and upward pressures on prices are key to a healthy market. Those opposing pressures is the conflict. Each side has a role to provide the appropriate pressure.
> 
> 
> 
> Define "inefficiency".
Click to expand...


In this context I am describing the result of an imperfect market.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> In this context I am describing the result of an imperfect market.


Unfortunately, only you knows what that means.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this context I am describing the result of an imperfect market.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, only you knows what that means.
Click to expand...


Any market that is not perfect. 

Perfect market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perfect competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this context I am describing the result of an imperfect market.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, only you knows what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any market that is not perfect.
> 
> Perfect market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Perfect competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

You realize that's all theoretical and might make for a good discussion but there is no perfect market and no non-governmental intervention in this world.


----------



## georgephillip

Redfish said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP lives in a ZERO SUM GAME world while applauding those against making the pie LARGER through Capitalism. It appears HE would be comfy in killing it and letting Government run it all. The OP is an extreme Socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> The OP lives in the same capitalist world you do.
> The one where the richest 1% of US citizens have appropriated 95% of the post-financial crisis growth since your boy moved into the White House. Only devout slaves, like you, deny that extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you told Oprah and Beyonce and J Zee and Beiber that you hate them for being rich and successful?   Have you demanded that they give up half of what they have for the "common good" ?
Click to expand...

Why would I waste my breath on rich bitches?


----------



## georgephillip

Rottweiler said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is. You are ignorant. WHAT will Obama be talking about in the SOTU? "INCOME INEQUALITY"
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct, imho, regarding Wall Street's Boy's next SOTU, *and won't we all be morons if we don't remember how the richest 1% of US citizens have captured 95% of post-financial crisis growth since 2009 while the bottom 90% got poorer*?
> 
> Class War Victors Get Higher on the Hog » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! So lets remember! Lets remember that occurred under a radical marxist Dumbocrat president. Lets remember that occurred under a radical marxist Dumbocrat Senate majority leader. Lets remember that occurred under a radical marxist Dumbocrat speaker of the house.
> 
> Lets remember that it was Dumbocrat failed policy which expanded unemployment. Lets remember that it was Dumbocrat failed policy which expanded poverty. Lets remember that it was Dumbocrat failed policy which aims to do all of this so as to ensure their power through an electorate dependent on government for their every need.
> 
> And then....lets remember not to vote for Dumbocrats and their failed "trickle up poverty" economic policies ever again!
Click to expand...

Why do you find it necessary to forget how both Bushes and Clintons and Reagan and Carter all depend on the same 1% of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements?

Are you proud to be richly partisan?


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, only you knows what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any market that is not perfect.
> 
> Perfect market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Perfect competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You realize that's all theoretical and might make for a good discussion but *there is no perfect market* and no non-governmental intervention in this world.
Click to expand...


The bolded part is exactly my point.

All of my arguments center around dealing with these imperfect markets when they are causing problems. The way economics is taught is to start with these clean markets and then slowly introduce scenarios where they are not perfect. This way we can learn how to recognize problems in markets and understand why there are problems.

Growing income inequality can be a result of many things but in the case of the US there is a very obvious cause (or combination of causes). Trade imbalances that are supported by capital inflows into the US, increases in the effective supply of labor, and domestic increases in productivity.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They're not that unequal.*
> 
> How much more productive is Bill Gates than a Chinese farmer living in a mud hut?
> Than an illiterate person in India shoveling shit for a living?
> 
> 
> 
> The ratio of outputs to inputs doesn't affect the Chinese farmer's or Indian illiterate's natural rights. Bill Gates is one of the "takers" living large off the exploitation of billions of his fellow human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about natural rights?
> I'm talking about productivity.
> 
> Exploitation?
> Commies are funny.
> You may not like Windows or other Microsoft products, that doesn't mean Gates exploited anyone.
> You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff.
> Whiner.
Click to expand...

*Rhymes with rich:*
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chinas Youth Meet Microsoft
KYE Factory in China Produces for Microsoft and
other U.S. Companies
We are like prisoners We do not have a life. Only work.
-Teenaged Microsoft Worker"
*Maybe you can get a job when you grow a pair?*

http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports/Chinas_Youth_Meet_Micro.pdf


----------



## MikeK

racewright said:


> Do not forget jealousy it is getting so that people who earn six figures or more have to deal with the Jealous fools who think you do not deserve to have more than me. And call you rich...


You are focused on the way things are "getting."  Are you old enough to remember the way things were?  Specifically the political atmosphere in America when no one paid any attention to the "rich."  It wasn't that long ago.  And the reason for the difference back then was the American Dream was being fulfilled.  There was a strong and healthy middle class of workers who were paid progressive living wages and whose jobs were not subject to export by greedy globalist corporations.  But something happened.  

It began with _Reaganomics,_ which was a surreptitiously imposed version of Milton Friedman-style laissez faire _siphon-up_ economics rather than the "trickle-down" promised by the Man From General Electric.  That was followed by a quietly administered removal ("de-regulation") of laws which effectively prevented the banks, Wall Street, and the corporatocracy from doing the things they've done to create the situation we are dealing with today -- which is destruction of the middle class and the rise of a new Gilded Age.  

It isn't jealousy you're seeing.  It's resentment.  And it's well justified.  



> How much does someone have to have to be called RICH anyway???


That's up to you and me to decide.  

The strength of a nation depends mainly on the health and stability of its economy.  The U.S. Economy is no longer healthy, nor is it stable, and the fault lies with those who have tampered with it and brought about a deficit in the multi-trillion dollar range.  Their actions have weakened America, plain and simple.  And their common motivation for doing it is *greed.*

I believe the way to eliminate the toxic motivating force of greed is to simply establish a maximum allowable level of personal assets that any citizen may possess.  I believe twenty million dollars is a reasonable limit and I think that limit should be enforced by IRS confiscation of every penny in excess of that amount.  

Radical, yes.  But necessary to restore the health and strength of American society.  And I'm open to discussing this with anyone who thinks it's a bad idea.


----------



## MikeK

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ratio of outputs to inputs doesn't affect the Chinese farmer's or Indian illiterate's natural rights. Bill Gates is one of the "takers" living large off the exploitation of billions of his fellow human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about natural rights?  I'm talking about productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you seem to have a one-dimensional perception of the mechanics of productivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exploitation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes!  Microsoft is a perfect example of economic exploitation.
Click to expand...




> Commies are funny.


Whom do you believe is a "commie," and why?  Do you understand what communism is?  



> You may not like Windows or other Microsoft products, that doesn't mean Gates exploited anyone.


Gates exploits everyone who uses Windows, including you and me.  He has done that by constructing what in fact is a monopolistic trap which is predicated on a system of planned obsolescence and dependency on Microsoft to remain current.  He shakes you and me down every two years or so to the tune of hundreds of dollars when we need nothing more than a few dollars worth of updating.  And if you're thinking that shakedown represents productivity, the fact is without Gates' monopoly we both would have more money to spend on other things -- which means productivity would not suffer from eliminating Gates.  



> You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff.


It's not that simple.  As I've said, he's created a monopolistic trap.  He has the vast majority of computer users by the balls.  Switching to Apple, or learning how to use Linux, would be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for me.


----------



## Dirk the Daring

MikeK said:


> It's not that simple.  As I've said, he's created a monopolistic trap.  He has the vast majority of computer users by the balls.  Switching to Apple, or learning how to use Linux, would be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for me.



I seriously can't figure out if this is sarcasm or not, so props to you for that.  

Your argument though, if legit, is absurd.  

'Bill Gates created a monopoly, except for all these alternatives that do the same thing, that I don't have time to learn.'


----------



## Dirk the Daring

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try telling that to those creative entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve's not taking any calls, but he would probably be among the first to credit public funding of the internet to explain much of his $ucce$$.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jobs didn't make most of his money from the internet.  I doubt he would credit public funding.
Click to expand...


Based on this conversation finding its way to Steve Jobs, I was curious about Apple so I did a little investigating - does anyone recognize the name Mike Markkula?  Here's what Steve Wozniak himself says about Markkula and his contribution to Apple Computers Inc;



> Steve and I get a lot of credit, but Mike Markkula was probably more responsible for our early success, and you never hear about him.



So who exactly was Mike Markkula?  Per wiki,



> In 1977, Markkula brought his business expertise along with US$250,000 ($80,000 as an equity investment in the company and $170,000 as a loan) and became a one-third owner of Apple and employee number 3.



Markkula was an investor, to the tune of $250,000.  

Just thought I'd share.  Now all you socialists... er, liberals keep believing poor people are the economic drivers in our system.  Nothing to see here...


----------



## Contumacious

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservatives in this thread keep acting like the left wants everyone to make the same amount - levelling incomes for everyone.  That's not what changing income inequity is all about at all.  People are smarter and whose efforts create more jobs and whose efforts are more valued SHOULD earn more than those who simply toil, but the issue is how much more.
> 
> The problem is that those who toil - the low income service workers who are easily replaced, have seen the buying power of their incomes erode over the past 30 years to the point where those jobs no longer pay enough money to sustain the wage earner without government assistance.  Fast food workers didn't needd SNAP to buy their groceries 30 years ago, but they do now.  In the meantime, fast food companies profits have grown to the point where these corporations are among the most profitable in the US.
> 
> When full-time workers require a second job and/or public assistance to provide the most basic necessitities of life for themselves or their families, while their employers enjoy record profits, the assistance given is a wage subsidy to their employer.  Middle class taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of companies like Walmart and MacDonalds.
> 
> If these employers were marginally profitable or in danger of failing because of high wages, we would ask that the employees take a wage cut to keep the corporations afloat.  These companies could afford to pay their workers more money and still make a huge profit, just not as much as they are now.  Why should the middle class subsidize the profits of these large multi-nationals?
> 
> The US has transferred entire sectors of manufacturing to Third World countries, leaving millions of Americans unemployed.  Millions more low skill workers are being replaced by automation.  The competition for the manufacturing jobs which remain, is brutal.  Outside of the defence industry, there is little manufacturing left in the US.  If production can be outsourced, it has been.
> 
> It is now impossible to fine textiles, clothing or bedding and towels which are manufactured in North America, and the quality of the clothing is much lower than it was when manufacturing was doing here.  This means that the clothing has to be replaced more frequently, which is fine by the retailers.  Conservatives say "If you can't find a job, go back to school and upgrade your skills", but for manufacturing workers in their 50's, this isn't a viable solution.  For those with families and mortgages, how are they to support their families while they upgrade their skills?
> 
> What has happened, is that those who used to work iin manufacturing, are now going into the service sector, which never lacked for workers in the first place.  Recently there was a news story which said that 5,000 people lined up to apply for jobs at a new mall which was opening.  These are minimum wage jobs, with little hope of advancement.
> 
> There used to be a lot of what my mother would have called "good jobs".  Relatively low skill, low education, manufacturing jobs where a person who was willing to work hard and behave responsibly could earn enough money to buy a modest home, a basic car, and support his/her family.   Those are the jobs that have been lost.  And the service jobs which remain, don't pay enough to do any of these things without government assistance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama economy sucks, it's as bad as the FDR Depression and for the same reasons: Soviet Style Democrat Central Planned economy is a 100% Guaranteed Fail
> 
> Your economic ideas suck, just deal with it
Click to expand...


That is 1000% correct.

.


----------



## georgephillip

Bern80 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any proof for yours? It seems not. Two things happening at the same time does not a correlation make.
Click to expand...

"cor·re·la·tion noun \&#716;ko&#775;r-&#601;-&#712;l&#257;-sh&#601;n, &#716;kär-\
: the relationship between things that happen or change together

"Full Definition of CORRELATION

1:  the state or relation of being correlated; specifically :  a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone <the obviously high positive correlation between scholastic aptitude and college entrance."
*OR*
"The 85 richest people on Earth now have the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the global population, according to a report released Monday by the British humanitarian group Oxfam International."

Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dragonlady said:


> The conservatives in this thread keep acting like the left wants everyone to make the same amount - levelling incomes for everyone.  That's not what changing income inequity is all about at all.  People are smarter and whose efforts create more jobs and whose efforts are more valued SHOULD earn more than those who simply toil, but the issue is how much more.
> 
> The problem is that those who toil - the low income service workers who are easily replaced, have seen the buying power of their incomes erode over the past 30 years to the point where those jobs no longer pay enough money to sustain the wage earner without government assistance.  Fast food workers didn't needd SNAP to buy their groceries 30 years ago, but they do now.  In the meantime, fast food companies profits have grown to the point where these corporations are among the most profitable in the US.
> 
> When full-time workers require a second job and/or public assistance to provide the most basic necessitities of life for themselves or their families, while their employers enjoy record profits, the assistance given is a wage subsidy to their employer.  Middle class taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of companies like Walmart and MacDonalds.
> 
> If these employers were marginally profitable or in danger of failing because of high wages, we would ask that the employees take a wage cut to keep the corporations afloat.  These companies could afford to pay their workers more money and still make a huge profit, just not as much as they are now.  Why should the middle class subsidize the profits of these large multi-nationals?
> 
> The US has transferred entire sectors of manufacturing to Third World countries, leaving millions of Americans unemployed.  Millions more low skill workers are being replaced by automation.  The competition for the manufacturing jobs which remain, is brutal.  Outside of the defence industry, there is little manufacturing left in the US.  If production can be outsourced, it has been.
> 
> It is now impossible to fine textiles, clothing or bedding and towels which are manufactured in North America, and the quality of the clothing is much lower than it was when manufacturing was doing here.  This means that the clothing has to be replaced more frequently, which is fine by the retailers.  Conservatives say "If you can't find a job, go back to school and upgrade your skills", but for manufacturing workers in their 50's, this isn't a viable solution.  For those with families and mortgages, how are they to support their families while they upgrade their skills?
> 
> What has happened, is that those who used to work iin manufacturing, are now going into the service sector, which never lacked for workers in the first place.  Recently there was a news story which said that 5,000 people lined up to apply for jobs at a new mall which was opening.  These are minimum wage jobs, with little hope of advancement.
> 
> There used to be a lot of what my mother would have called "good jobs".  Relatively low skill, low education, manufacturing jobs where a person who was willing to work hard and behave responsibly could earn enough money to buy a modest home, a basic car, and support his/her family.   Those are the jobs that have been lost.  And the service jobs which remain, don't pay enough to do any of these things without government assistance.



* Fast food workers didn't needd SNAP to buy their groceries 30 years ago, but they do now. *

30 years ago the minimum wage was $3.35. 
How much groceries did that buy?


*When full-time workers require a second job and/or public assistance to provide the most basic necessitities of life for themselves or their families, while their employers enjoy record profits, the assistance given is a wage subsidy to their employer. *

When we import millions of low-skill illegals, is it any wonder that the competition drives down wages for our own low skilled workers?
Boot 20 million illegals and watch wages rise and public assistance drop.

*Outside of the defence industry, there is little manufacturing left in the US. *

Baloney. We produce more than ever.

*There used to be a lot of what my mother would have called "good jobs".  Relatively low skill, low education, manufacturing jobs where a person who was willing to work hard and behave responsibly could earn enough money to buy a modest home, a basic car, and support his/her family.  *

After manufacturing was destroyed in Europe and Asia in WWII, that was the case.
The rest of the world rebuilt and we destroyed our manufacturing with union idiocy, over regulation and high taxation.


----------



## dblack

Do we want economic freedom or not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ratio of outputs to inputs doesn't affect the Chinese farmer's or Indian illiterate's natural rights. Bill Gates is one of the "takers" living large off the exploitation of billions of his fellow human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about natural rights?
> I'm talking about productivity.
> 
> Exploitation?
> Commies are funny.
> You may not like Windows or other Microsoft products, that doesn't mean Gates exploited anyone.
> You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff.
> Whiner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Rhymes with rich:*
> "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
> Chinas Youth Meet Microsoft
> KYE Factory in China Produces for Microsoft and
> other U.S. Companies
> We are like prisoners We do not have a life. Only work.
> -Teenaged Microsoft Worker"
> *Maybe you can get a job when you grow a pair?*
> 
> http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports/Chinas_Youth_Meet_Micro.pdf
Click to expand...


You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff. Don't work for him.
Whiner.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

MikeK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about natural rights?  I'm talking about productivity.
> 
> 
> 
> But you seem to have a one-dimensional perception of the mechanics of productivity.
> 
> 
> Yes!  Microsoft is a perfect example of economic exploitation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whom do you believe is a "commie," and why?  Do you understand what communism is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may not like Windows or other Microsoft products, that doesn't mean Gates exploited anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gates exploits everyone who uses Windows, including you and me.  He has done that by constructing what in fact is a monopolistic trap which is predicated on a system of planned obsolescence and dependency on Microsoft to remain current.  He shakes you and me down every two years or so to the tune of hundreds of dollars when we need nothing more than a few dollars worth of updating.  And if you're thinking that shakedown represents productivity, the fact is without Gates' monopoly we both would have more money to spend on other things -- which means productivity would not suffer from eliminating Gates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not that simple.  As I've said, he's created a monopolistic trap.  He has the vast majority of computer users by the balls.  Switching to Apple, or learning how to use Linux, would be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for me.
Click to expand...


*Gates exploits everyone who uses Windows, including you and me. He has done that by constructing what in fact is a monopolistic trap *

OMG! Don't use Windows. 

*Switching to Apple, or learning how to use Linux, would be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for me.*

It's awful that his products are so convenient for you.


----------



## ilia25

bripat9643 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's family income, numskull.  Families have been shrinking because of all the welfare queens who can't keep their legs together and have illegitimate children.  One sure way to grow up poor is for your mother to have never been married to your father.
> 
> Don't blame capitalism for that.  Blame the welfare state.
Click to expand...


Look at the chart, fuckface. You think average household size shrinking from 2.76 to 2.57 would explain why the incomes of 1% were growing 5 times faster?


----------



## Dragonlady

Conservatives in this thread have a poor grasp of economic principles. If people don't earn enough to provide for their families without government assistance while the companies they work for record record profits, the real "takers" are the shareholders who pocket monies that should go to the workers without whom there would be no profits. 

Everyone should be benefitting from those record earnings, including the employees. The government should not be subsidizing the wages of profitable companies. Wages of workers should be keeping pace with management as a percentage of earnings. Instead, executive compensation and dividends have skyrocketed whiles wages have remained flat and the buying power of those wages has declined. This is very typical of free market economies. 

Wages and employment law in the US have not kept pace with the rest of the world and the US economy is in trouble as a result.  

And yet conservatives blame the workers for this sorry state of things.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any market that is not perfect.
> 
> Perfect market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Perfect competition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that's all theoretical and might make for a good discussion but *there is no perfect market* and no non-governmental intervention in this world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bolded part is exactly my point.
> 
> All of my arguments center around dealing with these imperfect markets when they are causing problems. The way economics is taught is to start with these clean markets and then slowly introduce scenarios where they are not perfect. This way we can learn how to recognize problems in markets and understand why there are problems.
Click to expand...


The idea that there is such a thing as "perfect markets" and that government is required to step in and correct them when they aren't was coined by some propagandists on the government payroll.  Prior to the Keynesian Voo Doo, no economist ever discussed anything called a "perfect market."  They are no more plausible than perfect people or perfect government.  

One requirement for the so-called "perfect market" is perfect information.  According to the "perfect market" theory, everyone who makes buying decisions is required to know everything there is to know about all the products being sold.  Of course, such an idea is ludicrous.  If everyone had perfect information, then the advertising business would instantly become pointless.  Not even the manufacturers know everything there is to know about their product.  I'm in the software business, and I can freely admit that I don't know everything there is to know about the products my company sells.  No one in the company does, not even the programmers who write it.

That's just one reason why the "perfect market" theory is utter hogwash.  There are dozens of others, but that should suffice to give you reason to cast a leary at any demagogue who blabbers about "perfect markets."



Bombur said:


> Growing income inequality can be a result of many things but in the case of the US there is a very obvious cause (or combination of causes). Trade imbalances that are supported by capital inflows into the US, increases in the effective supply of labor, and domestic increases in productivity.



Equality of incomes would be astounding if it ever occurred in the history of the Earth, so why would anyone believe that income inequality needs an explanation?


----------



## bripat9643

MikeK said:


> racewright said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not forget jealousy it is getting so that people who earn six figures or more have to deal with the Jealous fools who think you do not deserve to have more than me. And call you rich...
> 
> 
> 
> You are focused on the way things are "getting."  Are you old enough to remember the way things were?  Specifically the political atmosphere in America when no one paid any attention to the "rich."  It wasn't that long ago.  And the reason for the difference back then was the American Dream was being fulfilled.  There was a strong and healthy middle class of workers who were paid progressive living wages and whose jobs were not subject to export by greedy globalist corporations.  But something happened.
> 
> It began with _Reaganomics,_ which was a surreptitiously imposed version of Milton Friedman-style laissez faire _siphon-up_ economics rather than the "trickle-down" promised by the Man From General Electric.  That was followed by a quietly administered removal ("de-regulation") of laws which effectively prevented the banks, Wall Street, and the corporatocracy from doing the things they've done to create the situation we are dealing with today -- which is destruction of the middle class and the rise of a new Gilded Age.
> 
> It isn't jealousy you're seeing.  It's resentment.  And it's well justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much does someone have to have to be called RICH anyway???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's up to you and me to decide.
> 
> The strength of a nation depends mainly on the health and stability of its economy.  The U.S. Economy is no longer healthy, nor is it stable, and the fault lies with those who have tampered with it and brought about a deficit in the multi-trillion dollar range.  Their actions have weakened America, plain and simple.  And their common motivation for doing it is *greed.*
> 
> I believe the way to eliminate the toxic motivating force of greed is to simply establish a maximum allowable level of personal assets that any citizen may possess.  I believe twenty million dollars is a reasonable limit and I think that limit should be enforced by IRS confiscation of every penny in excess of that amount.
> 
> Radical, yes.  But necessary to restore the health and strength of American society.  And I'm open to discussing this with anyone who thinks it's a bad idea.
Click to expand...


*BWHAHAHAHAHA!*

I knew you were an idiot, but you proved it with that last idea.  This country would swirl down the toilet bowl if the government confiscated any assets over a million dollars.  Who do you think would invest in companies like Apple Computer under such a regime?  Don't you understand that 95% of the assets of the rich are invested in American business in one form or another?  Following your prescription means nationalizing virtually every corporation in America.

You're a nothing but a fucking communist.

You just admitted it.


----------



## bripat9643

MikeK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about natural rights?  I'm talking about productivity.
> 
> 
> 
> But you seem to have a one-dimensional perception of the mechanics of productivity.
> 
> 
> Yes!  Microsoft is a perfect example of economic exploitation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whom do you believe is a "commie," and why?  Do you understand what communism is?.
Click to expand...


You're a commie.  You just proved it.  



MikeK said:


> You may not like Windows or other Microsoft products, that doesn't mean Gates exploited anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Gates exploits everyone who uses Windows, including you and me.  He has done that by constructing what in fact is a monopolistic trap which is predicated on a system of planned obsolescence and dependency on Microsoft to remain current.  He shakes you and me down every two years or so to the tune of hundreds of dollars when we need nothing more than a few dollars worth of updating.  And if you're thinking that shakedown represents productivity, the fact is without Gates' monopoly we both would have more money to spend on other things -- which means productivity would not suffer from eliminating Gates.
Click to expand...


Apparently the term "exploit" means to provide a product or service that people want and find useful.  Without Gates' so-called monopoly millions of women would still be secretaries and we'd all be a lot poorer because corporations would have to pay for this added expense.  Desktop computers have saved American business $trillions of dollars in the last 20 years.  These savings have made Americans vastly more wealthy.  I guess that's what it means to be "exploited."  Next time there's a line to be "exploited," you'll find me standing in it.



MikeK said:


> You don't like Gates, don't buy his stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple.  As I've said, he's created a monopolistic trap.  He has the vast majority of computer users by the balls.  Switching to Apple, or learning how to use Linux, would be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for me.
Click to expand...


So Microsoft makes your life more convenient?


----------



## bripat9643

ilia25 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's family income, numskull.  Families have been shrinking because of all the welfare queens who can't keep their legs together and have illegitimate children.  One sure way to grow up poor is for your mother to have never been married to your father.
> 
> Don't blame capitalism for that.  Blame the welfare state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the chart, fuckface. You think average household size shrinking from 2.76 to 2.57 would explain why the incomes of 1% were growing 5 times faster?
Click to expand...


You can add in the fact that Union lobbying to make corporate takeovers virtually impossible to the mix.  Corporate takeovers were about the only way to get rid of entrenched management, but since they threatened extortionist union contracts as well, the unions lobbied their government to make them illegal.  Now, no matter how rapacious and greedy the management becomes, an outside investor cannot move in and replace them with cheaper more competent managers.


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> Conservatives in this thread have a poor grasp of economic principles. If people don't earn enough to provide for their families without government assistance while the companies they work for record record profits, the real "takers" are the shareholders who pocket monies that should go to the workers without whom there would be no profits.



So then why don't those "workers" invest in their company and become one of those "shareholders who pocket monies"? Duh! That's the beauty of _freedom_. That's the beauty of _choice_.



Dragonlady said:


> Everyone should be benefitting from those record earnings, including the employees.



Where in the hell is _that_ written?!? Employees have a choice in their employment. They have chosen to work that job for that salary.



Dragonlady said:


> The government should not be subsidizing the wages of profitable companies.



You're 100% correct on that. Unfortunately, it's people like _you_ who have demanded that our government unconstitutionally subsidize _everything_.



Dragonlady said:


> Wages of workers should be keeping pace with management as a percentage of earnings.



Again, where in the hell is _that_ written?!? If that's what you want, get up off of your lazy ass, start your own company, and run it that way...



Dragonlady said:


> Instead, executive compensation and dividends have skyrocketed whiles wages have remained flat and the buying power of those wages has declined. This is very typical of free market economies.



And thank God! Because otherwise, there would be zero incentive for people to rise up. Which is why your spread-the-wealth ends in collapse. There is no incentive to work hard and improve.



Dragonlady said:


> Wages and employment law in the US have not kept pace with the rest of the world and the US economy is in trouble as a result.



Care to expand on that? We are already over-legislated in the U.S. What additional laws does your lazy, communist ass desire to see?



Dragonlady said:


> And yet conservatives blame the workers for this sorry state of things.



Because conservatives are much smarter than you. They realize that the U.S. has established a platform which promotes success for anyone and everyone - so long as they are driven enough to achieve that success. While buffoon's like you believe life is all run and controlled by some "mystical force" which enslaves one to poverty for eternity and others to opulence for eternity (even though the facts prove that is absolutely and unequivocally wrong).


----------



## P@triot

Dirk the Daring said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple.  As I've said, he's created a monopolistic trap.  He has the vast majority of computer users by the balls.  Switching to Apple, or learning how to use Linux, would be enormously inconvenient and troublesome for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously can't figure out if this is sarcasm or not, so props to you for that.
> 
> Your argument though, if legit, is absurd.
> 
> '*Bill Gates created a monopoly, except for all these alternatives that do the same thing, that I don't have time to learn*.'
Click to expand...


----------



## Dragonlady

Nice to see that Rottweiler continues to reside in his conservative bubble where the American dream isn't dead and everybody still had a chance to be the next Bill Gates. 

By every measure, doors are closing to the lower and middle class to rise up. If you don't make enough to support yourself and your family, how can you possibly have money left over to invest? 

The quality of public school education is in serious decline and American students are falling behind the rest of the world while surveys show that a large percentage of the population denies science, evolution and climate change. 

Student grants are being cut while tuition rises so that when students graduate, their future has been fully mortgaged to pay their tuition. 

Unions gave rise to the middle class. It's no accident that in destroying the middle class Ronnie Rayguns went after the unions first.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> racewright said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not forget jealousy it is getting so that people who earn six figures or more have to deal with the Jealous fools who think you do not deserve to have more than me. And call you rich...
> 
> 
> 
> You are focused on the way things are "getting."  Are you old enough to remember the way things were?  Specifically the political atmosphere in America when no one paid any attention to the "rich."  It wasn't that long ago.  And the reason for the difference back then was the American Dream was being fulfilled.  There was a strong and healthy middle class of workers who were paid progressive living wages and whose jobs were not subject to export by greedy globalist corporations.  But something happened.
> 
> It began with _Reaganomics,_ which was a surreptitiously imposed version of Milton Friedman-style laissez faire _siphon-up_ economics rather than the "trickle-down" promised by the Man From General Electric.  That was followed by a quietly administered removal ("de-regulation") of laws which effectively prevented the banks, Wall Street, and the corporatocracy from doing the things they've done to create the situation we are dealing with today -- which is destruction of the middle class and the rise of a new Gilded Age.
> 
> It isn't jealousy you're seeing.  It's resentment.  And it's well justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much does someone have to have to be called RICH anyway???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's up to you and me to decide.
> 
> The strength of a nation depends mainly on the health and stability of its economy.  The U.S. Economy is no longer healthy, nor is it stable, and the fault lies with those who have tampered with it and brought about a deficit in the multi-trillion dollar range.  Their actions have weakened America, plain and simple.  And their common motivation for doing it is *greed.*
> 
> I believe the way to eliminate the toxic motivating force of greed is to simply establish a maximum allowable level of personal assets that any citizen may possess.  I believe twenty million dollars is a reasonable limit and I think that limit should be enforced by IRS confiscation of every penny in excess of that amount.
> 
> Radical, yes.  But necessary to restore the health and strength of American society.  And I'm open to discussing this with anyone who thinks it's a bad idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BWHAHAHAHAHA!*
> 
> I knew you were an idiot, but you proved it with that last idea.  This country would swirl down the toilet bowl if the government confiscated any assets over a million dollars.  Who do you think would invest in companies like Apple Computer under such a regime?  *Don't you understand that 95% of the assets of the rich are invested in American business in one form or another? * Following your prescription means nationalizing virtually every corporation in America.
> 
> You're a nothing but a fucking communist.
> 
> You just admitted it.
Click to expand...

*While you just admitted you're a liar.*


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that's all theoretical and might make for a good discussion but *there is no perfect market* and no non-governmental intervention in this world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded part is exactly my point.
> 
> All of my arguments center around dealing with these imperfect markets when they are causing problems. The way economics is taught is to start with these clean markets and then slowly introduce scenarios where they are not perfect. This way we can learn how to recognize problems in markets and understand why there are problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that there is such a thing as "perfect markets" and that government is required to step in and correct them when they aren't was coined by some propagandists on the government payroll.  Prior to the Keynesian Voo Doo, no economist every discussed anything called a "perfect market."  They are no more plausible than perfect people or perfect government.
> 
> One requirement for the so-called "perfect market" is perfect information.  According to the "perfect market" theory, everyone who makes buying decisions is required to know everything there is no know about all the products being sold.  Of course, such an idea is ludicrous.  If everyone had perfect information, then the advertising business would instantly become pointless.  Not even the manufacturers know everything there is to know about their product.  I'm in the software business, and I can freely admit that I don't know everything there is to know about the products my company sells.  No one in the company does, not even the programmers who write it do.
> 
> That's just one reason why the "perfect market" theory is utter hogwash.  There are dozens of others, but that should suffice to give you reason to cast a leary at any demagogue who blabbers about "perfect markets."
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Growing income inequality can be a result of many things but in the case of the US there is a very obvious cause (or combination of causes). Trade imbalances that are supported by capital inflows into the US, increases in the effective supply of labor, and domestic increases in productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality of incomes would be astounding if it ever occurred in the history of the Earth, so why would anyone believe that income inequality needs an explanation?
Click to expand...


Perfect market theory is the basis of laissez faire economics. You just argued against yourself and not me. 

/boggle

As for the second post of mine you quoted, I specifically said "growing income inequality" and you made an argument concerning "equality of incomes." If you do not understand the difference between those two thing by this point in the thread I suggest you reread what I have already wrote.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are focused on the way things are "getting."  Are you old enough to remember the way things were?  Specifically the political atmosphere in America when no one paid any attention to the "rich."  It wasn't that long ago.  And the reason for the difference back then was the American Dream was being fulfilled.  There was a strong and healthy middle class of workers who were paid progressive living wages and whose jobs were not subject to export by greedy globalist corporations.  But something happened.
> 
> It began with _Reaganomics,_ which was a surreptitiously imposed version of Milton Friedman-style laissez faire _siphon-up_ economics rather than the "trickle-down" promised by the Man From General Electric.  That was followed by a quietly administered removal ("de-regulation") of laws which effectively prevented the banks, Wall Street, and the corporatocracy from doing the things they've done to create the situation we are dealing with today -- which is destruction of the middle class and the rise of a new Gilded Age.
> 
> It isn't jealousy you're seeing.  It's resentment.  And it's well justified.
> 
> 
> That's up to you and me to decide.
> 
> The strength of a nation depends mainly on the health and stability of its economy.  The U.S. Economy is no longer healthy, nor is it stable, and the fault lies with those who have tampered with it and brought about a deficit in the multi-trillion dollar range.  Their actions have weakened America, plain and simple.  And their common motivation for doing it is *greed.*
> 
> I believe the way to eliminate the toxic motivating force of greed is to simply establish a maximum allowable level of personal assets that any citizen may possess.  I believe twenty million dollars is a reasonable limit and I think that limit should be enforced by IRS confiscation of every penny in excess of that amount.
> 
> Radical, yes.  But necessary to restore the health and strength of American society.  And I'm open to discussing this with anyone who thinks it's a bad idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BWHAHAHAHAHA!*
> 
> I knew you were an idiot, but you proved it with that last idea.  This country would swirl down the toilet bowl if the government confiscated any assets over a million dollars.  Who do you think would invest in companies like Apple Computer under such a regime?  *Don't you understand that 95% of the assets of the rich are invested in American business in one form or another? * Following your prescription means nationalizing virtually every corporation in America.
> 
> You're a nothing but a fucking communist.
> 
> You just admitted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *While you just admitted you're a liar.*
Click to expand...


So where do the rich put their money?


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded part is exactly my point.
> 
> All of my arguments center around dealing with these imperfect markets when they are causing problems. The way economics is taught is to start with these clean markets and then slowly introduce scenarios where they are not perfect. This way we can learn how to recognize problems in markets and understand why there are problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that there is such a thing as "perfect markets" and that government is required to step in and correct them when they aren't was coined by some propagandists on the government payroll.  Prior to the Keynesian Voo Doo, no economist every discussed anything called a "perfect market."  They are no more plausible than perfect people or perfect government.
> 
> One requirement for the so-called "perfect market" is perfect information.  According to the "perfect market" theory, everyone who makes buying decisions is required to know everything there is no know about all the products being sold.  Of course, such an idea is ludicrous.  If everyone had perfect information, then the advertising business would instantly become pointless.  Not even the manufacturers know everything there is to know about their product.  I'm in the software business, and I can freely admit that I don't know everything there is to know about the products my company sells.  No one in the company does, not even the programmers who write it do.
> 
> That's just one reason why the "perfect market" theory is utter hogwash.  There are dozens of others, but that should suffice to give you reason to cast a leary at any demagogue who blabbers about "perfect markets."
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Growing income inequality can be a result of many things but in the case of the US there is a very obvious cause (or combination of causes). Trade imbalances that are supported by capital inflows into the US, increases in the effective supply of labor, and domestic increases in productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality of incomes would be astounding if it ever occurred in the history of the Earth, so why would anyone believe that income inequality needs an explanation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perfect market theory is the basis of laissez faire economics. You just argued against yourself and not me.
Click to expand...


Horseshit.  It's propaganda used to justify government intervention.  No economist ever mentioned a "perfect market" before the FDR regime gained power and put them all on the government payroll.



Bombur said:


> [As for the second post of mine you quoted, I specifically said "growing income inequality" and you made an argument concerning "equality of incomes." If you do not understand the difference between those two thing by this point in the thread I suggest you reread what I have already wrote.



Obama's policies are the cause of growing income equality.


----------



## usmcstinger

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



Your lack a rudimentary understanding of economics.

European Socialism brought their member countries to the verge of economic collapse.

Communism promises to end Income Inequality. However, the State decides upon how much education you can have and what your job will be. We saw how that ended.

Government can not create jobs only the private sector.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Conservatives in this thread have a poor grasp of economic principles. If people don't earn enough to provide for their families without government assistance while the companies they work for record record profits, the real "takers" are the shareholders who pocket monies that should go to the workers without whom there would be no profits.
> 
> Everyone should be benefitting from those record earnings, including the employees. The government should not be subsidizing the wages of profitable companies. Wages of workers should be keeping pace with management as a percentage of earnings. Instead, executive compensation and dividends have skyrocketed whiles wages have remained flat and the buying power of those wages has declined. This is very typical of free market economies.
> 
> Wages and employment law in the US have not kept pace with the rest of the world and the US economy is in trouble as a result.
> 
> And yet conservatives blame the workers for this sorry state of things.



Interesting.

Only real problem with your statement is that you don't actually provide any evidence that the companies making those record profits aren't paying their workers a living wage, you just want people to believe it because it makes your argument sound so much better.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded part is exactly my point.
> 
> All of my arguments center around dealing with these imperfect markets when they are causing problems. The way economics is taught is to start with these clean markets and then slowly introduce scenarios where they are not perfect. This way we can learn how to recognize problems in markets and understand why there are problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that there is such a thing as "perfect markets" and that government is required to step in and correct them when they aren't was coined by some propagandists on the government payroll.  Prior to the Keynesian Voo Doo, no economist every discussed anything called a "perfect market."  They are no more plausible than perfect people or perfect government.
> 
> One requirement for the so-called "perfect market" is perfect information.  According to the "perfect market" theory, everyone who makes buying decisions is required to know everything there is no know about all the products being sold.  Of course, such an idea is ludicrous.  If everyone had perfect information, then the advertising business would instantly become pointless.  Not even the manufacturers know everything there is to know about their product.  I'm in the software business, and I can freely admit that I don't know everything there is to know about the products my company sells.  No one in the company does, not even the programmers who write it do.
> 
> That's just one reason why the "perfect market" theory is utter hogwash.  There are dozens of others, but that should suffice to give you reason to cast a leary at any demagogue who blabbers about "perfect markets."
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Growing income inequality can be a result of many things but in the case of the US there is a very obvious cause (or combination of causes). Trade imbalances that are supported by capital inflows into the US, increases in the effective supply of labor, and domestic increases in productivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality of incomes would be astounding if it ever occurred in the history of the Earth, so why would anyone believe that income inequality needs an explanation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perfect market theory is the basis of laissez faire economics. You just argued against yourself and not me.
> 
> /boggle
> 
> As for the second post of mine you quoted, I specifically said "growing income inequality" and you made an argument concerning "equality of incomes." If you do not understand the difference between those two thing by this point in the thread I suggest you reread what I have already wrote.
Click to expand...


Umm, no it isn't. 

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


----------



## Dragonlady

Quantum Windbag said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Only real problem with your statement is that you don't actually provide any evidence that the companies making those record profits aren't paying their workers a living wage, you just want people to believe it because it makes your argument sound so much better.



I'm posting from my iPhone so I can't copy and paste links but Walmart's HR Department assists its workers in applying for food stamps and Medicaid. I have seen reports that every taxpayer in the US is subsidizing Walmart employees by just under $2500 annually. 

MacDonalds posted an employee budget to make ends meet which included a substantial chunk of income from a second job. They also help employees apply for and obtain government assistance. 

Wage subsidies have been completely integrated into their corporate culture. But these same corporations operate profitably in other countries with higher minimum wages, and higher taxes. Walmart is one of the most profitable companies in Canada as well, but our minimum wage is $10.25 per hour and our employer taxes are higher as well. So it's not like Walmart needs to chintz on wages to be highly profitable. 

I'm sure you could google this stuff because they were all on mainstream websites.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Only real problem with your statement is that you don't actually provide any evidence that the companies making those record profits aren't paying their workers a living wage, you just want people to believe it because it makes your argument sound so much better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm posting from my iPhone so I can't copy and paste links but Walmart's HR Department assists its workers in applying for food stamps and Medicaid. I have seen reports that every taxpayer in the US is subsidizing Walmart employees by just under $2500 annually.
> 
> MacDonalds posted an employee budget to make ends meet which included a substantial chunk of income from a second job. They also help employees apply for and obtain government assistance.
> 
> Wage subsidies have been completely integrated into their corporate culture. But these same corporations operate profitably in other countries with higher minimum wages, and higher taxes. Walmart is one of the most profitable companies in Canada as well, but our minimum wage is $10.25 per hour and our employer taxes are higher as well. So it's not like Walmart needs to chintz on wages to be highly profitable.
> 
> I'm sure you could google this stuff because they were all on mainstream websites.
Click to expand...


Believe it or not, WalMArt is only one company, and it really isn't turning in record profits. On top of that, the average WalMart worker tends to be from a larger than average family living in conditions created by decades of Democratic policies that make it harder for urban dwellers to succeed. That skews the statistical sample to make it look worse than it actually is, especially when you consider that they already pay more than the new proposed federal minimum wage. 

What you should be asking yourself is why WalMart, which you consider to be evil incarnate, supports a hike in the minimum wage? Could it be that it enables them to price their competition, the local mom and pop stores, out of business? Wouldn't this actually result in fewer jobs, and more income inequality?

Why do you support policies that produce results exactly the opposite of what you claim you want?


----------



## usmcstinger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives in this thread have a poor grasp of economic principles. If people don't earn enough to provide for their families without government assistance while the companies they work for record record profits, the real "takers" are the shareholders who pocket monies that should go to the workers without whom there would be no profits.
> 
> Everyone should be benefitting from those record earnings, including the employees. The government should not be subsidizing the wages of profitable companies. Wages of workers should be keeping pace with management as a percentage of earnings. Instead, executive compensation and dividends have skyrocketed whiles wages have remained flat and the buying power of those wages has declined. This is very typical of free market economies.
> 
> Wages and employment law in the US have not kept pace with the rest of the world and the US economy is in trouble as a result.
> 
> And yet conservatives blame the workers for this sorry state of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Only real problem with your statement is that you don't actually provide any evidence that the companies making those record profits aren't paying their workers a living wage, you just want people to believe it because it makes your argument sound so much better.
Click to expand...


People are payed by their value to a business. You expect a person who stocks shelves to receive the same salary the Company's Accountant gets.
Please explain what a living wage equals. 

We are not doing as well as other countries? We still have the Largest Economy in the World. Our poor live better than in any other country in the world and we give aid to those countries.

You really know very little about economics and the world we live in. You are a perfect example of just how bad our Public Education System has become.


----------



## usmcstinger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives in this thread have a poor grasp of economic principles. If people don't earn enough to provide for their families without government assistance while the companies they work for record record profits, the real "takers" are the shareholders who pocket monies that should go to the workers without whom there would be no profits.
> 
> Everyone should be benefitting from those record earnings, including the employees. The government should not be subsidizing the wages of profitable companies. Wages of workers should be keeping pace with management as a percentage of earnings. Instead, executive compensation and dividends have skyrocketed whiles wages have remained flat and the buying power of those wages has declined. This is very typical of free market economies.
> 
> Wages and employment law in the US have not kept pace with the rest of the world and the US economy is in trouble as a result.
> 
> And yet conservatives blame the workers for this sorry state of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Only real problem with your statement is that you don't actually provide any evidence that the companies making those record profits aren't paying their workers a living wage, you just want people to believe it because it makes your argument sound so much better.
Click to expand...


People are payed by their value to a business. You expect a person who stocks shelves to receive the same salary the Company's Accountant gets.
Please explain what a living wage equals. Especially, if you are still living with mommy and daddy.

We are not doing as well as other countries? We still have the Largest Economy in the World. Our poor live better than in any other country in the world and we give aid to those countries.

You really know very little about economics and the world we live in. You are a perfect example of just how bad our Public Education System has become.

Well, I know you just can't fix stupid. So I won't try.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

A rising tide lifts all boats.


----------



## georgephillip

westwall said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Unfettered capitalism does, as does unfettered socialism.  Something the collectivists here refuse to acknowledge.  Unfettered collectivism has also led to the largest mass murders in the history of mankind.
> 
> That's why the best policy for a government is a healthy mix of both capitalist AND socialist principles.
> 
> Anyone who claims otherwise is politically naïve.
Click to expand...

Unregulated capitalism, that is capitalism devoid of any democratic controls, is exactly what those who believe an equal opportunity society is worth more than any single (rugged) individual's luxurious lifestyle are blaming for the fact that 85 parasites have "earned" more wealth than 3.5 billion of the world's poor.

BTW, are you blaming capitalists or collectivists for the tens of millions of deaths that resulted from the two great wars of the 20th Century?

Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that there is such a thing as "perfect markets" and that government is required to step in and correct them when they aren't was coined by some propagandists on the government payroll.  Prior to the Keynesian Voo Doo, no economist every discussed anything called a "perfect market."  They are no more plausible than perfect people or perfect government.
> 
> One requirement for the so-called "perfect market" is perfect information.  According to the "perfect market" theory, everyone who makes buying decisions is required to know everything there is no know about all the products being sold.  Of course, such an idea is ludicrous.  If everyone had perfect information, then the advertising business would instantly become pointless.  Not even the manufacturers know everything there is to know about their product.  I'm in the software business, and I can freely admit that I don't know everything there is to know about the products my company sells.  No one in the company does, not even the programmers who write it do.
> 
> That's just one reason why the "perfect market" theory is utter hogwash.  There are dozens of others, but that should suffice to give you reason to cast a leary at any demagogue who blabbers about "perfect markets."
> 
> 
> 
> Equality of incomes would be astounding if it ever occurred in the history of the Earth, so why would anyone believe that income inequality needs an explanation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect market theory is the basis of laissez faire economics. You just argued against yourself and not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  It's propaganda used to justify government intervention.  No economist ever mentioned a "perfect market" before the FDR regime gained power and put them all on the government payroll.
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> [As for the second post of mine you quoted, I specifically said "growing income inequality" and you made an argument concerning "equality of incomes." If you do not understand the difference between those two thing by this point in the thread I suggest you reread what I have already wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's policies are the cause of growing income equality.
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect market theory is the basis of laissez faire economics. You just argued against yourself and not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  It's propaganda used to justify government intervention.  No economist ever mentioned a "perfect market" before the FDR regime gained power and put them all on the government payroll.
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> [As for the second post of mine you quoted, I specifically said "growing income inequality" and you made an argument concerning "equality of incomes." If you do not understand the difference between those two thing by this point in the thread I suggest you reread what I have already wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's policies are the cause of growing income equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


In other words, you are unable to refute a thing I said.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Only real problem with your statement is that you don't actually provide any evidence that the companies making those record profits aren't paying their workers a living wage, you just want people to believe it because it makes your argument sound so much better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm posting from my iPhone so I can't copy and paste links but Walmart's HR Department assists its workers in applying for food stamps and Medicaid. I have seen reports that every taxpayer in the US is subsidizing Walmart employees by just under $2500 annually.
> 
> MacDonalds posted an employee budget to make ends meet which included a substantial chunk of income from a second job. They also help employees apply for and obtain government assistance.
> 
> Wage subsidies have been completely integrated into their corporate culture. But these same corporations operate profitably in other countries with higher minimum wages, and higher taxes. Walmart is one of the most profitable companies in Canada as well, but our minimum wage is $10.25 per hour and our employer taxes are higher as well. So it's not like Walmart needs to chintz on wages to be highly profitable.
> 
> I'm sure you could google this stuff because they were all on mainstream websites.
Click to expand...


Welfare isn't a "wage subsidy."  Walmart and McDonald's are not responsible for providing anyone with whatever income you deem sufficient.  Every individual is responsible for himself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Unfettered capitalism does, as does unfettered socialism.  Something the collectivists here refuse to acknowledge.  Unfettered collectivism has also led to the largest mass murders in the history of mankind.
> 
> That's why the best policy for a government is a healthy mix of both capitalist AND socialist principles.
> 
> Anyone who claims otherwise is politically naïve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unregulated capitalism, that is capitalism devoid of any democratic controls, is exactly what those who believe an equal opportunity society is worth more than any single (rugged) individual's luxurious lifestyle are blaming for the fact that 85 parasites have "earned" more wealth than 3.5 billion of the world's poor.
> 
> BTW, are you blaming capitalists or collectivists for the tens of millions of deaths that resulted from the two great wars of the 20th Century?
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
Click to expand...


*85 parasites have "earned" more wealth than 3.5 billion of the world's poor.*

Many poor people aren't very productive.

Feel free to share your production with the poor. It's called charity.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  It's propaganda used to justify government intervention.  No economist ever mentioned a "perfect market" before the FDR regime gained power and put them all on the government payroll.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's policies are the cause of growing income equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you are unable to refute a thing I said.
Click to expand...


Does the comically absurd need to be refuted here? I am new. I thought we could just laugh at it.


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Unfettered capitalism does, as does unfettered socialism.  Something the collectivists here refuse to acknowledge.  Unfettered collectivism has also led to the largest mass murders in the history of mankind.
> 
> That's why the best policy for a government is a healthy mix of both capitalist AND socialist principles.
> 
> Anyone who claims otherwise is politically naïve.
> 
> 
> 
> Unregulated capitalism, that is capitalism devoid of any democratic controls, is exactly what those who believe an equal opportunity society is worth more than any single (rugged) individual's luxurious lifestyle are blaming for the fact that 85 parasites have "earned" more wealth than 3.5 billion of the world's poor.
> 
> BTW, are you blaming capitalists or collectivists for the tens of millions of deaths that resulted from the two great wars of the 20th Century?
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *85 parasites have "earned" more wealth than 3.5 billion of the world's poor.*
> 
> Many poor people aren't very productive.
> 
> Feel free to share your production with the poor. It's called charity.
Click to expand...


Did you just equate production to income?

lol


----------



## Contumacious

Dragonlady said:


> Conservatives in this thread have a poor grasp of economic principles. If people don't earn enough to provide for their families without government assistance while the companies they work for record record profits, the real "takers" are the shareholders who pocket monies that should go to the workers without whom there would be no profits.
> 
> .



Liberal parasites have a poor grasp of Constitutional principles.

The fact that someone is poor is not a lien on taxpayers and producers wealth.

Freemen ought not be compelled to support and insure you

The reason the poor can not afford to provide their families is the cost of the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state.

.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Unfettered capitalism does, as does unfettered socialism.  Something the collectivists here refuse to acknowledge.  Unfettered collectivism has also led to the largest mass murders in the history of mankind.
> 
> That's why the best policy for a government is a healthy mix of both capitalist AND socialist principles.
> 
> Anyone who claims otherwise is politically naïve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unregulated capitalism, that is capitalism devoid of any democratic controls, is exactly what those who believe an equal opportunity society is worth more than any single (rugged) individual's luxurious lifestyle are blaming for the fact that 85 parasites have "earned" more wealth than 3.5 billion of the world's poor.
Click to expand...


Huh?  Were you hitting the bottle when you typed that?  Where is this "unregulated capitalism" you refer to?



georgephillip said:


> [BTW, are you blaming capitalists or collectivists for the tens of millions of deaths that resulted from the two great wars of the 20th Century?



Only leftwing numskulls attribute war deaths to an economic system.  However, in WW II the countries that instigated the war were all under various forms of collectivism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unregulated capitalism, that is capitalism devoid of any democratic controls, is exactly what those who believe an equal opportunity society is worth more than any single (rugged) individual's luxurious lifestyle are blaming for the fact that 85 parasites have "earned" more wealth than 3.5 billion of the world's poor.
> 
> BTW, are you blaming capitalists or collectivists for the tens of millions of deaths that resulted from the two great wars of the 20th Century?
> 
> Oxfam report highlights widening income gap between rich, poor - latimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *85 parasites have "earned" more wealth than 3.5 billion of the world's poor.*
> 
> Many poor people aren't very productive.
> 
> Feel free to share your production with the poor. It's called charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just equate production to income?
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


Picture a farmer in Africa with only a stick as a tool.

How productive will he be? 
Do you imagine his income will be as high as an American farmer who is orders of magnitude more productive?
LOL!


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you are unable to refute a thing I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the comically absurd need to be refuted here? I am new. I thought we could just laugh at it.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, yes, your idiocies do need to be refuted because this country is overpopulated with numskulls who are stupid enough to fall for it.

If you can think of an economist who mentioned "perfect markets" before the reign of FDR, feel free to post the evidence.


----------



## georgephillip

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.
> 
> I have pointed this out many times already.
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals ARE the market.
> 
> 
> 
> My argument isn't that government can't be a threat to liberty. I am simply pointing out that it is not the only threat. If corporations are a threat to your liberty who will you turn to? What will you do when the corporations are allowed to buy government?
> 
> We also have more control over our government than corporations, markets, and foreign governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We influence foreign government a great deal with money. It's called foreign aid. Corporations fail or change when people stop voting with their dollars. Government takes longer to change since has no competition or profits to meet. And apparently little regard for its' shareholders since everything is backwards.
> 
> Instead of the way it was formed, government for the people has become people for the government. We work and exist to feed the ever growing government do manage us in increasing detail.
> 
> Why blame the business that buys government and give the government guys a pass?
Click to expand...

Why would a free people give a pass to either group of parasites? In the aftermath of the S&L Crisis of the late 80s, the Office of Thrift Supervision brought 3,000 administration enforcement actions against identified perpetrators. They successfully clawed back some of the ill-gotten gains, and sent hundreds of bankers to prison.

How does that compare to 2008's credit crisis when just the household sector losses alone were over seventy times greater than those seen during the entire S&L debacle?

How many criminal referrals did the same government agency make one generation later?

0.

What changed that wasn't made worse by the rise in economic inequality between the late '80s and 2008?

*When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
- Frederic Bastiat*

Bill Black: Our System Is So Flawed That Fraud Is Mathematically Guaranteed | Zero Hedge


----------



## georgephillip

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The magic of a once in a lifetime visionary like Jobs is that he was able to manage the creation of the "toys" he wanted and it wound up that everyone else also wanted those "toys".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It *wasn't* "magic" you fuck'n buffoon. Steve Jobs was *driven* to succeed. It took ungodly hours, tremendous effort, and many failures.
> 
> It's so irritating listening to asshat, worthless, couch-potatoe losers like you claim that someone else's success was "luck", or "magic", or "fortune" simply because you're not willing to acknowledge your own failures and lack of effort.
Click to expand...

*It's even more irritating to listen to rich-bitch wannabees ignore economic realities in the 21st Century:*

"A child raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale through much of the southern United States has around a 5 percent chance of rising to the top fifth4 percent in Atlanta and 4.3 percent in Charlottewhile a low-income child has a 9.6 percent chance of rising in Los Angeles and 11.2 percent in San Francisco. 

"Do Republicans think poor kids in California are just twice as likely to be hardworking as poor kids in Georgia and North Carolina? 

"Or might there be something else going on? 

"Not to mention, even an 11.2 percent chance of going from low-income to high-income is pretty damn low if what we're looking at is an issue of merit. 

"Those numbers are in line with Pew's earlier finding that 43 percent of Americans born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder never move up, and a full 70 percent never reach the middle. 

"The 'this is about advantages and inequality, not individual merit' hypothesis gains strength when you learn that rich kids with below-average test scores are more likely to graduate from college than poor kids with above-average test scores."

*George "Dubya" Bush, for example*

Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals have very little power over markets. We are talking about markets.
> 
> I have pointed this out many times already.
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals ARE the market.
> 
> 
> 
> My argument isn't that government can't be a threat to liberty. I am simply pointing out that it is not the only threat. If corporations are a threat to your liberty who will you turn to? What will you do when the corporations are allowed to buy government?
> 
> We also have more control over our government than corporations, markets, and foreign governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We influence foreign government a great deal with money. It's called foreign aid. Corporations fail or change when people stop voting with their dollars. Government takes longer to change since has no competition or profits to meet. And apparently little regard for its' shareholders since everything is backwards.
> 
> Instead of the way it was formed, government for the people has become people for the government. We work and exist to feed the ever growing government do manage us in increasing detail.
> 
> Why blame the business that buys government and give the government guys a pass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would a free people give a pass to either group of parasites? In the aftermath of the S&L Crisis of the late 80s, the Office of Thrift Supervision brought 3,000 administration enforcement actions against identified perpetrators. They successfully clawed back some of the ill-gotten gains, and sent hundreds of bankers to prison.
> 
> How does that compare to 2008's credit crisis when just the household sector losses alone were over seventy times greater than those seen during the entire S&L debacle?
> 
> How many criminal referrals did the same government agency make one generation later?
> 
> 0.
> 
> What changed that wasn't made worse by the rise in economic inequality between the late '80s and 2008?
> 
> *When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
> - Frederic Bastiat*
> 
> Bill Black: Our System Is So Flawed That Fraud Is Mathematically Guaranteed | Zero Hedge
Click to expand...


*In the aftermath of the S&L Crisis of the late 80s, the Office of Thrift Supervision brought 3,000 administration enforcement actions against identified perpetrators.*

In the S&L crisis, perps were making loans to insiders.
Like Clinton's Whitewater buddies.
The real estate crisis involved banks making loans to people who couldn't pay them back.

Where is the crime?

*They successfully clawed back some of the ill-gotten gains, and sent hundreds of bankers to prison.*

Ohhhh, ill-gotten gains. Like the Dems who lied about earnings at Fannie and Freddie in order to get huge bonuses.
I agree, those Dems insiders should have given back the money and served time.
I wonder why Obama and Holder didn't prosecute?


----------



## MikeK

usmcstinger said:


> People are payed by their value to a business. You expect a person who stocks shelves to receive the same salary the Company's Accountant gets.
> Please explain what a living wage equals. Especially, if you are still living with mommy and daddy.


In terms of its relation to the national economy a living wage is an amount which is predicated on local standards as being sufficient to avoid the recipient's need for supplementary government assistance -- such as WalMart, et. al., advises its underpaid employees to apply for.  



> We are not doing as well as other countries? We still have the Largest Economy in the World. Our poor live better than in any other country in the world and we give aid to those countries.


Your reference to the _poor_ (lower) class is not relevant to this issue, which concerns working (middle) class Americans and their declining economic status.  

The facts you've cited do not justify the decline in worker wages vs the rise in corporate profits and executive compensation which has persisted for the past four decades.  The inequitable disparity is typified in the fact that in 1980 the average corporate CEO salary was around thirty times greater than his highest paid subordinate's, whereas today's CEO salary is around *three hundred* times greater than that of his highest paid subordinate -- and their bonuses are often greater than their subordinate employees could earn in a hundred lifetimes!  So imagine what the ratio is in relation to the wage of the lowest level subordinate and you'll see why a One Percent minority of Americans have managed to rise to the level of economic aristocracy while the economic status of the majority, the workers, has declined and continues to decline by a measurable percentage year after year.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The magic of a once in a lifetime visionary like Jobs is that he was able to manage the creation of the "toys" he wanted and it wound up that everyone else also wanted those "toys".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It *wasn't* "magic" you fuck'n buffoon. Steve Jobs was *driven* to succeed. It took ungodly hours, tremendous effort, and many failures.
> 
> It's so irritating listening to asshat, worthless, couch-potatoe losers like you claim that someone else's success was "luck", or "magic", or "fortune" simply because you're not willing to acknowledge your own failures and lack of effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's even more irritating to listen to rich-bitch wannabees ignore economic realities in the 21st Century:*
> 
> "A child raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale through much of the southern United States has around a 5 percent chance of rising to the top fifth4 percent in Atlanta and 4.3 percent in Charlottewhile a low-income child has a 9.6 percent chance of rising in Los Angeles and 11.2 percent in San Francisco.
> 
> "Do Republicans think poor kids in California are just twice as likely to be hardworking as poor kids in Georgia and North Carolina?
> 
> "Or might there be something else going on?
> 
> "Not to mention, even an 11.2 percent chance of going from low-income to high-income is pretty damn low if what we're looking at is an issue of merit.
> 
> "Those numbers are in line with Pew's earlier finding that 43 percent of Americans born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder never move up, and a full 70 percent never reach the middle.
> 
> "The 'this is about advantages and inequality, not individual merit' hypothesis gains strength when you learn that rich kids with below-average test scores are more likely to graduate from college than poor kids with above-average test scores."
> 
> *George "Dubya" Bush, for example*
> 
> Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?
Click to expand...


DailyKOS is your source.  

Enough said.


----------



## bripat9643

MikeK said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are payed by their value to a business. You expect a person who stocks shelves to receive the same salary the Company's Accountant gets.
> Please explain what a living wage equals. Especially, if you are still living with mommy and daddy.
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of its relation to the national economy a living wage is an amount which is predicated on local standards as being sufficient to avoid the recipient's need for supplementary government assistance -- such as WalMart, et. al., advises its underpaid employees to apply for.
Click to expand...


So a "living wage" for someone with 6 kids is a lot higher than a "living wage" for a single person, right?



MikeK said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not doing as well as other countries? We still have the Largest Economy in the World. Our poor live better than in any other country in the world and we give aid to those countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Your reference to the _poor_ (lower) class is not relevant to this issue, which concerns working (middle) class Americans and their declining economic status.
Click to expand...


So you think our middle class is doing worse even though you admit our poor are doing better?



MikeK said:


> The facts you've cited do not justify the decline in worker wages vs the rise in corporate profits and executive compensation which has persisted for the past four decades.  The inequitable disparity is typified in the fact that in 1980 the average corporate CEO salary was around thirty times greater than his highest paid subordinate's, whereas today's CEO salary is around *three hundred* times greater than that of his highest paid subordinate -- and their bonuses are often greater than their subordinate employees could earn in a hundred lifetimes!  So imagine what the ratio is in relation to the wage of the lowest level subordinate and you'll see why a One Percent minority of Americans hae managed to rise to the level of economic aristocracy while the economic status of the majority, the workers, has declined and continues to decline by a measurable percentage year after year.



You could cut increases in CEO salaries to zero and it wouldn't make a noticeable change in employee wages.  CEO salaries are a minute fraction of total wages paid out in any corporation.

The only reason for focusing on CEO salaries is to insight envy.  the one thing Congress could do about the problem it is unwilling to do, and that would be to remove all the restrictions that make it difficult for "hostile" takeovers to occur.


----------



## Indofred

Godboy said:


> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.



Under capitalism, the prols have their LED TVs, big cars, nice houses and a load of other stuff they would never had seen if the stupid left wing had managed to get communism going.
The said prols get greedy so they take out loans so they can buy what they can't afford, but moan about capitalists when their greed catches up with them and they can't pay the loans.

Silly sods.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Indofred said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under capitalism, the prols have their LED TVs, big cars, nice houses and a load of other stuff they would never had seen if the stupid left wing had managed to get communism going.
> The said prols get greedy so they take out loans so they can buy what they can't afford, but moan about capitalists when their greed catches up with them and they can't pay the loans.
> 
> Silly sods.
Click to expand...


^ still uses trite terms like "prols" and cannot fathom why he is never taken seriously.


----------



## MikeK

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [...]
> 
> Ohhhh, ill-gotten gains. Like the Dems who lied about earnings at Fannie and Freddie in order to get huge bonuses.
> 
> I agree, those Dems insiders should have given back the money and served time.
> 
> I wonder why Obama and Holder didn't prosecute?



I agree completely.  But I don't wonder why Obama and Holder didn't prosecute.  It is quite obvious those two are in service to the banks and to Wall Street.  Obama was positioned for the presidency by money he received from the finance industry.  As for Eric Holder, the following will shed some light on why he was appointed A/G:

(Excerpt)

_But it also undoubtedly has something to do with the fact that the top leadership at DOJ is drawn almost exclusively from White Collar Criminal Defense Practices at large firms that represent the very firms that Justice is supposed to be investigating. Covington and Burling,  the firm from which both Attorney General Eric Holder and Associate Attorney General and head of the criminal division Lanny Breuer hail, has as its current clients Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, ING, Morgan Stanley,  UBS,  and MF Global among others. Other top Justice officials have similar connections through their firms._ 

Obama's DOJ And Wall Street: Too Big For Jail? - Forbes

(Close)


----------



## Dragonlady

usmcstinger said:


> People are payed by their value to a business. You expect a person who stocks shelves to receive the same salary the Company's Accountant gets.
> Please explain what a living wage equals. Especially, if you are still living with mommy and daddy.
> 
> We are not doing as well as other countries? We still have the Largest Economy in the World. Our poor live better than in any other country in the world and we give aid to those countries.
> 
> You really know very little about economics and the world we live in. You are a perfect example of just how bad our Public Education System has become.
> 
> Well, I know you just can't fix stupid. So I won't try.



No one expects low skill workers to be paid the same as the company's accountant. What we expect is wages for all workers to rise proportionately. If the accountant is given a 5% increase for cost of living, the low skill workers should receive a similar 5% increase. 

What has happened is that wages for accountants have risen by 60% while the low skill workers haven't seen a raise in years.

People aren't really paid based on their value to the business. That's a right wing myth. They're paid based on supply and demand. There are lots of low skill workers and they're easy to replace. With so many unemployed looking for jobs, they line up for any opportunity offered. You don't have to pay more to replace them, and if you can find a legal way to pay them less, they'll still line up for the jobs and be grateful for the opportunity. 

Accountants are harder to find and not easily replaced so they're paid more to attract better employees.  

You don't have the largest economy in the world. That would be China. Your economy was surpassed because your low income workers have lost buying power and China's markets are growing due to the rise in manufacturing. 

I am not a product of your lousy public education system. I'm a product of the much superior Canadian education system.  I'm now retired but I was one of the first female bank managers in Canada before moving into law in the early 80's. I specialized in corporate/commercial law and real estate. I think I have a pretty good grasp of economic matters and how successful businesses work.


----------



## Antares

Dragonlady said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are payed by their value to a business. You expect a person who stocks shelves to receive the same salary the Company's Accountant gets.
> Please explain what a living wage equals. Especially, if you are still living with mommy and daddy.
> 
> We are not doing as well as other countries? We still have the Largest Economy in the World. Our poor live better than in any other country in the world and we give aid to those countries.
> 
> You really know very little about economics and the world we live in. You are a perfect example of just how bad our Public Education System has become.
> 
> Well, I know you just can't fix stupid. So I won't try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one expects low skill workers to be paid the same as the company's accountant. What we expect is wages for all workers to rise proportionately. If the accountant is given a 5% increase for cost of living, the low skill workers should receive a similar 5% increase.
> 
> What has happened is that wages for accountants have risen by 60% while the low skill workers haven't seen a raise in years.
> 
> People aren't really paid based on their value to the business. That's a right wing myth. They're paid based on supply and demand. There are lots of low skill workers and they're easy to replace. With so many unemployed looking for jobs, they line up for any opportunity offered. You don't have to pay more to replace them, and if you can find a legal way to pay them less, they'll still line up for the jobs and be grateful for the opportunity.
> 
> Accountants are harder to find and not easily replaced so they're paid more to attract better employees.
> 
> You don't have the largest economy in the world. That would be China. Your economy was surpassed because your low income workers have lost buying power and China's markets are growing due to the rise in manufacturing.
> 
> I am not a product of your lousy public education system. I'm a product of the much superior Canadian education system.  I'm now retired but I was one of the first female bank managers in Canada before moving into law in the early 80's. I specialized in corporate/commercial law and real estate. I think I have a pretty good grasp of economic matters and how successful businesses work.
Click to expand...


My aren't you just a legend in your own mind


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand.* If government involvement is needed then so be it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what circumstances is government needed?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

*To protect citizens from control fraud:*

"Control fraud occurs when a trusted person in a high position of responsibility in a company, corporation, or state subverts the organization and engages in extensive fraud for personal gain. The term Control fraud was coined by William K. Black to refer both to the acts of fraud and to the individuals who commit them."

Control fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

Antares said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are payed by their value to a business. You expect a person who stocks shelves to receive the same salary the Company's Accountant gets.
> Please explain what a living wage equals. Especially, if you are still living with mommy and daddy.
> 
> We are not doing as well as other countries? We still have the Largest Economy in the World. Our poor live better than in any other country in the world and we give aid to those countries.
> 
> You really know very little about economics and the world we live in. You are a perfect example of just how bad our Public Education System has become.
> 
> Well, I know you just can't fix stupid. So I won't try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one expects low skill workers to be paid the same as the company's accountant. What we expect is wages for all workers to rise proportionately. If the accountant is given a 5% increase for cost of living, the low skill workers should receive a similar 5% increase.
> 
> What has happened is that wages for accountants have risen by 60% while the low skill workers haven't seen a raise in years.
> 
> People aren't really paid based on their value to the business. That's a right wing myth. They're paid based on supply and demand. There are lots of low skill workers and they're easy to replace. With so many unemployed looking for jobs, they line up for any opportunity offered. You don't have to pay more to replace them, and if you can find a legal way to pay them less, they'll still line up for the jobs and be grateful for the opportunity.
> 
> Accountants are harder to find and not easily replaced so they're paid more to attract better employees.
> 
> You don't have the largest economy in the world. That would be China. Your economy was surpassed because your low income workers have lost buying power and China's markets are growing due to the rise in manufacturing.
> 
> I am not a product of your lousy public education system. I'm a product of the much superior Canadian education system.  I'm now retired but I was one of the first female bank managers in Canada before moving into law in the early 80's. I specialized in corporate/commercial law and real estate. I think I have a pretty good grasp of economic matters and how successful businesses work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My aren't you just a legend in your own mind
Click to expand...

Do you want to share your legendary credentials in Economics, banking, or finance?


----------



## Antares

georgephillip said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one expects low skill workers to be paid the same as the company's accountant. What we expect is wages for all workers to rise proportionately. If the accountant is given a 5% increase for cost of living, the low skill workers should receive a similar 5% increase.
> 
> What has happened is that wages for accountants have risen by 60% while the low skill workers haven't seen a raise in years.
> 
> People aren't really paid based on their value to the business. That's a right wing myth. They're paid based on supply and demand. There are lots of low skill workers and they're easy to replace. With so many unemployed looking for jobs, they line up for any opportunity offered. You don't have to pay more to replace them, and if you can find a legal way to pay them less, they'll still line up for the jobs and be grateful for the opportunity.
> 
> Accountants are harder to find and not easily replaced so they're paid more to attract better employees.
> 
> You don't have the largest economy in the world. That would be China. Your economy was surpassed because your low income workers have lost buying power and China's markets are growing due to the rise in manufacturing.
> 
> I am not a product of your lousy public education system. I'm a product of the much superior Canadian education system.  I'm now retired but I was one of the first female bank managers in Canada before moving into law in the early 80's. I specialized in corporate/commercial law and real estate. I think I have a pretty good grasp of economic matters and how successful businesses work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My aren't you just a legend in your own mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you want to share your legendary credentials in Economics, banking, or finance?
Click to expand...


Am I supposed to be in awe of her "alleged" superior education and self proclaimed expertise in well everything?

Sorry, the louder one needs to blow one's own horn the less reason there is to believe them.


----------



## Antares

Me?

I am simply an ex wrestler who makes a lot of money selling insurance, nothing to see here.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the crap.  Human beings/human activity creates inequality.  Some are smarter than others.  Some work harder than others.  Some make better choices.  Some are selfish.  Some are greedy.  Some are lazy.  Some are stupid.  Some are lucky...some not.  Inequality is.  That is why the nuns told me to concentrate on saving my soul...so as to be happy with God in heaven...and not to fret over who has what.  Pax vobiscum.
> 
> 
> 
> Which only works if god and heaven exist.
> Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. Solutions include stronger regulation of markets to promote sustainable and equitable growth along with curbing the power of the rich to influence political processes and policies that best suit their interests. Build a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, or use the state to tax private wealth into extinction. There are alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
Click to expand...

*And capitalism enhances inequality:*

"A child raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale through much of the southern United States has around a 5 percent chance of rising to the top fifth4 percent in Atlanta and 4.3 percent in Charlottewhile a low-income child has a 9.6 percent chance of rising in Los Angeles and 11.2 percent in San Francisco. 

"Do Republicans think poor kids in California are just twice as likely to be hardworking as poor kids in Georgia and North Carolina? 

"Or might there be something else going on? 

"Not to mention, even an 11.2 percent chance of going from low-income to high-income is pretty damn low if what we're looking at is an issue of merit. 

"Those numbers are in line with Pew's earlier finding that 43 percent of Americans born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder never move up, and a full 70 percent never reach the middle. 

"The 'this is about advantages and inequality, not individual merit' hypothesis gains strength when you learn that rich kids with below-average test scores are more likely to graduate from college than poor kids with above-average test scores."

Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

IlarMeilyr said:


> A rising tide lifts all boats.



Most of the time, anyway.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

MikeK said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are payed by their value to a business. You expect a person who stocks shelves to receive the same salary the Company's Accountant gets.
> Please explain what a living wage equals. Especially, if you are still living with mommy and daddy.
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of its relation to the national economy a living wage is an amount which is predicated on local standards as being sufficient to avoid the recipient's need for supplementary government assistance -- such as WalMart, et. al., advises its underpaid employees to apply for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not doing as well as other countries? We still have the Largest Economy in the World. Our poor live better than in any other country in the world and we give aid to those countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reference to the _poor_ (lower) class is not relevant to this issue, which concerns working (middle) class Americans and their declining economic status.
> 
> The facts you've cited do not justify the decline in worker wages vs the rise in corporate profits and executive compensation which has persisted for the past four decades.  The inequitable disparity is typified in the fact that in 1980 the average corporate CEO salary was around thirty times greater than his highest paid subordinate's, whereas today's CEO salary is around *three hundred* times greater than that of his highest paid subordinate -- and their bonuses are often greater than their subordinate employees could earn in a hundred lifetimes!  So imagine what the ratio is in relation to the wage of the lowest level subordinate and you'll see why a One Percent minority of Americans have managed to rise to the level of economic aristocracy while the economic status of the majority, the workers, has declined and continues to decline by a measurable percentage year after year.
Click to expand...


San Francisco has a minimum wage of $10.55 an hour and health insurance minimum standard that makes Obamacare look like the disaster it is, yet still hands out massive amounts of government assistance. I can tell you why, can you tell me?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are payed by their value to a business. You expect a person who stocks shelves to receive the same salary the Company's Accountant gets.
> Please explain what a living wage equals. Especially, if you are still living with mommy and daddy.
> 
> We are not doing as well as other countries? We still have the Largest Economy in the World. Our poor live better than in any other country in the world and we give aid to those countries.
> 
> You really know very little about economics and the world we live in. You are a perfect example of just how bad our Public Education System has become.
> 
> Well, I know you just can't fix stupid. So I won't try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one expects low skill workers to be paid the same as the company's accountant. What we expect is wages for all workers to rise proportionately. If the accountant is given a 5% increase for cost of living, the low skill workers should receive a similar 5% increase.
> 
> What has happened is that wages for accountants have risen by 60% while the low skill workers haven't seen a raise in years.
> 
> People aren't really paid based on their value to the business. That's a right wing myth. They're paid based on supply and demand. There are lots of low skill workers and they're easy to replace. With so many unemployed looking for jobs, they line up for any opportunity offered. You don't have to pay more to replace them, and if you can find a legal way to pay them less, they'll still line up for the jobs and be grateful for the opportunity.
> 
> Accountants are harder to find and not easily replaced so they're paid more to attract better employees.
> 
> You don't have the largest economy in the world. That would be China. Your economy was surpassed because your low income workers have lost buying power and China's markets are growing due to the rise in manufacturing.
> 
> I am not a product of your lousy public education system. I'm a product of the much superior Canadian education system.  I'm now retired but I was one of the first female bank managers in Canada before moving into law in the early 80's. I specialized in corporate/commercial law and real estate. I think I have a pretty good grasp of economic matters and how successful businesses work.
Click to expand...


The accountant doesn't get COLA raises, problem solved.


----------



## georgephillip

Antares said:


> Me?
> 
> I am simply an ex wrestler who makes a lot of money selling insurance, nothing to see here.


There's something a little scary about an ex wrestler making a lot of money selling insurance, but I sure as hell don't want to go to the mat with you over that one.

I'm a retired blue-collar wage slave who tried one microeconomics class at a local community college and dropped it after my first mid-term.

I wonder if we agree that someone who was in fact a bank manager and moved into corporate/commercial law and real estate would likely have a much better understanding of macroeconomics than either of us?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Antares said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> My aren't you just a legend in your own mind
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to share your legendary credentials in Economics, banking, or finance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I supposed to be in awe of her "alleged" superior education and self proclaimed expertise in well everything?
> 
> Sorry, the louder one needs to blow one's own horn the less reason there is to believe them.
Click to expand...


If she actually has a degree in accounting she wouldn't be spouting about accountants getting a 60% pay raise in order to deal with more complex tax laws, and dismiss it as a COLA increase.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which only works if god and heaven exist.
> Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. Solutions include stronger regulation of markets to promote sustainable and equitable growth along with curbing the power of the rich to influence political processes and policies that best suit their interests. Build a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, or use the state to tax private wealth into extinction. There are alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And capitalism enhances inequality:*
> 
> "A child raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale through much of the southern United States has around a 5 percent chance of rising to the top fifth4 percent in Atlanta and 4.3 percent in Charlottewhile a low-income child has a 9.6 percent chance of rising in Los Angeles and 11.2 percent in San Francisco.
> 
> "Do Republicans think poor kids in California are just twice as likely to be hardworking as poor kids in Georgia and North Carolina?
> 
> "Or might there be something else going on?
> 
> "Not to mention, even an 11.2 percent chance of going from low-income to high-income is pretty damn low if what we're looking at is an issue of merit.
> 
> "Those numbers are in line with Pew's earlier finding that 43 percent of Americans born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder never move up, and a full 70 percent never reach the middle.
> 
> "The 'this is about advantages and inequality, not individual merit' hypothesis gains strength when you learn that rich kids with below-average test scores are more likely to graduate from college than poor kids with above-average test scores."
> 
> Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?
Click to expand...


Better question, do Democrats think that California makes kids smarter?


----------



## Antares

georgephillip said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me?
> 
> I am simply an ex wrestler who makes a lot of money selling insurance, nothing to see here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's something a little scary about an ex wrestler making a lot of money selling insurance, but I sure as hell don't want to go to the mat with you over that one.
> 
> I'm a retired blue-collar wage slave who tried one microeconomics class at a local community college and dropped it after my first mid-term.
> 
> I wonder if we agree that someone who was in fact a bank manager and moved into corporate/commercial law and real estate would likely have a much better understanding of macroeconomics than either of us?
Click to expand...


I have a long internet experience that tells me people that blow their own horns the loudest aren't worth listening to...it's just that simple.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals ARE the market.
> We influence foreign government a great deal with money. It's called foreign aid. Corporations fail or change when people stop voting with their dollars. Government takes longer to change since has no competition or profits to meet. And apparently little regard for its' shareholders since everything is backwards.
> 
> Instead of the way it was formed, government for the people has become people for the government. We work and exist to feed the ever growing government do manage us in increasing detail.
> 
> Why blame the business that buys government and give the government guys a pass?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a free people give a pass to either group of parasites? In the aftermath of the S&L Crisis of the late 80s, the Office of Thrift Supervision brought 3,000 administration enforcement actions against identified perpetrators. They successfully clawed back some of the ill-gotten gains, and sent hundreds of bankers to prison.
> 
> How does that compare to 2008's credit crisis when just the household sector losses alone were over seventy times greater than those seen during the entire S&L debacle?
> 
> How many criminal referrals did the same government agency make one generation later?
> 
> 0.
> 
> What changed that wasn't made worse by the rise in economic inequality between the late '80s and 2008?
> 
> *When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
> - Frederic Bastiat*
> 
> Bill Black: Our System Is So Flawed That Fraud Is Mathematically Guaranteed | Zero Hedge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In the aftermath of the S&L Crisis of the late 80s, the Office of Thrift Supervision brought 3,000 administration enforcement actions against identified perpetrators.*
> 
> In the S&L crisis, perps were making loans to insiders.
> Like Clinton's Whitewater buddies.
> The real estate crisis involved banks making loans to people who couldn't pay them back.
> 
> Where is the crime?
> 
> *They successfully clawed back some of the ill-gotten gains, and sent hundreds of bankers to prison.*
> 
> Ohhhh, ill-gotten gains. Like the Dems who lied about earnings at Fannie and Freddie in order to get huge bonuses.
> I agree, those Dems insiders should have given back the money and served time.
> I wonder why Obama and Holder didn't prosecute?
Click to expand...

*Why do you continue to pretend there's any difference between Democrat and Republican thieves?*

"Neil Bush was a member of the board of directors of Denver-based Silverado Savings and Loan during the 1980s' larger Savings and Loan crisis. As his father, George H.W. Bush, was Vice President of the United States, his role in Silverado's failure was a focal point of publicity. According to a piece in Salon, Silverado's collapse cost taxpayers $1.3 billion."

Neil Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It *wasn't* "magic" you fuck'n buffoon. Steve Jobs was *driven* to succeed. It took ungodly hours, tremendous effort, and many failures.
> 
> It's so irritating listening to asshat, worthless, couch-potatoe losers like you claim that someone else's success was "luck", or "magic", or "fortune" simply because you're not willing to acknowledge your own failures and lack of effort.
> 
> 
> 
> *It's even more irritating to listen to rich-bitch wannabees ignore economic realities in the 21st Century:*
> 
> "A child raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale through much of the southern United States has around a 5 percent chance of rising to the top fifth4 percent in Atlanta and 4.3 percent in Charlottewhile a low-income child has a 9.6 percent chance of rising in Los Angeles and 11.2 percent in San Francisco.
> 
> "Do Republicans think poor kids in California are just twice as likely to be hardworking as poor kids in Georgia and North Carolina?
> 
> "Or might there be something else going on?
> 
> "Not to mention, even an 11.2 percent chance of going from low-income to high-income is pretty damn low if what we're looking at is an issue of merit.
> 
> "Those numbers are in line with Pew's earlier finding that 43 percent of Americans born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder never move up, and a full 70 percent never reach the middle.
> 
> "The 'this is about advantages and inequality, not individual merit' hypothesis gains strength when you learn that rich kids with below-average test scores are more likely to graduate from college than poor kids with above-average test scores."
> 
> *George "Dubya" Bush, for example*
> 
> Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DailyKOS is your source.
> 
> Enough said.
Click to expand...

*Here's some more, Hack:*

"A new Pew Research Center/USA Today poll echoes Quinnipiac in finding that voters want to see the minimum wage increased and unemployment aid extended; once again, even Republicans support raising the minimum wage, 53 percent to 43 percent. 

"Republicans are just about exactly flipped on unemployment aid: 43 percent want to see it extended while 54 percent don't. 

"Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of both policies, as are strong majorities of independents.

"But the survey also highlights a fundamental difference in how Republicans and Democrats see economic inequality and poverty: Republicans actually believe that rich people are rich because they worked harder and poor people are poor because they didn't work hard enough..."

*Find any content you care to criticize, or are you still stuck on (stupid) context?*

Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?


----------



## 1776

Uh....stupid fuck.

Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR, etc had more poverty and inequality than the US. People are eating dead humans in North Korea to survive you stupid pile of shit. 

Shut the fuck up.



georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*


----------



## georgephillip

MikeK said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> Ohhhh, ill-gotten gains. Like the Dems who lied about earnings at Fannie and Freddie in order to get huge bonuses.
> 
> I agree, those Dems insiders should have given back the money and served time.
> 
> I wonder why Obama and Holder didn't prosecute?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree completely.  But I don't wonder why Obama and Holder didn't prosecute.  It is quite obvious those two are in service to the banks and to Wall Street.  Obama was positioned for the presidency by money he received from the finance industry.  As for Eric Holder, the following will shed some light on why he was appointed A/G:
> 
> (Excerpt)
> 
> _But it also undoubtedly has something to do with the fact that the top leadership at DOJ is drawn almost exclusively from White Collar Criminal Defense Practices at large firms that represent the very firms that Justice is supposed to be investigating. Covington and Burling,  the firm from which both Attorney General Eric Holder and Associate Attorney General and head of the criminal division Lanny Breuer hail, has as its current clients Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, ING, Morgan Stanley,  UBS,  and MF Global among others. Other top Justice officials have similar connections through their firms._
> 
> Obama's DOJ And Wall Street: Too Big For Jail? - Forbes
> 
> (Close)
Click to expand...

"'The appearance of conflict is as dangerous to public confidence in the administration of justice as true conflict itself.  Justice must not only be done; justice must also be seen to be done.'   Lloyd Cutler, 1981

"Over the past three years,  the Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against hundreds of ordinary Americans for financial fraud.  

"But no one from the largest banks and firms on Wall Street have been similarly charged for events leading up to the financial crisis.  

"Could that be because those banks are clients of the firms from which top DOJ officials hail?"

Obama's DOJ And Wall Street: Too Big For Jail? - Forbes
*Obviously, Goldman Sachs knew what it was getting when it donated over $900,000 to Hope and Change in 2008*


----------



## georgephillip

Quantum Windbag said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> *And capitalism enhances inequality:*
> 
> "A child raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale through much of the southern United States has around a 5 percent chance of rising to the top fifth4 percent in Atlanta and 4.3 percent in Charlottewhile a low-income child has a 9.6 percent chance of rising in Los Angeles and 11.2 percent in San Francisco.
> 
> "Do Republicans think poor kids in California are just twice as likely to be hardworking as poor kids in Georgia and North Carolina?
> 
> "Or might there be something else going on?
> 
> "Not to mention, even an 11.2 percent chance of going from low-income to high-income is pretty damn low if what we're looking at is an issue of merit.
> 
> "Those numbers are in line with Pew's earlier finding that 43 percent of Americans born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder never move up, and a full 70 percent never reach the middle.
> 
> "The 'this is about advantages and inequality, not individual merit' hypothesis gains strength when you learn that rich kids with below-average test scores are more likely to graduate from college than poor kids with above-average test scores."
> 
> Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better question, do Democrats think that California makes kids smarter?
Click to expand...

Natural Selection makes California kids smarter.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's even more irritating to listen to rich-bitch wannabees ignore economic realities in the 21st Century:*
> 
> "A child raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale through much of the southern United States has around a 5 percent chance of rising to the top fifth&#8212;4 percent in Atlanta and 4.3 percent in Charlotte&#8212;while a low-income child has a 9.6 percent chance of rising in Los Angeles and 11.2 percent in San Francisco.
> 
> "Do Republicans think poor kids in California are just twice as likely to be hardworking as poor kids in Georgia and North Carolina?
> 
> "Or might there be something else going on?
> 
> "Not to mention, even an 11.2 percent chance of going from low-income to high-income is pretty damn low if what we're looking at is an issue of merit.
> 
> "Those numbers are in line with Pew's earlier finding that 43 percent of Americans born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder never move up, and a full 70 percent never reach the middle.
> 
> "The 'this is about advantages and inequality, not individual merit' hypothesis gains strength when you learn that rich kids with below-average test scores are more likely to graduate from college than poor kids with above-average test scores."
> 
> *George "Dubya" Bush, for example*
> 
> Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DailyKOS is your source.
> 
> Enough said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Here's some more, Hack:*
> 
> "A new Pew Research Center/USA Today poll echoes Quinnipiac in finding that voters want to see the minimum wage increased and unemployment aid extended; once again, even Republicans support raising the minimum wage, 53 percent to 43 percent.
> 
> "Republicans are just about exactly flipped on unemployment aid: 43 percent want to see it extended while 54 percent don't.
> 
> "Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of both policies, as are strong majorities of independents.
Click to expand...


That may be a fairly accurate determination of the public's opinion, but where is the evidence that southern kids in the bottom quintile have a 5% chance of getting into the top quintile?  



georgephillip said:


> "But the survey also highlights a fundamental difference in how Republicans and Democrats see economic inequality and poverty: Republicans actually believe that rich people are rich because they worked harder and poor people are poor because they didn't work hard enough..."



Where have you proved that belief isn't justified?



georgephillip said:


> *Find any content you care to criticize, or are you still stuck on (stupid) context?*



I have no idea what that statement is intended to signify.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

georgephillip said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And capitalism enhances inequality:*
> 
> "A child raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale through much of the southern United States has around a 5 percent chance of rising to the top fifth4 percent in Atlanta and 4.3 percent in Charlottewhile a low-income child has a 9.6 percent chance of rising in Los Angeles and 11.2 percent in San Francisco.
> 
> "Do Republicans think poor kids in California are just twice as likely to be hardworking as poor kids in Georgia and North Carolina?
> 
> "Or might there be something else going on?
> 
> "Not to mention, even an 11.2 percent chance of going from low-income to high-income is pretty damn low if what we're looking at is an issue of merit.
> 
> "Those numbers are in line with Pew's earlier finding that 43 percent of Americans born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder never move up, and a full 70 percent never reach the middle.
> 
> "The 'this is about advantages and inequality, not individual merit' hypothesis gains strength when you learn that rich kids with below-average test scores are more likely to graduate from college than poor kids with above-average test scores."
> 
> Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better question, do Democrats think that California makes kids smarter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural Selection makes California kids smarter.
Click to expand...


That explains why they are all leaving the state.


----------



## georgephillip

1776 said:


> Uh....stupid fuck.
> 
> Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR, etc had more poverty and inequality than the US. People are eating dead humans in North Korea to survive you stupid pile of shit.
> 
> Shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
Click to expand...

"The United States embargo against Cuba (known in Cuba as el bloqueo) is a commercial, economic, and financial embargo imposed on Cuba by the United States. It began on 19 October 1960 (almost two years after the Batista regime was deposed by the Cuban Revolution) when the US placed an embargo on exports to Cuba (except for food and medicine), and on 7 February 1962 was extended to include almost all imports..."

"The UN General Assembly has, since 1992, passed a resolution every year criticizing the ongoing impact of the embargo and claiming it to be in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law.[2] Human rights groups including Amnesty International,[2] Human Rights Watch,[18] and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights[19] have also been critical of the embargo."

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Antares

georgephillip said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And capitalism enhances inequality:*
> 
> "A child raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale through much of the southern United States has around a 5 percent chance of rising to the top fifth4 percent in Atlanta and 4.3 percent in Charlottewhile a low-income child has a 9.6 percent chance of rising in Los Angeles and 11.2 percent in San Francisco.
> 
> "Do Republicans think poor kids in California are just twice as likely to be hardworking as poor kids in Georgia and North Carolina?
> 
> "Or might there be something else going on?
> 
> "Not to mention, even an 11.2 percent chance of going from low-income to high-income is pretty damn low if what we're looking at is an issue of merit.
> 
> "Those numbers are in line with Pew's earlier finding that 43 percent of Americans born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder never move up, and a full 70 percent never reach the middle.
> 
> "The 'this is about advantages and inequality, not individual merit' hypothesis gains strength when you learn that rich kids with below-average test scores are more likely to graduate from college than poor kids with above-average test scores."
> 
> Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better question, do Democrats think that California makes kids smarter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural Selection makes California kids smarter.
Click to expand...


You may have something there...I am a Nor Cal  product.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DailyKOS is your source.
> 
> Enough said.
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's some more, Hack:*
> 
> "A new Pew Research Center/USA Today poll echoes Quinnipiac in finding that voters want to see the minimum wage increased and unemployment aid extended; once again, even Republicans support raising the minimum wage, 53 percent to 43 percent.
> 
> "Republicans are just about exactly flipped on unemployment aid: 43 percent want to see it extended while 54 percent don't.
> 
> "Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of both policies, as are strong majorities of independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be a fairly accurate determination of the public's opinion, but where is the evidence that southern kids in the bottom quintile have a 5% chance of getting into the top quintile?
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "But the survey also highlights a fundamental difference in how Republicans and Democrats see economic inequality and poverty: Republicans actually believe that rich people are rich because they worked harder and poor people are poor because they didn't work hard enough..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have you proved that belief isn't justified?
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Find any content you care to criticize, or are you still stuck on (stupid) context?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what that statement is intended to signify.
Click to expand...

*It signifies you've offered no refutation of any claim I've made.
Like the one about southern kids and the "American Dream."*

"A study finds the odds of rising to another income level are notably low in certain cities, like Atlanta and Charlotte, and much higher in New York and Boston."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-income-ladder-location-matters.html?hp&_r=0

*When you criticize the source and not its specific content it makes you look like a  right-wing loon*


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> Nice to see that Rottweiler continues to reside in his conservative bubble where the American dream isn't dead and everybody still had a chance to be the next Bill Gates.



That's because everybody does. Every single year in this country, someone who grew up in poverty graduates from an Ivy League school or the next best thing (Stanford, Cal, MIT, etc.). It's sad to see that you continue to live in your liberal bubble where "life is too hard" and everything must be handed to you.



Dragonlady said:


> By every measure, doors are closing to the lower and middle class to rise up. If you don't make enough to support yourself and your family, how can you possibly have money left over to invest?



Because your idea of "supporting" your family means Blackberry's, iPad's, and HD tv's. If liberals would grow the fuck up and do without these exceptionally frivolous luxuries, there is plenty of money left over for education, or investing, or insurance, etc. It's simply a matter of putting actual necessities over frivilous desires - something greedy liberals _refuse_ to do.



Dragonlady said:


> The quality of public school education is in serious decline and American students are falling behind the rest of the world while surveys show that a large percentage of the population denies science, evolution and climate change.



Well that's what happens with the ignorant Cuban-communism policies you support. Detroit has filed for bankruptcy and is literally a 3rd-world shit-hole now after almost 60 straight years of Dumbocrat Mayors, Dumbocrat-controlled city council, and Dumbocrat spread-the-wealth unions. One would think the facts would wake you out of your liberal-stupor, but apparently not.

And as far as "climate change" - well, perhaps you want to step away from the liberal propaganda. We have this thing called _science_ now.... (60% increase in the polar ice-caps...._Oops_!!!!)

Global Cooling: Arctic Ice Cap Grows 60 Percent In A Year [NASA PHOTO] - International Science Times

Arctic ice cap grows 60%...in a YEAR



Dragonlady said:


> Student grants are being cut while tuition rises so that when students graduate, their future has been fully mortgaged to pay their tuition.



And that's why you ungrateful, greedy liberals should be thankful for the minimum wage jobs that also provide tuition reimbursement (and in many cases now, universities put off payment until after the semester - so the corporation can pay them directly pending the outcome of a passing grade).



Dragonlady said:


> Unions gave rise to the middle class. It's no accident that in destroying the middle class Ronnie Rayguns went after the unions first.



Except the middle class (and the economy) skyrocketed under Ronald Reagan. While Barack Obama and his marxist policies have decimated the middle class.

So far, all you've done is post uninformed _opinion_. Meanwhile, I've provided specific facts (Detroit, tuition reimbursement, etc.) and links. What now Dragon? You're kind of backed into a corner here and losing credibility by the letter typed...


----------



## Dragonlady

Quantum Windbag said:


> If she actually has a degree in accounting she wouldn't be spouting about accountants getting a 60% pay raise in order to deal with more complex tax laws, and dismiss it as a COLA increase.



That isn't what I said at all. I said that if an accountant gets a 5% COLA, low skill workers should get one too. 

Then I added that in the past 30 years management types, like accountants have seen a 60% rise in their pay while unskilled workers have lost ground. 

I don't have a degree in accounting. I worked as a banker for 10 years after I finished school and then went to work in law for the next 30 years. That was in response to the a$$hat who suggested I was the product of a US public school education, knew nothing about economics and still lived with my parents. 

I didn't make these comments to brag on my education and experience, but rather to counter the suggestion that I was young, stupid and had no idea how things work in the real world.


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> No one expects low skill workers to be paid the same as the company's accountant. What we expect is wages for all workers to rise proportionately. *If the accountant is given a 5% increase for cost of living, the low skill workers should receive a similar 5% increase.*



Pure, unadulterated Dumbocrat socialist ignorance. So if the "low skill" worker always shows up late for work, has a bad attitude, and provides nothing of real value to the organization, he/she should receive the same 5% increase as the accountant who puts in 55 hours per week, has a professional approach to their job, and saves the organization money in taxes and corrections in the financial books???? 



Dragonlady said:


> People aren't really paid based on their value to the business. That's a right wing myth. They're paid based on supply and demand. There are lots of low skill workers and they're easy to replace. With so many unemployed looking for jobs, they line up for any opportunity offered. You don't have to pay more to replace them, and if you can find a legal way to pay them less, they'll still line up for the jobs and be grateful for the opportunity.



Once again, pure, unadulterated Dumbocrat socialist ignorance. Why do you think LeBron James gets paid $30 million per year? Because he can dunk a basketball? _Really_?

He gets paid $30 million per year because people want to see him play so badly, they will collectively pay $100 million per year in ticket sales to sit there and watch him in person. He will generate more revenue for the organization than he will cost them. In other words, he is paid because of his *value* to the organization. Just like everybody else in America.


----------



## Dragonlady

Who says low skill workers don't work hard, turn up on time and do their jobs?  You assume that people who are paid more work harder and that not always the case. I've seen lots of wage slaves who turn up every day and give a good day's work for their wages. 

Accountants earn more because they require more skills and education and are more difficult to replace but the cost of living raises should go to all workers because the COLA goes up for everyone, not just those in management. COLA is not a merit increase.


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> Who says low skill workers don't work hard, turn up on time and do their jobs?  You assume that people who are paid more work harder and that not always the case. *I've seen lots of wage slaves who turn up every day and give a good day's work for their wages*.
> 
> Accountants earn more because they require more skills and education and are more difficult to replace but the cost of living raises should go to all workers because the COLA goes up for everyone, not just those in management. COLA is not a merit increase.



I agree *100%* with that... My point was your asinine claim that everyone should get the same increase across the board regardless of their performance is completely absurd (and I suspect you know that too - you're just playing that disingenuous Dumbocrat game).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dragonlady said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are payed by their value to a business. You expect a person who stocks shelves to receive the same salary the Company's Accountant gets.
> Please explain what a living wage equals. Especially, if you are still living with mommy and daddy.
> 
> We are not doing as well as other countries? We still have the Largest Economy in the World. Our poor live better than in any other country in the world and we give aid to those countries.
> 
> You really know very little about economics and the world we live in. You are a perfect example of just how bad our Public Education System has become.
> 
> Well, I know you just can't fix stupid. So I won't try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one expects low skill workers to be paid the same as the company's accountant. What we expect is wages for all workers to rise proportionately. If the accountant is given a 5% increase for cost of living, the low skill workers should receive a similar 5% increase.
> 
> What has happened is that wages for accountants have risen by 60% while the low skill workers haven't seen a raise in years.
> 
> People aren't really paid based on their value to the business. That's a right wing myth. They're paid based on supply and demand. There are lots of low skill workers and they're easy to replace. With so many unemployed looking for jobs, they line up for any opportunity offered. You don't have to pay more to replace them, and if you can find a legal way to pay them less, they'll still line up for the jobs and be grateful for the opportunity.
> 
> Accountants are harder to find and not easily replaced so they're paid more to attract better employees.
> 
> You don't have the largest economy in the world. That would be China. Your economy was surpassed because your low income workers have lost buying power and China's markets are growing due to the rise in manufacturing.
> 
> I am not a product of your lousy public education system. I'm a product of the much superior Canadian education system.  I'm now retired but I was one of the first female bank managers in Canada before moving into law in the early 80's. I specialized in corporate/commercial law and real estate. I think I have a pretty good grasp of economic matters and how successful businesses work.
Click to expand...


*What has happened is that wages for accountants have risen by 60% while the low skill workers haven't seen a raise in years.*

Most people are bad at math and we've imported 20 million low skill illegals.
And you think the low skilled worker should get the same increase?
You want to help the low skilled worker, deport his low skilled illegal competition.

*You don't have the largest economy in the world. That would be China. *

See what I said about math? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which only works if god and heaven exist.
> Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. Solutions include stronger regulation of markets to promote sustainable and equitable growth along with curbing the power of the rich to influence political processes and policies that best suit their interests. Build a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, or use the state to tax private wealth into extinction. There are alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And capitalism enhances inequality:*
> 
> "A child raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale through much of the southern United States has around a 5 percent chance of rising to the top fifth4 percent in Atlanta and 4.3 percent in Charlottewhile a low-income child has a 9.6 percent chance of rising in Los Angeles and 11.2 percent in San Francisco.
> 
> "Do Republicans think poor kids in California are just twice as likely to be hardworking as poor kids in Georgia and North Carolina?
> 
> "Or might there be something else going on?
> 
> "Not to mention, even an 11.2 percent chance of going from low-income to high-income is pretty damn low if what we're looking at is an issue of merit.
> 
> "Those numbers are in line with Pew's earlier finding that 43 percent of Americans born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder never move up, and a full 70 percent never reach the middle.
> 
> "The 'this is about advantages and inequality, not individual merit' hypothesis gains strength when you learn that rich kids with below-average test scores are more likely to graduate from college than poor kids with above-average test scores."
> 
> Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?
Click to expand...


*And capitalism enhances inequality:*

It's true, when you live in a system where success is possible, the successful will make more.
If you live somewhere like Cuba, the smart, the stupid, the lazy and the hard worker are equally unsuccessful. This leads a moron like you to point to Cuba as a country to emulate.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not pro or anti government. I find such a political dynamic juvenile and based on ideology more so than economics and reality. I am for effective markets and I am for a pro growth approach based on demand and supply growing hand in hand.* If government involvement is needed then so be it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what circumstances is government needed?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *To protect citizens from control fraud:*
> 
> "Control fraud occurs when a trusted person in a high position of responsibility in a company, corporation, or state subverts the organization and engages in extensive fraud for personal gain. The term Control fraud was coined by William K. Black to refer both to the acts of fraud and to the individuals who commit them."
> 
> Control fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Shirley, you jest. The Federal Government is a continuing criminal enterprise...control fraud is their specialty.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If she actually has a degree in accounting she wouldn't be spouting about accountants getting a 60% pay raise in order to deal with more complex tax laws, and dismiss it as a COLA increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said at all. I said that if an accountant gets a 5% COLA, low skill workers should get one too.
> 
> Then I added that in the past 30 years management types, like accountants have seen a 60% rise in their pay while unskilled workers have lost ground.
> 
> I don't have a degree in accounting. I worked as a banker for 10 years after I finished school and then went to work in law for the next 30 years. That was in response to the a$$hat who suggested I was the product of a US public school education, knew nothing about economics and still lived with my parents.
> 
> I didn't make these comments to brag on my education and experience, but rather to counter the suggestion that I was young, stupid and had no idea how things work in the real world.
Click to expand...


And,as I pointed out, accountants don't get COLA raises. The only people that still get COLA raises are public employees, and even they don't get them across the board.


----------



## MikeK

georgephillip said:


> "'The appearance of conflict is as dangerous to public confidence in the administration of justice as true conflict itself.  Justice must not only be done; justice must also be seen to be done.'   Lloyd Cutler, 1981
> 
> "Over the past three years,  the Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against hundreds of ordinary Americans for financial fraud.
> 
> "But no one from the largest banks and firms on Wall Street have been similarly charged for events leading up to the financial crisis.
> 
> "Could that be because those banks are clients of the firms from which top DOJ officials hail?"
> 
> Obama's DOJ And Wall Street: Too Big For Jail? - Forbes
> *Obviously, Goldman Sachs knew what it was getting when it donated over $900,000 to Hope and Change in 2008*


Eric Holder is not only totally ineffective at the real purpose of Attorney General he is brazenly and contemptuously so.  He exists to serve the interests of his and the President's sponsors, who are major figures within the financial industry, which is where he and Obama will settle after 2016.


----------



## Dragonlady

Rottweiler said:


> I agree *100%* with that... My point was your asinine claim that everyone should get the same increase across the board regardless of their performance is completely absurd (and I suspect you know that too - you're just playing that disingenuous Dumbocrat game).



COLA is not a merit increase. Everyone should get the same percentage COLA raise regardless of performance. Those whose performance merits an increase should also get an increase in addition to their COLA raise. That's how it works at every company/firm where I've worked. 

COLA raises are increases in the base salary/hourly rate paid for any job, based on increases in the cost of living index over the previous fiscal year. 

Most companies who are considered good employers have salary structures based on the established base rate of pay with annual COLA increases, merit increases tied to annual performance reviews and bonuses for exceptional performance - usually given at the end of the fiscal year and tied to profits. 

Everyone gets the COLA increase but only those whose performance reaches or surpasses certain standards get the other raises and bonuses. 

The widening gap between the lower skills jobs and the top end of the work force is the result of the top getting more and more money, while the middle and lower income jobs have not, in spite of rising productivity. 

The loss of buying power for low income workers is dragging the economy down further.  The greatest stimulus to the economy would be to get more money into the hands of low income workers. There are so many more of them.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Inequality exists because the greediest and the most selfish individuals and institutions use private wealth to control every government yet devised. *
> 
> Inequality exists because people are not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> *And capitalism enhances inequality:*
> 
> "A child raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale through much of the southern United States has around a 5 percent chance of rising to the top fifth4 percent in Atlanta and 4.3 percent in Charlottewhile a low-income child has a 9.6 percent chance of rising in Los Angeles and 11.2 percent in San Francisco.
> 
> "Do Republicans think poor kids in California are just twice as likely to be hardworking as poor kids in Georgia and North Carolina?
> 
> "Or might there be something else going on?
> 
> "Not to mention, even an 11.2 percent chance of going from low-income to high-income is pretty damn low if what we're looking at is an issue of merit.
> 
> "Those numbers are in line with Pew's earlier finding that 43 percent of Americans born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder never move up, and a full 70 percent never reach the middle.
> 
> "The 'this is about advantages and inequality, not individual merit' hypothesis gains strength when you learn that rich kids with below-average test scores are more likely to graduate from college than poor kids with above-average test scores."
> 
> Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And capitalism enhances inequality:*
> 
> It's true, when you live in a system where success is possible, the successful will make more.
> If you live somewhere like Cuba, the smart, the stupid, the lazy and the hard worker are equally unsuccessful. This leads a moron like you to point to Cuba as a country to emulate.
Click to expand...

*Gee whiz, Milton Friedman, if we could only convince those hard-working Cubans to end their boycott of the greedy, fascist US?

Can you do this math, Milty?*

"Is America the 'Land of Opportunity'? In two recent studies, we find that: (1) Upward income mobility varies substantially within the U.S. [summary][paper] 

"Areas with greater mobility tend to have five characteristics: less segregation, less income inequality, better schools, greater social capital, and more stable families. (2) 

"Contrary to popular perception, economic mobility has not changed significantly over time; *however, it is consistently lower in the U.S. than in most developed countries.* [summary][paper] "

Equality of Opportunity


----------



## georgephillip

MikeK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "'The appearance of conflict is as dangerous to public confidence in the administration of justice as true conflict itself.  Justice must not only be done; justice must also be seen to be done.'   Lloyd Cutler, 1981
> 
> "Over the past three years,  the Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against hundreds of ordinary Americans for financial fraud.
> 
> "But no one from the largest banks and firms on Wall Street have been similarly charged for events leading up to the financial crisis.
> 
> "Could that be because those banks are clients of the firms from which top DOJ officials hail?"
> 
> Obama's DOJ And Wall Street: Too Big For Jail? - Forbes
> *Obviously, Goldman Sachs knew what it was getting when it donated over $900,000 to Hope and Change in 2008*
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Holder is not only totally ineffective at the real purpose of Attorney General he is brazenly and contemptuously so.  He exists to serve the interests of his and the President's sponsors, who are major figures within the financial industry, which is where he and Obama will settle after 2016.
Click to expand...

*Holder will undoubtedly return to whence he came, at a much higher rate of compensation probably.

IMHO, it's a real shame he and Obama don't draw their last breaths in federal prison*

"White Collar Criminal Defense work has become one of the few revenue bright spots for large firms.   According to a detailed analysis by the Professor Charles D. Weisselberg of UC-Berkeley in the  Arizona Law Review, there is big money to be made because 'this area of practice is not susceptible to the same types of cost controls' that apply to other legal work.  

"In short,  white collar criminal defense work is 'enormously lucrative.'

"Eric Holder left Covington with a $2.5 million salary and a seven figure bonus.   If he returns to Covington (as two of his colleagues at Justice already have) a similar payday certainly awaits him.

Obama's DOJ And Wall Street: Too Big For Jail? - Forbes


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are payed by their value to a business. You expect a person who stocks shelves to receive the same salary the Company's Accountant gets.
> Please explain what a living wage equals. Especially, if you are still living with mommy and daddy.
> 
> We are not doing as well as other countries? We still have the Largest Economy in the World. Our poor live better than in any other country in the world and we give aid to those countries.
> 
> You really know very little about economics and the world we live in. You are a perfect example of just how bad our Public Education System has become.
> 
> Well, I know you just can't fix stupid. So I won't try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one expects low skill workers to be paid the same as the company's accountant. What we expect is wages for all workers to rise proportionately. If the accountant is given a 5% increase for cost of living, the low skill workers should receive a similar 5% increase.
> 
> What has happened is that wages for accountants have risen by 60% while the low skill workers haven't seen a raise in years.
> 
> People aren't really paid based on their value to the business. That's a right wing myth. They're paid based on supply and demand. There are lots of low skill workers and they're easy to replace. With so many unemployed looking for jobs, they line up for any opportunity offered. You don't have to pay more to replace them, and if you can find a legal way to pay them less, they'll still line up for the jobs and be grateful for the opportunity.
> 
> Accountants are harder to find and not easily replaced so they're paid more to attract better employees.
> 
> You don't have the largest economy in the world. That would be China. Your economy was surpassed because your low income workers have lost buying power and China's markets are growing due to the rise in manufacturing.
> 
> I am not a product of your lousy public education system. I'm a product of the much superior Canadian education system.  I'm now retired but I was one of the first female bank managers in Canada before moving into law in the early 80's. I specialized in corporate/commercial law and real estate. I think I have a pretty good grasp of economic matters and how successful businesses work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What has happened is that wages for accountants have risen by 60% while the low skill workers haven't seen a raise in years.*
> 
> Most people are bad at math and we've imported 20 million low skill illegals.
> And you think the low skilled worker should get the same increase?
> You want to help the low skilled worker, deport his low skilled illegal competition.
> 
> *You don't have the largest economy in the world. That would be China. *
> 
> See what I said about math? LOL!
Click to expand...

*Depending on whether you classify GDP by country or region, the US is either number one in the former or second to the EU in the latter:*

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)[/URL]


----------



## Dragonlady

Yes, the US is No. 1 in GNP, but in the overall value of goods and services produced, China has surpassed the US, primarily because China has taken over so much of the civilian manufacturing which used to be done in the US and the middle class in China is growing which is driving a growing demand for consumer goods. That demand will continue to grow as China's burgeoning middle class indulges their demand for western luxuries and technology. 

Conversely, low and middle income Americans are able to afford less and less as the buying power of stagnant incomes continue to erode. 

Large US companies will continue to expand into Asia as the increased manufacturing sector in those countries will provide markets for goods Americans can no longer afford.


----------



## Iceweasel

In other words, China is moving towards capitalism and the US is moving away from it.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> Yes, the US is No. 1 in GNP, but in the overall value of goods and services produced, China has surpassed the US, primarily because China has taken over so much of the civilian manufacturing which used to be done in the US and the middle class in China is growing which is driving a growing demand for consumer goods. That demand will continue to grow as China's burgeoning middle class indulges their demand for western luxuries and technology.
> 
> Conversely, low and middle income Americans are able to afford less and less as the buying power of stagnant incomes continue to erode.
> 
> Large US companies will continue to expand into Asia as the increased manufacturing sector in those countries will provide markets for goods Americans can no longer afford.



GNP is the value of all goods and services produced, moron.


----------



## dblack

Iceweasel said:


> In other words, China is moving towards capitalism and the US is moving away from it.



They're both moving toward corporatism.


----------



## Iceweasel

dblack said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, China is moving towards capitalism and the US is moving away from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're both moving toward corporatism.
Click to expand...

You mean facism? Yes, we are moving towards it, for them it's proving better than communism.


----------



## dblack

Iceweasel said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, China is moving towards capitalism and the US is moving away from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're both moving toward corporatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean facism? Yes, we are moving towards it, for them it's proving better than communism.
Click to expand...


Yeah, basically. Whether it's "better" or not depends on our goals. If the goal is to mobilize society for conquest, it's hard to beat the various flavors of fascism. If, on the other hand, we want "liberty and justice for all" we need government that is limited in power and scope.


----------



## georgephillip

Dragonlady said:


> Yes, the US is No. 1 in GNP, but in the overall value of goods and services produced, China has surpassed the US, primarily because China has taken over so much of the civilian manufacturing which used to be done in the US and the middle class in China is growing which is driving a growing demand for consumer goods. That demand will continue to grow as China's burgeoning middle class indulges their demand for western luxuries and technology.
> 
> Conversely, low and middle income Americans are able to afford less and less as the buying power of stagnant incomes continue to erode.
> 
> Large US companies will continue to expand into Asia as the increased manufacturing sector in those countries will provide markets for goods Americans can no longer afford.


Do you believe the distinction between GNP and GDP is relevant in this discussion?
Secondly, is it possible that capitalism as it has always existed is no longer capable of providing enough living wage jobs in North America to sustain a viable middle class?


----------



## georgephillip

Iceweasel said:


> In other words, China is moving towards capitalism and the US is moving away from it.


Do you see any evidence of "free" markets in China or the US, and, if so, what, exactly, are their markets "free" of?


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, China is moving towards capitalism and the US is moving away from it.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see any evidence of "free" markets in China or the US, and, if so, what, exactly, are their markets "free" of?
Click to expand...


*NO free markets* in China, the US nor anywhere on the face of mother earth.

.


----------



## Bombur

China's rise is mostly due to their ability to provide a stable economic environment for investors as well as really cheap labor. They also manipulate currencies to ensure long term profitability of investments into production. They also keep wages down through government control. A lot of other places with low wages didn't have the government control that China had/has. It is fairly straight forward mercantilism.


----------



## georgephillip

QUOTE=Bombur;8521346]China's rise is mostly due to their ability to provide a stable economic environment for investors as well as really cheap labor. They also manipulate currencies to ensure long term profitability of investments into production. They also keep wages down through government control. A lot of other places with low wages didn't have the government control that China had/has. It is fairly straight forward mercantilism.[/QUOTE]
*Is the Chinese commitment to mercantilism related to impending attempts at military conquests?*

"Mercantilism is a national economic policy aimed at accumulating monetary reserves through a positive balance of trade, especially of finished goods. 

"Mercantilism dominated Western European economic policy and discourse from the 16th to late-18th centuries.[1] 

"Mercantilism was a cause of frequent European wars and also motivated colonial expansion..."

Mercantilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Bombur

georgephillip said:


> QUOTE=Bombur;8521346]China's rise is mostly due to their ability to provide a stable economic environment for investors as well as really cheap labor. They also manipulate currencies to ensure long term profitability of investments into production. They also keep wages down through government control. A lot of other places with low wages didn't have the government control that China had/has. It is fairly straight forward mercantilism.


*Is the Chinese commitment to mercantilism related to impending attempts at military conquests?*

"Mercantilism is a national economic policy aimed at accumulating monetary reserves through a positive balance of trade, especially of finished goods. 

"Mercantilism dominated Western European economic policy and discourse from the 16th to late-18th centuries.[1] 

"Mercantilism was a cause of frequent European wars and also motivated colonial expansion..."

Mercantilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

In the modern context it is how a nation like China can industrialize fast by maintaining that "positive value of trade" you referenced. What China is doing now is not the exact same as the mercantilism of the past but I am not aware of a new term. 

What China has done makes sense for a nation in their position. They were technologically behind but had a lot of people. So they needed that investment into increasing productivity. They limited the gains to the worker and to the investors which allowed them to improve their nation and maintain the imbalance.


----------



## georgephillip

Bombur said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE=Bombur;8521346]China's rise is mostly due to their ability to provide a stable economic environment for investors as well as really cheap labor. They also manipulate currencies to ensure long term profitability of investments into production. They also keep wages down through government control. A lot of other places with low wages didn't have the government control that China had/has. It is fairly straight forward mercantilism.
> 
> 
> 
> *Is the Chinese commitment to mercantilism related to impending attempts at military conquests?*
> 
> "Mercantilism is a national economic policy aimed at accumulating monetary reserves through a positive balance of trade, especially of finished goods.
> 
> "Mercantilism dominated Western European economic policy and discourse from the 16th to late-18th centuries.[1]
> 
> "Mercantilism was a cause of frequent European wars and also motivated colonial expansion..."
> 
> Mercantilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


In the modern context it is how a nation like China can industrialize fast by maintaining that "positive value of trade" you referenced. What China is doing now is not the exact same as the mercantilism of the past but I am not aware of a new term. 

What China has done makes sense for a nation in their position. They were technologically behind but had a lot of people. So they needed that investment into increasing productivity. They limited the gains to the worker and to the investors which allowed them to improve their nation and maintain the imbalance.[/QUOTE]
Do you expect the Chinese to rely on colonialism in the same way European empires did?


----------



## Bombur

georgephillip said:


> Do you expect the Chinese to rely on colonialism in the same way European empires did?



no


----------



## georgephillip

Bombur said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you expect the Chinese to rely on colonialism in the same way European empires did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no
Click to expand...

"Led by that giant of the emerging powers, China, the BRICS are now Africa's largest trading partners and its biggest new group of investors. BRICS-Africa trade is seen eclipsing $500 billion by 2015, with China taking the lion's share of 60 percent of this, according to Standard Bank."

*China seems to have found a way to exploit without the expense of military occupation, or maybe I'm missing something.*

BRICS chafe under charge of new imperialists in Africa | Reuters


----------



## Iceweasel

georgephillip said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, China is moving towards capitalism and the US is moving away from it.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see any evidence of "free" markets in China or the US, and, if so, what, exactly, are their markets "free" of?
Click to expand...

You need to do some basic research since I'm not getting paid for this.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree *100%* with that... My point was your asinine claim that everyone should get the same increase across the board regardless of their performance is completely absurd (and I suspect you know that too - you're just playing that disingenuous Dumbocrat game).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COLA is not a merit increase. Everyone should get the same percentage COLA raise regardless of performance. Those whose performance merits an increase should also get an increase in addition to their COLA raise. That's how it works at every company/firm where I've worked.
> 
> COLA raises are increases in the base salary/hourly rate paid for any job, based on increases in the cost of living index over the previous fiscal year.
> 
> Most companies who are considered good employers have salary structures based on the established base rate of pay with annual COLA increases, merit increases tied to annual performance reviews and bonuses for exceptional performance - usually given at the end of the fiscal year and tied to profits.
> 
> Everyone gets the COLA increase but only those whose performance reaches or surpasses certain standards get the other raises and bonuses.
> 
> The widening gap between the lower skills jobs and the top end of the work force is the result of the top getting more and more money, while the middle and lower income jobs have not, in spite of rising productivity.
> 
> The loss of buying power for low income workers is dragging the economy down further.  The greatest stimulus to the economy would be to get more money into the hands of low income workers. There are so many more of them.
Click to expand...


You keep blathering about COLA raises like they actually exist in the real world.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And capitalism enhances inequality:*
> 
> "A child raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale through much of the southern United States has around a 5 percent chance of rising to the top fifth4 percent in Atlanta and 4.3 percent in Charlottewhile a low-income child has a 9.6 percent chance of rising in Los Angeles and 11.2 percent in San Francisco.
> 
> "Do Republicans think poor kids in California are just twice as likely to be hardworking as poor kids in Georgia and North Carolina?
> 
> "Or might there be something else going on?
> 
> "Not to mention, even an 11.2 percent chance of going from low-income to high-income is pretty damn low if what we're looking at is an issue of merit.
> 
> "Those numbers are in line with Pew's earlier finding that 43 percent of Americans born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder never move up, and a full 70 percent never reach the middle.
> 
> "The 'this is about advantages and inequality, not individual merit' hypothesis gains strength when you learn that rich kids with below-average test scores are more likely to graduate from college than poor kids with above-average test scores."
> 
> Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And capitalism enhances inequality:*
> 
> It's true, when you live in a system where success is possible, the successful will make more.
> If you live somewhere like Cuba, the smart, the stupid, the lazy and the hard worker are equally unsuccessful. This leads a moron like you to point to Cuba as a country to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Gee whiz, Milton Friedman, if we could only convince those hard-working Cubans to end their boycott of the greedy, fascist US?
> 
> Can you do this math, Milty?*
> 
> "Is America the 'Land of Opportunity'? In two recent studies, we find that: (1) Upward income mobility varies substantially within the U.S. [summary][paper]
> 
> "Areas with greater mobility tend to have five characteristics: less segregation, less income inequality, better schools, greater social capital, and more stable families. (2)
> 
> "Contrary to popular perception, economic mobility has not changed significantly over time; *however, it is consistently lower in the U.S. than in most developed countries.* [summary][paper] "
> 
> Equality of Opportunity
Click to expand...


I wonder what happened between 1980 and 1985 to eliminate the fluctuation that characterizes income mobility every where else in the world. Want to bet that it was something you think is a good idea? Could it have been the effect of the "Largest tax increase in American history?"


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, China is moving towards capitalism and the US is moving away from it.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see any evidence of "free" markets in China or the US, and, if so, what, exactly, are their markets "free" of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *NO free markets* in China, the US nor anywhere on the face of mother earth.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


There are a few of them and it scares the hell out of governments everywhere.


----------



## Contumacious

Quantum Windbag said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see any evidence of "free" markets in China or the US, and, if so, what, exactly, are their markets "free" of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NO free markets* in China, the US nor anywhere on the face of mother earth.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a few of them and it scares the hell out of governments everywhere.
Click to expand...


Those are BLACKMARKETS, the free market's cousin.

.


----------



## 1776

Actually AIDS is rampant in your homo community. 

Scum like you demand the rest of us pay for your diseases. 

Go to hell. 



georgephillip said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh....stupid fuck.
> 
> Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR, etc had more poverty and inequality than the US. People are eating dead humans in North Korea to survive you stupid pile of shit.
> 
> Shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The United States embargo against Cuba (known in Cuba as el bloqueo) is a commercial, economic, and financial embargo imposed on Cuba by the United States. It began on 19 October 1960 (almost two years after the Batista regime was deposed by the Cuban Revolution) when the US placed an embargo on exports to Cuba (except for food and medicine), and on 7 February 1962 was extended to include almost all imports..."
> 
> "The UN General Assembly has, since 1992, passed a resolution every year criticizing the ongoing impact of the embargo and claiming it to be in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law.[2] Human rights groups including Amnesty International,[2] Human Rights Watch,[18] and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights[19] have also been critical of the embargo."
> 
> United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

Iceweasel said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, China is moving towards capitalism and the US is moving away from it.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see any evidence of "free" markets in China or the US, and, if so, what, exactly, are their markets "free" of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to do some basic research since I'm not getting paid for this.
Click to expand...

My neither.
Does your definition of "free market" accord with Milton Friedman's or Adam Smith's interpretation of the term?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Contumacious said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NO free markets* in China, the US nor anywhere on the face of mother earth.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few of them and it scares the hell out of governments everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are BLACKMARKETS, the free market's cousin.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


There is a widespread underground economy in the US that, while not regulated, is not actually criminal.

More Americans Work in the Underground Economy - Businessweek


----------



## 1776

It is amazing the USSR fell apart, Cuba is a third class country, Venezuela is falling apart, North Korea has labor camps where people starve to death and China is turning more from socialism to fascism...yet we get stupid fuck liberals coming here touting the utopia of socialism. 

Next....they will tout eating dog crap for dinner.


----------



## georgephillip

Quantum Windbag said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And capitalism enhances inequality:*
> 
> It's true, when you live in a system where success is possible, the successful will make more.
> If you live somewhere like Cuba, the smart, the stupid, the lazy and the hard worker are equally unsuccessful. This leads a moron like you to point to Cuba as a country to emulate.
> 
> 
> 
> *Gee whiz, Milton Friedman, if we could only convince those hard-working Cubans to end their boycott of the greedy, fascist US?
> 
> Can you do this math, Milty?*
> 
> "Is America the 'Land of Opportunity'? In two recent studies, we find that: (1) Upward income mobility varies substantially within the U.S. [summary][paper]
> 
> "Areas with greater mobility tend to have five characteristics: less segregation, less income inequality, better schools, greater social capital, and more stable families. (2)
> 
> "Contrary to popular perception, economic mobility has not changed significantly over time; *however, it is consistently lower in the U.S. than in most developed countries.* [summary][paper] "
> 
> Equality of Opportunity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder what happened between 1980 and 1985 to eliminate the fluctuation that characterizes income mobility every where else in the world. Want to bet that it was something you think is a good idea? Could it have been the effect of the "Largest tax increase in American history?"
Click to expand...

*I was thinking it might be Ronny's and Maggy's Big Bang*

"Within a year of Big Bang in 1986, when the City was deregulated, it became conventional wisdom to believe that management of the economy was best left to global market forces. The mantra of the market became even more pronounced when the Berlin Wall fell in 1990 and the Soviet empire collapsed soon afterwards..."

Who's to blame for the capitalism crisis? Let's start the list with Thatcher and Reagan | Business | theguardian.com


----------



## 1776

Why did the socialists need to put up a wall in Germany if it was sooooooo good?


----------



## Contumacious

Quantum Windbag said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few of them and it scares the hell out of governments everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are BLACKMARKETS, the free market's cousin.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a widespread underground economy in the US that, while not regulated, is not actually criminal.
> 
> More Americans Work in the Underground Economy - Businessweek
Click to expand...


Do not forget that under the welfare/warfare police state a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

My experience is that when an economic activity goes underground is because there is a "law" regulating the same.

Has any one ever tried to surreptitiously sell you toilet paper?  So you do the math.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

georgephillip said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Gee whiz, Milton Friedman, if we could only convince those hard-working Cubans to end their boycott of the greedy, fascist US?
> 
> Can you do this math, Milty?*
> 
> "Is America the 'Land of Opportunity'? In two recent studies, we find that: (1) Upward income mobility varies substantially within the U.S. [summary][paper]
> 
> "Areas with greater mobility tend to have five characteristics: less segregation, less income inequality, better schools, greater social capital, and more stable families. (2)
> 
> "Contrary to popular perception, economic mobility has not changed significantly over time; *however, it is consistently lower in the U.S. than in most developed countries.* [summary][paper] "
> 
> Equality of Opportunity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what happened between 1980 and 1985 to eliminate the fluctuation that characterizes income mobility every where else in the world. Want to bet that it was something you think is a good idea? Could it have been the effect of the "Largest tax increase in American history?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I was thinking it might be Ronny's and Maggy's Big Bang*
> 
> "Within a year of Big Bang in 1986, when the City was deregulated, it became conventional wisdom to believe that management of the economy was best left to global market forces. The mantra of the market became even more pronounced when the Berlin Wall fell in 1990 and the Soviet empire collapsed soon afterwards..."
> 
> Who's to blame for the capitalism crisis? Let's start the list with Thatcher and Reagan | Business | theguardian.com
Click to expand...


I get it, you found something that you don't like, and that obviously falls outside the possible explanations for a change that occurred in 1982, and declared it  reversed entropy.

Must be nice.


----------



## 1776

How does socialism/communism promote "equality?"

Taking from those not in power and keeping for the ruling class...is equality?

Making sure everyone only gets a certain amount of food, gas, etc...is equality?

Stalin lived a life of luxury while he gave demands to randomly kill people in the projects and claim they were spies/traitors to keep the masses afraid of him.....that sounds like equality to a liberal, eh?


----------



## Contumacious

1776 said:


> How does socialism/communism promote "equality?"



*HUH?*

What kind of stupid question is that.

Under socialism/communism everyone is *EQUALLY* poor.



.


----------



## georgephillip

1776 said:


> How does socialism/communism promote "equality?"
> 
> Taking from those not in power and keeping for the ruling class...is equality?
> 
> Making sure everyone only gets a certain amount of food, gas, etc...is equality?
> 
> Stalin lived a life of luxury while he gave demands to randomly kill people in the projects and claim they were spies/traitors to keep the masses afraid of him.....that sounds like equality to a liberal, eh?


Or maybe Stalin wasn't really a Socialist.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does socialism/communism promote "equality?"
> 
> Taking from those not in power and keeping for the ruling class...is equality?
> 
> Making sure everyone only gets a certain amount of food, gas, etc...is equality?
> 
> Stalin lived a life of luxury while he gave demands to randomly kill people in the projects and claim they were spies/traitors to keep the masses afraid of him.....that sounds like equality to a liberal, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe Stalin wasn't really a Socialist.
Click to expand...


Of course not because under true socialism only nice people get into positions of power, and the government would never do anything mean or unfair and every child has a pink unicorn for a pet.


----------



## georgephillip

Quantum Windbag said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what happened between 1980 and 1985 to eliminate the fluctuation that characterizes income mobility every where else in the world. Want to bet that it was something you think is a good idea? Could it have been the effect of the "Largest tax increase in American history?"
> 
> 
> 
> *I was thinking it might be Ronny's and Maggy's Big Bang*
> 
> "Within a year of Big Bang in 1986, when the City was deregulated, it became conventional wisdom to believe that management of the economy was best left to global market forces. The mantra of the market became even more pronounced when the Berlin Wall fell in 1990 and the Soviet empire collapsed soon afterwards..."
> 
> Who's to blame for the capitalism crisis? Let's start the list with Thatcher and Reagan | Business | theguardian.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it, you found something that you don't like, and that obviously falls outside the possible explanations for a change that occurred in 1982, and declared it  reversed entropy.
> 
> Must be nice.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't have a clue what fluctuation characteristic of income inequality was eliminated in 1982.


----------



## hazlnut

Godboy said:


> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.




A million?

That's stupid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

georgephillip said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I was thinking it might be Ronny's and Maggy's Big Bang*
> 
> "Within a year of Big Bang in 1986, when the City was deregulated, it became conventional wisdom to believe that management of the economy was best left to global market forces. The mantra of the market became even more pronounced when the Berlin Wall fell in 1990 and the Soviet empire collapsed soon afterwards..."
> 
> Who's to blame for the capitalism crisis? Let's start the list with Thatcher and Reagan | Business | theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it, you found something that you don't like, and that obviously falls outside the possible explanations for a change that occurred in 1982, and declared it  reversed entropy.
> 
> Must be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I honestly don't have a clue what fluctuation characteristic of income inequality was eliminated in 1982.
Click to expand...


Is that because you didn't read the link, or is it because it would destroy your claim that it is capitalism that is the problem?


----------



## Iceweasel

1776 said:


> How does socialism/communism promote "equality?"


By making everyone miserable.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Iceweasel said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does socialism/communism promote "equality?"
> 
> 
> 
> By making everyone miserable.
Click to expand...


EQUALLY miserable?

But communism even fails at THAT.

There are always the elites in a communist regime who make out quite well.  THEY sure as HELL don't favor all that "equality" stuff.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Capitalism pays for Socialism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And capitalism enhances inequality:*
> 
> "A child raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale through much of the southern United States has around a 5 percent chance of rising to the top fifth4 percent in Atlanta and 4.3 percent in Charlottewhile a low-income child has a 9.6 percent chance of rising in Los Angeles and 11.2 percent in San Francisco.
> 
> "Do Republicans think poor kids in California are just twice as likely to be hardworking as poor kids in Georgia and North Carolina?
> 
> "Or might there be something else going on?
> 
> "Not to mention, even an 11.2 percent chance of going from low-income to high-income is pretty damn low if what we're looking at is an issue of merit.
> 
> "Those numbers are in line with Pew's earlier finding that 43 percent of Americans born in the bottom fifth of the income ladder never move up, and a full 70 percent never reach the middle.
> 
> "The 'this is about advantages and inequality, not individual merit' hypothesis gains strength when you learn that rich kids with below-average test scores are more likely to graduate from college than poor kids with above-average test scores."
> 
> Daily Kos: Republicans believe rich people just work harder. So how do they explain these statistics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And capitalism enhances inequality:*
> 
> It's true, when you live in a system where success is possible, the successful will make more.
> If you live somewhere like Cuba, the smart, the stupid, the lazy and the hard worker are equally unsuccessful. This leads a moron like you to point to Cuba as a country to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Gee whiz, Milton Friedman, if we could only convince those hard-working Cubans to end their boycott of the greedy, fascist US?
> 
> Can you do this math, Milty?*
> 
> "Is America the 'Land of Opportunity'? In two recent studies, we find that: (1) Upward income mobility varies substantially within the U.S. [summary][paper]
> 
> "Areas with greater mobility tend to have five characteristics: less segregation, less income inequality, better schools, greater social capital, and more stable families. (2)
> 
> "Contrary to popular perception, economic mobility has not changed significantly over time; *however, it is consistently lower in the U.S. than in most developed countries.* [summary][paper] "
> 
> Equality of Opportunity
Click to expand...


Gee whiz, Cuba can't trade with dozens of other countries.....their failure is our fault. LOL!


----------



## hunarcy

hazlnut said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A million?
> 
> That's stupid.
Click to expand...


Name a person in the United States that is forced into living in grass huts, with no running water or indoor toilet, who lives as a subsistence farmer or is a hunter-gatherer.

I'd say he was a bit conservative in his estimate of how much better life is now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dragonlady said:


> Yes, the US is No. 1 in GNP, but in the overall value of goods and services produced, China has surpassed the US, primarily because China has taken over so much of the civilian manufacturing which used to be done in the US and the middle class in China is growing which is driving a growing demand for consumer goods. That demand will continue to grow as China's burgeoning middle class indulges their demand for western luxuries and technology.
> 
> Conversely, low and middle income Americans are able to afford less and less as the buying power of stagnant incomes continue to erode.
> 
> Large US companies will continue to expand into Asia as the increased manufacturing sector in those countries will provide markets for goods Americans can no longer afford.



*Yes, the US is No. 1 in GNP, but in the overall value of goods and services produced, China has surpassed the US, *

Ummmmmm.....the overall value of goods and services produced is GNP.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> China's rise is mostly due to their ability to provide a stable economic environment for investors as well as really cheap labor. They also manipulate currencies to ensure long term profitability of investments into production. They also keep wages down through government control. A lot of other places with low wages didn't have the government control that China had/has. It is fairly straight forward mercantilism.



*China's rise is mostly due to their ability to provide a stable economic environment for investors *

Let's see how stable their environment is over the next 12 months.


----------



## 1776

Was he a capitalist, idiot?

What about Castro, Mao, etc? 

Hitler was a national socialist....more like you than me. 



georgephillip said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does socialism/communism promote "equality?"
> 
> Taking from those not in power and keeping for the ruling class...is equality?
> 
> Making sure everyone only gets a certain amount of food, gas, etc...is equality?
> 
> Stalin lived a life of luxury while he gave demands to randomly kill people in the projects and claim they were spies/traitors to keep the masses afraid of him.....that sounds like equality to a liberal, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe Stalin wasn't really a Socialist.
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does socialism/communism promote "equality?"
> 
> Taking from those not in power and keeping for the ruling class...is equality?
> 
> Making sure everyone only gets a certain amount of food, gas, etc...is equality?
> 
> Stalin lived a life of luxury while he gave demands to randomly kill people in the projects and claim they were spies/traitors to keep the masses afraid of him.....that sounds like equality to a liberal, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe Stalin wasn't really a Socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not because under true socialism only nice people get into positions of power, and the government would never do anything mean or unfair and every child has a pink unicorn for a pet.
Click to expand...

Under socialism worker soviets (councils) control the means of production.
Initially, that was how the system functioned in 1917 Russia.
Lenin dissolved the soviets and demanded workers submit to the state.
Stalin finished the job ( and worse)
Pink unicorns are for those who believe the rich create jobs during capitalism's end times.


----------



## 1776

Ahhhh, the socialists fucked up their own system. 

You sound like this stupid Irish college kid that argued with me in a Prague bar. He was a socialist in his 20s and had no understanding/clue about the 70s-80s of the USSR...it was the "west's fault" that the USSR flopped since we didn't prop it up was his argument. 

Too bad Lenin and Stalin didn't execute socialism like you, a twit. 



georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe Stalin wasn't really a Socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not because under true socialism only nice people get into positions of power, and the government would never do anything mean or unfair and every child has a pink unicorn for a pet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under socialism worker soviets (councils) control the means of production.
> Initially, that was how the system functioned in 1917 Russia.
> Lenin dissolved the soviets and demanded workers submit to the state.
> Stalin finished the job ( and worse)
> Pink unicorns are for those who believe the rich create jobs during capitalism's end times.
Click to expand...


----------



## Quadravius

The more I read and learn about communism, the more I like it better than capitalism honestly.  

Under capitalism, most people are still poor.  Under communism, the people who made too much under capitalism gotta share it with everybody.  I dont see what the huge problem is?


----------



## 1776

Are you joking? 



Quadravius said:


> The more I read and learn about communism, the more I like it better than capitalism honestly.
> 
> Under capitalism, most people are still poor.  Under communism, the people who made too much under capitalism gotta share it with everybody.  I dont see what the huge problem is?


----------



## georgephillip

1776 said:


> Was he a capitalist, idiot?
> 
> What about Castro, Mao, etc?
> 
> Hitler was a national socialist....more like you than me.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does socialism/communism promote "equality?"
> 
> Taking from those not in power and keeping for the ruling class...is equality?
> 
> Making sure everyone only gets a certain amount of food, gas, etc...is equality?
> 
> Stalin lived a life of luxury while he gave demands to randomly kill people in the projects and claim they were spies/traitors to keep the masses afraid of him.....that sounds like equality to a liberal, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe Stalin wasn't really a Socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Stalin was a state capitalist.
How else would he become rich, Bitch?


----------



## Quadravius

1776 said:


> Are you joking?
> 
> 
> 
> Quadravius said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more I read and learn about communism, the more I like it better than capitalism honestly.
> 
> Under capitalism, most people are still poor.  Under communism, the people who made too much under capitalism gotta share it with everybody.  I dont see what the huge problem is?
Click to expand...


Why would I be joking?  Is a difference of opinion allowed here?


----------



## GISMYS

The problem??? No problem=simple =you don't work=you don't eat.


----------



## 1776

Yes....you are the bi-product of some test tube experiment gone wrong...to claim Stalin was a "capitalist."

You are on ignore for being such a stupid stain of shit on society. 



georgephillip said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was he a capitalist, idiot?
> 
> What about Castro, Mao, etc?
> 
> Hitler was a national socialist....more like you than me.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe Stalin wasn't really a Socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stalin was a state capitalist.
> How else would he become rich, Bitch?
Click to expand...


----------



## 1776

Did you graduate from high school? 

Do you know the names Castro, Stalin and Mao....what do they have in common? 



Quadravius said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you joking?
> 
> 
> 
> Quadravius said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more I read and learn about communism, the more I like it better than capitalism honestly.
> 
> Under capitalism, most people are still poor.  Under communism, the people who made too much under capitalism gotta share it with everybody.  I dont see what the huge problem is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I be joking?  Is a difference of opinion allowed here?
Click to expand...


----------



## dblack

George, simple question: do you think people should be free to spend their money as they wish? To give it to whomever they want, for whatever reason, as long as they aren't soliciting otherwise criminal activity (eg hiring a hit man etc...)?


----------



## georgephillip

"There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which have existed before the 1917 October Revolution. 

"The common themes among them are to identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that commodity relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism. 

"*Vladimir Lenin notably described the economy of Russia as state capitalism.* 

"Socialists of a libertarian or anarchist persuasion, such as Noam Chomsky, use the term 'state capitalism' to refer to economies that are nominally capitalist, such that the decisive research and development is performed by the public sector at public cost, but private owners reap the profits."

State capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Socialism never had a chance to succeed in an economy as backward as Russia in 1917.

We won't know what its potential is until it buries capitalism in the US.*


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> George, simple question: do you think people should be free to spend their money as they wish? To give it to whomever they want, for whatever reason, as long as they aren't soliciting otherwise criminal activity (eg hiring a hit man etc...)?


I sense a trick question, dblack, but I'll stick my neck in the noose and answer by saying "yes".


----------



## Quadravius

1776 said:


> Did you graduate from high school?
> 
> Do you know the names Castro, Stalin and Mao....what do they have in common?



Castro was a hero who liberated cuba.  Stalin sided with the allies to crush the white supremacist nazis.  And mao made china what it is today.  Most of your products are made in china because of mao.


----------



## GISMYS

So cuba and china "liberated" now???? Freedom????dream on!!!


----------



## Quadravius

GISMYS said:


> So cuba and china "liberated" now???? Freedom????dream on!!!



If it wasnt for stalin, you all would be speaking german right now.  Would you have preferred if hitler won?


----------



## GISMYS

How many millions of his own people did stalin kill???? Far more than hitler!!! Think!


----------



## Quadravius

GISMYS said:


> How many millions of his own people did stalin kill???? Far more than hitler!!! Think!



All I know is if hitler won he would have conquered the world and stuff all colored people in gas chambers.  The only thing to think about is my black ass would be dead if the nazis won.


----------



## GISMYS

The Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million.


----------



## Quadravius

GISMYS said:


> The Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million.



Yeah but it sorta sounded like you were defending hitler though.  How many more people would hitler have killed if stalin didnt put a boot up his ass?  Pretty sure there were a few hundred million people in africa that wouldnt be there now if hitler won.  So you can add that to the casualty list. 

Most of you are are hating on communism without really experiencing it.  Youve been fed capitalist propaganda for decades.  Only thing communism is gonna be is sorta like now in the USA just better, because more wealth will be spread around to more people.  Cant have people making 20 million a year while others who work make 20,000 a year.  Those people making 20 million are gonna have to give up most of it.  If you dont like it?  Canada is north of the border.  Nobody is stopping you from leaving.

Im glad to see the democratic party is starting to take income inequality seriously.


----------



## GISMYS

RUSSIA,CUBA,CHINA FAILING BIG TIME !!! TODAY'S NEWS = CHINA ON THE EDGE==The Peoples Bank of China , the central bank, has just ordered commercial banks to halt cash transfers. 
In short, there will be a three-day suspension of domestic renminbi transfers. There will also be a suspension, spanning nine calendar days, of conversions of renminbi to foreign currency.


----------



## gipper

Quadravius said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but it sorta sounded like you were defending hitler though.  How many more people would hitler have killed if stalin didnt put a boot up his ass?  Pretty sure there were a few hundred million people in africa that wouldnt be there now if hitler won.  So you can add that to the casualty list.
> 
> Most of you are are hating on communism without really experiencing it.  Youve been fed capitalist propaganda for decades.  Only thing communism is gonna be is sorta like now in the USA just better, because more wealth will be spread around to more people.  Cant have people making 20 million a year while others who work make 20,000 a year.  Those people making 20 million are gonna have to give up most of it.  If you dont like it?  Canada is north of the border.  Nobody is stopping you from leaving.
> 
> Im glad to see the democratic party is starting to take income inequality seriously.
Click to expand...


It is hard to agree with most of that.

First, Hitler and Stalin were blood brothers.  By any objective analysis, Stalin was worse than Hitler and had been murdering and enslaving his own people long before Hitler came to power.  Yet, we helped Stalin destroy Germany only to enslave half of Europe to an evil dictator and ideology for 50 years.  Terrible...very terrible.

Second, you will never eliminate income inequality.  Humans are all different.  Some do great things and should be compensated for it, or they will NOT do great things that all humanity can benefit from.  

And we have a progressive tax system that requires the wealthy to pay much more.  How much more should they pay, to make you happy?  And beside, all these trillions transferred over the past few decades has done nothing to reduce or eliminate income inequality....but it sure has enriched the power elite and dramatically increased the power of the state...so lets keep doing the same thing expecting a different result...


----------



## Iceweasel

Quadravius said:


> Castro was a hero who liberated cuba.  Stalin sided with the allies to crush the white supremacist nazis.  And mao made china what it is today.  Most of your products are made in china because of mao.


Either this is a hoax or it comes from the most brainwashed person I have ever seen.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> George, simple question: do you think people should be free to spend their money as they wish? To give it to whomever they want, for whatever reason, as long as they aren't soliciting otherwise criminal activity (eg hiring a hit man etc...)?
> 
> 
> 
> I sense a trick question, dblack, but I'll stick my neck in the noose and answer by saying "yes".
Click to expand...


 It's not a trick, but yes, it's more subtle than it appears. 

Wealth is economic power. It's control over labor and resources. In a free market, we give this control to people who use it in ways we value. We withhold it from those who squander it. We do this via voluntary economic decisions, and to the extent that those decisions are free and unfettered, the result is an accurate representation of our values as a society. If the aggregate result of those decisions results in a small minority controlling most of the wealth in the world, I don't see why that's a problem, and I'm wondering if you do.

I'm hoping that's not the view your promoting here and, instead, you're drawing attention to the fact that our economic decisions are often _not_ free and unfettered, that via deception and coercion, unscrupulous people acquire economic power that we don't, in fact, want them to have. If that's the case, I'm right there with you. We should figure out exactly what they're up to and deal with it.


----------



## Dragonlady

Having all of the wealth in the hands of the few is the very definition of a Third World country.  

What made the US economy the largest and strongest in the world was the buying power of a strong and vibrant middle and working class. 

Now that the working class has been reduced to poverty and the middle class is struggling, the US economy is falling behind. 

As long as people continue to allow the top corporations and individuals to syphon all of the wealth of country, that decline will continue. 

There is a lot of pent up demand amongst the working class, but with income declining and savings gone, there is no way for that demand to be filled. 

Conservatives seem to think this a good thing.


----------



## Iceweasel

Dragonlady said:


> Having all of the wealth in the hands of the few is the very definition of a Third World country.


You desperately need a road trip. Get out more and look around. Most Americans are living pretty good, nice cars, homes, appliances, electronic doodads, eat in restaurants on a regular basis. Go to movies, buy them and have good TV satellite or cable packages. Just because multi-national corporate heads make zillions don't make you poorer even though the discrephency is larger. 


> What made the US economy the largest and strongest in the world was the buying power of a strong and vibrant middle and working class.
> 
> Now that the working class has been reduced to poverty and the middle class is struggling, the US economy is falling behind.


Define 'poverty'. The ONLY thing that will increase the middle class is a better economy. And we are not on track, it's limping along at best. Like I said before, take all the rich folks assets and it won't run the government halfway across a dime. 


> As long as people continue to allow the top corporations and individuals to syphon all of the wealth of country, that decline will continue.
> 
> There is a lot of pent up demand amongst the working class, but with income declining and savings gone, there is no way for that demand to be filled.
> 
> Conservatives seem to think this a good thing.


yawn.


----------



## RKMBrown

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



So let's see... 

You are saying that if the bottom 5% do practically nothing and earn practically nothing they are somehow hurt when the top 5% double their income if doing nothing does not double in pay.  ROFL What an idiot.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> George, simple question: do you think people should be free to spend their money as they wish? To give it to whomever they want, for whatever reason, as long as they aren't soliciting otherwise criminal activity (eg hiring a hit man etc...)?
> 
> 
> 
> I sense a trick question, dblack, but I'll stick my neck in the noose and answer by saying "yes".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a trick, but yes, it's more subtle than it appears.
> 
> Wealth is economic power. It's control over labor and resources. In a free market, we give this control to people who use it in ways we value. We withhold it from those who squander it. We do this via voluntary economic decisions, and to the extent that those decisions are free and unfettered, the result is an accurate representation of our values as a society. If the aggregate result of those decisions results in a small minority controlling most of the wealth in the world, I don't see why that's a problem, and I'm wondering if you do.
> 
> I'm hoping that's not the view your promoting here and, instead, you're drawing attention to the fact that our economic decisions are often _not_ free and unfettered, that via deception and coercion, unscrupulous people acquire economic power that we don't, in fact, want them to have. If that's the case, I'm right there with you. We should figure out exactly what they're up to and deal with it.
Click to expand...

*What I'm trying to promote is not only are the economic decisions we make not free and unfettered, but they are downright illusory.

*Chris Hedges uses _Moby Dick_ to effectively convey what I believe we are confronting today:[/B]

"The most prescient portrait of the American character and our ultimate fate as a species is found in Herman Melville&#8217;s 'Moby Dick.' 

"Melville makes our murderous obsessions, our hubris, violent impulses, moral weakness and inevitable self-destruction visible in his chronicle of a whaling voyage. 

"He is our foremost oracle. 

"He is to us what William Shakespeare was to Elizabethan England or Fyodor Dostoyevsky to czarist Russia.

"Our country is given shape in the form of the ship, the Pequod, named after the Indian tribe exterminated in 1638 by the Puritans and their Native American allies. 

"The ship&#8217;s 30-man crew&#8212;there were 30 states in the Union when Melville wrote the novel&#8212;is a mixture of races and creeds..."

*A couple of paragraphs later Chris nails our current economic illusion, IMHO*

"Our financial system&#8212;like our participatory democracy&#8212;is a mirage. 

"The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds&#8212;much of it worthless subprime mortgages&#8212;each month. 

"It has been artificially propping up the government and Wall Street like this for five years. 

"It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money&#8212;*because wages are kept low*&#8212;by lending it to us at staggering interest rates that can climb to as high as 30 percent. ... 

"Or our corporate oligarchs hoard the money or gamble with it in an overinflated stock market. 

"Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion. 

"But none of us know. 

"The figures are not public. 

"And the reason this systematic looting will continue until collapse is that our economy [would] go into a tailspin without this giddy infusion of free cash."

*And when that collapse comes, most of us will blame a different set of victims.*

*I'm really not sure in a market free of rentier (FIRE sector) influences large private fortunes would ever come into existence. I suppose it's possible those who compete on a completely level playing field and still manage to earn million$ every year would be entitled to their gains, but I don't see anything like that today; do you?*

Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dragonlady said:


> Having all of the wealth in the hands of the few is the very definition of a Third World country.
> 
> What made the US economy the largest and strongest in the world was the buying power of a strong and vibrant middle and working class.
> 
> Now that the working class has been reduced to poverty and the middle class is struggling, the US economy is falling behind.
> 
> As long as people continue to allow the top corporations and individuals to syphon all of the wealth of country, that decline will continue.
> 
> There is a lot of pent up demand amongst the working class, but with income declining and savings gone, there is no way for that demand to be filled.
> 
> Conservatives seem to think this a good thing.



*Now that the working class has been reduced to poverty and the middle class is struggling, the US economy is falling behind.*

Despite your confusion, we're still twice the size of China's economy.
Probably more, I don't trust their government's numbers one bit.


----------



## francoHFW

OP- SAVAGE capitalism, ie Reaganism/Thatcherism/Gilded AGE/1920's GOP causes inequality...Socialism is not communism, brainwashed hater dupes/cold war dinosaurs lol...

''We're all socialists now''- Finland PM when O-Care passed...

Socialism is well regulated capitalism with a good safety net and ALWAYS democratic, except In Pub WORLD...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sense a trick question, dblack, but I'll stick my neck in the noose and answer by saying "yes".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a trick, but yes, it's more subtle than it appears.
> 
> Wealth is economic power. It's control over labor and resources. In a free market, we give this control to people who use it in ways we value. We withhold it from those who squander it. We do this via voluntary economic decisions, and to the extent that those decisions are free and unfettered, the result is an accurate representation of our values as a society. If the aggregate result of those decisions results in a small minority controlling most of the wealth in the world, I don't see why that's a problem, and I'm wondering if you do.
> 
> I'm hoping that's not the view your promoting here and, instead, you're drawing attention to the fact that our economic decisions are often _not_ free and unfettered, that via deception and coercion, unscrupulous people acquire economic power that we don't, in fact, want them to have. If that's the case, I'm right there with you. We should figure out exactly what they're up to and deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What I'm trying to promote is not only are the economic decisions we make not free and unfettered, but they are downright illusory.
> 
> *Chris Hedges uses _Moby Dick_ to effectively convey what I believe we are confronting today:[/B]
> 
> "The most prescient portrait of the American character and our ultimate fate as a species is found in Herman Melvilles 'Moby Dick.'
> 
> "Melville makes our murderous obsessions, our hubris, violent impulses, moral weakness and inevitable self-destruction visible in his chronicle of a whaling voyage.
> 
> "He is our foremost oracle.
> 
> "He is to us what William Shakespeare was to Elizabethan England or Fyodor Dostoyevsky to czarist Russia.
> 
> "Our country is given shape in the form of the ship, the Pequod, named after the Indian tribe exterminated in 1638 by the Puritans and their Native American allies.
> 
> "The ships 30-man crewthere were 30 states in the Union when Melville wrote the novelis a mixture of races and creeds..."
> 
> *A couple of paragraphs later Chris nails our current economic illusion, IMHO*
> 
> "Our financial systemlike our participatory democracyis a mirage.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month.
> 
> "It has been artificially propping up the government and Wall Street like this for five years.
> 
> "It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money*because wages are kept low*by lending it to us at staggering interest rates that can climb to as high as 30 percent. ...
> 
> "Or our corporate oligarchs hoard the money or gamble with it in an overinflated stock market.
> 
> "Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion.
> 
> "But none of us know.
> 
> "The figures are not public.
> 
> "And the reason this systematic looting will continue until collapse is that our economy [would] go into a tailspin without this giddy infusion of free cash."
> 
> *And when that collapse comes, most of us will blame a different set of victims.*
> 
> *I'm really not sure in a market free of rentier (FIRE sector) influences large private fortunes would ever come into existence. I suppose it's possible those who compete on a completely level playing field and still manage to earn million$ every year would be entitled to their gains, but I don't see anything like that today; do you?*
> 
> Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
Click to expand...


*"The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month. *

Chris is an idiot. The Fed buys US Treasury bonds and guaranteed MBS. 
Neither one of which can be considered subprime.
Although, after 3 more years of Obama, that may not be the case.

*"It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money*

Banks are currently borrowing from the Fed Discount Window........$6 million.
They are currently lending to the Fed, at 0.25%, about $2.4 trillion.

*"Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion. *

Chris pulled that estimate out of his ass.

*"But none of us know. *

LOL!

I see why you like this guy, he's even dumber than you.


----------



## francoHFW

SEE sig para 1 for how we're doing against the other socialist modern countries- Original EU, Canada, Japan, Oz, NZ...

Yup, we're socialist, BARELY, BUT SLANTED TOWARD THE GREEDY IDIOT RICH UNDER REAGANIST policies...now starting to turn around thank god...


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sense a trick question, dblack, but I'll stick my neck in the noose and answer by saying "yes".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a trick, but yes, it's more subtle than it appears.
> 
> Wealth is economic power. It's control over labor and resources. In a free market, we give this control to people who use it in ways we value. We withhold it from those who squander it. We do this via voluntary economic decisions, and to the extent that those decisions are free and unfettered, the result is an accurate representation of our values as a society. If the aggregate result of those decisions results in a small minority controlling most of the wealth in the world, I don't see why that's a problem, and I'm wondering if you do.
> 
> I'm hoping that's not the view your promoting here and, instead, you're drawing attention to the fact that our economic decisions are often _not_ free and unfettered, that via deception and coercion, unscrupulous people acquire economic power that we don't, in fact, want them to have. If that's the case, I'm right there with you. We should figure out exactly what they're up to and deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What I'm trying to promote is not only are the economic decisions we make not free and unfettered, but they are downright illusory.
> 
> *Chris Hedges uses _Moby Dick_ to effectively convey what I believe we are confronting today:[/B]
> 
> "The most prescient portrait of the American character and our ultimate fate as a species is found in Herman Melvilles 'Moby Dick.'
> 
> "Melville makes our murderous obsessions, our hubris, violent impulses, moral weakness and inevitable self-destruction visible in his chronicle of a whaling voyage.
> 
> "He is our foremost oracle.
> 
> "He is to us what William Shakespeare was to Elizabethan England or Fyodor Dostoyevsky to czarist Russia.
> 
> "Our country is given shape in the form of the ship, the Pequod, named after the Indian tribe exterminated in 1638 by the Puritans and their Native American allies.
> 
> "The ships 30-man crewthere were 30 states in the Union when Melville wrote the novelis a mixture of races and creeds..."
> 
> *A couple of paragraphs later Chris nails our current economic illusion, IMHO*
> 
> "Our financial systemlike our participatory democracyis a mirage.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month.
> 
> "It has been artificially propping up the government and Wall Street like this for five years.
> 
> "It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money*because wages are kept low*by lending it to us at staggering interest rates that can climb to as high as 30 percent. ...
> 
> "Or our corporate oligarchs hoard the money or gamble with it in an overinflated stock market.
> 
> "Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion.
> 
> "But none of us know.
> 
> "The figures are not public.
> 
> "And the reason this systematic looting will continue until collapse is that our economy [would] go into a tailspin without this giddy infusion of free cash."
> 
> *And when that collapse comes, most of us will blame a different set of victims.*
> 
> *I'm really not sure in a market free of rentier (FIRE sector) influences large private fortunes would ever come into existence. I suppose it's possible those who compete on a completely level playing field and still manage to earn million$ every year would be entitled to their gains, but I don't see anything like that today; do you?*
> 
> Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
Click to expand...


Yep, that's pretty much what I see as well. Though it's sounds like the problem isn't free market capitalism, but our attempts to control the economy via the state (the Fed, etc), which always feeds the agenda of those in power. And that makes it doubly frustrating to see most critics simply proposing more of the same.


----------



## francoHFW

GOP policies favor the greedy rich, Dems', not so much, dupes.


----------



## georgephillip

Dragonlady said:


> Having all of the wealth in the hands of the few is the very definition of a Third World country.
> 
> What made the US economy the largest and strongest in the world was the buying power of a strong and vibrant middle and working class.
> 
> Now that the working class has been reduced to poverty and the middle class is struggling, the US economy is falling behind.
> 
> As long as people continue to allow the top corporations and individuals to syphon all of the wealth of country, that decline will continue.
> 
> There is a lot of pent up demand amongst the working class, but with income declining and savings gone, there is no way for that demand to be filled.
> 
> Conservatives seem to think this a good thing.


Conservatives used to think Kings were a good thing.
Democracy scared them, and, apparently, it still does.
Just as the well-mannered serf centuries ago toiled an equal number of days for his "lord" as for himself, today's right-wing slaves slobber over a "free market" that has now bestowed the same wealth upon the richest 85 lords and ladies as it has upon the poorest one-half of this world's serfs.
The new world order that began in the aftermath of the '73 economic crisis is different from its predecessors in that finance capitalism now has a stanglehold on the US economy, and anyone who points that out is "envious" of the wealth Wall Street hoards.
Only conservatives are that suicidal.

The Political Economy Of Predatory Capitalism | PopularResistance.Org


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having all of the wealth in the hands of the few is the very definition of a Third World country.
> 
> What made the US economy the largest and strongest in the world was the buying power of a strong and vibrant middle and working class.
> 
> Now that the working class has been reduced to poverty and the middle class is struggling, the US economy is falling behind.
> 
> As long as people continue to allow the top corporations and individuals to syphon all of the wealth of country, that decline will continue.
> 
> There is a lot of pent up demand amongst the working class, but with income declining and savings gone, there is no way for that demand to be filled.
> 
> Conservatives seem to think this a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives used to think Kings were a good thing.
> Democracy scared them, and, apparently, it still does.
Click to expand...


Democracy doesn't scare me. But unlimited government does, regardless of who is calling the shots.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Having all of the wealth in the hands of the few is the very definition of a Third World country.
> 
> What made the US economy the largest and strongest in the world was the buying power of a strong and vibrant middle and working class.
> 
> Now that the working class has been reduced to poverty and the middle class is struggling, the US economy is falling behind.
> 
> As long as people continue to allow the top corporations and individuals to syphon all of the wealth of country, that decline will continue.
> 
> There is a lot of pent up demand amongst the working class, but with income declining and savings gone, there is no way for that demand to be filled.
> 
> Conservatives seem to think this a good thing.



It is so sad that Maya Penn was born into a third world country. Just think of what would have happened if she had been born into the world you think actually exists.

This teen entrepreneur is out to change the world: Q&A with Maya Penn | TED Blog


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a trick, but yes, it's more subtle than it appears.
> 
> Wealth is economic power. It's control over labor and resources. In a free market, we give this control to people who use it in ways we value. We withhold it from those who squander it. We do this via voluntary economic decisions, and to the extent that those decisions are free and unfettered, the result is an accurate representation of our values as a society. If the aggregate result of those decisions results in a small minority controlling most of the wealth in the world, I don't see why that's a problem, and I'm wondering if you do.
> 
> I'm hoping that's not the view your promoting here and, instead, you're drawing attention to the fact that our economic decisions are often _not_ free and unfettered, that via deception and coercion, unscrupulous people acquire economic power that we don't, in fact, want them to have. If that's the case, I'm right there with you. We should figure out exactly what they're up to and deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> *What I'm trying to promote is not only are the economic decisions we make not free and unfettered, but they are downright illusory.
> 
> *Chris Hedges uses _Moby Dick_ to effectively convey what I believe we are confronting today:[/B]
> 
> "The most prescient portrait of the American character and our ultimate fate as a species is found in Herman Melvilles 'Moby Dick.'
> 
> "Melville makes our murderous obsessions, our hubris, violent impulses, moral weakness and inevitable self-destruction visible in his chronicle of a whaling voyage.
> 
> "He is our foremost oracle.
> 
> "He is to us what William Shakespeare was to Elizabethan England or Fyodor Dostoyevsky to czarist Russia.
> 
> "Our country is given shape in the form of the ship, the Pequod, named after the Indian tribe exterminated in 1638 by the Puritans and their Native American allies.
> 
> "The ships 30-man crewthere were 30 states in the Union when Melville wrote the novelis a mixture of races and creeds..."
> 
> *A couple of paragraphs later Chris nails our current economic illusion, IMHO*
> 
> "Our financial systemlike our participatory democracyis a mirage.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month.
> 
> "It has been artificially propping up the government and Wall Street like this for five years.
> 
> "It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money*because wages are kept low*by lending it to us at staggering interest rates that can climb to as high as 30 percent. ...
> 
> "Or our corporate oligarchs hoard the money or gamble with it in an overinflated stock market.
> 
> "Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion.
> 
> "But none of us know.
> 
> "The figures are not public.
> 
> "And the reason this systematic looting will continue until collapse is that our economy [would] go into a tailspin without this giddy infusion of free cash."
> 
> *And when that collapse comes, most of us will blame a different set of victims.*
> 
> *I'm really not sure in a market free of rentier (FIRE sector) influences large private fortunes would ever come into existence. I suppose it's possible those who compete on a completely level playing field and still manage to earn million$ every year would be entitled to their gains, but I don't see anything like that today; do you?*
> 
> Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, that's pretty much what I see as well. Though it's sounds like the problem isn't free market capitalism, but our attempts to control the economy via the state (the Fed, etc), which always feeds the agenda of those in power. And that makes it doubly frustrating to see most critics simply proposing more of the same.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the Fed serves the state as much as it serves private wealth


----------



## Quantum Windbag

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sense a trick question, dblack, but I'll stick my neck in the noose and answer by saying "yes".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a trick, but yes, it's more subtle than it appears.
> 
> Wealth is economic power. It's control over labor and resources. In a free market, we give this control to people who use it in ways we value. We withhold it from those who squander it. We do this via voluntary economic decisions, and to the extent that those decisions are free and unfettered, the result is an accurate representation of our values as a society. If the aggregate result of those decisions results in a small minority controlling most of the wealth in the world, I don't see why that's a problem, and I'm wondering if you do.
> 
> I'm hoping that's not the view your promoting here and, instead, you're drawing attention to the fact that our economic decisions are often _not_ free and unfettered, that via deception and coercion, unscrupulous people acquire economic power that we don't, in fact, want them to have. If that's the case, I'm right there with you. We should figure out exactly what they're up to and deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What I'm trying to promote is not only are the economic decisions we make not free and unfettered, but they are downright illusory.
> 
> *Chris Hedges uses _Moby Dick_ to effectively convey what I believe we are confronting today:[/B]
> 
> "The most prescient portrait of the American character and our ultimate fate as a species is found in Herman Melvilles 'Moby Dick.'
> 
> "Melville makes our murderous obsessions, our hubris, violent impulses, moral weakness and inevitable self-destruction visible in his chronicle of a whaling voyage.
> 
> "He is our foremost oracle.
> 
> "He is to us what William Shakespeare was to Elizabethan England or Fyodor Dostoyevsky to czarist Russia.
> 
> "Our country is given shape in the form of the ship, the Pequod, named after the Indian tribe exterminated in 1638 by the Puritans and their Native American allies.
> 
> "The ships 30-man crewthere were 30 states in the Union when Melville wrote the novelis a mixture of races and creeds..."
> 
> *A couple of paragraphs later Chris nails our current economic illusion, IMHO*
> 
> "Our financial systemlike our participatory democracyis a mirage.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month.
> 
> "It has been artificially propping up the government and Wall Street like this for five years.
> 
> "It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money*because wages are kept low*by lending it to us at staggering interest rates that can climb to as high as 30 percent. ...
> 
> "Or our corporate oligarchs hoard the money or gamble with it in an overinflated stock market.
> 
> "Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion.
> 
> "But none of us know.
> 
> "The figures are not public.
> 
> "And the reason this systematic looting will continue until collapse is that our economy [would] go into a tailspin without this giddy infusion of free cash."
> 
> *And when that collapse comes, most of us will blame a different set of victims.*
> 
> *I'm really not sure in a market free of rentier (FIRE sector) influences large private fortunes would ever come into existence. I suppose it's possible those who compete on a completely level playing field and still manage to earn million$ every year would be entitled to their gains, but I don't see anything like that today; do you?*
> 
> Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
Click to expand...


Herman Melville was a hack writer who never used one word when he could use 100. Comparing him to Shakespeare is like comparing an artist who throws paint at a wall to Picasso.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

georgephillip said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having all of the wealth in the hands of the few is the very definition of a Third World country.
> 
> What made the US economy the largest and strongest in the world was the buying power of a strong and vibrant middle and working class.
> 
> Now that the working class has been reduced to poverty and the middle class is struggling, the US economy is falling behind.
> 
> As long as people continue to allow the top corporations and individuals to syphon all of the wealth of country, that decline will continue.
> 
> There is a lot of pent up demand amongst the working class, but with income declining and savings gone, there is no way for that demand to be filled.
> 
> Conservatives seem to think this a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives used to think Kings were a good thing.
> Democracy scared them, and, apparently, it still does.
> Just as the well-mannered serf centuries ago toiled an equal number of days for his "lord" as for himself, today's right-wing slaves slobber over a "free market" that has now bestowed the same wealth upon the richest 85 lords and ladies as it has upon the poorest one-half of this world's serfs.
> The new world order that began in the aftermath of the '73 economic crisis is different from its predecessors in that finance capitalism now has a stanglehold on the US economy, and anyone who points that out is "envious" of the wealth Wall Street hoards.
> Only conservatives are that suicidal.
> 
> The Political Economy Of Predatory Capitalism | PopularResistance.Org
Click to expand...


You call me a conservative, yet support the very economic policies you claim to despise because  I, allegedly, believe in them.

What does that say about you?


----------



## georgephillip

RKMBrown said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's see...
> 
> You are saying that if the bottom 5% do practically nothing and earn practically nothing they are somehow hurt when the top 5% double their income if doing nothing does not double in pay.  ROFL What an idiot.
Click to expand...

Who said the bottom 5% do practically nothing?
The ratio in average income between the top 5 percent and bottom 5 percent increased from 78:1 in 1988 to 114:1 in 1993.
Between 1988 and 2008 (remember what happened then?) the top 1% increased their incomes by 60% while the bottom 5% had no change; possibly because the rich crashed the global economy and destroyed millions of (5%) jobs.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a trick, but yes, it's more subtle than it appears.
> 
> Wealth is economic power. It's control over labor and resources. In a free market, we give this control to people who use it in ways we value. We withhold it from those who squander it. We do this via voluntary economic decisions, and to the extent that those decisions are free and unfettered, the result is an accurate representation of our values as a society. If the aggregate result of those decisions results in a small minority controlling most of the wealth in the world, I don't see why that's a problem, and I'm wondering if you do.
> 
> I'm hoping that's not the view your promoting here and, instead, you're drawing attention to the fact that our economic decisions are often _not_ free and unfettered, that via deception and coercion, unscrupulous people acquire economic power that we don't, in fact, want them to have. If that's the case, I'm right there with you. We should figure out exactly what they're up to and deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> *What I'm trying to promote is not only are the economic decisions we make not free and unfettered, but they are downright illusory.
> 
> *Chris Hedges uses _Moby Dick_ to effectively convey what I believe we are confronting today:[/B]
> 
> "The most prescient portrait of the American character and our ultimate fate as a species is found in Herman Melvilles 'Moby Dick.'
> 
> "Melville makes our murderous obsessions, our hubris, violent impulses, moral weakness and inevitable self-destruction visible in his chronicle of a whaling voyage.
> 
> "He is our foremost oracle.
> 
> "He is to us what William Shakespeare was to Elizabethan England or Fyodor Dostoyevsky to czarist Russia.
> 
> "Our country is given shape in the form of the ship, the Pequod, named after the Indian tribe exterminated in 1638 by the Puritans and their Native American allies.
> 
> "The ships 30-man crewthere were 30 states in the Union when Melville wrote the novelis a mixture of races and creeds..."
> 
> *A couple of paragraphs later Chris nails our current economic illusion, IMHO*
> 
> "Our financial systemlike our participatory democracyis a mirage.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month.
> 
> "It has been artificially propping up the government and Wall Street like this for five years.
> 
> "It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money*because wages are kept low*by lending it to us at staggering interest rates that can climb to as high as 30 percent. ...
> 
> "Or our corporate oligarchs hoard the money or gamble with it in an overinflated stock market.
> 
> "Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion.
> 
> "But none of us know.
> 
> "The figures are not public.
> 
> "And the reason this systematic looting will continue until collapse is that our economy [would] go into a tailspin without this giddy infusion of free cash."
> 
> *And when that collapse comes, most of us will blame a different set of victims.*
> 
> *I'm really not sure in a market free of rentier (FIRE sector) influences large private fortunes would ever come into existence. I suppose it's possible those who compete on a completely level playing field and still manage to earn million$ every year would be entitled to their gains, but I don't see anything like that today; do you?*
> 
> Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month. *
> 
> Chris is an idiot. The Fed buys US Treasury bonds and guaranteed MBS.
> Neither one of which can be considered subprime.
> Although, after 3 more years of Obama, that may not be the case.
> 
> *"It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money*
> 
> Banks are currently borrowing from the Fed Discount Window........$6 million.
> They are currently lending to the Fed, at 0.25%, about $2.4 trillion.
> 
> *"Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion. *
> 
> Chris pulled that estimate out of his ass.
> 
> *"But none of us know. *
> 
> LOL!
> 
> I see why you like this guy, he's even dumber than you.
Click to expand...

Who "guarantees" the MBS the Fed is buying, Hank Paulson or Dubya?


----------



## Bombur

The Fed will make money on the MBS. A lot of the problems that happened had to do with large changes in value which would require private institutions to liquidate fast which is obviously problematic when everyone is trying to do the same thing.

MBS were rated incorrectly. Investors were running to the markets with bad information and based on multiple levels of market manipulation. A lot of blame to go around.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having all of the wealth in the hands of the few is the very definition of a Third World country.
> 
> What made the US economy the largest and strongest in the world was the buying power of a strong and vibrant middle and working class.
> 
> Now that the working class has been reduced to poverty and the middle class is struggling, the US economy is falling behind.
> 
> As long as people continue to allow the top corporations and individuals to syphon all of the wealth of country, that decline will continue.
> 
> There is a lot of pent up demand amongst the working class, but with income declining and savings gone, there is no way for that demand to be filled.
> 
> Conservatives seem to think this a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives used to think Kings were a good thing.
> Democracy scared them, and, apparently, it still does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy doesn't scare me. But unlimited government does, regardless of who is calling the shots.
Click to expand...

The NSA is one of the best recent examples proving how dangerous unlimited government can be, and our intelligence agencies seem to serve corporate (1%) masters.


----------



## georgephillip

Quantum Windbag said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having all of the wealth in the hands of the few is the very definition of a Third World country.
> 
> What made the US economy the largest and strongest in the world was the buying power of a strong and vibrant middle and working class.
> 
> Now that the working class has been reduced to poverty and the middle class is struggling, the US economy is falling behind.
> 
> As long as people continue to allow the top corporations and individuals to syphon all of the wealth of country, that decline will continue.
> 
> There is a lot of pent up demand amongst the working class, but with income declining and savings gone, there is no way for that demand to be filled.
> 
> Conservatives seem to think this a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives used to think Kings were a good thing.
> Democracy scared them, and, apparently, it still does.
> Just as the well-mannered serf centuries ago toiled an equal number of days for his "lord" as for himself, today's right-wing slaves slobber over a "free market" that has now bestowed the same wealth upon the richest 85 lords and ladies as it has upon the poorest one-half of this world's serfs.
> The new world order that began in the aftermath of the '73 economic crisis is different from its predecessors in that finance capitalism now has a stanglehold on the US economy, and anyone who points that out is "envious" of the wealth Wall Street hoards.
> Only conservatives are that suicidal.
> 
> The Political Economy Of Predatory Capitalism | PopularResistance.Org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call me a conservative, yet support the very economic policies you claim to despise because  I, allegedly, believe in them.
> 
> What does that say about you?
Click to expand...

That I'm confused.
Can you give me a specific example of an economic policy you're referring to?


----------



## georgephillip

Quantum Windbag said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a trick, but yes, it's more subtle than it appears.
> 
> Wealth is economic power. It's control over labor and resources. In a free market, we give this control to people who use it in ways we value. We withhold it from those who squander it. We do this via voluntary economic decisions, and to the extent that those decisions are free and unfettered, the result is an accurate representation of our values as a society. If the aggregate result of those decisions results in a small minority controlling most of the wealth in the world, I don't see why that's a problem, and I'm wondering if you do.
> 
> I'm hoping that's not the view your promoting here and, instead, you're drawing attention to the fact that our economic decisions are often _not_ free and unfettered, that via deception and coercion, unscrupulous people acquire economic power that we don't, in fact, want them to have. If that's the case, I'm right there with you. We should figure out exactly what they're up to and deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> *What I'm trying to promote is not only are the economic decisions we make not free and unfettered, but they are downright illusory.
> 
> *Chris Hedges uses _Moby Dick_ to effectively convey what I believe we are confronting today:[/B]
> 
> "The most prescient portrait of the American character and our ultimate fate as a species is found in Herman Melvilles 'Moby Dick.'
> 
> "Melville makes our murderous obsessions, our hubris, violent impulses, moral weakness and inevitable self-destruction visible in his chronicle of a whaling voyage.
> 
> "He is our foremost oracle.
> 
> "He is to us what William Shakespeare was to Elizabethan England or Fyodor Dostoyevsky to czarist Russia.
> 
> "Our country is given shape in the form of the ship, the Pequod, named after the Indian tribe exterminated in 1638 by the Puritans and their Native American allies.
> 
> "The ships 30-man crewthere were 30 states in the Union when Melville wrote the novelis a mixture of races and creeds..."
> 
> *A couple of paragraphs later Chris nails our current economic illusion, IMHO*
> 
> "Our financial systemlike our participatory democracyis a mirage.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month.
> 
> "It has been artificially propping up the government and Wall Street like this for five years.
> 
> "It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money*because wages are kept low*by lending it to us at staggering interest rates that can climb to as high as 30 percent. ...
> 
> "Or our corporate oligarchs hoard the money or gamble with it in an overinflated stock market.
> 
> "Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion.
> 
> "But none of us know.
> 
> "The figures are not public.
> 
> "And the reason this systematic looting will continue until collapse is that our economy [would] go into a tailspin without this giddy infusion of free cash."
> 
> *And when that collapse comes, most of us will blame a different set of victims.*
> 
> *I'm really not sure in a market free of rentier (FIRE sector) influences large private fortunes would ever come into existence. I suppose it's possible those who compete on a completely level playing field and still manage to earn million$ every year would be entitled to their gains, but I don't see anything like that today; do you?*
> 
> Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Herman Melville was a hack writer who never used one word when he could use 100. Comparing him to Shakespeare is like comparing an artist who throws paint at a wall to Picasso.
Click to expand...

*Are you a literary critic of any standing?*

"Moby-Dick; or, The Whale (1851) is the sixth book by American writer Herman Melville. The work is an epic sea-story of Captain Ahab's voyage in pursuit of Moby Dick, a great white whale. It initially received mixed reviews and at Melville's death in 1891 was remembered, if at all, as a children's sea adventure, but now is considered one of the Great American Novels and a leading work of American Romanticism."

Moby-Dick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*You can't really condemn a writer who published over 150 years ago on the grounds you proposed.

Another good question would be how many times have you read Moby Dick?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What I'm trying to promote is not only are the economic decisions we make not free and unfettered, but they are downright illusory.
> 
> *Chris Hedges uses _Moby Dick_ to effectively convey what I believe we are confronting today:[/B]
> 
> "The most prescient portrait of the American character and our ultimate fate as a species is found in Herman Melvilles 'Moby Dick.'
> 
> "Melville makes our murderous obsessions, our hubris, violent impulses, moral weakness and inevitable self-destruction visible in his chronicle of a whaling voyage.
> 
> "He is our foremost oracle.
> 
> "He is to us what William Shakespeare was to Elizabethan England or Fyodor Dostoyevsky to czarist Russia.
> 
> "Our country is given shape in the form of the ship, the Pequod, named after the Indian tribe exterminated in 1638 by the Puritans and their Native American allies.
> 
> "The ships 30-man crewthere were 30 states in the Union when Melville wrote the novelis a mixture of races and creeds..."
> 
> *A couple of paragraphs later Chris nails our current economic illusion, IMHO*
> 
> "Our financial systemlike our participatory democracyis a mirage.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month.
> 
> "It has been artificially propping up the government and Wall Street like this for five years.
> 
> "It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money*because wages are kept low*by lending it to us at staggering interest rates that can climb to as high as 30 percent. ...
> 
> "Or our corporate oligarchs hoard the money or gamble with it in an overinflated stock market.
> 
> "Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion.
> 
> "But none of us know.
> 
> "The figures are not public.
> 
> "And the reason this systematic looting will continue until collapse is that our economy [would] go into a tailspin without this giddy infusion of free cash."
> 
> *And when that collapse comes, most of us will blame a different set of victims.*
> 
> *I'm really not sure in a market free of rentier (FIRE sector) influences large private fortunes would ever come into existence. I suppose it's possible those who compete on a completely level playing field and still manage to earn million$ every year would be entitled to their gains, but I don't see anything like that today; do you?*
> 
> Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month. *
> 
> Chris is an idiot. The Fed buys US Treasury bonds and guaranteed MBS.
> Neither one of which can be considered subprime.
> Although, after 3 more years of Obama, that may not be the case.
> 
> *"It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money*
> 
> Banks are currently borrowing from the Fed Discount Window........$6 million.
> They are currently lending to the Fed, at 0.25%, about $2.4 trillion.
> 
> *"Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion. *
> 
> Chris pulled that estimate out of his ass.
> 
> *"But none of us know. *
> 
> LOL!
> 
> I see why you like this guy, he's even dumber than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who "guarantees" the MBS the Fed is buying, Hank Paulson or Dubya?
Click to expand...


Obama.


----------



## Mac1958

francoHFW said:


> Socialism is well regulated capitalism with a good safety net and ALWAYS democratic...



Gotta say, I've been seeing more and more on the Left coming out about this over the last few years, and it's refreshing to see the honesty.

Sure, they're bending over backwards trying to paint the best possible face on it -- that has to take some serious effort and spin -- but at least a few of them are willing to admit what they want.

Of course, the rest are still trying to deny it -- habit, I guess -- but maybe they'll become a little more brave at some point.  "Follow the leader" 'n stuff.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

georgephillip said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives used to think Kings were a good thing.
> Democracy scared them, and, apparently, it still does.
> Just as the well-mannered serf centuries ago toiled an equal number of days for his "lord" as for himself, today's right-wing slaves slobber over a "free market" that has now bestowed the same wealth upon the richest 85 lords and ladies as it has upon the poorest one-half of this world's serfs.
> The new world order that began in the aftermath of the '73 economic crisis is different from its predecessors in that finance capitalism now has a stanglehold on the US economy, and anyone who points that out is "envious" of the wealth Wall Street hoards.
> Only conservatives are that suicidal.
> 
> The Political Economy Of Predatory Capitalism | PopularResistance.Org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You call me a conservative, yet support the very economic policies you claim to despise because  I, allegedly, believe in them.
> 
> What does that say about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That I'm confused.
> Can you give me a specific example of an economic policy you're referring to?
Click to expand...


That depends, do you still think capitalism is the worst thing ever? Just asking, because capitalism is the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth. On the other hand, it you still support government regulation and a governemnt that actively intervenes in the economy, you actually support the very things you claim to despise.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

georgephillip said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What I'm trying to promote is not only are the economic decisions we make not free and unfettered, but they are downright illusory.
> 
> *Chris Hedges uses _Moby Dick_ to effectively convey what I believe we are confronting today:[/B]
> 
> "The most prescient portrait of the American character and our ultimate fate as a species is found in Herman Melvilles 'Moby Dick.'
> 
> "Melville makes our murderous obsessions, our hubris, violent impulses, moral weakness and inevitable self-destruction visible in his chronicle of a whaling voyage.
> 
> "He is our foremost oracle.
> 
> "He is to us what William Shakespeare was to Elizabethan England or Fyodor Dostoyevsky to czarist Russia.
> 
> "Our country is given shape in the form of the ship, the Pequod, named after the Indian tribe exterminated in 1638 by the Puritans and their Native American allies.
> 
> "The ships 30-man crewthere were 30 states in the Union when Melville wrote the novelis a mixture of races and creeds..."
> 
> *A couple of paragraphs later Chris nails our current economic illusion, IMHO*
> 
> "Our financial systemlike our participatory democracyis a mirage.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month.
> 
> "It has been artificially propping up the government and Wall Street like this for five years.
> 
> "It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money*because wages are kept low*by lending it to us at staggering interest rates that can climb to as high as 30 percent. ...
> 
> "Or our corporate oligarchs hoard the money or gamble with it in an overinflated stock market.
> 
> "Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion.
> 
> "But none of us know.
> 
> "The figures are not public.
> 
> "And the reason this systematic looting will continue until collapse is that our economy [would] go into a tailspin without this giddy infusion of free cash."
> 
> *And when that collapse comes, most of us will blame a different set of victims.*
> 
> *I'm really not sure in a market free of rentier (FIRE sector) influences large private fortunes would ever come into existence. I suppose it's possible those who compete on a completely level playing field and still manage to earn million$ every year would be entitled to their gains, but I don't see anything like that today; do you?*
> 
> Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Melville was a hack writer who never used one word when he could use 100. Comparing him to Shakespeare is like comparing an artist who throws paint at a wall to Picasso.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Are you a literary critic of any standing?*
> 
> "Moby-Dick; or, The Whale (1851) is the sixth book by American writer Herman Melville. The work is an epic sea-story of Captain Ahab's voyage in pursuit of Moby Dick, a great white whale. It initially received mixed reviews and at Melville's death in 1891 was remembered, if at all, as a children's sea adventure, but now is considered one of the Great American Novels and a leading work of American Romanticism."
> 
> Moby-Dick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *You can't really condemn a writer who published over 150 years ago on the grounds you proposed.
> 
> Another good question would be how many times have you read Moby Dick?*
Click to expand...


Why the fuck not? Mark Twain was a contemporary of the drooling idiot and I never once found myself thinking that he is anything like him.


----------



## Antares

francoHFW said:


> OP- SAVAGE capitalism, ie Reaganism/Thatcherism/Gilded AGE/1920's GOP causes inequality...Socialism is not communism, brainwashed hater dupes/cold war dinosaurs lol...
> 
> ''We're all socialists now''- Finland PM when O-Care passed...
> 
> Socialism is well regulated capitalism with a good safety net and ALWAYS democratic, except In Pub WORLD...



Every time you type you look more stupid.


----------



## RKMBrown

georgephillip said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's see...
> 
> You are saying that if the bottom 5% do practically nothing and earn practically nothing they are somehow hurt when the top 5% double their income if doing nothing does not double in pay.  ROFL What an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said the bottom 5% do practically nothing?
> The ratio in average income between the top 5 percent and bottom 5 percent increased from 78:1 in 1988 to 114:1 in 1993.
> Between 1988 and 2008 (remember what happened then?) the top 1% increased their incomes by 60% while the bottom 5% had no change; possibly because the rich crashed the global economy and destroyed millions of (5%) jobs.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


What do you think it takes to be in the bottom 5%? What part time minimum wage job does one have to have to be in the bottom 5%?  Let's pick on my first part time job that put me (as a fifteen year old kid) into the bottom 5%.  Bagging groceries. Course I only bagged groceries for a few months before I was promoted to a bottom 10% job.  But let's stick to the people who start out bagging groceries and never get a promotion from there for their entire lives.  

Now, please explain to me why we should give a massive raise to someone who is bagging groceries part time?


----------



## Dragonlady

The problem is that in today's job market, the job you were promoted to no longer exists, or if it does exist, it still pays minimum wage. And minimum wages haven't gone up in years, because all of the people who used to work in manufacturing, are now competing for minimum wage jobs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dragonlady said:


> The problem is that in today's job market, the job you were promoted to no longer exists, or if it does exist, it still pays minimum wage. And minimum wages haven't gone up in years, because all of the people who used to work in manufacturing, are now competing for minimum wage jobs.



The problem is we have 20 million illegals competing for low skill jobs.
Makes it hard for low skilled Americans.
Want to raise their wages, deport their competition.


----------



## Antares

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that in today's job market, the job you were promoted to no longer exists, or if it does exist, it still pays minimum wage. And minimum wages haven't gone up in years, because all of the people who used to work in manufacturing, are now competing for minimum wage jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is we have 20 million illegals competing for low skill jobs.
> Makes it hard for low skilled Americans.
> Want to raise their wages, deport their competition.
Click to expand...


......and Bammy wants to provide blanket immunity so that MORE competition for those jobs.


----------



## 1776

Liberals need to explain how letting 11M-15M illegals become so-called Americans with access to jobs and welfare will somehow help poor AMERICANS. 

If you are on a deserted island with limited food, you don't improve your situation by adding more people to eat your food.....dumbfucks.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

francoHFW said:


> OP- SAVAGE capitalism, ie Reaganism/Thatcherism/Gilded AGE/1920's GOP causes inequality...Socialism is not communism, brainwashed hater dupes/cold war dinosaurs lol...
> 
> ''We're all socialists now''- Finland PM when O-Care passed...
> 
> Socialism is well regulated capitalism with a good safety net and ALWAYS democratic, except In Pub WORLD...



Yeah.

And Gonorrhea isn't the clap and Syphilis isn't the drip.  

Agree, disagree... Doesn't matter.  Reasonable, objective people want no part of either one of 'em and to avoid 'em, they don't screw around with SOCIALISTS!


----------



## Dragonlady

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that in today's job market, the job you were promoted to no longer exists, or if it does exist, it still pays minimum wage. And minimum wages haven't gone up in years, because all of the people who used to work in manufacturing, are now competing for minimum wage jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is we have 20 million illegals competing for low skill jobs.
> Makes it hard for low skilled Americans.
> Want to raise their wages, deport their competition.
Click to expand...


Do you ever wonder why more hasn't been done to prevent undocumented workers from finding work?  If businesses were heavily penalized every time they hired undocumented workers, the practice would cease immediately. A fine of $10,000 per undocumented worker would go a long way towards making them an less attractive option. 

If a law were passed requiring employers to see every worker's original SS card and to make a copy of it, and to pay the money only to the person named on the card, undocumented workers would be unable to find jobs. 

As it stands, workers provide false SS numbers and there is no backup. Every year the IRS receives millions of dollars for false SS numbers by way of withholding taxes and the IRS keeps the money. 

Employers get cheap workers. The government gets money that no refunds will be requested for, from people who will never ask for government services. 

By and large, these undocumented workers are taking jobs which pay LESS than minimum wage. Work like harvesting crops. Jobs no American would do for the money being offered. 

But they couldn't continue to work at all if business and the government really didn't want them here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dragonlady said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that in today's job market, the job you were promoted to no longer exists, or if it does exist, it still pays minimum wage. And minimum wages haven't gone up in years, because all of the people who used to work in manufacturing, are now competing for minimum wage jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is we have 20 million illegals competing for low skill jobs.
> Makes it hard for low skilled Americans.
> Want to raise their wages, deport their competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever wonder why more hasn't been done to prevent undocumented workers from finding work?  If businesses were heavily penalized every time they hired undocumented workers, the practice would cease immediately. A fine of $10,000 per undocumented worker would go a long way towards making them an less attractive option.
> 
> If a law were passed requiring employers to see every worker's original SS card and to make a copy of it, and to pay the money only to the person named on the card, undocumented workers would be unable to find jobs.
> 
> As it stands, workers provide false SS numbers and there is no backup. Every year the IRS receives millions of dollars for false SS numbers by way of withholding taxes and the IRS keeps the money.
> 
> Employers get cheap workers. The government gets money that no refunds will be requested for, from people who will never ask for government services.
> 
> By and large, these undocumented workers are taking jobs which pay LESS than minimum wage. Work like harvesting crops. Jobs no American would do for the money being offered.
> 
> But they couldn't continue to work at all if business and the government really didn't want them here.
Click to expand...


*If businesses were heavily penalized every time they hired undocumented workers, the practice would cease immediately. A fine of $10,000 per undocumented worker would go a long way towards making them an less attractive option. *

Sounds good. 

*The government gets money that no refunds will be requested for, from people who will never ask for government services. *

Wrong. Illegals, and their kids, consume tens of billions of dollars in government services, ranging from free medical care, free education and the costs of their crimes and incarcerations.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that in today's job market, the job you were promoted to no longer exists, or if it does exist, it still pays minimum wage. And minimum wages haven't gone up in years, because all of the people who used to work in manufacturing, are now competing for minimum wage jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is we have 20 million illegals competing for low skill jobs.
> Makes it hard for low skilled Americans.
> Want to raise their wages, deport their competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever wonder why more hasn't been done to prevent undocumented workers from finding work?  If businesses were heavily penalized every time they hired undocumented workers, the practice would cease immediately. A fine of $10,000 per undocumented worker would go a long way towards making them an less attractive option.
> 
> If a law were passed requiring employers to see every worker's original SS card and to make a copy of it, and to pay the money only to the person named on the card, undocumented workers would be unable to find jobs.
> 
> As it stands, workers provide false SS numbers and there is no backup. Every year the IRS receives millions of dollars for false SS numbers by way of withholding taxes and the IRS keeps the money.
> 
> Employers get cheap workers. The government gets money that no refunds will be requested for, from people who will never ask for government services.
> 
> By and large, these undocumented workers are taking jobs which pay LESS than minimum wage. Work like harvesting crops. Jobs no American would do for the money being offered.
> 
> But they couldn't continue to work at all if business and the government really didn't want them here.
Click to expand...


What a genius.

FYI, the current fine for hiring an undocumented worker is already $10,000, and the law already requires employers to maintain a copy of proof of citizenship for all workers. Despite the fact that we already have these laws, which you say would end the problem, we still have the problem.


----------



## bayoubill

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



you obviously have no fuckin' idea 'bout the way economics works...

rich folks having huge piles of dough doesn't automatically translate to poor folks having nothing...

the economic pie doesn't just sit there stagnant and staying at the same size...

it grows according to the effort put into it by all parties, large and small...


----------



## Dragonlady

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The government gets money that no refunds will be requested for, from people who will never ask for government services. *
> 
> Wrong. Illegals, and their kids, consume tens of billions of dollars in government services, ranging from free medical care, free education and the costs of their crimes and incarcerations.



The figure you quote is grossly exaggerated. The figure deemed most reliable is published in a federal report at $10B and even this figure is considered far too high by some.  It includes an estimated cost for small business loans given to illegal immigrants, and is said to over-estimate the cost of welfare, crimes and incarceration because these numbers include all immigrants, legal or otherwise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dragonlady said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The government gets money that no refunds will be requested for, from people who will never ask for government services. *
> 
> Wrong. Illegals, and their kids, consume tens of billions of dollars in government services, ranging from free medical care, free education and the costs of their crimes and incarcerations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The figure you quote is grossly exaggerated. The figure deemed most reliable is published in a federal report at $10B and even this figure is considered far too high by some.  It includes an estimated cost for small business loans given to illegal immigrants, and is said to over-estimate the cost of welfare, crimes and incarceration because these numbers include all immigrants, legal or otherwise.
Click to expand...


*The figure you quote is grossly exaggerated. *

Illegals have bankrupted hospitals near the border and their kids crowd our schools.
Chicago spends $13,000 per pupil. How much of that is for illegals?

*The figure deemed most reliable is published in a federal report at $10B and even this figure is considered far too high by some.*

Why would they tell the truth? They want amnesty. I also found this:

*Specifically, in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons was about 27 percent of the total inmate population from 2001 through 2004. *

U.S. GAO - Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs

And this:

*The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 
was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien 
incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 
296,000 in fiscal year 2009 *

GAO-11-187, Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs


----------



## MikeK

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [...]
> 
> If businesses were heavily penalized every time they hired undocumented workers, the practice would cease immediately. A fine of $10,000 per undocumented worker would go a long way towards making them an less attractive option.
> 
> [...]


Solving the illegal immigration problem ranges from difficult to impossible because of the ready availability of fake ID documents.  As long as an illegal has fake ID in his/her possession an employer cannot be charged with a violation by visiting INS agents.  

The problem of illegal immigration could be quickly and totally eliminated by simply implementing a requirement for every U.S. citizen to be issued a biometric, holographic ID card containing photo, fingerprint coding, and pertinent information which affirms the holder's citizenship.  The card should be addressable to a central government database via swiping in an on-line terminal in a manner similar to a credit card verifier.  All employers of temporary workers should be required to have and to use a terminal to verify each employee's citizenship. 

Once employers learn they cannot avoid prosecution they will no longer hire illegals.  And when the illegals cannot find jobs or evade arrest they will go home.  But every time some legislator recommends issuance of a citizen ID card the corporatists in government raise a protest denouncing the idea as intrusively un-American.


----------



## The Rabbi

MikeK said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> If businesses were heavily penalized every time they hired undocumented workers, the practice would cease immediately. A fine of $10,000 per undocumented worker would go a long way towards making them an less attractive option.
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> Solving the illegal immigration problem ranges from difficult to impossible because of the ready availability of fake ID documents.  As long as an illegal has fake ID in his/her possession an employer cannot be charged with a violation by visiting INS agents.
> 
> The problem of illegal immigration could be quickly and totally eliminated by simply implementing a requirement for every U.S. citizen to be issued a biometric, holographic ID card containing photo, fingerprint coding, and pertinent information which affirms the holder's citizenship.  The card should be addressable to a central government database via swiping in an on-line terminal in a manner similar to a credit card verifier.  All employers of temporary workers should be required to have and to use a terminal to verify each employee's citizenship.
> 
> Once employers learn they cannot avoid prosecution they will no longer hire illegals.  And when the illegals cannot find jobs or evade arrest they will go home.  But every time some legislator recommends issuance of a citizen ID card the corporatists in government raise a protest denouncing the idea as intrusively un-American.
Click to expand...


Ja, papers, please!
Yes we can solve lots of problems by turning the US into a police state. Not where I want to go though.
It is amazing that so-called conservatives fail so badly on the immigration issue.  Conservatism is about free movement of labor and capital.  Keep repeating it.


----------



## georgephillip

Bombur said:


> The Fed will make money on the MBS. A lot of the problems that happened had to do with large changes in value which would require private institutions to liquidate fast which is obviously problematic when everyone is trying to do the same thing.
> 
> MBS were rated incorrectly. Investors were running to the markets with bad information and based on multiple levels of market manipulation. A lot of blame to go around.


*Do you find the following claim accurate?*

"Our financial systemlike our participatory democracyis a mirage. *The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month*. "

Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month. *
> 
> Chris is an idiot. The Fed buys US Treasury bonds and guaranteed MBS.
> Neither one of which can be considered subprime.
> Although, after 3 more years of Obama, that may not be the case.
> 
> *"It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money*
> 
> Banks are currently borrowing from the Fed Discount Window........$6 million.
> They are currently lending to the Fed, at 0.25%, about $2.4 trillion.
> 
> *"Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion. *
> 
> Chris pulled that estimate out of his ass.
> 
> *"But none of us know. *
> 
> LOL!
> 
> I see why you like this guy, he's even dumber than you.
> 
> 
> 
> Who "guarantees" the MBS the Fed is buying, Hank Paulson or Dubya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama.
Click to expand...




Quantum Windbag said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call me a conservative, yet support the very economic policies you claim to despise because  I, allegedly, believe in them.
> 
> What does that say about you?
> 
> 
> 
> That I'm confused.
> Can you give me a specific example of an economic policy you're referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends, do you still think capitalism is the worst thing ever? Just asking, because capitalism is the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth. On the other hand, it you still support government regulation and a governemnt that actively intervenes in the economy, you actually support the very things you claim to despise.
Click to expand...

Capitalism has manufactured the largest private fortunes in history which seems to contradict your allegation that it's the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth.

Since private fortunes depend upon the existence of money, and only government can print and regulate money, how do you propose to eliminate government's active intervention in the economy?

Capitalism may not be the worst thing ever, but it is among the least democratic institutions ever invented as it requires its workers to check their democratic rights at the front door and submit to a top-down totalitarian management style endorsed by dictators from Mussolini to the current crop of Chinese authoritarians alike.

I despise the way parasites like Soros or Koch use their private fortunes obtained through capitalism to negate the democratic principles that should determine how government functions.

Why don't you?


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who "guarantees" the MBS the Fed is buying, Hank Paulson or Dubya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> That I'm confused.
> Can you give me a specific example of an economic policy you're referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends, do you still think capitalism is the worst thing ever? Just asking, because capitalism is the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth. On the other hand, it you still support government regulation and a governemnt that actively intervenes in the economy, you actually support the very things you claim to despise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism has manufactured the largest private fortunes in history which seems to contradict your allegation that it's the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth.
Click to expand...


Haven't we been discussing the likelihood that amassing such extreme private fortunes isn't possible without government intervention?  



> Since private fortunes depend upon the existence of money, and only government can print and regulate money, how do you propose to eliminate government's active intervention in the economy?



We can seek to minimize it, rather than aggressively indulge it. In any case, have you ever heard of Bitcoin? The days of government control over money may be drawing to a close.



> Capitalism may not be the worst thing ever, but it is among the least democratic institutions ever invented as it requires its workers to check their democratic rights at the front door and submit to a top-down totalitarian management style endorsed by dictators from Mussolini to the current crop of Chinese authoritarians alike.



Free market capitalism is the ultimate expression of democratic values, with each person having their say with every dollar they earn and spend. Mussolini and the Chinese employed corporatist government to achieve their ends, not free markets.

We seem to have an equivocation problem here, as you and others seem to view the collusion between large financial interests and government as 'capitalism', whereas I see it as the opposite. Can we clarify that somehow?



> I despise the way parasites like Soros or Koch use their private fortunes obtained through capitalism to negate the democratic principles that should determine how government functions.
> 
> Why don't you?



Can't speak for others here, but I do. I don't have a problem with wealthy people lobbying for policies that favor their interests, but I despise a government that caters to them. That's exactly why constitutional limits on government's ability to do that are so important. Ironically, and unfortunately, reformers all-too-often see those limits as negating democratic principles - when if fact they're defending them.


----------



## georgephillip

RKMBrown said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's see...
> 
> You are saying that if the bottom 5% do practically nothing and earn practically nothing they are somehow hurt when the top 5% double their income if doing nothing does not double in pay.  ROFL What an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said the bottom 5% do practically nothing?
> The ratio in average income between the top 5 percent and bottom 5 percent increased from 78:1 in 1988 to 114:1 in 1993.
> Between 1988 and 2008 (remember what happened then?) the top 1% increased their incomes by 60% while the bottom 5% had no change; possibly because the rich crashed the global economy and destroyed millions of (5%) jobs.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think it takes to be in the bottom 5%? What part time minimum wage job does one have to have to be in the bottom 5%?  Let's pick on my first part time job that put me (as a fifteen year old kid) into the bottom 5%.  Bagging groceries. Course I only bagged groceries for a few months before I was promoted to a bottom 10% job.  But let's stick to the people who start out bagging groceries and never get a promotion from there for their entire lives.
> 
> Now, please explain to me why we should give a massive raise to someone who is bagging groceries part time?
Click to expand...

$10,000 per year income places one in the bottom 6% of US earners in my geographical area. Why don't you tell me why people that poor don't deserve a massive raise regardless of the labor they perform especially since the richest 1% of US households increased their income by about 275% between 1979 and 2007?


----------



## RKMBrown

georgephillip said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said the bottom 5% do practically nothing?
> The ratio in average income between the top 5 percent and bottom 5 percent increased from 78:1 in 1988 to 114:1 in 1993.
> Between 1988 and 2008 (remember what happened then?) the top 1% increased their incomes by 60% while the bottom 5% had no change; possibly because the rich crashed the global economy and destroyed millions of (5%) jobs.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think it takes to be in the bottom 5%? What part time minimum wage job does one have to have to be in the bottom 5%?  Let's pick on my first part time job that put me (as a fifteen year old kid) into the bottom 5%.  Bagging groceries. Course I only bagged groceries for a few months before I was promoted to a bottom 10% job.  But let's stick to the people who start out bagging groceries and never get a promotion from there for their entire lives.
> 
> Now, please explain to me why we should give a massive raise to someone who is bagging groceries part time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> $10,000 per year income places one in the bottom 6% of US earners in my geographical area. Why don't you tell me why people that poor don't deserve a massive raise regardless of the labor they perform especially since the richest 1% of US households increased their income by about 275% between 1979 and 2007?
Click to expand...


Because in order to only make 10k per year one would have to be a part time minimum wage worker.  For example, a kid in high school working part time at minimum wage. Part time minimum wage workers, such as kids in high school bagging groceries don't necessarily deserve massive raises.  In my experience, everyone that deserves a massive raise gets one or leaves to go to a job that pays more in a very very short amount of time.  

Minimum wage income at 40hrs is 14k.  You want a 40% raise from 10k? How about working more hours.  Oh and take a look at minimum wage increases from 79 to 2014.  It went up a helluva lot more than 275%...  So what happened?  Easy:  Welfare is paying people to work part time minimum wage jobs.  If they work more than 30hrs at minimum wage they loose their welfare checks.  So they work the minimum and stop.  You raise minimum wage without raising maximum limits on welfare and they will just work less hours...


----------



## Iceweasel

georgephillip said:


> $10,000 per year income places one in the bottom 6% of US earners in my geographical area. Why don't you tell me why people that poor don't deserve a massive raise regardless of the labor they perform especially since the richest 1% of US households increased their income by about 275% between 1979 and 2007?


Because you aren't their guardian or the morality dictator that decides for us all who deserves what and how much. THAT is much worse than any disparity between rich and poor. The uber rich these days are in global markets and corporations operate worldwide. Why do actors get $20 for a movie role? Or a basketball player so much? The market decided. 

Yes, people should make more for their labor but it isn't going to happen until the economy picks up and we are going in the wrong direction. Borrowing, taxing and spending money is not how we create a vibrant and healthy economy.


----------



## Bombur

georgephillip said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fed will make money on the MBS. A lot of the problems that happened had to do with large changes in value which would require private institutions to liquidate fast which is obviously problematic when everyone is trying to do the same thing.
> 
> MBS were rated incorrectly. Investors were running to the markets with bad information and based on multiple levels of market manipulation. A lot of blame to go around.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you find the following claim accurate?*
> 
> "Our financial systemlike our participatory democracyis a mirage. *The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month*. "
> 
> Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
Click to expand...


The article is crap. Like I already said the Fed will make money on buying them. 

To claim that trillions are being lent you basically have to ignore that what he is talking about is many small transactions. Something that has worked pretty well btw.

The article is about appealing to people's ignorance and fear of the unknown.


----------



## RKMBrown

Iceweasel said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> $10,000 per year income places one in the bottom 6% of US earners in my geographical area. Why don't you tell me why people that poor don't deserve a massive raise regardless of the labor they perform especially since the richest 1% of US households increased their income by about 275% between 1979 and 2007?
> 
> 
> 
> Because you aren't their guardian or the morality dictator that decides for us all who deserves what and how much. THAT is much worse than any disparity between rich and poor. The uber rich these days are in global markets and corporations operate worldwide. Why do actors get $20 for a movie role? Or a basketball player so much? The market decided.
> 
> Yes, people should make more for their labor but it isn't going to happen until the economy picks up and we are going in the wrong direction. Borrowing, taxing and spending money is not how we create a vibrant and healthy economy.
Click to expand...


People do make more for their labor.  The bottom 5% are the people that are happy to be in the bottom 5%.  Working 20hrs or less a week at a minimum wage job is what it takes to be in the bottom 5%.  If you can't work more than 20hrs a week at minimum wage... give me a break.


----------



## healthmyths

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who "guarantees" the MBS the Fed is buying, Hank Paulson or Dubya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> That I'm confused.
> Can you give me a specific example of an economic policy you're referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends, do you still think capitalism is the worst thing ever? Just asking, because capitalism is the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth. On the other hand, it you still support government regulation and a governemnt that actively intervenes in the economy, you actually support the very things you claim to despise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism has manufactured the largest private fortunes in history which seems to contradict your allegation that it's the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth.
> 
> Since private fortunes depend upon the existence of money, and only government can print and regulate money, how do you propose to eliminate government's active intervention in the economy?
> 
> Capitalism may not be the worst thing ever, but it is among the least democratic institutions ever invented as it requires its workers to check their democratic rights at the front door and submit to a top-down totalitarian management style endorsed by dictators from Mussolini to the current crop of Chinese authoritarians alike.
> 
> I despise the way parasites like Soros or Koch use their private fortunes obtained through capitalism to negate the democratic principles that should determine how government functions.
> 
> Why don't you?
Click to expand...


Geez if these billionaires help the poorest people in the USA able to have FREE cell phones... we need more billionaires!
If these billionaires spend a pittance on taxes they are paying the SNAP bill for more Americans on food stamps then let's make more billionaires!

One simple question for simple minded people...
Please explain how in the case of the USA the number of people involved in agriculture i.e. growing food took 
1840  Total population: 17,069,453  Farm population: 9,012,000 (estimated)  Farmers made up 69% of labor force 
2012   There are over 313,000,000 people living in the United States. Of that population, less than 1% claim farming as an occupation 

How did that happen?


----------



## Iceweasel

RKMBrown said:


> People do make more for their labor.  The bottom 5% are the people that are happy to be in the bottom 5%.  Working 20hrs or less a week at a minimum wage job is what it takes to be in the bottom 5%.  If you can't work more than 20hrs a week at minimum wage... give me a break.


I agree with most of that but wages are down for many people. If you lost a job and are lucky enough to find work, they pay crap wages unless it's a higher end job. And people aren't leaving those. If you work for government you get paid much better than the private sector, bottom end flunky work here starts at $17hr.

One thing we don't hear much about is that the rich don't have the market sown up on greed. I find the cheapest people out there are liberals, and as a contractor in a heavily liberal area it sucks. They don't want you to make any money and many are living in very nice homes bought with very generous public sector salaries.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who "guarantees" the MBS the Fed is buying, Hank Paulson or Dubya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> That I'm confused.
> Can you give me a specific example of an economic policy you're referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends, do you still think capitalism is the worst thing ever? Just asking, because capitalism is the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth. On the other hand, it you still support government regulation and a governemnt that actively intervenes in the economy, you actually support the very things you claim to despise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism has manufactured the largest private fortunes in history which seems to contradict your allegation that it's the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth.
> 
> Since private fortunes depend upon the existence of money, and only government can print and regulate money, how do you propose to eliminate government's active intervention in the economy?
> 
> Capitalism may not be the worst thing ever, but it is among the least democratic institutions ever invented as it requires its workers to check their democratic rights at the front door and submit to a top-down totalitarian management style endorsed by dictators from Mussolini to the current crop of Chinese authoritarians alike.
> 
> I despise the way parasites like Soros or Koch use their private fortunes obtained through capitalism to negate the democratic principles that should determine how government functions.
> 
> Why don't you?
Click to expand...


*Capitalism has manufactured the largest private fortunes in history which seems to contradict your allegation that it's the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth.*

How is the concentration of wealth in Cuba?


----------



## RKMBrown

Iceweasel said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do make more for their labor.  The bottom 5% are the people that are happy to be in the bottom 5%.  Working 20hrs or less a week at a minimum wage job is what it takes to be in the bottom 5%.  If you can't work more than 20hrs a week at minimum wage... give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of that but wages are down for many people. If you lost a job and are lucky enough to find work, they pay crap wages unless it's a higher end job. And people aren't leaving those. If you work for government you get paid much better than the private sector, bottom end flunky work here starts at $17hr.
> 
> One thing we don't hear much about is that the rich don't have the market sown up on greed. I find the cheapest people out there are liberals, and as a contractor in a heavily liberal area it sucks. They don't want you to make any money and many are living in very nice homes bought with very generous public sector salaries.
Click to expand...


Sure wages are down. We live in a world economy where people from china are willing to do our jobs for us at 1/10th the pay. Sure it sucks..  Raising our minimum wage won't help that at all. Raising minimum wage eliminates entry level minimum wage jobs.  

You want higher wages without having to work for it? Then, you better be prepared for inflationary price increases.  

For example, we could place an excise tax on Asian goods made with low labor rates, that would raise prices on said goods.  With the prices raised it would make financial sense to make them here and avoid the excise tax.  

Pro: higher paying labor jobs than just minimum wage
Neg: higher prices for products at the store, additionally other countries would follow suit with similar import taxes on our products (some already do) which would limit our exports even further.

As for the rich getting richer... I'm only upset about a few issues there and they all originate from government allowed and / or provided Oligopolies and Monopolies.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do make more for their labor.  The bottom 5% are the people that are happy to be in the bottom 5%.  Working 20hrs or less a week at a minimum wage job is what it takes to be in the bottom 5%.  If you can't work more than 20hrs a week at minimum wage... give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of that but wages are down for many people. If you lost a job and are lucky enough to find work, they pay crap wages unless it's a higher end job. And people aren't leaving those. If you work for government you get paid much better than the private sector, bottom end flunky work here starts at $17hr.
> 
> One thing we don't hear much about is that the rich don't have the market sown up on greed. I find the cheapest people out there are liberals, and as a contractor in a heavily liberal area it sucks. They don't want you to make any money and many are living in very nice homes bought with very generous public sector salaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure wages are down. We live in a world economy where people from china are willing to do our jobs for us at 1/10th the pay. Sure it sucks..  Raising our minimum wage won't help that at all. Raising minimum wage eliminates entry level minimum wage jobs.
> 
> You want higher wages without having to work for it? Then, you better be prepared for inflationary price increases.
> 
> For example, we could place an excise tax on Asian goods made with low labor rates, that would raise prices on said goods.  With the prices raised it would make financial sense to make them here and avoid the excise tax.
> 
> Pro: higher paying labor jobs than just minimum wage
> Neg: higher prices for products at the store, additionally other countries would follow suit with similar import taxes on our products (some already do) which would limit our exports even further.
Click to expand...


I am not sure min wage jobs are in competition with China. Aren't they mostly local jobs like working at a grocery store or something like that?


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of that but wages are down for many people. If you lost a job and are lucky enough to find work, they pay crap wages unless it's a higher end job. And people aren't leaving those. If you work for government you get paid much better than the private sector, bottom end flunky work here starts at $17hr.
> 
> One thing we don't hear much about is that the rich don't have the market sown up on greed. I find the cheapest people out there are liberals, and as a contractor in a heavily liberal area it sucks. They don't want you to make any money and many are living in very nice homes bought with very generous public sector salaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure wages are down. We live in a world economy where people from china are willing to do our jobs for us at 1/10th the pay. Sure it sucks..  Raising our minimum wage won't help that at all. Raising minimum wage eliminates entry level minimum wage jobs.
> 
> You want higher wages without having to work for it? Then, you better be prepared for inflationary price increases.
> 
> For example, we could place an excise tax on Asian goods made with low labor rates, that would raise prices on said goods.  With the prices raised it would make financial sense to make them here and avoid the excise tax.
> 
> Pro: higher paying labor jobs than just minimum wage
> Neg: higher prices for products at the store, additionally other countries would follow suit with similar import taxes on our products (some already do) which would limit our exports even further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure min wage jobs are in competition with China. Aren't they mostly local jobs like working at a grocery store or something like that?
Click to expand...


By "Pro: higher paying labor job than just minimum wage", I meant we'd likely have more labor jobs here, which would mean people who are currently working minimum wage jobs like bagging groceries would be able to find labor jobs that pay more.  Production Labor and Engineering jobs are in intense competition with Asian labor markets.  Which is why the pay rates in these jobs have been lagging. Our government allowed the jobs to move, even encouraged it through tax incentives & work visa programs.


----------



## Iceweasel

RKMBrown said:


> Sure wages are down. We live in a world economy where people from china are willing to do our jobs for us at 1/10th the pay. Sure it sucks..  Raising our minimum wage won't help that at all. Raising minimum wage eliminates entry level minimum wage jobs.
> 
> You want higher wages without having to work for it? Then, you better be prepared for inflationary price increases.
> 
> For example, we could place an excise tax on Asian goods made with low labor rates, that would raise prices on said goods.  With the prices raised it would make financial sense to make them here and avoid the excise tax.
> 
> Pro: higher paying labor jobs than just minimum wage
> Neg: higher prices for products at the store, additionally other countries would follow suit with similar import taxes on our products (some already do) which would limit our exports even further.
> 
> As for the rich getting richer... I'm only upset about a few issues there and they all originate from government allowed and / or provided Oligopolies and Monopolies.


I'm for shrinking the size and scope of government, federal, state and local. Many of those jobs should be private sector jobs and let competition set wage and efficiency standards. 

I don't blame outsourced jobs soley on unions and government though, US citizens voted with their dollars. I prefer quality and typically bought the American made version. But now there often is no choice. 

I'm against any minimum wage, I don't want it lowered, I want it eliminated. I don't want my earnings artificially raised, I want the economy to pick up so I can charge more.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure wages are down. We live in a world economy where people from china are willing to do our jobs for us at 1/10th the pay. Sure it sucks..  Raising our minimum wage won't help that at all. Raising minimum wage eliminates entry level minimum wage jobs.
> 
> You want higher wages without having to work for it? Then, you better be prepared for inflationary price increases.
> 
> For example, we could place an excise tax on Asian goods made with low labor rates, that would raise prices on said goods.  With the prices raised it would make financial sense to make them here and avoid the excise tax.
> 
> Pro: higher paying labor jobs than just minimum wage
> Neg: higher prices for products at the store, additionally other countries would follow suit with similar import taxes on our products (some already do) which would limit our exports even further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure min wage jobs are in competition with China. Aren't they mostly local jobs like working at a grocery store or something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "Pro: higher paying labor job than just minimum wage", I meant we'd likely have more labor jobs here, which would mean people who are currently working minimum wage jobs like bagging groceries would be able to find labor jobs that pay more.  Production Labor and Engineering jobs are in intense competition with Asian labor markets.  Which is why the pay rates in these jobs have been lagging. Our government allowed the jobs to move, even encouraged it through tax incentives & work visa programs.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with this post. I think there are a lot of things our government does and doesn't do that leads to the changing trends besides what you mentioned.

I am not really sure what we should do about the min wage though. It is a part of the labor market where the laborer really has no leverage when asking for a wage but I think most of the exposure these jobs have is to shifts in demand more so than competition from foreign nations.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Dragonlady said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The government gets money that no refunds will be requested for, from people who will never ask for government services. *
> 
> Wrong. Illegals, and their kids, consume tens of billions of dollars in government services, ranging from free medical care, free education and the costs of their crimes and incarcerations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The figure you quote is grossly exaggerated. The figure deemed most reliable is published in a federal report at $10B and even this figure is considered far too high by some.  It includes an estimated cost for small business loans given to illegal immigrants, and is said to over-estimate the cost of welfare, crimes and incarceration because these numbers include all immigrants, legal or otherwise.
Click to expand...


Ten billion, actually qualifies as tens of billions.  Sure, it implies more than one set of 10 billion, but that the government reports it at one 10 billion block, reason requires it to be vastly more, given that a state by state assessment, wherein the respective totals are in the billions, we can readily deduce that the cost of subsidizing illegals is well north of 10 billion.

But the problem with illegals, along with the dead wood within the ranks of the US Citizenry would be solved overnight, where subsidies of every stripe were stripped from the culture.

The axiomatic question there inevitably comes: "What are you going to do, let them STARVE?".  The answer to which is a decided YES.  As hunger is nature's great motivator.  And it works like a charm EVERY single time it is applied.  

Naturally, there are those who cannot provide for themselves.  It is those people who would be subsidized by individuals of substantial means, through what is known as CHARITY. 

Will a small percentage turn to crime?  Sure.  But that percentage is identical to the percentage of people who are presently pursuing criminal ends.  

The vast majority will get up and go find a means to produce in some exchange wherein the skills they possess and apply, will realize a profitable return, providing them the means to improve their lot.

This is how nature designed the species and that is a fact without regard to those who disagree, even where they STRONGLY disagree.

In effect, those who contest the point are stating that it isn't fair that people should have to work for less than they deserve.  When in truth, people earn precisely what they deserve. 

And this is true, with every single instance, in every single exchange, where both parties come to the table as honest brokers.

Now, the point will come that 'everyone isn't honest' and it usually comes from those who advocate against religion, which is the advocacy wherein honesty is promoted, accountability is applied and where the individual is encouraged to discipline their weaker traits and to promote within themselves the force of character, wherein sound individuals and, quite by default, sound cultures are, therefore, sustained.

And that's really all there is to it.  Nothing complicated about any of it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure min wage jobs are in competition with China. Aren't they mostly local jobs like working at a grocery store or something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "Pro: higher paying labor job than just minimum wage", I meant we'd likely have more labor jobs here, which would mean people who are currently working minimum wage jobs like bagging groceries would be able to find labor jobs that pay more.  Production Labor and Engineering jobs are in intense competition with Asian labor markets.  Which is why the pay rates in these jobs have been lagging. Our government allowed the jobs to move, even encouraged it through tax incentives & work visa programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with this post. I think there are a lot of things our government does and doesn't do that leads to the changing trends besides what you mentioned.
> 
> I am not really sure what we should do about the min wage though. It is a part of the labor market where the laborer really has no leverage when asking for a wage but I think most of the exposure these jobs have is to shifts in demand more so than competition from foreign nations.
Click to expand...


The Minimum wage is established by nature, wherein a person of minimal skills is paid, in keeping with those skills and within the individuals threshold of what they will accept, given their circumstances, within the means of the individual with whom they are bargaining.

Where the state establishes a Minimum allowable by law, the state simply sets into place a system which inflates the value of minimal skills.  This axiomatically devalues the currency which is in play.  

No effort, no skills=zero.  Now reason dictates that the minimum that some effort and some skill would bring would begin at the first level of currency.  Wherever the legal threshold sets the legal mark of valuation of that currency.  

In short, one cent would provide a starting place for one hour of minimally applied, minimally skilled labor.

Where the government set $1 as the mark, you can rest assured that the government has just set the $1 value for what is reflected in one cent of value.  

Break it out anyway you like, making the minimal value $1, the minimal wage $10, $10 is worth $1.

Now, for the naysayers, I would submit that Progressivism came into play in the US in the late 19th, early 20th century.

Since then, the US dollar has declined in value, roughly 95-96% depending on what report ya read.  But anyone can figure it out for themselves by simply looking up what subsistence goods and services were worth in 1900 and compare that to today's values.

Again, nothing complicated about any of this crap.  It only BECOME to APPEAR complicated where the equations are mucked up with species arguments which rationalize every aspect of life and those arguments are what sustains: Collectivism, which no matter hw ya cut it, always sums to: SOCIALISM.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure wages are down. We live in a world economy where people from china are willing to do our jobs for us at 1/10th the pay. Sure it sucks..  Raising our minimum wage won't help that at all. Raising minimum wage eliminates entry level minimum wage jobs.
> 
> You want higher wages without having to work for it? Then, you better be prepared for inflationary price increases.
> 
> For example, we could place an excise tax on Asian goods made with low labor rates, that would raise prices on said goods.  With the prices raised it would make financial sense to make them here and avoid the excise tax.
> 
> Pro: higher paying labor jobs than just minimum wage
> Neg: higher prices for products at the store, additionally other countries would follow suit with similar import taxes on our products (some already do) which would limit our exports even further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure min wage jobs are in competition with China. Aren't they mostly local jobs like working at a grocery store or something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "Pro: higher paying labor job than just minimum wage", I meant we'd likely have more labor jobs here, which would mean people who are currently working minimum wage jobs like bagging groceries would be able to find labor jobs that pay more.  Production Labor and Engineering jobs are in intense competition with Asian labor markets.  Which is why the pay rates in these jobs have been lagging. Our government allowed the jobs to move, even encouraged it through tax incentives & work visa programs.
Click to expand...


I am an employer of some 30+ years experience.  In that time, I have NEVER HIRED ANYONE based upon the legal threshold of minimum wage.  This is because I have no position which provides for someone of minimal ambition, minimal intellectual means and minimal skill sets.

The market sets our pay scale.  Meaning that where the skills we seek are plentiful, the wages paid are conducive to that circumstance and vice-versa.  

With the exception of the corporate drones, I know of NO ONE who operates otherwise.


----------



## Bombur

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> By "Pro: higher paying labor job than just minimum wage", I meant we'd likely have more labor jobs here, which would mean people who are currently working minimum wage jobs like bagging groceries would be able to find labor jobs that pay more.  Production Labor and Engineering jobs are in intense competition with Asian labor markets.  Which is why the pay rates in these jobs have been lagging. Our government allowed the jobs to move, even encouraged it through tax incentives & work visa programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with this post. I think there are a lot of things our government does and doesn't do that leads to the changing trends besides what you mentioned.
> 
> I am not really sure what we should do about the min wage though. It is a part of the labor market where the laborer really has no leverage when asking for a wage but I think most of the exposure these jobs have is to shifts in demand more so than competition from foreign nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Minimum wage is established by nature, wherein a person of minimal skills is paid, in keeping with those skills and within the individuals threshold of what they will accept, given their circumstances, within the means of the individual with whom they are bargaining.
> 
> Where the state establishes a Minimum allowable by law, the state simply sets into place a system which inflates the value of minimal skills.  This axiomatically devalues the currency which is in play.
> 
> No effort, no skills=zero.  Now reason dictates that the minimum that some effort and some skill would bring would begin at the first level of currency.  Wherever the legal threshold sets the legal mark of valuation of that currency.
> 
> In short, one cent would provide a starting place for one hour of minimally applied, minimally skilled labor.
> 
> Where the government set $1 as the mark, you can rest assured that the government has just set the $1 value for what is reflected in one cent of value.
> 
> Break it out anyway you like, making the minimal value $1, the minimal wage $10, $10 is worth $1.
> 
> Now, for the naysayers, I would submit that Progressivism came into play in the US in the late 19th, early 20th century.
> 
> Since then, the US dollar has declined in value, roughly 95-96% depending on what report ya read.  But anyone can figure it out for themselves by simply looking up what subsistence goods and services were worth in 1900 and compare that to today's values.
> 
> Again, nothing complicated about any of this crap.  It only BECOME to APPEAR complicated where the equations are mucked up with species arguments which rationalize every aspect of life and those arguments are what sustains: Collectivism, which no matter hw ya cut it, always sums to: SOCIALISM.
Click to expand...


The low end of the wage/labor spectrum is not generally thought of as a good example of a market because people at that spectrum have little to no leverage. The end result is that the market is inelastic with regards to wages and working conditions.

Your argument concerning currency has multiple logical fallacies. First off it is a red herring. Second the correlation you built is weak and the causation is non-existent. You are also making some rather lame appeals to emotion.

I don't think you know what socialism is. I also think you don't really understand that we have always had to be united as a nation and rely on one another. The well being of one has always had an impact on others. That doesn't make us socialists, it makes us a nation.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Your argument concerning currency has multiple logical fallacies. First off it is a red herring. Second the correlation you built is weak and the causation is non-existent. You are also making some rather lame appeals to emotion.


Wow. You trotted out almost every argumentitive terminology in a few brief sentences. 


> I don't think you know what socialism is. I also think you don't really understand that we have always had to be united as a nation and rely on one another. The well being of one has always had an impact on others. That doesn't make us socialists, it makes us a nation.


But we are moving in the socialist direction with increasing government control. We want to turn the boat around before it's too late or we'll be a socialist nation.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument concerning currency has multiple logical fallacies. First off it is a red herring. Second the correlation you built is weak and the causation is non-existent. You are also making some rather lame appeals to emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You trotted out almost every argumentitive terminology in a few brief sentences.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what socialism is. I also think you don't really understand that we have always had to be united as a nation and rely on one another. The well being of one has always had an impact on others. That doesn't make us socialists, it makes us a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But we are moving in the socialist direction with increasing government control. We want to turn the boat around before it's too late or we'll be a socialist nation.
Click to expand...


Even when Marx was writing there were a lot of different ways people were defining Socialism but generally speaking it was the work of Marx that caught on the most. Socialism as a political theory is based on the fear that Democracy is threatened by power shifting towards those who own the means of production (in other words the rich and wealthy). It is based on the economic reality that those who own the means of production own the product of other peoples labor. That this would eventually lead to unsustainable economic inequality where those who owned the means of production would rule over others.  

Both of these ideas presented a problem that needed a solution and it is this solution that is often called socialism. Socialism is based on the state being the owner of the means of production. 

What we are seeing in the US is a nation that is becoming what the socialists of the past feared. What most people these days call socialism, like UHC, are attempts to stop that reality feared by socialists from happening. 

We live in an age where Marxs fears are being proven to be true. No matter what you think of his solution.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

I heard the other day that income inequality has worsened over the past five Obumbler years in office.


----------



## Bombur

IlarMeilyr said:


> I heard the other day that income inequality has worsened over the past five Obumbler years in office.



Obama hasn't done anything to correct the trend. 

That said it takes a long time to even know what the underlying trend is because income of the top can be so volatile in the short term (5 years is the short term in this instance).


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Bombur said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard the other day that income inequality has worsened over the past five Obumbler years in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hasn't done anything to correct the trend.
> 
> That said it takes a long time to even know what the underlying trend is because income of the top can be so volatile in the short term (5 years is the short term in this instance).
Click to expand...


OR, the OTHER lesson one might reasonably derive from the historical oddity is that

Obumbler is a flop and socialism actually makes things worse.


----------



## Bombur

IlarMeilyr said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard the other day that income inequality has worsened over the past five Obumbler years in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hasn't done anything to correct the trend.
> 
> That said it takes a long time to even know what the underlying trend is because income of the top can be so volatile in the short term (5 years is the short term in this instance).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR, the OTHER lesson one might reasonably derive from the historical oddity is that
> 
> Obumbler is a flop and socialism actually makes things worse.
Click to expand...


What "socialism" are you even talking about?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Bombur said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hasn't done anything to correct the trend.
> 
> That said it takes a long time to even know what the underlying trend is because income of the top can be so volatile in the short term (5 years is the short term in this instance).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OR, the OTHER lesson one might reasonably derive from the historical oddity is that
> 
> Obumbler is a flop and socialism actually makes things worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "socialism" are you even talking about?
Click to expand...



It's a genuine mystery to you, eh?

Let's just agree to utilize the phrase "redistribution of wealth" and leave it at that.


----------



## Bombur

IlarMeilyr said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> OR, the OTHER lesson one might reasonably derive from the historical oddity is that
> 
> Obumbler is a flop and socialism actually makes things worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "socialism" are you even talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a genuine mystery to you, eh?
> 
> Let's just agree to utilize the phrase "redistribution of wealth" and leave it at that.
Click to expand...


OK what redistribution of wealth are you talking about?


----------



## Indeependent

Bombur said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "socialism" are you even talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a genuine mystery to you, eh?
> 
> Let's just agree to utilize the phrase "redistribution of wealth" and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK what redistribution of wealth are you talking about?
Click to expand...


Off-shoring, business visas and the Cayman Islands.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Socialism as a political theory is based on the fear that Democracy is threatened by power shifting towards those who own the means of production (in other words the rich and wealthy). It is based on the economic reality that those who own the means of production own the product of other peoples labor. That this would eventually lead to unsustainable economic inequality where those who owned the means of production would rule over others.
> 
> Both of these ideas presented a problem that needed a solution and it is this solution that is often called socialism. Socialism is based on the state being the owner of the means of production.
> 
> What we are seeing in the US is a nation that is becoming what the socialists of the past feared. What most people these days call socialism, like UHC, are attempts to stop that reality feared by socialists from happening.
> 
> We live in an age where Marxs fears are being proven to be true. No matter what you think of his solution.


Of course power goes to the wealthy, it's always been that way. Even in communist countries but even moreso. I think socialists are happy about our direction, we sure aren't moving towards more free market capitalism. Croney capitalism is a problem but I don't see the left doing anything about it. The leaders say one thing to whip up the base for votes, then do another.


----------



## Katzndogz

bayoubill said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously have no fuckin' idea 'bout the way economics works...
> 
> rich folks having huge piles of dough doesn't automatically translate to poor folks having nothing...
> 
> the economic pie doesn't just sit there stagnant and staying at the same size...
> 
> it grows according to the effort put into it by all parties, large and small...
Click to expand...


In a capitalistic culture the poor have quite a bit.  The poor in America are wildly wealthy compared to the poor of socialistic countries and comfortably wealthy compared to the poor in America of 50 years ago.

Even in the most stringent practicing communistic countries those who refuse to work have nothing.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism as a political theory is based on the fear that Democracy is threatened by power shifting towards those who own the means of production (in other words the rich and wealthy). It is based on the economic reality that those who own the means of production own the product of other peoples labor. That this would eventually lead to unsustainable economic inequality where those who owned the means of production would rule over others.
> 
> Both of these ideas presented a problem that needed a solution and it is this solution that is often called socialism. Socialism is based on the state being the owner of the means of production.
> 
> What we are seeing in the US is a nation that is becoming what the socialists of the past feared. What most people these days call socialism, like UHC, are attempts to stop that reality feared by socialists from happening.
> 
> We live in an age where Marxs fears are being proven to be true. No matter what you think of his solution.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course power goes to the wealthy, it's always been that way. Even in communist countries but even moreso. I think socialists are happy about our direction, we sure aren't moving towards more free market capitalism. Croney capitalism is a problem but I don't see the left doing anything about it. The leaders say one thing to whip up the base for votes, then do another.
Click to expand...


Rising income inequality and growing importance of money in politics are what traditional socialists feared. I don't know any modern day socialists that are not crazy so I don't think it really matters what they think.

What does matter is that Marx is being proven right with regards to his fears. I don't see anyone doing anything about the problems either so it is very hard for me to agree with you that socialism is growing.

Also crony capitalism isn't the only threat to labor. Given certain economic conditions a push for laissez faire economics can also be a threat to the power of people to the benefit of the capital owners. I think many capital owners would simply prefer the government get out of the way so that their rise to power can continue.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> I think many capital owners would simply prefer the government get out of the way so that their rise to power can continue.


Yep. Everybody's rise.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think many capital owners would simply prefer the government get out of the way so that their rise to power can continue.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Everybody's rise.
Click to expand...


I was specifically talking about their power relative to others so no. 

Growing income inequality is no joke. I am not sure how many more decades our economy can last on our current trend.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> I was specifically talking about their power relative to others so no.
> 
> Growing income inequality is no joke. I am not sure how many more decades our economy can last on our current trend.


I don't know how many more years we can last at this pace. The democrats are scewing up the economy and jobs so that inequality will continue.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was specifically talking about their power relative to others so no.
> 
> Growing income inequality is no joke. I am not sure how many more decades our economy can last on our current trend.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many more years we can last at this pace. The democrats are scewing up the economy and jobs so that inequality will continue.
Click to expand...


Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was specifically talking about their power relative to others so no.
> 
> Growing income inequality is no joke. I am not sure how many more decades our economy can last on our current trend.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many more years we can last at this pace. The democrats are scewing up the economy and jobs so that inequality will continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.
Click to expand...


I doubt you will like the answer.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/337411-which-president-did-the-most-to-equalize-income.html


----------



## Avatar4321

Why should our incomes be equal?

We don't do the same amount of work. We don't do the same type of work. We don't serve the same amount of people with our work. We don't have the same needs. We don't have the same desires.

Why on earth should our income be equal? it doesn't make sense.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.


I've done it repeatedly so I doubt that you can understand.


----------



## Bombur

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many more years we can last at this pace. The democrats are scewing up the economy and jobs so that inequality will continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt you will like the answer.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/337411-which-president-did-the-most-to-equalize-income.html
Click to expand...


Do you really think that is how economics works? 

Good grief.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've done it repeatedly so I doubt that you can understand.
Click to expand...


By repeating political talking points that have no basis in reality? By arguing against the very economic theories that establish the justification for your own economic beliefs? By arguing for supply side economics?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bombur said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you will like the answer.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/337411-which-president-did-the-most-to-equalize-income.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think that is how economics works?
> 
> Good grief.
Click to expand...


There are times that I hate being right.


----------



## Bombur

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you will like the answer.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/337411-which-president-did-the-most-to-equalize-income.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think that is how economics works?
> 
> Good grief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are times that I hate being right.
Click to expand...


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure min wage jobs are in competition with China. Aren't they mostly local jobs like working at a grocery store or something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "Pro: higher paying labor job than just minimum wage", I meant we'd likely have more labor jobs here, which would mean people who are currently working minimum wage jobs like bagging groceries would be able to find labor jobs that pay more.  Production Labor and Engineering jobs are in intense competition with Asian labor markets.  Which is why the pay rates in these jobs have been lagging. Our government allowed the jobs to move, even encouraged it through tax incentives & work visa programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with this post. I think there are a lot of things our government does and doesn't do that leads to the changing trends besides what you mentioned.
> 
> I am not really sure what we should do about the min wage though. It is a part of the labor market where the laborer really has no leverage when asking for a wage but I think most of the exposure these jobs have is to shifts in demand more so than competition from foreign nations.
Click to expand...


Right.  However, the liberals don't want to just raise minimum wage a small amount.  Their goal is to set minimum wage to a living wage standard above or at least equal to the poverty line.  This means setting minimum wage above what is paid some labor rate jobs.  

They really don't care if that means jobs that are not worth paying said imaginary living wage amount are eliminated. They don't care because those people will just sign up for welfare and probably vote democrat to keep the welfare checks coming.  

If they don't get the minimum wage increase they insist on more and more welfare.  

I believe the strategy is to burn the country to the ground until everyone who is not a rich democrat is living at the poverty line.  They'll just keep pushing and pushing welfare handouts, till there are so many people on welfare outs, that the welfare party is firmly and irrevocably in power.  Stage I complete.  Stage II... re-education camps.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> By "Pro: higher paying labor job than just minimum wage", I meant we'd likely have more labor jobs here, which would mean people who are currently working minimum wage jobs like bagging groceries would be able to find labor jobs that pay more.  Production Labor and Engineering jobs are in intense competition with Asian labor markets.  Which is why the pay rates in these jobs have been lagging. Our government allowed the jobs to move, even encouraged it through tax incentives & work visa programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with this post. I think there are a lot of things our government does and doesn't do that leads to the changing trends besides what you mentioned.
> 
> I am not really sure what we should do about the min wage though. It is a part of the labor market where the laborer really has no leverage when asking for a wage but I think most of the exposure these jobs have is to shifts in demand more so than competition from foreign nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  However, the liberals don't want to just raise minimum wage a small amount.  Their goal is to set minimum wage to a living wage standard above or at least equal to the poverty line.  This means setting minimum wage above what is paid some labor rate jobs.
> 
> They really don't care if that means jobs that are not worth paying said imaginary living wage amount are eliminated. They don't care because those people will just sign up for welfare and probably vote democrat to keep the welfare checks coming.
> 
> If they don't get the minimum wage increase they insist on more and more welfare.
> 
> I believe the strategy is to burn the country to the ground until everyone who is not a rich democrat is living at the poverty line.  They'll just keep pushing and pushing welfare handouts, till there are so many people on welfare outs, that the welfare party is firmly and irrevocably in power.  Stage I complete.  Stage II... re-education camps.
Click to expand...


I don't think asking for a minimum wage hike has anything to do with re-education camps.


----------



## Dragonlady

Avatar4321 said:


> Why should our incomes be equal?
> 
> We don't do the same amount of work. We don't do the same type of work. We don't serve the same amount of people with our work. We don't have the same needs. We don't have the same desires.
> 
> Why on earth should our income be equal? it doesn't make sense.



Income equality doesn't mean everyone makes the same amount of money. It means that base rates rise equally. If incomes for the top 1% have risen by 60% across the board, then middle incomes should be rising by 60% as well, as should the minimum wages. In this way, everyone's buying power remains the same. 

The idea that conservatives keep clinging to that is demonstratively false is that the top 1% are creating jobs. The top 1% are sitting on billions in capital at the moment and not using it to create jobs. They're not spending it or investing it. 

If the bottom 40% had more income, they'd be spending it. And that would create demand for products. And, assuming the products are manufactured in the US, that will create jobs. 

But as long as Americans buy cheap goods from China, the only jobs they'll be creating are minimum wage  retail jobs, while the manufacturing sector in China and other third world countries continues to expand.


----------



## Kosh

Income inequality is a far left catch phrase, how much money does one need in order to provide shelter, clothing and food.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with this post. I think there are a lot of things our government does and doesn't do that leads to the changing trends besides what you mentioned.
> 
> I am not really sure what we should do about the min wage though. It is a part of the labor market where the laborer really has no leverage when asking for a wage but I think most of the exposure these jobs have is to shifts in demand more so than competition from foreign nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  However, the liberals don't want to just raise minimum wage a small amount.  Their goal is to set minimum wage to a living wage standard above or at least equal to the poverty line.  This means setting minimum wage above what is paid some labor rate jobs.
> 
> They really don't care if that means jobs that are not worth paying said imaginary living wage amount are eliminated. They don't care because those people will just sign up for welfare and probably vote democrat to keep the welfare checks coming.
> 
> If they don't get the minimum wage increase they insist on more and more welfare.
> 
> I believe the strategy is to burn the country to the ground until everyone who is not a rich democrat is living at the poverty line.  They'll just keep pushing and pushing welfare handouts, till there are so many people on welfare outs, that the welfare party is firmly and irrevocably in power.  Stage I complete.  Stage II... re-education camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think asking for a minimum wage hike has anything to do with re-education camps.
Click to expand...


Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?

Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.  <reeducation camps>


----------



## RKMBrown

Kosh said:


> Income inequality is a far left catch phrase, how much money does one need in order to provide shelter, clothing and food.



I figured it out to be about 4k a year here in Texas.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  However, the liberals don't want to just raise minimum wage a small amount.  Their goal is to set minimum wage to a living wage standard above or at least equal to the poverty line.  This means setting minimum wage above what is paid some labor rate jobs.
> 
> They really don't care if that means jobs that are not worth paying said imaginary living wage amount are eliminated. They don't care because those people will just sign up for welfare and probably vote democrat to keep the welfare checks coming.
> 
> If they don't get the minimum wage increase they insist on more and more welfare.
> 
> I believe the strategy is to burn the country to the ground until everyone who is not a rich democrat is living at the poverty line.  They'll just keep pushing and pushing welfare handouts, till there are so many people on welfare outs, that the welfare party is firmly and irrevocably in power.  Stage I complete.  Stage II... re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think asking for a minimum wage hike has anything to do with re-education camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?
> 
> Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
> 2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
> b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.  <reeducation camps>
Click to expand...


A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production. 

HTH


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Bombur said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with this post. I think there are a lot of things our government does and doesn't do that leads to the changing trends besides what you mentioned.
> 
> I am not really sure what we should do about the min wage though. It is a part of the labor market where the laborer really has no leverage when asking for a wage but I think most of the exposure these jobs have is to shifts in demand more so than competition from foreign nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Minimum wage is established by nature, wherein a person of minimal skills is paid, in keeping with those skills and within the individuals threshold of what they will accept, given their circumstances, within the means of the individual with whom they are bargaining.
> 
> Where the state establishes a Minimum allowable by law, the state simply sets into place a system which inflates the value of minimal skills.  This axiomatically devalues the currency which is in play.
> 
> No effort, no skills=zero.  Now reason dictates that the minimum that some effort and some skill would bring would begin at the first level of currency.  Wherever the legal threshold sets the legal mark of valuation of that currency.
> 
> In short, one cent would provide a starting place for one hour of minimally applied, minimally skilled labor.
> 
> Where the government set $1 as the mark, you can rest assured that the government has just set the $1 value for what is reflected in one cent of value.
> 
> Break it out anyway you like, making the minimal value $1, the minimal wage $10, $10 is worth $1.
> 
> Now, for the naysayers, I would submit that Progressivism came into play in the US in the late 19th, early 20th century.
> 
> Since then, the US dollar has declined in value, roughly 95-96% depending on what report ya read.  But anyone can figure it out for themselves by simply looking up what subsistence goods and services were worth in 1900 and compare that to today's values.
> 
> Again, nothing complicated about any of this crap.  It only BECOME to APPEAR complicated where the equations are mucked up with species arguments which rationalize every aspect of life and those arguments are what sustains: Collectivism, which no matter hw ya cut it, always sums to: SOCIALISM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The low end of the wage/labor spectrum is not generally thought of as a good example of a market because people at that spectrum have little to no leverage. The end result is that the market is inelastic with regards to wages and working conditions.
> 
> Your argument concerning currency has multiple logical fallacies. First off it is a red herring. Second the correlation you built is weak and the causation is non-existent. You are also making some rather lame appeals to emotion.
> 
> I don't think you know what socialism is. I also think you don't really understand that we have always had to be united as a nation and rely on one another. The well being of one has always had an impact on others. That doesn't make us socialists, it makes us a nation.
Click to expand...


Oh now THAT *IS* _FASCINATING!_

Let's take your position as it unfolded.



> The low end of the wage/labor spectrum is not generally thought of as a good example of a market because people at that spectrum have little to no leverage.



They have no leverage because they have no skills, no experience and no record on which the employer can look upon to predict what he should invest in them OR their skills, experience and record provides that they're no worthy of anything except the lowest possible wage.  The low end of the *wage spectrum* realized by the EMPLOYEE, represents the low end of the *need spectrum* by the EMPLOYER.  Meaning that the employer needs little from the low wage earner, expects little from them and he usually *gets less* than he _expects, deserves and FOR WHICH HE PAYS_.




> Your argument concerning currency has multiple logical fallacies. First off it is a red herring. Second the correlation you built is weak and the causation is non-existent. You are also making some rather lame appeals to emotion.



Red Herring ya say?  

Do tell.

Well let's do this, let's look at the argument I presented, wherein I stated the absolutely incontrovertible fact, that by raising the minimum value for which one can pay for labor, which is the rate upon which ALL OTHER LABOR ARE BASED, you devalue the currency to which the mandate is tethered.

Now you claim that in so stating that I violated the principle defining Ignoratio Elenchi or the 'irrelevant thesis', AKA: the "Red Herring", which holds that the such distracts the argument to a point of irrelevancy.  

Now in this case, I'm sure that the objective reader will agree that the issue is: "*The Minimum Wage*".

Further, we can rest assured that the same reader would agree that the discussion specific to my argument is: "*The Minimum Wage*".  Therefore, the discussion of "The Wage artificially decreed which representing the Minimum WAGE for which one can work and which one can PAY, along with _the predictable effects OF SUCH_", is precisely ... (_wait for it_ ... (Wait) ... (it's COMING) ... (*HOOOooooold!*): 

.

.

.



*R E L E V A N T​*
.

.

.


Huh... 

Oh my.  Now that's not good.  Why, it appears that you're full of crap.

But hey!  I like to give the benefit of the doubt to the intellectually less fortunate.  The 'minimal intellect', I like to say.  

So let's try to remain objective here and go a bit further, because that would be FAIR and _I'm all about the fairness._

*Maybe "Relevant" is a subjective term that can mean different things to different people.  *

Well, this happens from time to time and, when presented with such a conflict in 'opinion', I like to go to an objective, authoritative resource and check.  So let's go the "The Big Book O'WORDS and see what IT says about that.

*Relevant: closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand
​*
OOPS!

Now, _here's the cool part_:

By erroneously posing that the contested point is fallacious, distracting from the argument, the contributor DISTRACTED FROM THE ARGUMENT, deflecting such to a POINT OF IRRELEVANCE!~ as the above clarification establishes in irrepressible terms, having moved FROM the ISSUE OF: THE MINIMUM WAGE, to the lesson on why geek collectivists should *NEVER POKE THE BEAR!*

If you'd like to try again, I will be happy to consider whatever you'd like to bring.  But I would encourage your comments to remain focused on the issue at hand and that is the specious notion that the Government should devalue the currency by establishing an artificially high rate being tethered to LABOR, which is the fundamentally highest cost of production with production bing essential to economic gains.

But at the end of the day, it's your choice, so don't let me influence you, go with your gut.  And do that which will provide the least pain.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think asking for a minimum wage hike has anything to do with re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?
> 
> Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
> 2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
> b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.  <reeducation camps>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.
> 
> HTH
Click to expand...


BS. It's the same damn thing. How is government mandating pay rates, and benefits for employees not taking ownership of the owner's property?  How is the owner supposed to keep his property when the government is mandating he divide it among his employees in the form of higher salaries?

Oh.. you must be one of those folks that think taxes on Income isn't slavery too.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think asking for a minimum wage hike has anything to do with re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?
> 
> Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
> 2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
> b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.  <reeducation camps>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.
> 
> HTH
Click to expand...


True.  

Of course no one said it was.  

What a hike in the minimum rate one can pay labor is, IS A DEMONSTRATION OF A MEANS THROUGH WHICH GOVERNMENT CONTROLS PRODUCTION, OKA: The irrational form of collectivism known as socialism, which turns into communism, as the socialist seek more stringent controls over production, in the inevitable rationalization that the reason the socialist policy failed is that they lacked sufficient control.

If you're looking for a first class demonstration of that HAPPENING BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES!  Simply tune into the State of the Coup speech tonight by Obama the Great.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?
> 
> Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
> 2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
> b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.  <reeducation camps>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS. It's the same damn thing. How is government mandating pay rates, and benefits for employees not taking ownership of the owner's property?  How is the owner supposed to keep his property when the government is mandating he divided it among his employees in the form of higher salaries?
> 
> Oh.. you must be one of those folks that think taxes on Income isn't slavery too.
Click to expand...


No they are like completely different. If the difference is lost on you imagine owning a business where the min wage changes and you have to pay employees more. Now imagine owning a business and having government tell you that they own it now.

Understand the difference?


----------



## Bombur

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?
> 
> Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
> 2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
> b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.  <reeducation camps>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> Of course no one said it was.
> 
> What a hike in the minimum rate one can pay labor is, IS A DEMONSTRATION OF A MEANS THROUGH WHICH GOVERNMENT CONTROLS PRODUCTION, OKA: The irrational form of collectivism known as socialism, which turns into communism, as the socialist seek more stringent controls over production, in the inevitable rationalization that the reason the socialist policy failed is that they lacked sufficient control.
> 
> If you're looking for a first class demonstration of that HAPPENING BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES!  Simply tune into the State of the Coup speech tonight by Obama the Great.
Click to expand...


So it isn't communism BUT IT LEADS TO IT SO WATCHOUTYO!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should our incomes be equal?
> 
> We don't do the same amount of work. We don't do the same type of work. We don't serve the same amount of people with our work. We don't have the same needs. We don't have the same desires.
> 
> Why on earth should our income be equal? it doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income equality doesn't mean everyone makes the same amount of money. It means that base rates rise equally. If incomes for the top 1% have risen by 60% across the board, then middle incomes should be rising by 60% as well, as should the minimum wages. In this way, everyone's buying power remains the same.
> 
> The idea that conservatives keep clinging to that is demonstratively false is that the top 1% are creating jobs. The top 1% are sitting on billions in capital at the moment and not using it to create jobs. They're not spending it or investing it.
> 
> If the bottom 40% had more income, they'd be spending it. And that would create demand for products. And, assuming the products are manufactured in the US, that will create jobs.
> 
> But as long as Americans buy cheap goods from China, the only jobs they'll be creating are minimum wage  retail jobs, while the manufacturing sector in China and other third world countries continues to expand.
Click to expand...


You want a wage structure that hands out raises to the least productive workers at the same rate as the most productive ones? How stupid can you be?

Wait, I bet you still think workers get COLA increases, don't you? Didn't I already show you that doesn't exist in the real world? Is that really how stupid you want to be?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think asking for a minimum wage hike has anything to do with re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?
> 
> Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
> 2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
> b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.  <reeducation camps>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.
> 
> HTH
Click to expand...


Is that because you don't think the government declaring that people are incompetent is actually a means of ownership?


----------



## Vox

who cares about the world?

leftard brainwashers?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Bombur said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.
> 
> HTH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> Of course no one said it was.
> 
> What a hike in the minimum rate one can pay labor is, IS A DEMONSTRATION OF A MEANS THROUGH WHICH GOVERNMENT CONTROLS PRODUCTION, OKA: The irrational form of collectivism known as socialism, which turns into communism, as the socialist seek more stringent controls over production, in the inevitable rationalization that the reason the socialist policy failed is that they lacked sufficient control.
> 
> If you're looking for a first class demonstration of that HAPPENING BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES!  Simply tune into the State of the Coup speech tonight by Obama the Great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it isn't communism BUT IT LEADS TO IT SO WATCHOUTYO!
Click to expand...


Are you trying to say: "Thank you for the education?"

It's true that you should, but it looks like what you're doing is everything you can, to avoid saying it and remain something akin to credible.

You talk a lot of crap for someone that is so wrong, so often.

Have ya considered talking less and listening more?  (Writing and reading in the case of this board)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because you've already been to the camps and they taught you to say that, or because you honestly don't see the 1-1 relationship between Marx/Communism and government organization of labor via minimum wage hikes?
> 
> Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
> 2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
> b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.  <reeducation camps>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that because you don't think the government declaring that people are incompetent is actually a means of ownership?
Click to expand...


​


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has manufactured the largest private fortunes in history which seems to contradict your allegation that it's the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't we been discussing the likelihood that amassing such extreme private fortunes isn't possible without government intervention?
> 
> 
> 
> We can seek to minimize it, rather than aggressively indulge it. In any case, have you ever heard of Bitcoin? The days of government control over money may be drawing to a close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism may not be the worst thing ever, but it is among the least democratic institutions ever invented as it requires its workers to check their democratic rights at the front door and submit to a top-down totalitarian management style endorsed by dictators from Mussolini to the current crop of Chinese authoritarians alike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free market capitalism is the ultimate expression of democratic values, with each person having their say with every dollar they earn and spend. Mussolini and the Chinese employed corporatist government to achieve their ends, not free markets.
> 
> We seem to have an equivocation problem here, as you and others seem to view the collusion between large financial interests and government as 'capitalism', whereas I see it as the opposite. Can we clarify that somehow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I despise the way parasites like Soros or Koch use their private fortunes obtained through capitalism to negate the democratic principles that should determine how government functions.
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't speak for others here, but I do. I don't have a problem with wealthy people lobbying for policies that favor their interests, but I despise a government that caters to them. That's exactly why constitutional limits on government's ability to do that are so important. Ironically, and unfortunately, reformers all-too-often see those limits as negating democratic principles - when if fact they're defending them.
Click to expand...

The equivocation problem you mention could be one of the major reasons why we can't find common ground on curbing the power that private wealth exerts on the federal government today.

Large corporations are the principal conduit for the collusion between large private financial interests and what is supposedly a Democratic Republican form of government in the US.

How is it possible to restrict the influence of corporations, some of which have annual revenues higher than the GDP of small countries, on private individuals, by minimizing the power of government? IMHO, we need to increase democratic constraints on corporations and the 0.1% of the population they empower. De Blasio's recent election on Wall Street's home field is a good example of how elections could turn out if every serious candidate had the same amount of money to spend on their campaigns, for example.

Finally, "free" markets if such exist may provide consumers an opportunity to vote with their dollars, but the workers in capitalistic enterprises have little or no democratic say over how their labor will be compensated or distributed over time. We spend the majority of our adult waking hours working, and yet we're told our democracy ends at the work place door.


----------



## Vox

RKMBrown said:


> Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
> 2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
> b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.  <reeducation camps>



Communism never existed. What you are talking about is called socialism.

which is the first stage of communism, but it is still not communism per se. There is no state  in communism at all - it is supposedly not needed and it can only be achieved universally in the whole world, can't exist when there are normal countries around ( which is understandable, given into consideration it's unnatural model for the society)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

georgephillip said:
			
		

> *Large corporations are the principal conduit for the collusion between large private financial interests and what is supposedly a Democratic Republican form of government in the US.*




Conduit?  Perhaps.  

But that's not the reason.  The reason is that this culture has long eschewed ETHICS.  And CORRUPTION is the REASON _for the collusion between large private financial interests and what is supposedly a Democratic Republican form of government in the US_.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Vox said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism (n) 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
> 2.a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
> b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.  <reeducation camps>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communism never existed. What you are talking about is called socialism.
> 
> which is the first stage of communism, but it is still not communism per se. There is no state  in communism at all - it is supposedly not needed and it can only be achieved universally in the whole world, can't exist when there are normal countries around ( which is understandable, given into consideration it's unnatural model for the society)
Click to expand...


​
Communism, as it is defined by ANY credible reference source, exists right now, in all of it's irrational, unsustainable glory right above the DMZ separating the SUSTAINABLE SOUTH KOREA from their pathetic, inbred cousins in NORTH KOREA. 

Enough with the academic thesis lamenting 'what could be, if people weren't the only way to get to it'.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh both parties have done plenty but I doubt you could tell me what either of them have done to impact it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've done it repeatedly so I doubt that you can understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By repeating political talking points that have no basis in reality? By arguing against the very economic theories that establish the justification for your own economic beliefs? By arguing for supply side economics?
Click to expand...

I haven't repeated any talking points. You think so because of your bias. I argued against myself by supporting a smaller more efficient government and less spending?


----------



## georgephillip

RKMBrown said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think it takes to be in the bottom 5%? What part time minimum wage job does one have to have to be in the bottom 5%?  Let's pick on my first part time job that put me (as a fifteen year old kid) into the bottom 5%.  Bagging groceries. Course I only bagged groceries for a few months before I was promoted to a bottom 10% job.  But let's stick to the people who start out bagging groceries and never get a promotion from there for their entire lives.
> 
> Now, please explain to me why we should give a massive raise to someone who is bagging groceries part time?
> 
> 
> 
> $10,000 per year income places one in the bottom 6% of US earners in my geographical area. Why don't you tell me why people that poor don't deserve a massive raise regardless of the labor they perform especially since the richest 1% of US households increased their income by about 275% between 1979 and 2007?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because in order to only make 10k per year one would have to be a part time minimum wage worker.  For example, a kid in high school working part time at minimum wage. Part time minimum wage workers, such as kids in high school bagging groceries don't necessarily deserve massive raises.  In my experience, everyone that deserves a massive raise gets one or leaves to go to a job that pays more in a very very short amount of time.
> 
> Minimum wage income at 40hrs is 14k.  You want a 40% raise from 10k? How about working more hours.  Oh and take a look at minimum wage increases from 79 to 2014.  It went up a helluva lot more than 275%...  So what happened?  Easy:  Welfare is paying people to work part time minimum wage jobs.  If they work more than 30hrs at minimum wage they loose their welfare checks.  So they work the minimum and stop.  You raise minimum wage without raising maximum limits on welfare and they will just work less hours...
Click to expand...

"People at or below the federal minimum are:

Disproportionately young: 50.6% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
Mostly (78%) white; fully half are white women.
Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)"






*According the Pew Research minimum wage increases between 1979-2012 in adjusted 2012 dollars are non-existent

FWIW, my personal experience with minimum wage job is that 40 hours working at one in the mid-70s resulted in enough monthly income to pay rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy.

I haven't been able to afford a one bedroom of any age or a car since 1993, and my income has always hovered around the California minimum with infrequent resort to welfare.*

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/19/who-makes-minimum-wage/


----------



## RandomVariable

Avatar4321 said:


> Why should our incomes be equal?
> 
> We don't do the same amount of work. We don't do the same type of work. We don't serve the same amount of people with our work. We don't have the same needs. We don't have the same desires.
> 
> Why on earth should our income be equal? it doesn't make sense.



Would someone please define "work" for me?


----------



## dblack

RandomVariable said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should our incomes be equal?
> 
> We don't do the same amount of work. We don't do the same type of work. We don't serve the same amount of people with our work. We don't have the same needs. We don't have the same desires.
> 
> Why on earth should our income be equal? it doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would someone please define "work" for me?
Click to expand...


Force times displacement.


----------



## georgephillip

Iceweasel said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> $10,000 per year income places one in the bottom 6% of US earners in my geographical area. Why don't you tell me why people that poor don't deserve a massive raise regardless of the labor they perform especially since the richest 1% of US households increased their income by about 275% between 1979 and 2007?
> 
> 
> 
> Because you aren't their guardian or the morality dictator that decides for us all who deserves what and how much. THAT is much worse than any disparity between rich and poor. The uber rich these days are in global markets and corporations operate worldwide. Why do actors get $20 for a movie role? Or a basketball player so much? The market decided.
> 
> Yes, people should make more for their labor but it isn't going to happen until the economy picks up and we are going in the wrong direction. Borrowing, taxing and spending money is not how we create a vibrant and healthy economy.
Click to expand...

"Economists continue to debate the extent to which minimum-wage laws reduce poverty, income inequality and/or overall employment. Whats clear, though, is that after a three-step increase in 2007-09, todays minimum wage buys more than it did recently, but its real purchasing power is about where it was four decades ago  and below its late-1960s peak."

*For some of us, morality makes a much better basis for law and markets than Adam Smith's Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others.

Some conservative slaves have always been suspicious of morality because the rich would have very little influence in a society where ethics trumps unbridled Ethical egoism*

Who makes minimum wage? | Pew Research Center


----------



## georgephillip

Bombur said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fed will make money on the MBS. A lot of the problems that happened had to do with large changes in value which would require private institutions to liquidate fast which is obviously problematic when everyone is trying to do the same thing.
> 
> MBS were rated incorrectly. Investors were running to the markets with bad information and based on multiple levels of market manipulation. A lot of blame to go around.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you find the following claim accurate?*
> 
> "Our financial systemlike our participatory democracyis a mirage. *The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bondsmuch of it worthless subprime mortgageseach month*. "
> 
> Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The article is crap. Like I already said the Fed will make money on buying them.
> 
> To claim that trillions are being lent you basically have to ignore that what he is talking about is many small transactions. Something that has worked pretty well btw.
> 
> The article is about appealing to people's ignorance and fear of the unknown.
Click to expand...

*Point out any "fear" or "ignorance" in the following (if you can)*

"The human species, led by white Europeans and Euro-Americans, has been on a 500-year-long planetwide rampage of conquering, plundering, looting, exploiting and polluting the earthas well as killing the indigenous communities that stood in the way. 

"But the game is up. 

"The technical and scientific forces that created a life of unparalleled luxuryas well as unrivaled military and economic power for a small, global eliteare the forces that now doom us. 

"The mania for ceaseless economic expansion and exploitation has become a curse, a death sentence. 

"But even as our economic and environmental systems unravel, after the hottest year [2012] in the contiguous 48 states since record keeping began 107 years ago, we lack the emotional and intellectual creativity to shut down the engine of global capitalism. 

"We have bound ourselves to a doomsday machine that grinds forward.

Chris Hedges: The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - Chris Hedges - Truthdig


----------



## SwimExpert




----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.
> 
> HTH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS. It's the same damn thing. How is government mandating pay rates, and benefits for employees not taking ownership of the owner's property?  How is the owner supposed to keep his property when the government is mandating he divided it among his employees in the form of higher salaries?
> 
> Oh.. you must be one of those folks that think taxes on Income isn't slavery too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are like completely different. If the difference is lost on you imagine owning a business where the min wage changes and you have to pay employees more. Now imagine owning a business and having government tell you that they own it now.
> 
> Understand the difference?
Click to expand...


No.  You are quibbling over what % of my business the government takes. When they make me pay my employees more than they are worth that leads to taking more than I have, which is the same as taking ownership away.  It's the same damn thing.  

You are the guy who pays the mobster for protection and then tells his wife it was his idea.  You are like the guy who watches a girl get raped and then says she asked for it.


----------



## RKMBrown

georgephillip said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> $10,000 per year income places one in the bottom 6% of US earners in my geographical area. Why don't you tell me why people that poor don't deserve a massive raise regardless of the labor they perform especially since the richest 1% of US households increased their income by about 275% between 1979 and 2007?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because in order to only make 10k per year one would have to be a part time minimum wage worker.  For example, a kid in high school working part time at minimum wage. Part time minimum wage workers, such as kids in high school bagging groceries don't necessarily deserve massive raises.  In my experience, everyone that deserves a massive raise gets one or leaves to go to a job that pays more in a very very short amount of time.
> 
> Minimum wage income at 40hrs is 14k.  You want a 40% raise from 10k? How about working more hours.  Oh and take a look at minimum wage increases from 79 to 2014.  It went up a helluva lot more than 275%...  So what happened?  Easy:  Welfare is paying people to work part time minimum wage jobs.  If they work more than 30hrs at minimum wage they loose their welfare checks.  So they work the minimum and stop.  You raise minimum wage without raising maximum limits on welfare and they will just work less hours...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "People at or below the federal minimum are:
> 
> Disproportionately young: 50.6% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
> Mostly (78%) white; fully half are white women.
> Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *According the Pew Research minimum wage increases between 1979-2012 in adjusted 2012 dollars are non-existent
> 
> FWIW, my personal experience with minimum wage job is that 40 hours working at one in the mid-70s resulted in enough monthly income to pay rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy.
> 
> I haven't been able to afford a one bedroom of any age or a car since 1993, and my income has always hovered around the California minimum with infrequent resort to welfare.*
> 
> Who makes minimum wage? | Pew Research Center
Click to expand...


When I started working in 1977 minimum wage was 2.30.  Today minimum wage is 7.25.  The discussion is about the rich getting richer with the argued reason being minimum wage is to low.  Yet, minimum wage has kept up with inflation thus spitting in the face of the argument.

As for your ability to live on minimum wage in California.. move to somewhere else. California is one of the most expensive states to live in. Libtardian taxes, welfare, and the dot com boom really busted minimum wage living there.






But hey if you "californians" want $20min wage in cali go for it.  Not my state.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has manufactured the largest private fortunes in history which seems to contradict your allegation that it's the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't we been discussing the likelihood that amassing such extreme private fortunes isn't possible without government intervention?
> 
> 
> 
> We can seek to minimize it, rather than aggressively indulge it. In any case, have you ever heard of Bitcoin? The days of government control over money may be drawing to a close.
> 
> 
> 
> Free market capitalism is the ultimate expression of democratic values, with each person having their say with every dollar they earn and spend. Mussolini and the Chinese employed corporatist government to achieve their ends, not free markets.
> 
> We seem to have an equivocation problem here, as you and others seem to view the collusion between large financial interests and government as 'capitalism', whereas I see it as the opposite. Can we clarify that somehow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I despise the way parasites like Soros or Koch use their private fortunes obtained through capitalism to negate the democratic principles that should determine how government functions.
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't speak for others here, but I do. I don't have a problem with wealthy people lobbying for policies that favor their interests, but I despise a government that caters to them. That's exactly why constitutional limits on government's ability to do that are so important. Ironically, and unfortunately, reformers all-too-often see those limits as negating democratic principles - when if fact they're defending them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivocation problem you mention could be one of the major reasons why we can't find common ground on curbing the power that private wealth exerts on the federal government today.
> 
> Large corporations are the principal conduit for the collusion between large private financial interests and what is supposedly a Democratic Republican form of government in the US.
> 
> How is it possible to restrict the influence of corporations, some of which have annual revenues higher than the GDP of small countries, on private individuals, by minimizing the power of government? IMHO, we need to increase democratic constraints on corporations and the 0.1% of the population they empower. De Blasio's recent election on Wall Street's home field is a good example of how elections could turn out if every serious candidate had the same amount of money to spend on their campaigns, for example.
> 
> Finally, "free" markets if such exist may provide consumers an opportunity to vote with their dollars, but the workers in capitalistic enterprises have little or no democratic say over how their labor will be compensated or distributed over time. We spend the majority of our adult waking hours working, and yet we're told our democracy ends at the work place door.
Click to expand...


*Are Corporations People? *

Are Unions People?


----------



## georgephillip

RKMBrown said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because in order to only make 10k per year one would have to be a part time minimum wage worker.  For example, a kid in high school working part time at minimum wage. Part time minimum wage workers, such as kids in high school bagging groceries don't necessarily deserve massive raises.  In my experience, everyone that deserves a massive raise gets one or leaves to go to a job that pays more in a very very short amount of time.
> 
> Minimum wage income at 40hrs is 14k.  You want a 40% raise from 10k? How about working more hours.  Oh and take a look at minimum wage increases from 79 to 2014.  It went up a helluva lot more than 275%...  So what happened?  Easy:  Welfare is paying people to work part time minimum wage jobs.  If they work more than 30hrs at minimum wage they loose their welfare checks.  So they work the minimum and stop.  You raise minimum wage without raising maximum limits on welfare and they will just work less hours...
> 
> 
> 
> "People at or below the federal minimum are:
> 
> Disproportionately young: 50.6% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
> Mostly (78%) white; fully half are white women.
> Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *According the Pew Research minimum wage increases between 1979-2012 in adjusted 2012 dollars are non-existent
> 
> FWIW, my personal experience with minimum wage job is that 40 hours working at one in the mid-70s resulted in enough monthly income to pay rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy.
> 
> I haven't been able to afford a one bedroom of any age or a car since 1993, and my income has always hovered around the California minimum with infrequent resort to welfare.*
> 
> Who makes minimum wage? | Pew Research Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I started working in 1977 minimum wage was 2.30.  Today minimum wage is 7.25.  The discussion is about the rich getting richer with the argued reason being minimum wage is to low.  Yet, minimum wage has kept up with inflation thus spitting in the face of the argument.
> 
> As for your ability to live on minimum wage in California.. move to somewhere else. California is one of the most expensive states to live in. Libtardian taxes, welfare, and the dot com boom really busted minimum wage living there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But hey if you "californians" want $20min wage in cali go for it.  Not my state.
Click to expand...

*Your figures showing how the minimum wage has kept up with inflation appear to be based on unadjusted 2012 dollars.

If you compare your numbers to those that have been adjusted for the inflation that's occurred between 1979 to 2012, the minimum wage was actually higher in 1980 than where it was in 2012.*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> A min wage hike is not the same as the state taking ownership over the means of production.
> 
> HTH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS. It's the same damn thing. How is government mandating pay rates, and benefits for employees not taking ownership of the owner's property?  How is the owner supposed to keep his property when the government is mandating he divided it among his employees in the form of higher salaries?
> 
> Oh.. you must be one of those folks that think taxes on Income isn't slavery too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are like completely different. If the difference is lost on you imagine owning a business where the min wage changes and you have to pay employees more. Now imagine owning a business and having government tell you that they own it now.
> 
> Understand the difference?
Click to expand...


"Imagine owning a business. "

I did that.  When I was 6.  

I grew up working in the family business, from 6 years old I went to work every day, 6 and more often than not 7 days a week.

That business started with a loan my Dad took from a family friend.  He used the money to rent a store front and advertise his wares and the services he provided.

That was it.  He in effect 'hung out his shingle' and from there people came in and exchanged the value they had, in the form of money, or other goods and services they possessed which Dad would exchange, to the mutual profit of both parties.

Worked like a charm.  

He just went to work.  No licenses required.  He bought insurance to offset unforeseen liabilities.  When business became such that he could no longer do it all with his hands and those of the family, he put an ad in the paper, checked around with trade schools and set to bargaining with those folks, telling them what he had going and asking those who responded to his inquires, what they could bring to the table.

The deal was, you tend to the tasks I set before you, which will be intrinsic to your skills and aptitude, and he would give them X in exchange.  

The benefit being that they all earned a nice living.

I started my own in business in my 30s.  I found people that were in need of my knowledge and skills and I traded them the benefit of my knowledge and skills for the value they possessed.  I used the money I made to pay my bills and buy equipment that provided me to demand higher values.  Which came along with no more required to start a business than the desire to do so, the skills and ethic determination to perform as promised.

Today, to do what I do, would require a capital investment of a hundred thousand dollars before you could ever begin to present yourself as a business.  Assuming one followed "The LAW".

To sustain an employee making $40hr, requires one be healed sufficiently to pay 70/hr.  

Monthly bureaucratic fees are thousands of dollars, each and every month.  And this before a nickle is paid on utilities, mortgage payments, operate and service a single vehicle, phones, and on and on and on or buy one widget in inventory.

Now the absolute MINIMUM that is required to BREAK EVEN, is to charge CONFISCATORY RATES.  Want to earn a profit?  Rates gotta go up.  

Now that is the case with every business you can think of.  

Retailers, wholesalers, consultants, skateboard park, Medical Pot Outlet, neighborhood convenience store, bar, barber, nail salon and so on.  

Rates and Prices go up as your means to stay afloat goes DOWN!  The price of food, the price of gas, the price to buy ANYTHING and EVERYTHING GOES UP when you increase the cost of LABOR.  And who is responsible?  

*YOU ARE!*​


----------



## TemplarKormac

Capitalism, beotch!

This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TemplarKormac said:


> Capitalism, beotch!
> 
> This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:



What's your point?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism, beotch!
> 
> This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
Click to expand...


You're looking at it.


----------



## SwimExpert

TemplarKormac said:


> Capitalism, beotch!
> 
> This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:



When you put it that way, I almost want to become socialist.


----------



## bripat9643

SwimExpert said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism, beotch!
> 
> This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you put it that way, I almost want to become socialist.
Click to expand...


You already are one.


----------



## TemplarKormac

SwimExpert said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism, beotch!
> 
> This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you put it that way, I almost want to become socialist.
Click to expand...


Go right ahead.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.

Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.

If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,

The thread title is not just *bass ackwards*, it's deliberately dishonest.

What a non surprise.


----------



## Indeependent

IlarMeilyr said:


> Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.
> 
> Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.
> 
> If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,
> 
> The thread title is not just *bass ackwards*, it's deliberately dishonest.
> 
> What a non surprise.



Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
Then you get older and you get bone cancer.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Indeependent said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.
> 
> Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.
> 
> If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,
> 
> The thread title is not just *bass ackwards*, it's deliberately dishonest.
> 
> What a non surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
> Then you get older and you get bone cancer.
Click to expand...


One must sit back and admire such incoherence.

I've noted your style.

It's familiar to me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.
> 
> Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.
> 
> If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,
> 
> The thread title is not just *bass ackwards*, it's deliberately dishonest.
> 
> What a non surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
> Then you get older and you get bone cancer.
Click to expand...


8 years of Obama is more like ass cancer.


----------



## SwimExpert

bripat9643 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism, beotch!
> 
> This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you put it that way, I almost want to become socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already are one.
Click to expand...




You're an idiot.


----------



## Indeependent

IlarMeilyr said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.
> 
> Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.
> 
> If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,
> 
> The thread title is not just *bass ackwards*, it's deliberately dishonest.
> 
> What a non surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
> Then you get older and you get bone cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One must sit back and admire such incoherence.
> 
> I've noted your style.
> 
> It's familiar to me.
Click to expand...


At least I have style; all you have is your Limbaugh bull crap.


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.
> 
> Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.
> 
> If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,
> 
> The thread title is not just *bass ackwards*, it's deliberately dishonest.
> 
> What a non surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
> Then you get older and you get bone cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 years of Obama is more like ass cancer.
Click to expand...


As if any other politician isn't going to screw over half the country.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has manufactured the largest private fortunes in history which seems to contradict your allegation that it's the most effective way to prevent concentration of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't we been discussing the likelihood that amassing such extreme private fortunes isn't possible without government intervention?
> 
> 
> 
> We can seek to minimize it, rather than aggressively indulge it. In any case, have you ever heard of Bitcoin? The days of government control over money may be drawing to a close.
> 
> 
> 
> Free market capitalism is the ultimate expression of democratic values, with each person having their say with every dollar they earn and spend. Mussolini and the Chinese employed corporatist government to achieve their ends, not free markets.
> 
> We seem to have an equivocation problem here, as you and others seem to view the collusion between large financial interests and government as 'capitalism', whereas I see it as the opposite. Can we clarify that somehow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I despise the way parasites like Soros or Koch use their private fortunes obtained through capitalism to negate the democratic principles that should determine how government functions.
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't speak for others here, but I do. I don't have a problem with wealthy people lobbying for policies that favor their interests, but I despise a government that caters to them. That's exactly why constitutional limits on government's ability to do that are so important. Ironically, and unfortunately, reformers all-too-often see those limits as negating democratic principles - when if fact they're defending them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The equivocation problem you mention could be one of the major reasons why we can't find common ground on curbing the power that private wealth exerts on the federal government today.
> 
> Large corporations are the principal conduit for the collusion between large private financial interests and what is supposedly a Democratic Republican form of government in the US.
> 
> How is it possible to restrict the influence of corporations, some of which have annual revenues higher than the GDP of small countries, on private individuals, by minimizing the power of government? IMHO, we need to increase democratic constraints on corporations and the 0.1% of the population they empower. De Blasio's recent election on Wall Street's home field is a good example of how elections could turn out if every serious candidate had the same amount of money to spend on their campaigns, for example.
Click to expand...


I don't think we should restrict the influence of corporations. We shouldn't restrict the power of any organizations to influence government. The influence of corporations isn't the problem. It's what they're able to buy with that influence.

Collusion between government and business begins when we grant the state the power to intervene in our economic activities for reasons other than matters of criminal justice. And it won't end until we revoke that power.



> Finally, "free" markets if such exist may provide consumers an opportunity to vote with their dollars, but the workers in capitalistic enterprises have little or no democratic say over how their labor will be compensated or distributed over time. We spend the majority of our adult waking hours working, and yet we're told our democracy ends at the work place door.



The difference between economic power and political power, apart from the lack of coercion in the former, is that economic power is expressed by money - one "vote" per dollar, rather than one vote per person. So, yes, individual workers have less say in economic decisions than wealthy investors. That's really the whole point of capitalism.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TemplarKormac said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism, beotch!
> 
> This is What the Spread of Walmart Looks Like From 1962 to 2006:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're looking at it.
Click to expand...


So you're point is that Walmart found a vital key to fundamental needs of the culture, capitalized on it and rode that to unprecedented levels of success?  

Or that you enjoy nifty .gifs?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Indeependent said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.
> 
> Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.
> 
> If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,
> 
> The thread title is not just *bass ackwards*, it's deliberately dishonest.
> 
> What a non surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
> Then you get older and you get bone cancer.
Click to expand...


Oh, now that's cute.

Please explain, in as much detail as your intellectually able to produce, the specifics of the economic cancer, in terms of specific instances of cause and effect, produced by sound economic principle, wherein the individual is freed to exchange goods and services to the profit of all engaged in the exchange.

(Dear Reader: The contributor will provide no specifics, because they have no knowledge of such.  I only provided the challenge, as a means to berate and belittle them due to their obvious desperate need of some heretofore unknown humility.  But how cool is it that EVERY individual ya meet who claims to be an 'independent' is a FULL BLOWN COLLECTIVIST?  You gotta LOVE 'EM for their consistency.)


----------



## thereisnospoon

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



More nonsense.
Take a good look at dictatorships such as Venezuela. Countries where the government makes up the bulk of the elite ruling class and you'll find where the money is.
You people think redistribution and socialism works so well? Try it. Elsewhere.
Like it or not, capitalism and market based economies do the best for the most.
And like it or not, out system offers opportunities found nowhere else on the planet.
How much wealth has left places such as New York and New Jersey due to confiscatory taxation and roadblocks to business?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
> Then you get older and you get bone cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 years of Obama is more like ass cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if any other politician isn't going to screw over half the country.
Click to expand...


Whoa! I thought you libs viewed Obama as perfect?
Your undying worship of the man certainly indicates that thought pattern.


----------



## Indeependent

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Reagan, the degree of income inequality got dramatically reduced.
> 
> Under Obumbler, the divergence has increased.
> 
> If we are worried about income inequality, we should (like the Reagan Administration accomplished) FOSTER capitalism,
> 
> The thread title is not just *bass ackwards*, it's deliberately dishonest.
> 
> What a non surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
> Then you get older and you get bone cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now that's cute.
> 
> Please explain, in as much detail as your intellectually able to produce, the specifics of the economic cancer, in terms of specific instances of cause and effect, produced by sound economic principle, wherein the individual is freed to exchange goods and services to the profit of all engaged in the exchange.
> 
> (Dear Reader: The contributor will provide no specifics, because they have no knowledge of such.  I only provided the challenge, as a means to berate and belittle them due to their obvious desperate need of some heretofore unknown humility.  But how cool is it that EVERY individual ya meet who claims to be an 'independent' is a FULL BLOWN COLLECTIVIST?  You gotta LOVE 'EM for their consistency.)
Click to expand...


Sure will...
I graduated in 1981 and Wall Street was flooded with Europeans who got the jobs the American graduates should have gotten.
The banks were bringing in less expensive workers from Great Britain, Japan, China, India who had degrees in such illustrative fields as history, art, liberal arts.
In fact, I worked for several major financial institutions (Chas Manhattan, Banker's Trust, Credit Suisse) that hardly hired anyone from Europe or Asia that had any financial or banking degrees or expertise.
Just a bunch of worker bees.

Most of the people I graduated with went unemployed until November 1995.

Under Reagan, Citibank had laid off workers demonstrating on Broadway, just South of Trinity Place, after being replaced by cheap foreigners.

And let's not forget setting up those loans to Mexico for what was to become the destruction of American manufacturing.

Yep, way back when Reagan was already destroying the middle class.

Nope, equality is NOT the issue, OPPORTUNITY is the issue.


----------



## Indeependent

thereisnospoon said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 years of Obama is more like ass cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As if any other politician isn't going to screw over half the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa! I thought you libs viewed Obama as perfect?
> Your undying worship of the man certainly indicates that thought pattern.
Click to expand...


Your ideology leads you to see everything in Black and White.
Independents see in COLOR.


----------



## Indeependent

thereisnospoon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much wealth has left places such as New York and New Jersey due to confiscatory taxation and roadblocks to business?
Click to expand...


Most of my neighbors own businesses and are doing quite well despite the onuses placed upon them.
It's the price they pay for living near a city that has all the pleasures they like to indulge in.


----------



## thereisnospoon

RKMBrown said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because in order to only make 10k per year one would have to be a part time minimum wage worker.  For example, a kid in high school working part time at minimum wage. Part time minimum wage workers, such as kids in high school bagging groceries don't necessarily deserve massive raises.  In my experience, everyone that deserves a massive raise gets one or leaves to go to a job that pays more in a very very short amount of time.
> 
> Minimum wage income at 40hrs is 14k.  You want a 40% raise from 10k? How about working more hours.  Oh and take a look at minimum wage increases from 79 to 2014.  It went up a helluva lot more than 275%...  So what happened?  Easy:  Welfare is paying people to work part time minimum wage jobs.  If they work more than 30hrs at minimum wage they loose their welfare checks.  So they work the minimum and stop.  You raise minimum wage without raising maximum limits on welfare and they will just work less hours...
> 
> 
> 
> "People at or below the federal minimum are:
> 
> Disproportionately young: 50.6% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
> Mostly (78%) white; fully half are white women.
> Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *According the Pew Research minimum wage increases between 1979-2012 in adjusted 2012 dollars are non-existent
> 
> FWIW, my personal experience with minimum wage job is that 40 hours working at one in the mid-70s resulted in enough monthly income to pay rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy.
> 
> I haven't been able to afford a one bedroom of any age or a car since 1993, and my income has always hovered around the California minimum with infrequent resort to welfare.*
> 
> Who makes minimum wage? | Pew Research Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I started working in 1977 minimum wage was 2.30.  Today minimum wage is 7.25.  The discussion is about the rich getting richer with the argued reason being minimum wage is to low.  Yet, minimum wage has kept up with inflation thus spitting in the face of the argument.
> 
> As for your ability to live on minimum wage in California.. move to somewhere else. California is one of the most expensive states to live in. Libtardian taxes, welfare, and the dot com boom really busted minimum wage living there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But hey if you "californians" want $20min wage in cali go for it.  Not my state.
Click to expand...

Add in grossly overpaid public employees. Too many public employees. Three quarters of the trillion dollars in unfunded pension liability and this undying need to spend money California does not have on such pie in the sky ideas like that idiotic high speed rail scheme.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Indeependent said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> As if any other politician isn't going to screw over half the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa! I thought you libs viewed Obama as perfect?
> Your undying worship of the man certainly indicates that thought pattern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ideology leads you to see everything in Black and White.
> Independents see in COLOR.
Click to expand...


Cut the bullshit.
And spare me the lame ass race card.


----------



## Indeependent

thereisnospoon said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa! I thought you libs viewed Obama as perfect?
> Your undying worship of the man certainly indicates that thought pattern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ideology leads you to see everything in Black and White.
> Independents see in COLOR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cut the bullshit.
> And spare me the lame ass race card.
Click to expand...


I had the feeling you were going to inject race into my COLOR remark.
The issue is that both parties are comprised of individuals and groups who are willing to do whatever it takes to win public office.
That fact alone forces me to hold no allegiance to either.
But since I am not a "Military" Libertarian, I am labeled by you as a Liberal.
In other words, your tunnel vision limits your capacity to reason.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Indeependent said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
> Then you get older and you get bone cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, now that's cute.
> 
> Please explain, in as much detail as your intellectually able to produce, the specifics of the economic cancer, in terms of specific instances of cause and effect, produced by sound economic principle, wherein the individual is freed to exchange goods and services to the profit of all engaged in the exchange.
> 
> (Dear Reader: The contributor will provide no specifics, because they have no knowledge of such.  I only provided the challenge, as a means to berate and belittle them due to their obvious desperate need of some heretofore unknown humility.  But how cool is it that EVERY individual ya meet who claims to be an 'independent' is a FULL BLOWN COLLECTIVIST?  You gotta LOVE 'EM for their consistency.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure will...
> I graduated in 1981 and Wall Street was flooded with Europeans who got the jobs the American graduates should have gotten.
Click to expand...


So you feel that Regan screwed you because you lacked the means to beat out a pack of Euro-PEONS.  Mighty impressive reasoning, for a collectivist, who can't beat out the lowest common earthly denominator.




> The banks were bringing in less expensive workers from Great Britain, Japan, China, India who had degrees in such illustrative fields as history, art, liberal arts.



OH!  So you felt that you were worth more than what you were actually worth?

HUGE Mistake common to children ... and fools.

It happens, but if ya stick at it, you eventually figure ya out.  How's that workin' for ya?




> In fact, I worked for several major financial institutions (Chas Manhattan, Banker's Trust, Credit Suisse) that hardly hired anyone from Europe or Asia that had any financial or banking degrees or expertise.
> Just a bunch of worker bees.


  Drones be lookin' for drones.  That's how it works.  

Now, Lemme guess, you didn't realize that you were a drone? 

That's HYSTERICAL!



> Most of the people I graduated with went unemployed until November 1995.
> 
> Under Reagan, Citibank had laid off workers demonstrating on Broadway, just South of Trinity Place, after being replaced by cheap foreigners.



So Ron Reagan was running Citibank?  NEW INFO!  



> And let's not forget setting up those loans to Mexico for what was to become the destruction of American manufacturing.



So Loans to Mexico destroyed American Manufacturing?  AMAZING!  You know, people say that you aren't an economics guru, but I don't think they've really seen you shine like this.



> Yep, way back when Reagan was already destroying the middle class.
> 
> Nope, equality is NOT the issue, OPPORTUNITY is the issue.



You're speaking of how Reagan destroyed the Middle class by setting policy that realized the largest expansion of the Middle Class since WW2?

Yeah that was devastatin'.

Now in 1981, we had our first child and the end to my hitch in the service came along and, I returned home to a raging economy, where I went from just under 20k in the service, to fairly strong six figures.

Soon after that I bought the first airplane, ('68 New-2-U 172),  a house (3 Bd Rm Ranch, pool, fence, beautiful 1/4 acre lawn) and life was pretty damn good.

But then I'm not a drone, SOooo.  Well, you know.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
> Then you get older and you get bone cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One must sit back and admire such incoherence.
> 
> I've noted your style.
> 
> It's familiar to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least I have style; all you have is your Limbaugh bull crap.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you have all the "style" of a sociopath.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
> Then you get older and you get bone cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 years of Obama is more like ass cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if any other politician isn't going to screw over half the country.
Click to expand...


There are few who would screw it over as severely as Obama has.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 years of Obama is more like ass cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As if any other politician isn't going to screw over half the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are few who would screw it over as severely as Obama has.
Click to expand...

*The twin draft-dodgers, Dick and Dubya, come to mind:*

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will ultimately cost between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, with medical care and disability benefits weighing heavily for decades to come, according to a new analysis."

Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan wars will keep mounting - Los Angeles Times


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> As if any other politician isn't going to screw over half the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are few who would screw it over as severely as Obama has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The twin draft-dodgers, Dick and Dubya, come to mind:*
> 
> "The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will ultimately cost between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, with medical care and disability benefits weighing heavily for decades to come, according to a new analysis."
> 
> Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan wars will keep mounting - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...


The LA times?  Yeah, right.  We believe that. 

That's utter horseshit.  Furthermore, most of the costs for Afghanistan were incurred under Obama.  How many $trillions is Obamacare going to cost ultimately?  $100 trillion?  How much is Obama's shitty socialist economy going to cost, $200 trillion?  So far it's been costing over $1 trillion every year.


----------



## Iceweasel

How many of you big government liberals own or have owned businesses? Most of you operate in a vacuum and have no clue what it's like or apparently why business even matters. I started my business during the Reagan years and I'll take Reaganomics over Obamanomics anyday. It reminds me of the saying "who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes".


----------



## RKMBrown

georgephillip said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "People at or below the federal minimum are:
> 
> Disproportionately young: 50.6% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
> Mostly (78%) white; fully half are white women.
> Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *According the Pew Research minimum wage increases between 1979-2012 in adjusted 2012 dollars are non-existent
> 
> FWIW, my personal experience with minimum wage job is that 40 hours working at one in the mid-70s resulted in enough monthly income to pay rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy.
> 
> I haven't been able to afford a one bedroom of any age or a car since 1993, and my income has always hovered around the California minimum with infrequent resort to welfare.*
> 
> Who makes minimum wage? | Pew Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I started working in 1977 minimum wage was 2.30.  Today minimum wage is 7.25.  The discussion is about the rich getting richer with the argued reason being minimum wage is to low.  Yet, minimum wage has kept up with inflation thus spitting in the face of the argument.
> 
> As for your ability to live on minimum wage in California.. move to somewhere else. California is one of the most expensive states to live in. Libtardian taxes, welfare, and the dot com boom really busted minimum wage living there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But hey if you "californians" want $20min wage in cali go for it.  Not my state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your figures showing how the minimum wage has kept up with inflation appear to be based on unadjusted 2012 dollars.
> 
> If you compare your numbers to those that have been adjusted for the inflation that's occurred between 1979 to 2012, the minimum wage was actually higher in 1980 than where it was in 2012.*
Click to expand...


Higher by a small %.  The discussion was talking about it being 250%+ low your chart shows, at best you could argue that it's 10% lower than the highest it's ever been adjusted for inflation.  Your chart also shows that it's much higher than the average minimum wage over the time scale shown, as adjusted for inflation.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> How many of you big government liberals own or have owned businesses? Most of you operate in a vacuum and have no clue what it's like or apparently why business even matters. I started my business during the Reagan years and I'll take Reaganomics over Obamanomics anyday. It reminds me of the saying "who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes".



Reagan used massive increases in government debt to get the economy going again. It is rare to have conservatives admit to being Keynesians.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of you big government liberals own or have owned businesses? Most of you operate in a vacuum and have no clue what it's like or apparently why business even matters. I started my business during the Reagan years and I'll take Reaganomics over Obamanomics anyday. It reminds me of the saying "who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan used massive increases in government debt to get the economy going again. It is rare to have conservatives admit to being Keynesians.
Click to expand...


Your a liar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of you big government liberals own or have owned businesses? Most of you operate in a vacuum and have no clue what it's like or apparently why business even matters. I started my business during the Reagan years and I'll take Reaganomics over Obamanomics anyday. It reminds me of the saying "who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan used massive increases in government debt to get the economy going again. It is rare to have conservatives admit to being Keynesians.
Click to expand...


Obama's massive increases in government debt are much bigger, he didn't cut taxes from 70% to 28% and he didn't win the Cold War. 
His economy pretty much sucks.

Other than that, he's a lot like Reagan.


----------



## Bombur

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS. It's the same damn thing. How is government mandating pay rates, and benefits for employees not taking ownership of the owner's property?  How is the owner supposed to keep his property when the government is mandating he divided it among his employees in the form of higher salaries?
> 
> Oh.. you must be one of those folks that think taxes on Income isn't slavery too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are like completely different. If the difference is lost on you imagine owning a business where the min wage changes and you have to pay employees more. Now imagine owning a business and having government tell you that they own it now.
> 
> Understand the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Imagine owning a business. "
> 
> I did that.  When I was 6.
> 
> I grew up working in the family business, from 6 years old I went to work every day, 6 and more often than not 7 days a week.
> 
> That business started with a loan my Dad took from a family friend.  He used the money to rent a store front and advertise his wares and the services he provided.
> 
> That was it.  He in effect 'hung out his shingle' and from there people came in and exchanged the value they had, in the form of money, or other goods and services they possessed which Dad would exchange, to the mutual profit of both parties.
> 
> Worked like a charm.
> 
> He just went to work.  No licenses required.  He bought insurance to offset unforeseen liabilities.  When business became such that he could no longer do it all with his hands and those of the family, he put an ad in the paper, checked around with trade schools and set to bargaining with those folks, telling them what he had going and asking those who responded to his inquires, what they could bring to the table.
> 
> The deal was, you tend to the tasks I set before you, which will be intrinsic to your skills and aptitude, and he would give them X in exchange.
> 
> The benefit being that they all earned a nice living.
> 
> I started my own in business in my 30s.  I found people that were in need of my knowledge and skills and I traded them the benefit of my knowledge and skills for the value they possessed.  I used the money I made to pay my bills and buy equipment that provided me to demand higher values.  Which came along with no more required to start a business than the desire to do so, the skills and ethic determination to perform as promised.
> 
> Today, to do what I do, would require a capital investment of a hundred thousand dollars before you could ever begin to present yourself as a business.  Assuming one followed "The LAW".
> 
> To sustain an employee making $40hr, requires one be healed sufficiently to pay 70/hr.
> 
> Monthly bureaucratic fees are thousands of dollars, each and every month.  And this before a nickle is paid on utilities, mortgage payments, operate and service a single vehicle, phones, and on and on and on or buy one widget in inventory.
> 
> Now the absolute MINIMUM that is required to BREAK EVEN, is to charge CONFISCATORY RATES.  Want to earn a profit?  Rates gotta go up.
> 
> Now that is the case with every business you can think of.
> 
> Retailers, wholesalers, consultants, skateboard park, Medical Pot Outlet, neighborhood convenience store, bar, barber, nail salon and so on.
> 
> Rates and Prices go up as your means to stay afloat goes DOWN!  The price of food, the price of gas, the price to buy ANYTHING and EVERYTHING GOES UP when you increase the cost of LABOR.  And who is responsible?
> 
> *YOU ARE!*​
Click to expand...


So like I said a minimum wage is not the same as the government taking ownership of your business. 

Your understanding of economics is simplistic and one sided. Many business owners think that way because they have little to no understanding of how wages relate to demand. They can only see higher wages as a bad thing. In reality higher wages are absolutely critical for a growing economy because they push up demand. Higher demand is needed to support increases in productivity.


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of you big government liberals own or have owned businesses? Most of you operate in a vacuum and have no clue what it's like or apparently why business even matters. I started my business during the Reagan years and I'll take Reaganomics over Obamanomics anyday. It reminds me of the saying "who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan used massive increases in government debt to get the economy going again. It is rare to have conservatives admit to being Keynesians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's massive increases in government debt are much bigger, he didn't cut taxes from 70% to 28% and he didn't win the Cold War.
> His economy pretty much sucks.
> 
> Other than that, he's a lot like Reagan.
Click to expand...


I agree that Reagan was a much better Keynesian than Obama. Then again the economy Reagan faced was vastly different as well.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of you big government liberals own or have owned businesses? Most of you operate in a vacuum and have no clue what it's like or apparently why business even matters. I started my business during the Reagan years and I'll take Reaganomics over Obamanomics anyday. It reminds me of the saying "who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan used massive increases in government debt to get the economy going again. It is rare to have conservatives admit to being Keynesians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your a liar.
Click to expand...


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are like completely different. If the difference is lost on you imagine owning a business where the min wage changes and you have to pay employees more. Now imagine owning a business and having government tell you that they own it now.
> 
> Understand the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Imagine owning a business. "
> 
> I did that.  When I was 6.
> 
> I grew up working in the family business, from 6 years old I went to work every day, 6 and more often than not 7 days a week.
> 
> That business started with a loan my Dad took from a family friend.  He used the money to rent a store front and advertise his wares and the services he provided.
> 
> That was it.  He in effect 'hung out his shingle' and from there people came in and exchanged the value they had, in the form of money, or other goods and services they possessed which Dad would exchange, to the mutual profit of both parties.
> 
> Worked like a charm.
> 
> He just went to work.  No licenses required.  He bought insurance to offset unforeseen liabilities.  When business became such that he could no longer do it all with his hands and those of the family, he put an ad in the paper, checked around with trade schools and set to bargaining with those folks, telling them what he had going and asking those who responded to his inquires, what they could bring to the table.
> 
> The deal was, you tend to the tasks I set before you, which will be intrinsic to your skills and aptitude, and he would give them X in exchange.
> 
> The benefit being that they all earned a nice living.
> 
> I started my own in business in my 30s.  I found people that were in need of my knowledge and skills and I traded them the benefit of my knowledge and skills for the value they possessed.  I used the money I made to pay my bills and buy equipment that provided me to demand higher values.  Which came along with no more required to start a business than the desire to do so, the skills and ethic determination to perform as promised.
> 
> Today, to do what I do, would require a capital investment of a hundred thousand dollars before you could ever begin to present yourself as a business.  Assuming one followed "The LAW".
> 
> To sustain an employee making $40hr, requires one be healed sufficiently to pay 70/hr.
> 
> Monthly bureaucratic fees are thousands of dollars, each and every month.  And this before a nickle is paid on utilities, mortgage payments, operate and service a single vehicle, phones, and on and on and on or buy one widget in inventory.
> 
> Now the absolute MINIMUM that is required to BREAK EVEN, is to charge CONFISCATORY RATES.  Want to earn a profit?  Rates gotta go up.
> 
> Now that is the case with every business you can think of.
> 
> Retailers, wholesalers, consultants, skateboard park, Medical Pot Outlet, neighborhood convenience store, bar, barber, nail salon and so on.
> 
> Rates and Prices go up as your means to stay afloat goes DOWN!  The price of food, the price of gas, the price to buy ANYTHING and EVERYTHING GOES UP when you increase the cost of LABOR.  And who is responsible?
> 
> *YOU ARE!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So like I said a minimum wage is not the same as the government taking ownership of your business.
> 
> Your understanding of economics is simplistic and one sided. Many business owners think that way because they have little to no understanding of how wages relate to demand. They can only see higher wages as a bad thing. In reality higher wages are absolutely critical for a growing economy because they push up demand. Higher demand is needed to support increases in productivity.
Click to expand...


Your retarded aren't you? If not your stupidity is epic. If neither, then you are just a BS liar. 

Wages going up means less jobs and higher costs, not more demand and productivity.  What dumb asses you libtards are.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Your retarded aren't you? If not your stupidity is epic. If neither, then you are just a BS liar.
> 
> Wages going up means less jobs and higher costs, not more demand and productivity.  What dumb asses you libtards are.



lol I assure you I am not lying when I point out that what people make impacts how much money they spend.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your retarded aren't you? If not your stupidity is epic. If neither, then you are just a BS liar.
> 
> Wages going up means less jobs and higher costs, not more demand and productivity.  What dumb asses you libtards are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol I assure you I am not lying when I point out that what people make impacts how much money they spend.
Click to expand...


ok...

Two "children" making 7.25 an hour at the local grocery bagging groceries.
Two un-educated adults making 9 an hour at the local bank as tellers. 

Raise minimum wage to 20 an hour.

Grocery decides they don't need baggers anymore, not at $20 an hour.  They fire the kids.
Banker decides they don't need tellers anymore, not at $20 an hour. They fire the adults.

Result four people who used to be employed are now "un-employable." 

So, tell me.  How did increasing minimum wage help put more money in their pockets?


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your retarded aren't you? If not your stupidity is epic. If neither, then you are just a BS liar.
> 
> Wages going up means less jobs and higher costs, not more demand and productivity.  What dumb asses you libtards are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol I assure you I am not lying when I point out that what people make impacts how much money they spend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok...
> 
> Two "children" making 7.25 an hour at the local grocery bagging groceries.
> Two un-educated adults making 9 an hour at the local bank as tellers.
> 
> Raise minimum wage to 20 an hour.
> 
> Grocery decides they don't need baggers anymore, not at $20 an hour.  They fire the kids.
> Banker decides they don't need tellers anymore, not at $20 an hour. They fire the adults.
> 
> Result four people who used to be employed are now "un-employable."
> 
> So, tell me.  How did increasing minimum wage help put more money in their pocket?
Click to expand...


So in order to make your argument you have to invent a made up world that only exists in your head.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol I assure you I am not lying when I point out that what people make impacts how much money they spend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok...
> 
> Two "children" making 7.25 an hour at the local grocery bagging groceries.
> Two un-educated adults making 9 an hour at the local bank as tellers.
> 
> Raise minimum wage to 20 an hour.
> 
> Grocery decides they don't need baggers anymore, not at $20 an hour.  They fire the kids.
> Banker decides they don't need tellers anymore, not at $20 an hour. They fire the adults.
> 
> Result four people who used to be employed are now "un-employable."
> 
> So, tell me.  How did increasing minimum wage help put more money in their pocket?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in order to make your argument you have to invent a made up world that only exists in your head.
Click to expand...


Which part did I make up? That some kids bag groceries, that some uneducated adults work as bank tellers, or that employers will let them go if government mandates pay rates that exceed the value returned by said workers? Cmon liar what did I make up?


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok...
> 
> Two "children" making 7.25 an hour at the local grocery bagging groceries.
> Two un-educated adults making 9 an hour at the local bank as tellers.
> 
> Raise minimum wage to 20 an hour.
> 
> Grocery decides they don't need baggers anymore, not at $20 an hour.  They fire the kids.
> Banker decides they don't need tellers anymore, not at $20 an hour. They fire the adults.
> 
> Result four people who used to be employed are now "un-employable."
> 
> So, tell me.  How did increasing minimum wage help put more money in their pocket?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in order to make your argument you have to invent a made up world that only exists in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part did I make up? That some kids bag groceries, that some uneducated adults work as bank tellers, or that employers will let them go if government mandates pay rates that exceed the value returned by said workers? Cmon liar what did I make up?
Click to expand...


So not only did you invent the scenario you deny that you invented it and call me a liar.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Reagan used massive increases in government debt to get the economy going again. It is rare to have conservatives admit to being Keynesians.


It's rare that a liberal is honest about Reagan. Debt went up, partly military since the cold war was still on and Peanuthead cut it so drastically like Democrats love to do. But don't overlook the fact that the Democrats increased spending and reneged on the deal to cut spending ($3 to every $1 in tax hikes) so Reagan gets blamed for the debt and raising taxes. While completely ignoring the extreme cut to begin with.

So go ahead prove that the spending helped the economy instead of those tax cuts. And pay attention to what happened when. And try to do it without name calling.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan used massive increases in government debt to get the economy going again. It is rare to have conservatives admit to being Keynesians.
> 
> 
> 
> It's rare that a liberal is honest about Reagan. Debt went up, partly military since the cold war was still on and Peanuthead cut it so drastically like Democrats love to do. But don't overlook the fact that the Democrats increased spending and reneged on the deal to cut spending ($3 to every $1 in tax hikes) so Reagan gets blamed for the debt and raising taxes. While completely ignoring the extreme cut to begin with.
> 
> So go ahead prove that the spending helped the economy instead of those tax cuts. And pay attention to what happened when. And try to do it without name calling.
Click to expand...


I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?

None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?


My question was simple.


> None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.


That's a conclusion not a fact. Try again.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> My question was simple.
> 
> 
> 
> None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a conclusion not a fact. Try again.
Click to expand...


Seriously I don't know what your argument was.

If you want to claim that Reagan didn't push Keynesian economic theories effectively it might help if you actually made an argument instead of playing meaningless semantic games.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Seriously I don't know what your argument was.
> 
> If you want to claim that Reagan didn't push Keynesian economic theories effectively it might help if you actually made an argument instead of playing meaningless semantic games.


That's called projection. Look it up. You claimed it was debt spending that increased the economy. To support that, you misrepresent around others' arguments and try to talk over them then argue against the misrepresentation. I didn't think for a minute that you could back up your assertions and challenged you to also try not to engage in ad hominems. That's intellectually dishonest.

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG | REAGANOMICS
 Almost as soon as the Inaugural ceremony was over, President Reagan set his sights on Capitol Hill. From day one, he and his team worked tirelessly to get Congress to pass legislation to put the economy back on track. Even a near-fatal assassination attempt did not slow him down. While still recovering, he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House to twist their arms. Ronald Reagan may have been the first President to wear pajamas to a meeting with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. He wanted them to know he meant business.

His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

    20 million new jobs were created
    Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
    Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
    Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
    Real gross national product rose 26%
    The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the Presidents plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously I don't know what your argument was.
> 
> If you want to claim that Reagan didn't push Keynesian economic theories effectively it might help if you actually made an argument instead of playing meaningless semantic games.
> 
> 
> 
> That's called projection. Look it up. You claimed it was debt spending that increased the economy. To support that, you misrepresent around others' arguments and try to talk over them then argue against the misrepresentation. I didn't think for a minute that you could back up your assertions and challenged you to also try not to engage in ad hominems. That's intellectually dishonest.
> 
> REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG | REAGANOMICS
> Almost as soon as the Inaugural ceremony was over, President Reagan set his sights on Capitol Hill. From day one, he and his team worked tirelessly to get Congress to pass legislation to put the economy back on track. Even a near-fatal assassination attempt did not slow him down. While still recovering, he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House to twist their arms. Ronald Reagan may have been the first President to wear pajamas to a meeting with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. He wanted them to know he meant business.
> 
> His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.
> 
> The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:
> 
> 20 million new jobs were created
> Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
> Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
> Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
> Real gross national product rose 26%
> The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988
> 
> So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the Presidents plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.
Click to expand...


You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan used massive increases in government debt to get the economy going again. It is rare to have conservatives admit to being Keynesians.
> 
> 
> 
> It's rare that a liberal is honest about Reagan. Debt went up, partly military since the cold war was still on and Peanuthead cut it so drastically like Democrats love to do. But don't overlook the fact that the Democrats increased spending and reneged on the deal to cut spending ($3 to every $1 in tax hikes) so Reagan gets blamed for the debt and raising taxes. While completely ignoring the extreme cut to begin with.
> 
> So go ahead prove that the spending helped the economy instead of those tax cuts. And pay attention to what happened when. And try to do it without name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?
> 
> None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.
Click to expand...


Reaganomics?

Are you speaking of the idea where Government is seen as a threat to individual liberty, its powers, as a result starkly limited, its commerce limiting regulations slashed, it's cultural corrupting prohibited and the individual freed to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, which, having profited the means of the individual to fulfill their needs, axiomatically profits the collective?

Or are ya talking about the fabled "Trickledown" projected upon Reagan, by the Progressive cult, wherein the POWERFUL seize the property of others and dole it out slowly to those 'down the cultural ladder'?  

I doubt you're speaking of the former and expect you're referring to the latter, being wholly ignorant of the latter representing Keynesian Economics and Socialist (Progressive) governance.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously I don't know what your argument was.
> 
> If you want to claim that Reagan didn't push Keynesian economic theories effectively it might help if you actually made an argument instead of playing meaningless semantic games.
> 
> 
> 
> That's called projection. Look it up. You claimed it was debt spending that increased the economy. To support that, you misrepresent around others' arguments and try to talk over them then argue against the misrepresentation. I didn't think for a minute that you could back up your assertions and challenged you to also try not to engage in ad hominems. That's intellectually dishonest.
> 
> REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG | REAGANOMICS
> Almost as soon as the Inaugural ceremony was over, President Reagan set his sights on Capitol Hill. From day one, he and his team worked tirelessly to get Congress to pass legislation to put the economy back on track. Even a near-fatal assassination attempt did not slow him down. While still recovering, he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House to twist their arms. Ronald Reagan may have been the first President to wear pajamas to a meeting with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. He wanted them to know he meant business.
> 
> His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.
> 
> The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:
> 
> 20 million new jobs were created
> Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
> Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
> Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
> Real gross national product rose 26%
> The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988
> 
> So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the Presidents plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.
Click to expand...


And you just referred to 'the largest increase in government debt since WW2 (At that time) without noting that Carter, Reagan's predecessor had that title with his Leftist Congress prior to Reagan, Ford, with HIS Leftist Congress had it before THAT, Nixon, with HIS Leftist Congress had it before THAT and LBJ with HIS Leftist Congress CAUSED IT, with the passing of the GREAT SOCIETY, which MANDATED ESCALATING FEDERAL SOCIAL SPENDING... Which if you're keeping Score: MANDATES INCREASING THE DEBT, as social spending runs counter to gainful production, thus lowers the potential for Federal Revenue which TAXES GAINFUL PRODUCTION!  

Ya also failed to note what Ice had educated you upon NO LESS THAN THREE TIMES, in three consecutive posts, regarding Reagan's responsibility to rebuild the US Military which Carter eviscerated and who watched his agreement with the Leftist Congress be dishonored, by the Left and you'll pardon the redundancy in noting dishonor among the relativist Left, but some folks aren't aware that there is no potential for honor, among the Ideological Left.


----------



## Bombur

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's rare that a liberal is honest about Reagan. Debt went up, partly military since the cold war was still on and Peanuthead cut it so drastically like Democrats love to do. But don't overlook the fact that the Democrats increased spending and reneged on the deal to cut spending ($3 to every $1 in tax hikes) so Reagan gets blamed for the debt and raising taxes. While completely ignoring the extreme cut to begin with.
> 
> So go ahead prove that the spending helped the economy instead of those tax cuts. And pay attention to what happened when. And try to do it without name calling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?
> 
> None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reaganomics?
> 
> Are you speaking of the idea where Government is seen as a threat to individual liberty, its powers, as a result starkly limited, its commerce limiting regulations slashed, it's cultural corrupting prohibited and the individual freed to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, which, having profited the means of the individual to fulfill their needs, axiomatically profits the collective?
> 
> Or are ya talking about the fabled "Trickledown" projected upon Reagan, by the Progressive cult, wherein the POWERFUL seize the property of others and dole it out slowly to those 'down the cultural ladder'?
> 
> I doubt you're speaking of the former and expect you're referring to the latter, being wholly ignorant of the latter representing Keynesian Economics and Socialist (Progressive) governance.
Click to expand...


I am talking about increases in government spending and government debt spending. Not to mention large increases in the trade imbalance (although that is not entirely his fault it impacted the economy then).

I know some people want to re-write history and make it seem like Reagan was able to turn around the economy with some special conservative free market approach but in reality it was just a modern take on Keynesian economics.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Indeependent said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Reagan steroids worked real well for a while.
> Then you get older and you get bone cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, now that's cute.
> 
> Please explain, in as much detail as your intellectually able to produce, the specifics of the economic cancer, in terms of specific instances of cause and effect, produced by sound economic principle, wherein the individual is freed to exchange goods and services to the profit of all engaged in the exchange.
> 
> (Dear Reader: The contributor will provide no specifics, because they have no knowledge of such.  I only provided the challenge, as a means to berate and belittle them due to their obvious desperate need of some heretofore unknown humility.  But how cool is it that EVERY individual ya meet who claims to be an 'independent' is a FULL BLOWN COLLECTIVIST?  You gotta LOVE 'EM for their consistency.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure will...
> I graduated in 1981 and Wall Street was flooded with Europeans who got the jobs the American graduates should have gotten.
> The banks were bringing in less expensive workers from Great Britain, Japan, China, India who had degrees in such illustrative fields as history, art, liberal arts.
> In fact, I worked for several major financial institutions (Chas Manhattan, Banker's Trust, Credit Suisse) that hardly hired anyone from Europe or Asia that had any financial or banking degrees or expertise.
> Just a bunch of worker bees.
> 
> Most of the people I graduated with went unemployed until November 1995.
> 
> Under Reagan, Citibank had laid off workers demonstrating on Broadway, just South of Trinity Place, after being replaced by cheap foreigners.
> 
> And let's not forget setting up those loans to Mexico for what was to become the destruction of American manufacturing.
> 
> Yep, way back when Reagan was already destroying the middle class.
> 
> Nope, equality is NOT the issue, OPPORTUNITY is the issue.
Click to expand...

" the jobs the American graduates should have gotten."....Oh? What makes you say that?
I think you're full of shit. First, who are you to presume that ONLY Americans are entitled to procure employment. 
Next, I worked in the financial district in the early 80's for 5 years starting in 1981.
While SOME of the people with which I had either worked with or come into contact were not native to this country, the majority of my co-workers were Americans.
Why would you expect a company to hire  degreed people to take jobs as "worker bees"?
So what if these people did not have degrees specializing in finance. The jobs they took obviously did not require them.
So, I want you to explain how the sitting POTUS can dictate bank company policy which resulted in your friends not getting jobs for over 10 years.
Also, explain in detail with precise examples of how Reagan 'destroyed the middle class'...
Because to my memory, the middle class was growing. People who I knew were buying homes who'd not been able to afford them before. Others were upgrading their living arrangements, moving into luxury apartments or buying co-ops or condos.
Because of the improving economy I hired into a job that paid me well enough to afford my own apartment and make my first vehicle purchase. I was not making a ton of money, but because the new President was making policy that IMPROVED the economy. 
I would be willing to wager that these people were holding out for big bucks because someone or a bunch of someones told them along the way that a degree was their ticket to riches.
This is typical of the modern day OWS protester who was college educated but was out of work because of several factors. 
Here's the rub. Back then there were people who were getting their series 7 licenses and became brokers. Some had only high school or associates degrees. In the 80's Wall Street was THE place to make money. I lived it. I saw it. I had friends at work I lunched with who were doing it.
FWI...The mid to late 80's saw a gigantic upheaval in the banking industry. 
Chase, Chemical, Citibank, Manny Hanny, State Street Boston, Fleet, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, Bankers Trust, Mellon, EAB, Marine Midland, etc were all solo firms. Those are the ones I can name from memory. There are others...By 1990, many of those were either swallowed up by larger banks or merged with other large banks/financial services companies. 
So where's the problem?...
While the banking industry has rewarded many hundreds of thousands of people with long and rewarding careers, there was always the risk that bank workers would be displaced by mergers or buyouts.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

ilia25 said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.
Click to expand...


Your response is a non sequitur, meaning that it does not follow the point to which it responded.  

Stagnated lower incomes in capitalist cultures, do not provide for a conclusion that contests the standing point that 'the poor' in capitalist countries are vastly better off than the poor in non-capitalist cultures.  

The reason is that the economies in Capitalist economies EXPAND, and that expansion, AXIOMATICALLY raises ALL economic lots.  That the increase is larger for the highest producing individuals is the simple result of cause and effect.  It's the intrinsic design of the natural order.

How else would you prefer it?  You you prefer that those who produce the least, realize an equal result with those who produce the most?

To require that, you'd have to dismiss incentive and reward as natural principle.  And to do that, you'd have to be an imbecile.


----------



## Bombur

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response is a non sequitur, meaning that it does not follow the point to which it responded.
> 
> Stagnated lower incomes in capitalist cultures, do not provide for a conclusion that contests the standing point that 'the poor' in capitalist countries are vastly better off than the poor in non-capitalist cultures.
> 
> The reason is that the economies in Capitalist economies EXPAND, and that expansion, AXIOMATICALLY raises ALL economic lots.  That the increase is larger for the highest producing individuals is the simple result of cause and effect.  It's the intrinsic design of the natural order.
> 
> How else would you prefer it?  You you prefer that those who produce the least, realize an equal result with those who produce the most?
> 
> To require that, you'd have to dismiss incentive and reward as natural principle.  And to do that, you'd have to be an imbecile.
Click to expand...


There was income inequality in 1979 and there always will be. The graph demonstrates growing income inequality.  

Incomes for those groups haven't always been stagnant.

Everyone benefits from changes in technology.

Capitalism is still going to be used. 

People will still have an incentive to improve their lives. If anything there will be more of an incentive if growth is shared.

Our nation is in part better off because we have acted united as a nation. Our poor fought and bled and died for our country. People have come to our country because back home their nations no longer valued them and the US benefited greatly because we recognized their value and everyone prospered.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Bombur said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?
> 
> None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics?
> 
> Are you speaking of the idea where Government is seen as a threat to individual liberty, its powers, as a result starkly limited, its commerce limiting regulations slashed, it's cultural corrupting prohibited and the individual freed to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, which, having profited the means of the individual to fulfill their needs, axiomatically profits the collective?
> 
> Or are ya talking about the fabled "Trickledown" projected upon Reagan, by the Progressive cult, wherein the POWERFUL seize the property of others and dole it out slowly to those 'down the cultural ladder'?
> 
> I doubt you're speaking of the former and expect you're referring to the latter, being wholly ignorant of the latter representing Keynesian Economics and Socialist (Progressive) governance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am talking about increases in government spending and government debt spending. Not to mention large increases in the trade imbalance (although that is not entirely his fault it impacted the economy then).
> 
> I know some people want to re-write history and make it seem like Reagan was able to turn around the economy with some special conservative free market approach but in reality it was just a modern take on Keynesian economics.
Click to expand...


I know what you're talking about, I read it the first time.  The query sought clarification of your REASONING.  Which we now know rests upon the specious drivel common to Relativism.

Wherein you lament the 'rewriting' of history, EVEN AS YOU RE-WRITE HISTORY.  Keynesian economics does not work, it has never worked, there are precisely zero examples of it having EVER worked and nature requires that because it PRODUCES NOTHING, it will always SUM TO NOTHING.  Government spending, for the sake of government spending amounts to economic masterbation.  Sure it feels good for a very brief period, but it always makes a mess and serves no purpose beyond the simple subjective exercise.

If Keynesian THEORY COULD WORK, the US would presently be FLOATING in a sea of economic success and bounty, from the 6 years of and nearly 8 trillion in Keynesian spending, instead of our current status of being an ADDITIONAL 8 trillion behind balance, with the HIGHEST SUSTAINED UNEMPLOYMENT and the LOWEST LABOR PARTICIPATION SINCE THE 1930s,  due to SUSTAINED GDP STAGNATION COMMON TO SOCIALIST POLICY.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Bombur said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response is a non sequitur, meaning that it does not follow the point to which it responded.
> 
> Stagnated lower incomes in capitalist cultures, do not provide for a conclusion that contests the standing point that 'the poor' in capitalist countries are vastly better off than the poor in non-capitalist cultures.
> 
> The reason is that the economies in Capitalist economies EXPAND, and that expansion, AXIOMATICALLY raises ALL economic lots.  That the increase is larger for the highest producing individuals is the simple result of cause and effect.  It's the intrinsic design of the natural order.
> 
> How else would you prefer it?  You you prefer that those who produce the least, realize an equal result with those who produce the most?
> 
> To require that, you'd have to dismiss incentive and reward as natural principle.  And to do that, you'd have to be an imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was income inequality in 1979 and there always will be. The graph demonstrates growing income inequality.
> 
> Incomes for those groups haven't always been stagnant.
> 
> Everyone benefits from changes in technology.
> 
> Capitalism is still going to be used.
> 
> People will still have an incentive to improve their lives. If anything there will be more of an incentive if growth is shared.
> 
> Our nation is in part better off because we have acted united as a nation. Our poor fought and bled and died for our country. People have come to our country because back home their nations no longer valued them and the US benefited greatly because we recognized their value and everyone prospered.
Click to expand...


Yes, the graph shows a growing distinction between the least and the most affluent.

Guess why?  Is it because over the last 20 years CAPITALISM WAS UNLEASHED?

OR

Over the last 20 years the US Economy has been suffering greater levels of strangulation by ever increasing and chronic interference from and liabilities DUE SPECIFICALLY TO: SOCIALIST POLICY!

Wherever you find socialism, you find the GREATEST DELTA between rich and poor.  You will also find the largest number of poor and the lowest number of RICH.

No thanks... not interested.


----------



## itfitzme

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your response is a non sequitur, meaning that it does not follow the point to which it responded.
> 
> Stagnated lower incomes in capitalist cultures, do not provide for a conclusion that contests the standing point that 'the poor' in capitalist countries are vastly better off than the poor in non-capitalist cultures.
> 
> The reason is that the economies in Capitalist economies EXPAND, and that expansion, AXIOMATICALLY raises ALL economic lots.  That the increase is larger for the highest producing individuals is the simple result of cause and effect.  It's the intrinsic design of the natural order.
> 
> How else would you prefer it?  You you prefer that those who produce the least, realize an equal result with those who produce the most?
> 
> To require that, you'd have to dismiss incentive and reward as natural principle.  And to do that, you'd have to be an imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was income inequality in 1979 and there always will be. The graph demonstrates growing income inequality.
> 
> Incomes for those groups haven't always been stagnant.
> 
> Everyone benefits from changes in technology.
> 
> Capitalism is still going to be used.
> 
> People will still have an incentive to improve their lives. If anything there will be more of an incentive if growth is shared.
> 
> Our nation is in part better off because we have acted united as a nation. Our poor fought and bled and died for our country. People have come to our country because back home their nations no longer valued them and the US benefited greatly because we recognized their value and everyone prospered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the graph shows a growing distinction between the least and the most affluent.
> 
> Guess why?  Is it because over the last 20 years CAPITALISM WAS UNLEASHED?
> 
> OR
> 
> Over the last 20 years the US Economy has been suffering greater levels of strangulation by ever increasing and chronic interference from and liabilities DUE SPECIFICALLY TO: SOCIALIST POLICY!
> 
> Wherever you find socialism, you find the GREATEST DELTA between rich and poor.  You will also find the largest number of poor and the lowest number of RICH.
> 
> No thanks... not interested.
Click to expand...


False choice.  And, both choices are complete bullshit.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.


I don't think they are proud of the debt, he sure wasn't. However, they did say:

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan &#8211; the &#8220;third leg of the stool.&#8221; Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 &#8211; the first time that had happened in well over a decade." 




Ronald Reagan | The White House
Dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit.

In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

itfitzme said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was income inequality in 1979 and there always will be. The graph demonstrates growing income inequality.
> 
> Incomes for those groups haven't always been stagnant.
> 
> Everyone benefits from changes in technology.
> 
> Capitalism is still going to be used.
> 
> People will still have an incentive to improve their lives. If anything there will be more of an incentive if growth is shared.
> 
> Our nation is in part better off because we have acted united as a nation. Our poor fought and bled and died for our country. People have come to our country because back home their nations no longer valued them and the US benefited greatly because we recognized their value and everyone prospered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the graph shows a growing distinction between the least and the most affluent.
> 
> Guess why?  Is it because over the last 20 years CAPITALISM WAS UNLEASHED?
> 
> OR
> 
> Over the last 20 years the US Economy has been suffering greater levels of strangulation by ever increasing and chronic interference from and liabilities DUE SPECIFICALLY TO: SOCIALIST POLICY!
> 
> Wherever you find socialism, you find the GREATEST DELTA between rich and poor.  You will also find the largest number of poor and the lowest number of RICH.
> 
> No thanks... not interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False choice.  And, both choices are complete bullshit.
Click to expand...


Isn't it ADORABLE how when the usual suspects come, they always show up LONG IN ASSERTION but woefully short of a soundly stated reasoning which could potentially sustain their otherwise: BASELESS ASSERTION.

I guess I will NEVER tire of their feckless nature.  

It makes me feel SO SMART!  

And I'm sure the brighter bulbs already know that I'm not too bright, but compare to THESE DIM BULBS, I appear as the SUN!


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are few who would screw it over as severely as Obama has.
> 
> 
> 
> *The twin draft-dodgers, Dick and Dubya, come to mind:*
> 
> "The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will ultimately cost between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, with medical care and disability benefits weighing heavily for decades to come, according to a new analysis."
> 
> Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan wars will keep mounting - Los Angeles Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The LA times?  Yeah, right.  We believe that.
> 
> That's utter horseshit.  Furthermore, most of the costs for Afghanistan were incurred under Obama.  How many $trillions is Obamacare going to cost ultimately?  $100 trillion?  How much is Obama's shitty socialist economy going to cost, $200 trillion?  So far it's been costing over $1 trillion every year.
Click to expand...

*Obama would have incurred no costs in Afghanistan if Dick and Dubya hadn't launched a pair of illegal invasions and occupations, remember?*

"The single largest accrued liability of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to war veterans, she said. Historically, the bill for these costs has come due many decades later.

"The report noted that the peak year in compensation for World War I veterans was 1969, and World War II veterans saw the largest payments from the government in the late 1980s. 

"Payments to veterans of Vietnam and the first Gulf War are still rising, Bilmes wrote."

Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion | TheHill

*Bush and Clinton and Obama serve the same shitty masters, but the latter's shitty economy got its start when rich parasites nearly collapsed the global economy in late 2007*


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they are proud of the debt, he sure wasn't. However, they did say:
> 
> "Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan  the third leg of the stool. Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987  the first time that had happened in well over a decade."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan | The White House
> Dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit.
> 
> In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.
Click to expand...


Government debt spending and putting money in the hands of people who will spend it sure sounds Keynesian to me.


----------



## georgephillip

RKMBrown said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I started working in 1977 minimum wage was 2.30.  Today minimum wage is 7.25.  The discussion is about the rich getting richer with the argued reason being minimum wage is to low.  Yet, minimum wage has kept up with inflation thus spitting in the face of the argument.
> 
> As for your ability to live on minimum wage in California.. move to somewhere else. California is one of the most expensive states to live in. Libtardian taxes, welfare, and the dot com boom really busted minimum wage living there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But hey if you "californians" want $20min wage in cali go for it.  Not my state.
> 
> 
> 
> *Your figures showing how the minimum wage has kept up with inflation appear to be based on unadjusted 2012 dollars.
> 
> If you compare your numbers to those that have been adjusted for the inflation that's occurred between 1979 to 2012, the minimum wage was actually higher in 1980 than where it was in 2012.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher by a small %.  The discussion was talking about it being 250%+ low your chart shows, at best you could argue that it's 10% lower than the highest it's ever been adjusted for inflation.  Your chart also shows that it's much higher than the average minimum wage over the time scale shown, as adjusted for inflation.
Click to expand...

*You claimed  the minimum wage increased "a helluva lot more than 275%" between 1979 and 2007. 

In fact the current minimum wage is 32% below what it was in 1968 and 8% below what it was in 2010 when adjusted for inflation.

Had the minimum wage increase matched that of the richest 1% of Americans over the last six decades it would stand at $22.62 an hour.*

"[Such a large increase] may seem outlandish, but previous research indicates American workers have just about earned it. Worker productivity has more than doubled since 1968, and if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity gains it would have been $21.72 last year. 

"From 2000 to 2012 alone workers boosted their productivity by 25 percent yet saw their earnings fall rather than rise, leading some economists to label the early 21st century a lost decade for American workers.

$22.62/Hr: The Minimum Wage if it had Risen Like the Incomes of the 1% » Sociological Images


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Government debt spending and putting money in the hands of people who will spend it sure sounds Keynesian to me.


Rather than engaging in labeling I'm hoping that you'll try to prove that it turned the economy around. It was on the rebound well before the debt was accrued.


----------



## georgephillip

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously I don't know what your argument was.
> 
> If you want to claim that Reagan didn't push Keynesian economic theories effectively it might help if you actually made an argument instead of playing meaningless semantic games.
> 
> 
> 
> That's called projection. Look it up. You claimed it was debt spending that increased the economy. To support that, you misrepresent around others' arguments and try to talk over them then argue against the misrepresentation. I didn't think for a minute that you could back up your assertions and challenged you to also try not to engage in ad hominems. That's intellectually dishonest.
> 
> REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG | REAGANOMICS
> Almost as soon as the Inaugural ceremony was over, President Reagan set his sights on Capitol Hill. From day one, he and his team worked tirelessly to get Congress to pass legislation to put the economy back on track. Even a near-fatal assassination attempt did not slow him down. While still recovering, he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House to twist their arms. Ronald Reagan may have been the first President to wear pajamas to a meeting with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. He wanted them to know he meant business.
> 
> His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.
> 
> The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:
> 
> 20 million new jobs were created
> Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
> Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
> Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
> Real gross national product rose 26%
> The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988
> 
> So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the Presidents plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.
Click to expand...

*What affect, if any, did the 1980s Oil Glut have on Reagan's "American Miracle?"*

"The 1980s oil glut was a serious surplus of crude oil caused by falling demand following the 1970s Energy Crisis. The world price of oil, which had peaked in 1980 at over US$35 per barrel ($99 per barrel today), fell in 1986 from $27 to below $10 ($57 to $21 today)."

1980s oil glut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## thereisnospoon

itfitzme said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was income inequality in 1979 and there always will be. The graph demonstrates growing income inequality.
> 
> Incomes for those groups haven't always been stagnant.
> 
> Everyone benefits from changes in technology.
> 
> Capitalism is still going to be used.
> 
> People will still have an incentive to improve their lives. If anything there will be more of an incentive if growth is shared.
> 
> Our nation is in part better off because we have acted united as a nation. Our poor fought and bled and died for our country. People have come to our country because back home their nations no longer valued them and the US benefited greatly because we recognized their value and everyone prospered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the graph shows a growing distinction between the least and the most affluent.
> 
> Guess why?  Is it because over the last 20 years CAPITALISM WAS UNLEASHED?
> 
> OR
> 
> Over the last 20 years the US Economy has been suffering greater levels of strangulation by ever increasing and chronic interference from and liabilities DUE SPECIFICALLY TO: SOCIALIST POLICY!
> 
> Wherever you find socialism, you find the GREATEST DELTA between rich and poor.  You will also find the largest number of poor and the lowest number of RICH.
> 
> No thanks... not interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False choice.  And, both choices are complete bullshit.
Click to expand...


Your reply is non responsive.
Check your history. Each time government involves itself in the marketplace by regulating or taxation for the purpose of stimulating the economy, disaster soon followed.
Additionally, no modern society has even been able to tax itself into prosperity.


----------



## georgephillip

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's rare that a liberal is honest about Reagan. Debt went up, partly military since the cold war was still on and Peanuthead cut it so drastically like Democrats love to do. But don't overlook the fact that the Democrats increased spending and reneged on the deal to cut spending ($3 to every $1 in tax hikes) so Reagan gets blamed for the debt and raising taxes. While completely ignoring the extreme cut to begin with.
> 
> So go ahead prove that the spending helped the economy instead of those tax cuts. And pay attention to what happened when. And try to do it without name calling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?
> 
> None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reaganomics?
> 
> Are you speaking of the idea where Government is seen as a threat to individual liberty, its powers, as a result starkly limited, its commerce limiting regulations slashed, it's cultural corrupting prohibited and the individual freed to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, which, having profited the means of the individual to fulfill their needs, axiomatically profits the collective?
> 
> Or are ya talking about the fabled "Trickledown" projected upon Reagan, by the Progressive cult, wherein the POWERFUL seize the property of others and dole it out slowly to those 'down the cultural ladder'?
> 
> I doubt you're speaking of the former and expect you're referring to the latter, being wholly ignorant of the latter representing Keynesian Economics and Socialist (Progressive) governance.
Click to expand...

*Did the Gent from GE triple the national debt?*

"Tripling the National Debt -

"As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion."

10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com

*Which one percent of the US population became even richer from Reagan's profligate borrowing?*


----------



## thereisnospoon

georgephillip said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your figures showing how the minimum wage has kept up with inflation appear to be based on unadjusted 2012 dollars.
> 
> If you compare your numbers to those that have been adjusted for the inflation that's occurred between 1979 to 2012, the minimum wage was actually higher in 1980 than where it was in 2012.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Higher by a small %.  The discussion was talking about it being 250%+ low your chart shows, at best you could argue that it's 10% lower than the highest it's ever been adjusted for inflation.  Your chart also shows that it's much higher than the average minimum wage over the time scale shown, as adjusted for inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You claimed  the minimum wage increased "a helluva lot more than 275%" between 1979 and 2007.
> 
> In fact the current minimum wage is 32% below what it was in 1968 and 8% below what it was in 2010 when adjusted for inflation.
> 
> Had the minimum wage increase matched that of the richest 1% of Americans over the last six decades it would stand at $22.62 an hour.*
> 
> "[Such a large increase] may seem outlandish, but previous research indicates American workers have just about earned it. Worker productivity has more than doubled since 1968, and if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity gains it would have been $21.72 last year.
> 
> "From 2000 to 2012 alone workers boosted their productivity by 25 percent yet saw their earnings fall rather than rise, leading some economists to label the early 21st century a lost decade for American workers.
> 
> $22.62/Hr: The Minimum Wage if it had Risen Like the Incomes of the 1% » Sociological Images
Click to expand...


Then there is the "cost". A symptom no one in support of the magical mandate ever considers.
The fact is, everything is relative. Costs rise, prices rise.
And the real indignity here is nearly ever union contract has in it a condition where wages are indexed to the federal min wage. Meaning, if the federal min wage is increased, union worker's wages must also increase relative to the new mandate.
This minimum wage thing is not about the workers. It's about politics. It's vote buying.


----------



## thereisnospoon

georgephillip said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?
> 
> None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics?
> 
> Are you speaking of the idea where Government is seen as a threat to individual liberty, its powers, as a result starkly limited, its commerce limiting regulations slashed, it's cultural corrupting prohibited and the individual freed to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, which, having profited the means of the individual to fulfill their needs, axiomatically profits the collective?
> 
> Or are ya talking about the fabled "Trickledown" projected upon Reagan, by the Progressive cult, wherein the POWERFUL seize the property of others and dole it out slowly to those 'down the cultural ladder'?
> 
> I doubt you're speaking of the former and expect you're referring to the latter, being wholly ignorant of the latter representing Keynesian Economics and Socialist (Progressive) governance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Did the Gent from GE triple the national debt?*
> 
> "Tripling the National Debt -
> 
> "As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion."
> 
> 10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com
> 
> *Which one percent of the US population became even richer from Reagan's profligate borrowing?*
Click to expand...


"the government was left with less money to spend."
And what did the Congress do? Continued to spend at the same pace.
Fiscal irresponsibility. 
You libs whine and bitch because the poor government doesn't have enough to spend. 
So fucking what...
As long as the essential functions of government are fully funded the rest of it can just wait until things get better. We as a nation do not have a blank check. There is no magic pot of money from which every swinging dick in DC can take to their State or District.
If government were kept on the short leash of "dollar in dollar out spending", we would not be in this $17 trillion mess.


----------



## georgephillip

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously I don't know what your argument was.
> 
> If you want to claim that Reagan didn't push Keynesian economic theories effectively it might help if you actually made an argument instead of playing meaningless semantic games.
> 
> 
> 
> That's called projection. Look it up. You claimed it was debt spending that increased the economy. To support that, you misrepresent around others' arguments and try to talk over them then argue against the misrepresentation. I didn't think for a minute that you could back up your assertions and challenged you to also try not to engage in ad hominems. That's intellectually dishonest.
> 
> REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG | REAGANOMICS
> Almost as soon as the Inaugural ceremony was over, President Reagan set his sights on Capitol Hill. From day one, he and his team worked tirelessly to get Congress to pass legislation to put the economy back on track. Even a near-fatal assassination attempt did not slow him down. While still recovering, he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House to twist their arms. Ronald Reagan may have been the first President to wear pajamas to a meeting with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. He wanted them to know he meant business.
> 
> His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.
> 
> The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:
> 
> 20 million new jobs were created
> Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
> Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
> Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
> Real gross national product rose 26%
> The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988
> 
> So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the Presidents plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.
Click to expand...




thereisnospoon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher by a small %.  The discussion was talking about it being 250%+ low your chart shows, at best you could argue that it's 10% lower than the highest it's ever been adjusted for inflation.  Your chart also shows that it's much higher than the average minimum wage over the time scale shown, as adjusted for inflation.
> 
> 
> 
> *You claimed  the minimum wage increased "a helluva lot more than 275%" between 1979 and 2007.
> 
> In fact the current minimum wage is 32% below what it was in 1968 and 8% below what it was in 2010 when adjusted for inflation.
> 
> Had the minimum wage increase matched that of the richest 1% of Americans over the last six decades it would stand at $22.62 an hour.*
> 
> "[Such a large increase] may seem outlandish, but previous research indicates American workers have just about earned it. Worker productivity has more than doubled since 1968, and if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity gains it would have been $21.72 last year.
> 
> "From 2000 to 2012 alone workers boosted their productivity by 25 percent yet saw their earnings fall rather than rise, leading some economists to label the early 21st century a lost decade for American workers.
> 
> $22.62/Hr: The Minimum Wage if it had Risen Like the Incomes of the 1% » Sociological Images
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there is the "cost". A symptom no one in support of the magical mandate ever considers.
> The fact is, everything is relative. Costs rise, prices rise.
> And the real indignity here is nearly ever union contract has in it a condition where wages are indexed to the federal min wage. Meaning, if the federal min wage is increased, union worker's wages must also increase relative to the new mandate.
> This minimum wage thing is not about the workers. It's about politics. It's vote buying.
Click to expand...

It's about equality of opportunity to share equally in the steadily rising US productivity over the last forty years. If the minimum wage increase during that time period had matched that of the richest 1%, so would all other income quintiles. The richest 1% earned about 8% of US income in the 70s and they earn almost 25% today. Their gain didn't come from working harder or from longer hours; it came from bribing politicians from both parties for favorable tax and trade policies. Had US workers shared proportionally in the productivity gains since the 80s, the richest 1% would have much less and everyone else would have more. Relatively speaking, you can think of it as Economic Democracy.


----------



## Bombur

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your response is a non sequitur, meaning that it does not follow the point to which it responded.
> 
> Stagnated lower incomes in capitalist cultures, do not provide for a conclusion that contests the standing point that 'the poor' in capitalist countries are vastly better off than the poor in non-capitalist cultures.
> 
> The reason is that the economies in Capitalist economies EXPAND, and that expansion, AXIOMATICALLY raises ALL economic lots.  That the increase is larger for the highest producing individuals is the simple result of cause and effect.  It's the intrinsic design of the natural order.
> 
> How else would you prefer it?  You you prefer that those who produce the least, realize an equal result with those who produce the most?
> 
> To require that, you'd have to dismiss incentive and reward as natural principle.  And to do that, you'd have to be an imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was income inequality in 1979 and there always will be. The graph demonstrates growing income inequality.
> 
> Incomes for those groups haven't always been stagnant.
> 
> Everyone benefits from changes in technology.
> 
> Capitalism is still going to be used.
> 
> People will still have an incentive to improve their lives. If anything there will be more of an incentive if growth is shared.
> 
> Our nation is in part better off because we have acted united as a nation. Our poor fought and bled and died for our country. People have come to our country because back home their nations no longer valued them and the US benefited greatly because we recognized their value and everyone prospered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the graph shows a growing distinction between the least and the most affluent.
> 
> Guess why?  Is it because over the last 20 years CAPITALISM WAS UNLEASHED?
> 
> OR
> 
> Over the last 20 years the US Economy has been suffering greater levels of strangulation by ever increasing and chronic interference from and liabilities DUE SPECIFICALLY TO: SOCIALIST POLICY!
> 
> Wherever you find socialism, you find the GREATEST DELTA between rich and poor.  You will also find the largest number of poor and the lowest number of RICH.
> 
> No thanks... not interested.
Click to expand...


Interesting theory. The problem is that if you actually look at other countries and measure their income inequality and try and measure their government involvement in their economies there is no correlation let alone causation.

Meanwhile the competing theory is that it comes down to changing markets. Is there anything actually impacting the US labor market that would cause this slow change? Well yes there is in the form of a trade deficit. But what about the strong growth in the upper class and hey look people are buying more. Both great things but at what cost?

There are theories that fit both our understanding of economic and reality. Then  there are theories like yours that are based on blind ideology that has no basis in reality or theory.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Interesting theory. The problem is that if you actually look at other countries and measure their income inequality and try and measure their government involvement in their economies there is no correlation let alone causation.
> 
> Meanwhile the competing theory is that it comes down to changing markets. Is there anything actually impacting the US labor market that would cause this slow change? Well yes there is in the form of a trade deficit. But what about the strong growth in the upper class and hey look people are buying more. Both great things but at what cost?
> 
> There are theories that fit both our understanding of economic and reality. Then  there are theories like yours that are based on blind ideology that has no basis in reality or theory.


You haven't supported anything. All you do is offer assertions and insults. What do you mean there is no causation with government involvement? Government has no impact on economies? WTF? The reality is that yo think you know more about economics than people here who have been there and done that. All you know is what your Econ101 gray ponytailed professor told you. No sale!


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government debt spending and putting money in the hands of people who will spend it sure sounds Keynesian to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than engaging in labeling I'm hoping that you'll try to prove that it turned the economy around. It was on the rebound well before the debt was accrued.
Click to expand...


Increases in the debt started with the late 80's recessions and increased even more with the 82 recession. A lot of the increase in spending was due to military spending which would establish increased spending levels into the future. 

It was all very effective. Reaganomics worked. I am not sure why people try and act like Reagan didn't use debt spending to help the economy when he so clearly did.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting theory. The problem is that if you actually look at other countries and measure their income inequality and try and measure their government involvement in their economies there is no correlation let alone causation.
> 
> Meanwhile the competing theory is that it comes down to changing markets. Is there anything actually impacting the US labor market that would cause this slow change? Well yes there is in the form of a trade deficit. But what about the strong growth in the upper class and hey look people are buying more. Both great things but at what cost?
> 
> There are theories that fit both our understanding of economic and reality. Then  there are theories like yours that are based on blind ideology that has no basis in reality or theory.
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't supported anything. All you do is offer assertions and insults. What do you mean there is no causation with government involvement? Government has no impact on economies? WTF? The reality is that yo think you know more about economics than people here who have been there and done that. All you know is what your Econ101 gray ponytailed professor told you. No sale!
Click to expand...


So are you actually denying the truth in what I said or just complaining that I am educated?

Are you denying that other countries have less income inequality and yet more socialist governments than the US? Are you denying the importance of markets in determining income inequality growth? Are you denying the impact globalization has had on US trade?

I am honestly curious how your thought process works and how far I have to push you before you start complaining that I am educated.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?
> 
> None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics?
> 
> Are you speaking of the idea where Government is seen as a threat to individual liberty, its powers, as a result starkly limited, its commerce limiting regulations slashed, it's cultural corrupting prohibited and the individual freed to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, which, having profited the means of the individual to fulfill their needs, axiomatically profits the collective?
> 
> Or are ya talking about the fabled "Trickledown" projected upon Reagan, by the Progressive cult, wherein the POWERFUL seize the property of others and dole it out slowly to those 'down the cultural ladder'?
> 
> I doubt you're speaking of the former and expect you're referring to the latter, being wholly ignorant of the latter representing Keynesian Economics and Socialist (Progressive) governance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Did the Gent from GE triple the national debt?*
> 
> "Tripling the National Debt -
> 
> "As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion."
> 
> 10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com
> 
> *Which one percent of the US population became even richer from Reagan's profligate borrowing?*
Click to expand...


*As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend.*

That's awful! How much lower were revenues when Reagan left office, compared to when he was elected?


----------



## thereisnospoon

georgephillip said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's called projection. Look it up. You claimed it was debt spending that increased the economy. To support that, you misrepresent around others' arguments and try to talk over them then argue against the misrepresentation. I didn't think for a minute that you could back up your assertions and challenged you to also try not to engage in ad hominems. That's intellectually dishonest.
> 
> REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG | REAGANOMICS
> Almost as soon as the Inaugural ceremony was over, President Reagan set his sights on Capitol Hill. From day one, he and his team worked tirelessly to get Congress to pass legislation to put the economy back on track. Even a near-fatal assassination attempt did not slow him down. While still recovering, he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House to twist their arms. Ronald Reagan may have been the first President to wear pajamas to a meeting with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. He wanted them to know he meant business.
> 
> His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.
> 
> The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:
> 
> 20 million new jobs were created
> Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
> Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
> Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
> Real gross national product rose 26%
> The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988
> 
> So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the Presidents plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You claimed  the minimum wage increased "a helluva lot more than 275%" between 1979 and 2007.
> 
> In fact the current minimum wage is 32% below what it was in 1968 and 8% below what it was in 2010 when adjusted for inflation.
> 
> Had the minimum wage increase matched that of the richest 1% of Americans over the last six decades it would stand at $22.62 an hour.*
> 
> "[Such a large increase] may seem outlandish, but previous research indicates American workers have just about earned it. Worker productivity has more than doubled since 1968, and if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity gains it would have been $21.72 last year.
> 
> "From 2000 to 2012 alone workers boosted their productivity by 25 percent yet saw their earnings fall rather than rise, leading some economists to label the early 21st century a lost decade for American workers.
> 
> $22.62/Hr: The Minimum Wage if it had Risen Like the Incomes of the 1% » Sociological Images
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there is the "cost". A symptom no one in support of the magical mandate ever considers.
> The fact is, everything is relative. Costs rise, prices rise.
> And the real indignity here is nearly ever union contract has in it a condition where wages are indexed to the federal min wage. Meaning, if the federal min wage is increased, union worker's wages must also increase relative to the new mandate.
> This minimum wage thing is not about the workers. It's about politics. It's vote buying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's about equality of opportunity to share equally in the steadily rising US productivity over the last forty years. If the minimum wage increase during that time period had matched that of the richest 1%, so would all other income quintiles. The richest 1% earned about 8% of US income in the 70s and they earn almost 25% today. Their gain didn't come from working harder or from longer hours; it came from bribing politicians from both parties for favorable tax and trade policies. Had US workers shared proportionally in the productivity gains since the 80s, the richest 1% would have much less and everyone else would have more. Relatively speaking, you can think of it as Economic Democracy.
Click to expand...

Share? There is no "share"....What someone else's income may be is nobody else's business. 
Productivity rises with for example, technology, education and technical training. Productivity is realized when fewer people are required to increase output.
The most wealthy people are not the stereotypical blue blooded Greenwich CT mansion dwelling people you equate with wealth. The fact is most wealthy people work very hard to earn their wages. They also take the highest risk.
The one constant is this. Higher education and better training lead to higher wages. It has to be that way.
BTW, opportunity is EARNED. Not given. Not deserved.
There are far too many of us who work hard so that we may EARN opportunity to see it given away to those who refuse to make it their business to improve their skill set so that they are in the running for higher pay.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government debt spending and putting money in the hands of people who will spend it sure sounds Keynesian to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than engaging in labeling I'm hoping that you'll try to prove that it turned the economy around. It was on the rebound well before the debt was accrued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increases in the debt started with the late 80's recessions and increased even more with the 82 recession. A lot of the increase in spending was due to military spending which would establish increased spending levels into the future.
> 
> It was all very effective. Reaganomics worked. I am not sure why people try and act like Reagan didn't use debt spending to help the economy when he so clearly did.
Click to expand...


If deficit spending was good for the economy, then it should be booming right now, shouldn't it?  

How do all you libturd morons explain the failure of deficit spending to work during the Obama administration?


----------



## thereisnospoon

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than engaging in labeling I'm hoping that you'll try to prove that it turned the economy around. It was on the rebound well before the debt was accrued.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increases in the debt started with the late 80's recessions and increased even more with the 82 recession. A lot of the increase in spending was due to military spending which would establish increased spending levels into the future.
> 
> It was all very effective. Reaganomics worked. I am not sure why people try and act like Reagan didn't use debt spending to help the economy when he so clearly did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If deficit spending was good for the economy, then it should be booming right now, shouldn't it?
> 
> How do all you libturd morons explain the failure of deficit spending to work during the Obama administration?
Click to expand...

The response will be "well, that's different"...
Or some other obfuscation.


----------



## ilia25

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than engaging in labeling I'm hoping that you'll try to prove that it turned the economy around. It was on the rebound well before the debt was accrued.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increases in the debt started with the late 80's recessions and increased even more with the 82 recession. A lot of the increase in spending was due to military spending which would establish increased spending levels into the future.
> 
> It was all very effective. Reaganomics worked. I am not sure why people try and act like Reagan didn't use debt spending to help the economy when he so clearly did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If deficit spending was good for the economy, then it should be booming right now, shouldn't it?
> 
> How do all you libturd morons explain the failure of deficit spending to work during the Obama administration?
Click to expand...


Why do you think it didn't work????
The US would be in a much deeper depression if not for deficit spending.

And it's not all speculation. First, this is what economics textbook have been saying all along. And, for a change, this time we have experimental results -- in Europe some governments had to cut spending, while others let it grow. And the more a government had to cut spending, the deeper was depression:


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics?
> 
> Are you speaking of the idea where Government is seen as a threat to individual liberty, its powers, as a result starkly limited, its commerce limiting regulations slashed, it's cultural corrupting prohibited and the individual freed to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, which, having profited the means of the individual to fulfill their needs, axiomatically profits the collective?
> 
> Or are ya talking about the fabled "Trickledown" projected upon Reagan, by the Progressive cult, wherein the POWERFUL seize the property of others and dole it out slowly to those 'down the cultural ladder'?
> 
> I doubt you're speaking of the former and expect you're referring to the latter, being wholly ignorant of the latter representing Keynesian Economics and Socialist (Progressive) governance.
> 
> 
> 
> *Did the Gent from GE triple the national debt?*
> 
> "Tripling the National Debt -
> 
> "As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion."
> 
> 10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com
> 
> *Which one percent of the US population became even richer from Reagan's profligate borrowing?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend.*
> 
> That's awful! How much lower were revenues when Reagan left office, compared to when he was elected?
Click to expand...

*What's awful about raising other people's taxes?*

"Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it. 

When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. 

"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. 

"In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office. 

"One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. 

"Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."

*Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)*

10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> It was all very effective. Reaganomics worked. I am not sure why people try and act like Reagan didn't use debt spending to help the economy when he so clearly did.


I don't know why you can't prove it. Seems simple enough. How do we know that the debt spending boosted the economy or the economy would have been in even better shape without the spending? Like I said, things started turning around almost immediately, long before the Dems got their spending increases. 

Try to focus.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> So are you actually denying the truth in what I said or just complaining that I am educated?


I did neither. I pointed out that you are brainwashed.


> Are you denying that other countries have less income inequality and yet more socialist governments than the US? Are you denying the importance of markets in determining income inequality growth? Are you denying the impact globalization has had on US trade?
> 
> I am honestly curious how your thought process works and how far I have to push you before you start complaining that I am educated.


You can't push your socialist views onto me since you can't back up anything.


----------



## Iceweasel

georgephillip said:


> "Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it.
> 
> When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.


And that's a bad thing? I guess we can flip it around and say that why he's despised by liberals. Less access to other people's money. The fact is that it worked, GDP went up, not down. Completely opposite of libthink. Now, enough time has passed where new lemmings with no clue are regugitating the deceit of the left.


> "As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.


Lot's of folks were rich, I doubt they were all friends. Were you alive then? I remember famous actors lampooning him regularly. And visiously. I don't know why they didn't volunteer to pay mnore taxes, perhaps because liberalism and hypocrisy are two sides of the same coin. And again, revenues went up. Look it up instead of relying on spiteful op-ed pieces. 


> "In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.


No, he had to deal with Democrats and the tax rate was much much lower when he left. That's called selective facts. Dishonest but expected from leftwing loons. 


> "One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.


Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act Of 1982 (TEFRA) Definition | Investopedia 
Investopedia explains 'Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act Of 1982 - TEFRA'

The ERTA was a piece of tax legislation that greatly lowered income tax rates, and all very high rates were given a maximum of 50%. The TEFRA modified aspects of the ERTA which caused concern over potential large budget deficits. *TEFRA increased the tax received* but not the tax rates. This was done by removing some of the tax breaks businesses received in the ERTA, such as the increase in the amount of accelerated depreciation that a company could deduct. 


> "Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."


Source?


> *Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)*


Oh the irony.


----------



## dblack

George, I want to come back to something we sort of skimmed over earlier. I was hoping to get some insight into whether it's the pure fact of income inequality that you think is wrong, or is it that you think that, in the current state of things, most of that income inequality isn't legitimate. Do you, in fact, think there is such a thing as legitimate income inequality?

It seems like these questions must be answered before we can address whether there is a problem and how we might fix it if there is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Did the Gent from GE triple the national debt?*
> 
> "Tripling the National Debt -
> 
> "As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion."
> 
> 10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com
> 
> *Which one percent of the US population became even richer from Reagan's profligate borrowing?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend.*
> 
> That's awful! How much lower were revenues when Reagan left office, compared to when he was elected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What's awful about raising other people's taxes?*
> 
> "Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it.
> 
> When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.
> 
> "As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.
> 
> "In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.
> 
> "One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.
> 
> "Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."
> 
> *Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)*
> 
> 10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com
Click to expand...


*"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. *

Prove it. Use facts and numbers, not feelings.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend.*
> 
> That's awful! How much lower were revenues when Reagan left office, compared to when he was elected?
> 
> 
> 
> *What's awful about raising other people's taxes?*
> 
> "Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it.
> 
> When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.
> 
> "As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.
> 
> "In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.
> 
> "One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.
> 
> "Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."
> 
> *Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)*
> 
> 10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. *
> 
> Prove it. Use facts and numbers, not feelings.
Click to expand...


I could've sworn remembering tax revenue skyrocketing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What's awful about raising other people's taxes?*
> 
> "Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it.
> 
> When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.
> 
> "As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.
> 
> "In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.
> 
> "One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.
> 
> "Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."
> 
> *Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)*
> 
> 10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. *
> 
> Prove it. Use facts and numbers, not feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could've sworn remembering tax revenue skyrocketing.
Click to expand...


Supply side tax cuts never work, all the liberals say so.


----------



## Iceweasel

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was all very effective. Reaganomics worked. I am not sure why people try and act like Reagan didn't use debt spending to help the economy when he so clearly did.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you can't prove it. Seems simple enough. How do we know that the debt spending boosted the economy or the economy would have been in even better shape without the spending? Like I said, things started turning around almost immediately, long before the Dems got their spending increases.
> 
> Try to focus.
Click to expand...


Military spending increases started before Reagan even took office peaking in the mid 80's. Debt spending exploded during this time as receipts couldn't keep up with outlays. Tax cuts and increases in military spending were paid for through debt.

This is a vastly different approach than responding to falling revenues with austerity. 

You seem impervious to the truth and call education brainwashing.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> Military spending increases started before Reagan even took office peaking in the mid 80's. Debt spending exploded during this time as receipts couldn't keep up with outlays. Tax cuts and increases in military spending were paid for through debt.
> 
> This is a vastly different approach than responding to falling revenues with austerity.
> 
> You seem impervious to the truth and call education brainwashing.


I called your education brainwashing. You haven't supported a solitary thing, assertions are not support. How can you pay for tax cuts? And how is it that the INCREASED revenue had nothing to do with growth? You seem impervious to honesty.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



We get it. You hate rich people.

Stay poor my friend.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military spending increases started before Reagan even took office peaking in the mid 80's. Debt spending exploded during this time as receipts couldn't keep up with outlays. Tax cuts and increases in military spending were paid for through debt.
> 
> This is a vastly different approach than responding to falling revenues with austerity.
> 
> You seem impervious to the truth and call education brainwashing.
> 
> 
> 
> I called your education brainwashing. You haven't supported a solitary thing, assertions are not support. How can you pay for tax cuts? And how is it that the INCREASED revenue had nothing to do with growth? You seem impervious to honesty.
Click to expand...


I have not supported that Reagan used massive increases in debt spending to deal with the economy? Are you denying these facts or just ignorant of them?

It is hard for me to support something when you simply ignore what has been said.

Also revenues were decreasing. You keep making crap up and then denying facts that are inconvenient.


----------



## KevinWestern

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



Capitalism - indeed - is an imperfect system with its fair share of very real problems. It also so happens to be the best system we've got by far.  I mean, what's your alternative?


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Did the Gent from GE triple the national debt?*
> 
> "Tripling the National Debt -
> 
> "As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion."
> 
> 10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com
> 
> *Which one percent of the US population became even richer from Reagan's profligate borrowing?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend.*
> 
> That's awful! How much lower were revenues when Reagan left office, compared to when he was elected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What's awful about raising other people's taxes?*
Click to expand...


That the federal government can only impose those taxes CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED.



> "As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.
> 
> "In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.



In truth, the *Reagan Administration made only cosmetic changes* in the nations welfare system, and for the most part, it was governance as usual.

In hindsight, the changes that the Reagan Administration made in government for the most part were quite small. However, that did not keep the Washington establishment from acting as though the federal government had been destroyed. They fought back by not only blaming the recession on cuts in marginal tax rates, but also claiming that the Reagan policies  as modest as they were  were driving people into the street. It was not long before every major news network was claiming that there were three million homeless people in the USA. This was preposterous, but the fake numbers were circulated as proof that Reagan had killed the Holy Welfare State.
"


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than engaging in labeling I'm hoping that you'll try to prove that it turned the economy around. It was on the rebound well before the debt was accrued.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increases in the debt started with the late 80's recessions and increased even more with the 82 recession. A lot of the increase in spending was due to military spending which would establish increased spending levels into the future.
> 
> It was all very effective. Reaganomics worked. I am not sure why people try and act like Reagan didn't use debt spending to help the economy when he so clearly did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If deficit spending was good for the economy, then it should be booming right now, shouldn't it?
> 
> How do all you libturd morons explain the failure of deficit spending to work during the Obama administration?
Click to expand...


There are a lot of reasons why we have seen a slow turnaround since 2008/2009 and why there wasn't a strong recovery from the "2002" recession. 

In the 82 recession federal revenues dropped in part due to the recession and partly due to the tax changes. None of that compared to the massive drop in federal revenue that happened in 2008 and 2009 and is more comparable to the 2002 recession. Although there were bigger drops in 2002 the economy was in a better spot overall than it was in 1980.

So from a federal revenue standpoint the problem was significantly bigger in 2009 than it was in 82. 

From state revenue perspective income tax revenue went down 17% in 2009 compared to 11% in 2002. State tax revenue went down 5.6% in 2009 compared to going up around 1% in 2002. In 82 state tax revenues were actually going up. Although inflation played a part in that there was a massive difference in the recession from the perspective of the states.

Honestly this is just a limited view of just one of the differences between the two time periods.


----------



## Iceweasel

Bombur said:


> I have not supported that Reagan used massive increases in debt spending to deal with the economy? Are you denying these facts or just ignorant of them?


I called your bluff, then and now.


> It is hard for me to support something when you simply ignore what has been said.
> 
> Also revenues were decreasing. You keep making crap up and then denying facts that are inconvenient.


What revenues when? You talk in smoke and mirrors. Get your money back from your school, they burned you.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not supported that Reagan used massive increases in debt spending to deal with the economy? Are you denying these facts or just ignorant of them?
> 
> 
> 
> I called your bluff, then and now.
> 
> 
> 
> It is hard for me to support something when you simply ignore what has been said.
> 
> Also revenues were decreasing. You keep making crap up and then denying facts that are inconvenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What revenues when? You talk in smoke and mirrors. Get your money back from your school, they burned you.
Click to expand...


https://www.google.com/

It is your friend. Use it and maybe you can have this conversation without looking so horribly ignorant.


----------



## Iceweasel

Contumacious said:


> In hindsight, the changes that the Reagan Administration made in government for the most part were quite small. However, that did not keep the Washington establishment from acting as though the federal government had been destroyed. They fought back by not only blaming the recession on cuts in marginal tax rates, but also claiming that the Reagan policies  as modest as they were  were driving people into the street. It was not long before every major news network was claiming that there were three million homeless people in the USA. This was preposterous, but the fake numbers were circulated as proof that Reagan had killed the Holy Welfare State.
> "


...and Reagan put all the crazies on the street by getting rid of federal loonie bins. Which should have never been a federal responsibility ain the first place.


----------



## Dragonlady

Lonestar_logic said:


> We get it. You hate rich people.
> 
> Stay poor my friend.



Liberals don't hate rich people you moron.  They hate the inequitable system that currently exists under which wages, benefits and wealth are all rising for the top 5% only.  Wages need to go up for everyone, not just the wealthy.  The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.  Jobs need to be created that pay living wages, not just minimum wage service sector jobs.

If the poor and middle class, don't start getting a fair shake in wages taxes, the US will turn into a Third World country.  This is the economic legacy of Ronnie Reagan and the Friedman economists.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Dragonlady said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> We get it. You hate rich people.
> 
> Stay poor my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't hate rich people you moron.  They hate the inequitable system that currently exists under which wages, benefits and wealth are all rising for the top 5% only.  Wages need to go up for everyone, not just the wealthy.  The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.  Jobs need to be created that pay living wages, not just minimum wage service sector jobs.
> 
> If the poor and middle class, don't start getting a fair shake in wages taxes, the US will turn into a Third World country.  This is the economic legacy of Ronnie Reagan and the Friedman economists.
Click to expand...


Sure sounded like he was bitching about rich people getting richer to me.

If the government would stop taxing the hell out of us and institute a flat tax then everyone would benefit. If the government would stop hindering small business with thousands of regulations each year then they could expand which means hiring more people. If Obama would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to move forward, thousand of people would be employed.

Rich people isn't the problem, it's your government that's the problem.


----------



## Iceweasel

Dragonlady said:


> Liberals don't hate rich people you moron.  They hate the inequitable system that currently exists under which wages, benefits and wealth are all rising for the top 5% only.  Wages need to go up for everyone, not just the wealthy.  The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.  Jobs need to be created that pay living wages, not just minimum wage service sector jobs.
> 
> If the poor and middle class, don't start getting a fair shake in wages taxes, the US will turn into a Third World country.  This is the economic legacy of Ronnie Reagan and the Friedman economists.


So Obama isn't responsible, Reagan is. What incredible insight.


----------



## itfitzme

Lonestar_logic said:


> Sure sounded like he was bitching about rich people getting richer to me.



That would be a problem with your reading comprehension.  



Lonestar_logic said:


> If the government would stop taxing the hell out of us and institute a flat tax then everyone would benefit.



False.  The statement is not demonstrated empirically or deductively.  Regardless,  presented here, the statement is surely not based on fact or deductive reasoning.



Lonestar_logic said:


> If the government would stop hindering small business with thousands of regulations each year then they could expand which means hiring more people.



False.  

To begin, all regulations don't apply to all businesses.  Regulation of lead solder has nothing to do with running an accounting firm. 

 Then, "thousands of regulations per year" is complete bs.  A quick search reveals that the Heritage Foundation counts "75 new major regulations from January 2009 to mid-FY 2011".

Lastly, "then they could expand which means hiring more people" is complete bs.  Regulations often create new opportunities for growth and employment.  

What keeps companies from expanding is either lack of demand or lack of capital to take advantage of demand.  It certainly isn't regulations.



Lonestar_logic said:


> If Obama would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to move forward, thousand of people would be employed.



So they say.  There are four stages to the Keystone pipeline project.  Stage 1 and 2 have already been completed.  Canadian crude currently ships and is refined in Oklahoma and Illinoise.   Stage 3 is a short stretch from Oklahoma to Texas.  Stage 4 is simply a duplicate of stage 1. 

So, stage three is the one of concern.  



Lonestar_logic said:


> Rich people isn't the problem, it's your government that's the problem.



Do you know what market power is?   Price elasticity?  Market inefficiency?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend.*
> 
> That's awful! How much lower were revenues when Reagan left office, compared to when he was elected?
> 
> 
> 
> *What's awful about raising other people's taxes?*
> 
> "Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it.
> 
> When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.
> 
> "As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.
> 
> "In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.
> 
> "One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.
> 
> "Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."
> 
> *Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)*
> 
> 10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. *
> 
> Prove it. Use facts and numbers, not feelings.
Click to expand...

Let us see if we agree on some facts and numbers.
Revenues for the 1980s increased by 99.6%.
Does that sound factual or sentimental to you?


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> George, I want to come back to something we sort of skimmed over earlier. I was hoping to get some insight into whether it's the pure fact of income inequality that you think is wrong, or is it that you think that, in the current state of things, most of that income inequality isn't legitimate. Do you, in fact, think there is such a thing as legitimate income inequality?
> 
> It seems like these questions must be answered before we can address whether there is a problem and how we might fix it if there is.


I agree this entire thread needs some First Principles.
I don't have any problem with my doctor or lawyer earning more than I ever did as a blue-collar wage slave for 45 years. IMHO, they likely earned their wealth by virtue of their intelligence and education. I don't feel the same way about billionaires or those who have simply gamed the system and exploited "illustrious" ancestors. 

There is certainly legitimate income inequality; however, where I see that most clearly is on those very rare level playing fields you don't usually find outside professional athletics. 
It's also worth noting there's a large dose of regulation applied in those arenas.


----------



## georgephillip

thereisnospoon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the "cost". A symptom no one in support of the magical mandate ever considers.
> The fact is, everything is relative. Costs rise, prices rise.
> And the real indignity here is nearly ever union contract has in it a condition where wages are indexed to the federal min wage. Meaning, if the federal min wage is increased, union worker's wages must also increase relative to the new mandate.
> This minimum wage thing is not about the workers. It's about politics. It's vote buying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's about equality of opportunity to share equally in the steadily rising US productivity over the last forty years. If the minimum wage increase during that time period had matched that of the richest 1%, so would all other income quintiles. The richest 1% earned about 8% of US income in the 70s and they earn almost 25% today. Their gain didn't come from working harder or from longer hours; it came from bribing politicians from both parties for favorable tax and trade policies. Had US workers shared proportionally in the productivity gains since the 80s, the richest 1% would have much less and everyone else would have more. Relatively speaking, you can think of it as Economic Democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Share? There is no "share"....What someone else's income may be is nobody else's business.
> Productivity rises with for example, technology, education and technical training. Productivity is realized when fewer people are required to increase output.
> The most wealthy people are not the stereotypical blue blooded Greenwich CT mansion dwelling people you equate with wealth. The fact is most wealthy people work very hard to earn their wages. They also take the highest risk.
> The one constant is this. Higher education and better training lead to higher wages. It has to be that way.
> BTW, opportunity is EARNED. Not given. Not deserved.
> There are far too many of us who work hard so that we may EARN opportunity to see it given away to those who refuse to make it their business to improve their skill set so that they are in the running for higher pay.
Click to expand...

*Where did you get the idea opportunity was something you had to earn, and who have you selected as the judge for deciding who among us deserves opportunity?*

"op·por·tu·ni·ty noun \&#716;ä-p&#601;r-&#712;tü-n&#601;-t&#275;, -&#712;tyü-\
: an amount of time or a situation in which something can be done
plural op·por·tu·ni·ties

Full Definition of OPPORTUNITY

1
:  a favorable juncture of circumstances <the halt provided an opportunity for rest and refreshment>
2
:  *a good chance for advancement or progress*"

Opportunity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## georgephillip

Iceweasel said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was all very effective. Reaganomics worked. I am not sure why people try and act like Reagan didn't use debt spending to help the economy when he so clearly did.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you can't prove it. Seems simple enough. How do we know that the debt spending boosted the economy or the economy would have been in even better shape without the spending? Like I said, things started turning around almost immediately, long before the Dems got their spending increases.
> 
> Try to focus.
Click to expand...

*Focus on the Dems, right...*

"As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion."

*They had the veto.*

10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com


----------



## georgephillip

Iceweasel said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it.
> 
> When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's a bad thing? I guess we can flip it around and say that why he's despised by liberals. Less access to other people's money. The fact is that it worked, GDP went up, not down. Completely opposite of libthink. Now, enough time has passed where new lemmings with no clue are regugitating the deceit of the left.
> 
> 
> 
> "As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lot's of folks were rich, I doubt they were all friends. Were you alive then? I remember famous actors lampooning him regularly. And visiously. I don't know why they didn't volunteer to pay mnore taxes, perhaps because liberalism and hypocrisy are two sides of the same coin. And again, revenues went up. Look it up instead of relying on spiteful op-ed pieces.
> No, he had to deal with Democrats and the tax rate was much much lower when he left. That's called selective facts. Dishonest but expected from leftwing loons.
> 
> Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act Of 1982 (TEFRA) Definition | Investopedia
> Investopedia explains 'Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act Of 1982 - TEFRA'
> 
> The ERTA was a piece of tax legislation that greatly lowered income tax rates, and all very high rates were given a maximum of 50%. The TEFRA modified aspects of the ERTA which caused concern over potential large budget deficits. *TEFRA increased the tax received* but not the tax rates. This was done by removing some of the tax breaks businesses received in the ERTA, such as the increase in the amount of accelerated depreciation that a company could deduct.
> 
> 
> 
> "Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Source?
> 
> 
> 
> *Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh the irony.
Click to expand...

Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.


----------



## georgephillip

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What's awful about raising other people's taxes?*
> 
> "Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it.
> 
> When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.
> 
> "As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.
> 
> "In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.
> 
> "One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.
> 
> "Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."
> 
> *Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)*
> 
> 10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. *
> 
> Prove it. Use facts and numbers, not feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could've sworn remembering tax revenue skyrocketing.
Click to expand...

What do you remember about the FICA tax rate in the 1980s?


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> George, I want to come back to something we sort of skimmed over earlier. I was hoping to get some insight into whether it's the pure fact of income inequality that you think is wrong, or is it that you think that, in the current state of things, most of that income inequality isn't legitimate. Do you, in fact, think there is such a thing as legitimate income inequality?
> 
> It seems like these questions must be answered before we can address whether there is a problem and how we might fix it if there is.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree this entire thread needs some First Principles.
> I don't have any problem with my doctor or lawyer earning more than I ever did as a blue-collar wage slave for 45 years. IMHO, they likely earned their wealth by virtue of their intelligence and education. I don't feel the same way about billionaires or those who have simply gamed the system and exploited "illustrious" ancestors.
> 
> There is certainly legitimate income inequality; however, where I see that most clearly is on those very rare level playing fields you don't usually find outside professional athletics.
> It's also worth noting there's a large dose of regulation applied in those arenas.
Click to expand...


And what criteria would you use to decide which incomes are warranted and which aren't? I ask because I've yet to find a system of making such judgments that is _less_ subject to corruption and graft than free markets. Any scheme which centralizes authority over distributing economic power, regardless of whether it's nominally 'democratic' or not, is a _more_ convenient target for those interested in manipulating matters to their own ends.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> George, I want to come back to something we sort of skimmed over earlier. I was hoping to get some insight into whether it's the pure fact of income inequality that you think is wrong, or is it that you think that, in the current state of things, most of that income inequality isn't legitimate. Do you, in fact, think there is such a thing as legitimate income inequality?
> 
> It seems like these questions must be answered before we can address whether there is a problem and how we might fix it if there is.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree this entire thread needs some First Principles.
> I don't have any problem with my doctor or lawyer earning more than I ever did as a blue-collar wage slave for 45 years. IMHO, they likely earned their wealth by virtue of their intelligence and education. I don't feel the same way about billionaires or those who have simply gamed the system and exploited "illustrious" ancestors.
> 
> There is certainly legitimate income inequality; however, where I see that most clearly is on those very rare level playing fields you don't usually find outside professional athletics.
> It's also worth noting there's a large dose of regulation applied in those arenas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what criteria would you use to decide which incomes are warranted and which aren't? I ask because I've yet to find a system of making such judgments that is _less_ subject to corruption and graft than free markets. Any scheme which centralizes authority over distributing economic power, regardless of whether it's nominally 'democratic' or not, is a _more_ convenient target for those interested in manipulating matters to their own ends.
Click to expand...


Markets should be used but when those markets are shown to be favoring one group over another there could definitely be a problem. In the case of the US there is clear favoritism in our trade policies and our tax policies that help lead to markets favoring the capital owners over labor and the upper class over the middle class.


----------



## Iceweasel

georgephillip said:


> Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.


Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.


I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.

taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.
Click to expand...


Don't hate on Reagan like that. He is so dreamy!


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it.
> 
> When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's a bad thing? I guess we can flip it around and say that why he's despised by liberals. Less access to other people's money. The fact is that it worked, GDP went up, not down. Completely opposite of libthink. Now, enough time has passed where new lemmings with no clue are regugitating the deceit of the left.
> Lot's of folks were rich, I doubt they were all friends. Were you alive then? I remember famous actors lampooning him regularly. And visiously. I don't know why they didn't volunteer to pay mnore taxes, perhaps because liberalism and hypocrisy are two sides of the same coin. And again, revenues went up. Look it up instead of relying on spiteful op-ed pieces.
> No, he had to deal with Democrats and the tax rate was much much lower when he left. That's called selective facts. Dishonest but expected from leftwing loons.
> 
> Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act Of 1982 (TEFRA) Definition | Investopedia
> Investopedia explains 'Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act Of 1982 - TEFRA'
> 
> The ERTA was a piece of tax legislation that greatly lowered income tax rates, and all very high rates were given a maximum of 50%. The TEFRA modified aspects of the ERTA which caused concern over potential large budget deficits. *TEFRA increased the tax received* but not the tax rates. This was done by removing some of the tax breaks businesses received in the ERTA, such as the increase in the amount of accelerated depreciation that a company could deduct.
> Source?
> 
> 
> 
> *Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh the irony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.
Click to expand...


Well they are waiting for you to prove that the Constitution authorized higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980's.

.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree this entire thread needs some First Principles.
> I don't have any problem with my doctor or lawyer earning more than I ever did as a blue-collar wage slave for 45 years. IMHO, they likely earned their wealth by virtue of their intelligence and education. I don't feel the same way about billionaires or those who have simply gamed the system and exploited "illustrious" ancestors.
> 
> There is certainly legitimate income inequality; however, where I see that most clearly is on those very rare level playing fields you don't usually find outside professional athletics.
> It's also worth noting there's a large dose of regulation applied in those arenas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what criteria would you use to decide which incomes are warranted and which aren't? I ask because I've yet to find a system of making such judgments that is _less_ subject to corruption and graft than free markets. Any scheme which centralizes authority over distributing economic power, regardless of whether it's nominally 'democratic' or not, is a _more_ convenient target for those interested in manipulating matters to their own ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Markets should be used but when those markets are shown to be favoring one group over another there could definitely be a problem. In the case of the US there is clear favoritism in our trade policies and our tax policies that help lead to markets favoring the capital owners over labor and the upper class over the middle class.
Click to expand...


Which policies?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military spending increases started before Reagan even took office peaking in the mid 80's. Debt spending exploded during this time as receipts couldn't keep up with outlays. Tax cuts and increases in military spending were paid for through debt.
> 
> This is a vastly different approach than responding to falling revenues with austerity.
> 
> You seem impervious to the truth and call education brainwashing.
> 
> 
> 
> I called your education brainwashing. You haven't supported a solitary thing, assertions are not support. How can you pay for tax cuts? And how is it that the INCREASED revenue had nothing to do with growth? You seem impervious to honesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not supported that Reagan used massive increases in debt spending to deal with the economy? Are you denying these facts or just ignorant of them?
> 
> It is hard for me to support something when you simply ignore what has been said.
> 
> Also revenues were decreasing. You keep making crap up and then denying facts that are inconvenient.
Click to expand...


*Also revenues were decreasing. *

Prove it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dragonlady said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> We get it. You hate rich people.
> 
> Stay poor my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't hate rich people you moron.  They hate the inequitable system that currently exists under which wages, benefits and wealth are all rising for the top 5% only.  Wages need to go up for everyone, not just the wealthy.  The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.  Jobs need to be created that pay living wages, not just minimum wage service sector jobs.
> 
> If the poor and middle class, don't start getting a fair shake in wages taxes, the US will turn into a Third World country.  This is the economic legacy of Ronnie Reagan and the Friedman economists.
Click to expand...


*The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.*

They are taxed at a higher rate.
Will your whining end now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What's awful about raising other people's taxes?*
> 
> "Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it.
> 
> When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.
> 
> "As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government.
> 
> "In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.
> 
> "One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.
> 
> "Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class."
> 
> *Surely you're not too stupid to doubt Reagan was anything except a corporate tool (like you)*
> 
> 10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. *
> 
> Prove it. Use facts and numbers, not feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let us see if we agree on some facts and numbers.
> Revenues for the 1980s increased by 99.6%.
> Does that sound factual or sentimental to you?
Click to expand...


Wait, revenues increased in the 1980s?
But you said there was a lack of revenue.
Were you lying, or stupid?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> We get it. You hate rich people.
> 
> Stay poor my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't hate rich people you moron.  They hate the inequitable system that currently exists under which wages, benefits and wealth are all rising for the top 5% only.  Wages need to go up for everyone, not just the wealthy.  The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.  Jobs need to be created that pay living wages, not just minimum wage service sector jobs.
> 
> If the poor and middle class, don't start getting a fair shake in wages taxes, the US will turn into a Third World country.  This is the economic legacy of Ronnie Reagan and the Friedman economists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.*
> 
> They are taxed at a higher rate.
> Will your whining end now?
Click to expand...


Or the rich should pay the same effective rate as the middle class.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

ilia25 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increases in the debt started with the late 80's recessions and increased even more with the 82 recession. A lot of the increase in spending was due to military spending which would establish increased spending levels into the future.
> 
> It was all very effective. Reaganomics worked. I am not sure why people try and act like Reagan didn't use debt spending to help the economy when he so clearly did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If deficit spending was good for the economy, then it should be booming right now, shouldn't it?
> 
> How do all you libturd morons explain the failure of deficit spending to work during the Obama administration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think it didn't work????
> The US would be in a much deeper depression if not for deficit spending.
> 
> And it's not all speculation. First, this is what economics textbook have been saying all along. And, for a change, this time we have experimental results -- in Europe some governments had to cut spending, while others let it grow. And the more a government had to cut spending, the deeper was depression:
Click to expand...


Your chart doesn't prove anything at all.

The reason for that is quite simple, it is unreadable. What is change in G? How does it measure private demand? What period of time is covered?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> We get it. You hate rich people.
> 
> Stay poor my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't hate rich people you moron.  They hate the inequitable system that currently exists under which wages, benefits and wealth are all rising for the top 5% only.  Wages need to go up for everyone, not just the wealthy.  The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.  Jobs need to be created that pay living wages, not just minimum wage service sector jobs.
> 
> If the poor and middle class, don't start getting a fair shake in wages taxes, the US will turn into a Third World country.  This is the economic legacy of Ronnie Reagan and the Friedman economists.
Click to expand...


They hate the government?

Forgive me, but I can't tell.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't hate rich people you moron.  They hate the inequitable system that currently exists under which wages, benefits and wealth are all rising for the top 5% only.  Wages need to go up for everyone, not just the wealthy.  The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.  Jobs need to be created that pay living wages, not just minimum wage service sector jobs.
> 
> If the poor and middle class, don't start getting a fair shake in wages taxes, the US will turn into a Third World country.  This is the economic legacy of Ronnie Reagan and the Friedman economists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.*
> 
> They are taxed at a higher rate.
> Will your whining end now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the rich should pay the same effective rate as the middle class.
Click to expand...


Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
Show me.


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.*
> 
> They are taxed at a higher rate.
> Will your whining end now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the rich should pay the same effective rate as the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
Click to expand...


Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.


----------



## bayoubill

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



folks that put this kinda crap up will insist that the economic pie is a zero-sum equation...

but it ain't... capital is built up and increased by the hard work and sweat of millions of lowly folks workin' their asses off...

'n if you don't know what I'm talkin' about... go take a lesson in basic economics...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the rich should pay the same effective rate as the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
Click to expand...



Poor people with capital gains pay the same rate, but don't let the facts spoil your rant.


----------



## Bombur

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people with capital gains pay the same rate, but don't let the facts spoil your rant.
Click to expand...


Don't worry you didn't.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.*
> 
> They are taxed at a higher rate.
> Will your whining end now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the rich should pay the same effective rate as the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
Click to expand...


All of them.

Last year I paid 3% effective.

Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.

The average middle-class American pay 15% average.


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't hate rich people you moron.  They hate the inequitable system that currently exists under which wages, benefits and wealth are all rising for the top 5% only.  Wages need to go up for everyone, not just the wealthy.  The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.  Jobs need to be created that pay living wages, not just minimum wage service sector jobs.
> 
> If the poor and middle class, don't start getting a fair shake in wages taxes, the US will turn into a Third World country.  This is the economic legacy of Ronnie Reagan and the Friedman economists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.*
> 
> They are taxed at a higher rate.
> Will your whining end now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the rich should pay the same effective rate as the middle class.
Click to expand...


Congress can't vote on an "effective tax rate."  They can only vote on actual tax rates.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the rich should pay the same effective rate as the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
Click to expand...


So you want to raise the tax rate on capital gains to 40%?  

That will do wonders for the economy.


----------



## bayoubill

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the rich should pay the same effective rate as the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
Click to expand...


higher capital-gains taxes only inhibits the capital holders from budging from where they are now... and mebbe moving their money into areas that can create appreciable economic growth...

bujt I 'spect you're too dense to understand what I'm talking about...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people with capital gains pay the same rate, but don't let the facts spoil your rant.
Click to expand...


Poor people with capital gains pay a lower rate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the rich should pay the same effective rate as the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of them.
> 
> Last year I paid 3% effective.
> 
> Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.
> 
> The average middle-class American pay 15% average.
Click to expand...


*Last year I paid 3% effective.*

Show me.

*Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.*

If most of your income is taxed at 15% and you donate millions to charity, your rate would drop below 15% as well.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the rich should pay the same effective rate as the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
Click to expand...


The government already had one bite at that apple( Capital gains).
I've heard this music before. You flaming libs are incensed that you cannot get your sticky hands on capital gains income.
Why is it you feel entitled to take from people that which you have no right?


----------



## thereisnospoon

georgephillip said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about equality of opportunity to share equally in the steadily rising US productivity over the last forty years. If the minimum wage increase during that time period had matched that of the richest 1%, so would all other income quintiles. The richest 1% earned about 8% of US income in the 70s and they earn almost 25% today. Their gain didn't come from working harder or from longer hours; it came from bribing politicians from both parties for favorable tax and trade policies. Had US workers shared proportionally in the productivity gains since the 80s, the richest 1% would have much less and everyone else would have more. Relatively speaking, you can think of it as Economic Democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> Share? There is no "share"....What someone else's income may be is nobody else's business.
> Productivity rises with for example, technology, education and technical training. Productivity is realized when fewer people are required to increase output.
> The most wealthy people are not the stereotypical blue blooded Greenwich CT mansion dwelling people you equate with wealth. The fact is most wealthy people work very hard to earn their wages. They also take the highest risk.
> The one constant is this. Higher education and better training lead to higher wages. It has to be that way.
> BTW, opportunity is EARNED. Not given. Not deserved.
> There are far too many of us who work hard so that we may EARN opportunity to see it given away to those who refuse to make it their business to improve their skill set so that they are in the running for higher pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Where did you get the idea opportunity was something you had to earn, and who have you selected as the judge for deciding who among us deserves opportunity?*
> 
> "op·por·tu·ni·ty noun \&#716;ä-p&#601;r-&#712;tü-n&#601;-t&#275;, -&#712;tyü-\
> : an amount of time or a situation in which something can be done
> plural op·por·tu·ni·ties
> 
> Full Definition of OPPORTUNITY
> 
> 1
> :  a favorable juncture of circumstances <the halt provided an opportunity for rest and refreshment>
> 2
> :  *a good chance for advancement or progress*"
> 
> Opportunity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...


ok....I own a business. I post on line an ad for applicants in my landscaping company. I am looking for a supervisor with a ground applicators license and prefer at least an associates degree in turf management. Plus I prefer at least two years combined supervisory and practical experience.
I get two applicants looking for an opportunity to work for me in a supervisory capacity.
One has no supervisory experience but has a turf degree. The other meets all of the criteria in the ad. The latter by meeting the criteria has EARNED the opportunity to come work for me. While the former has not. Very simple concept. 
By acquiring certain skills, the second applicant EARNED that opportunity.
You object to this concept, why?


----------



## thereisnospoon

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the rich should pay the same effective rate as the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of them.
> 
> Last year I paid 3% effective.
> 
> Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.
> 
> The average middle-class American pay 15% average.
Click to expand...


3%...Despite the fact that you think that is unfair, you certainly kept the money though, didn't you?
BTW, you were for specific people who paid effective rates to which you object.
One other thing...There is no nobility in giving more of your earnings to government.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people with capital gains pay the same rate, but don't let the facts spoil your rant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor people with capital gains pay a lower rate.
Click to expand...


They pay based on the amount of capital gains they earn, just like Warren Buffett.


----------



## ilia25

Quantum Windbag said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If deficit spending was good for the economy, then it should be booming right now, shouldn't it?
> 
> How do all you libturd morons explain the failure of deficit spending to work during the Obama administration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think it didn't work????
> The US would be in a much deeper depression if not for deficit spending.
> 
> And it's not all speculation. First, this is what economics textbook have been saying all along. And, for a change, this time we have experimental results -- in Europe some governments had to cut spending, while others let it grow. And the more a government had to cut spending, the deeper was depression:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your chart doesn't prove anything at all.
> 
> The reason for that is quite simple, it is unreadable. What is change in G? How does it measure private demand? What period of time is covered?
Click to expand...


The chart is only unreadable if you don't want to read it. Change in G, as you might have guessed, is change in the govt. spending. Private demand is measured by private spending, how else?.. And the depression stared in 2008, so i guess it is from that time till now or maybe a year ago -- but it does not really matter, whether these changes happened in 2 years, or in five.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> George, I want to come back to something we sort of skimmed over earlier. I was hoping to get some insight into whether it's the pure fact of income inequality that you think is wrong, or is it that you think that, in the current state of things, most of that income inequality isn't legitimate. Do you, in fact, think there is such a thing as legitimate income inequality?
> 
> It seems like these questions must be answered before we can address whether there is a problem and how we might fix it if there is.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree this entire thread needs some First Principles.
> I don't have any problem with my doctor or lawyer earning more than I ever did as a blue-collar wage slave for 45 years. IMHO, they likely earned their wealth by virtue of their intelligence and education. I don't feel the same way about billionaires or those who have simply gamed the system and exploited "illustrious" ancestors.
> 
> There is certainly legitimate income inequality; however, where I see that most clearly is on those very rare level playing fields you don't usually find outside professional athletics.
> It's also worth noting there's a large dose of regulation applied in those arenas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what criteria would you use to decide which incomes are warranted and which aren't? I ask because I've yet to find a system of making such judgments that is _less_ subject to corruption and graft than free markets. Any scheme which centralizes authority over distributing economic power, regardless of whether it's nominally 'democratic' or not, is a _more_ convenient target for those interested in manipulating matters to their own ends.
Click to expand...

*What are your markets "free" of?
Undue democratic regulations or the undue monopolistic influence of the richest 0.01% of humanity?*

"Social credit is an interdisciplinary distributive philosophy developed by C. H. Douglas (18791952), a British engineer, who wrote a book by that name in 1924. It encompasses the fields of economics, political science, history, accounting, and physics. 

"*Its policies are designed, according to Douglas, to disperse economic and political power to individuals*. 

"Douglas wrote, 'Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man which is self-development, is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic.'"


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree this entire thread needs some First Principles.
> I don't have any problem with my doctor or lawyer earning more than I ever did as a blue-collar wage slave for 45 years. IMHO, they likely earned their wealth by virtue of their intelligence and education. I don't feel the same way about billionaires or those who have simply gamed the system and exploited "illustrious" ancestors.
> 
> There is certainly legitimate income inequality; however, where I see that most clearly is on those very rare level playing fields you don't usually find outside professional athletics.
> It's also worth noting there's a large dose of regulation applied in those arenas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what criteria would you use to decide which incomes are warranted and which aren't? I ask because I've yet to find a system of making such judgments that is _less_ subject to corruption and graft than free markets. Any scheme which centralizes authority over distributing economic power, regardless of whether it's nominally 'democratic' or not, is a _more_ convenient target for those interested in manipulating matters to their own ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What are your markets "free" of?
> Undue democratic regulations or the undue monopolistic influence of the richest 0.01% of humanity?*
Click to expand...


Coercion.

It's not a just means of distributing economic power in my view, regardless of whether it represents the will of the majority. In the end, it's _more_ likely to produce the kind of undue inequities we want to prevent.


----------



## georgephillip

Iceweasel said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.
> 
> 
> I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.
> 
> taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue
Click to expand...

Only ignorant trolls missed how the US spent its way to prosperity between 1941-45.
Command Economy maybe?
Why do you have problems with the words TOTAL REVENUES for the 1980s, which, of course, includes Corporate Ronnie's spike in FICA taxes which essentially shifted the tax burden from the richest individuals to actual workers. I suppose those ethically challenged enough to conflate tax hikes for the majority and tax cuts for the minority might be retarded enough to actually believe TOTAL REVENUE increases in the 80s came from tax cuts.

Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts


----------



## Bombur

bayoubill said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> higher capital-gains taxes only inhibits the capital holders from budging from where they are now... and mebbe moving their money into areas that can create appreciable economic growth...
> 
> bujt I 'spect you're too dense to understand what I'm talking about...
Click to expand...


Taxes on labor impact the labor market too.

Last I checked the labor market has been having issues for decades and the capital market has been fine.


----------



## Bombur

thereisnospoon said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government already had one bite at that apple( Capital gains).
> I've heard this music before. You flaming libs are incensed that you cannot get your sticky hands on capital gains income.
> Why is it you feel entitled to take from people that which you have no right?
Click to expand...


Labor faces multiple layers of taxation too. 

If your main complaint is with the corp tax then have at it. I am not a fan of it myself.


----------



## asaratis

georgephillip said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...

Do you have any grasp whatsoever on the history of civilization?  We have come from the days of Royal Families and tax -paying serfs to the day that a black community organizer can be elected President.

You want income equality?  You want communism!

You want to see what communism does to a country?  Look at Cuba and North Korea.

Democracy and capitalism have created the Middle Class, those hardworking people who strive to be rich by employing the poor and paying them for their WORK.

Take away the incentive (profits of capitalism) and you regress to serfdom, widespread poverty and starvation.

Your ideology is flawed.


----------



## Bombur

asaratis said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any grasp whatsoever on the history of civilization?  We have come from the days of Royal Families and tax -paying serfs to the day that a black community organizer can be elected President.
> 
> You want income equality?  You want communism!
> 
> You want to see what communism does to a country?  Look at Cuba and North Korea.
> 
> Democracy and capitalism have created the Middle Class, those hardworking people who strive to be rich by employing the poor and paying them for their WORK.
> 
> Take away the incentive (profits of capitalism) and you regress to serfdom, widespread poverty and starvation.
> 
> Your ideology is flawed.
Click to expand...


Capitalism has been great because it moved us away from a system where those who owned the means of production had all the power. Capitalism can move us back to that reality if we are not careful. Capitalism has no intent and no guarantees and people will rise up against it if they feel they are getting a raw deal.


----------



## gipper

georgephillip said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.
> 
> 
> I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.
> 
> taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only ignorant trolls missed how the US spent its way to prosperity between 1941-45.
> Command Economy maybe?
> Why do you have problems with the words TOTAL REVENUES for the 1980s, which, of course, includes Corporate Ronnie's spike in FICA taxes which essentially shifted the tax burden from the richest individuals to actual workers. I suppose those ethically challenged enough to conflate tax hikes for the majority and tax cuts for the minority might be retarded enough to actually believe TOTAL REVENUE increases in the 80s came from tax cuts.
> 
> Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts
Click to expand...


Here is another book you should consider reading.


> Whether its Michael Moore or the New York Times, Hollywood or academia, a growing segment in America is waging a war on capitalism. We hear that greedy plutocrats exploit the American public; that capitalism harms consumers, the working class, and the environment; that the government needs to rein in capitalism; and on and on. Anticapitalist critiques have only grown more fevered in the wake of corporate scandals like Enron and WorldCom. Indeed, the 2004 presidential campaign has brought frequent calls to re-regulate the American economy.
> 
> But the anticapitalist arguments are pure bunk, as Thomas J. DiLorenzo reveals in How Capitalism Saved America. DiLorenzo, a professor of economics, shows how capitalism has made America the most prosperous nation on earthand how the sort of government regulation that politicians and pundits endorse has hindered economic growth, caused higher unemployment, raised prices, and created many other problems. He propels the reader along with a fresh and compelling look at critical events in American historycovering everything from the Pilgrims to Bill Gates.


----------



## RKMBrown

georgephillip said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. *
> 
> Prove it. Use facts and numbers, not feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could've sworn remembering tax revenue skyrocketing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you remember about the FICA tax rate in the 1980s?
Click to expand...


FICA tax is not Income Tax.  Two different animals so not even remotely associated with the issue being discussed.  With regard to SS we didn't have many choices the prior generations had already screwed future generations so the rates had to go up for that system to pay for the retired folks to get their discounted SS checks.


----------



## RKMBrown

georgephillip said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.
> 
> 
> I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.
> 
> taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only ignorant trolls missed how the US spent its way to prosperity between 1941-45.
> Command Economy maybe?
> Why do you have problems with the words TOTAL REVENUES for the 1980s, which, of course, includes Corporate Ronnie's spike in FICA taxes which essentially shifted the tax burden from the richest individuals to actual workers. I suppose those ethically challenged enough to conflate tax hikes for the majority and tax cuts for the minority might be retarded enough to actually believe TOTAL REVENUE increases in the 80s came from tax cuts.
> 
> Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts
Click to expand...

You are confused.  Your teachers failed you in a serious way.  WWII saw the destruction of European production.  American production benefited from said destruction.  It was a world war economy in which we benefited economically.  Giving credit for said benefits to the economic policy is ludicrous.  Any policy would have worked.


----------



## Darkwind

And yet, not a one of you bastards can come up with a better system.


----------



## ilia25

Iceweasel said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.
> 
> 
> I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.
> 
> taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue
Click to expand...


Look at your chart again. It is truncated to demonstrate your point, but even so it shows that revenues had dropped once the taxes were cut and remained depressed ever since -- they never returned to the pre-Reagan trend.

Yes the tax revenues eventually started to rise thanks to inflation and growing economy. But they remained lower than they would be if not for the tax cuts. And that lead to the biggest expansion in government deficit in the post-war history.

BTW, it was George H. W. Bush who called it voodoo economics, and it turned out this way.


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people with capital gains pay the same rate, but don't let the facts spoil your rant.
Click to expand...


Effective is one of those "adjectives" that libtards like to use to show how life isn't fair.  First they argue for progressive income taxes and vote for separate taxes for different types of income. Then they argue what they built sucks because it means not everyone pays the same tax rates on all types of income.  It's nutz.  I don't think it's possible to please a libtard.  We could give them all of everyone assets and income and they would still bitch it's not enough.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people with capital gains pay the same rate, but don't let the facts spoil your rant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Effective is one of those "adjectives" that libtards like to use to show how life isn't fair.  First they argue for progressive income taxes and vote for separate taxes for different types of income. Then they argue what they built sucks because it means not everyone pays the same tax rates on all types of income.  It's nutz.  I don't think it's possible to please a libtard.  We could give them all of everyone assets and income and they would still bitch it's not enough.
Click to expand...


People use the term "effective" rate because stupid people often assume the highest marginal rate is the effective rate.


----------



## Doubletap

&#8220;Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. &#8221;
&#8213; Ayn Rand


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.
> 
> 
> I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.
> 
> taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at your chart again. It is truncated to demonstrate your point, but even so it shows that revenues had dropped once the taxes were cut and remained depressed ever since -- they never returned to the pre-Reagan trend.
> 
> Yes the tax revenues eventually started to rise thanks to inflation and growing economy. But they remained lower than they would be if not for the tax cuts. And that lead to the biggest expansion in government deficit in the post-war history.
> 
> BTW, it was George H. W. Bush who called it voodoo economics, and it turned out this way.
Click to expand...


Uhmmm the chart says "inflation adjusted." It's on the frigging chart.  Thus takes into effect inflation.  Thus does not show inflation.  It shows increase in revenue in spite of inflation not because of inflation.  The chart shows revenue going up as tax rates go down.  Duh.

Granted that does not necessarily mean revenue went up "because" rates went down.  

The mistake libtards, like you, make is not understanding that humans are good at avoiding high tax rates.


----------



## Indeependent

Doubletap said:


> Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. 
> &#8213; Ayn Rand



I agree...disband our military...NOW!


----------



## Bombur

Indeependent said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. 
> &#8213; Ayn Rand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree...disband our military...NOW!
Click to expand...


Ayn Rand is great for horribly stupid quotes. Hopefully he posts some more. How about that one about owning the sweat off your brow or whatever.


----------



## Indeependent

Bombur said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. 
> &#8213; Ayn Rand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree...disband our military...NOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is great for horribly stupid quotes. Hopefully he posts some more. How about that one about owning the sweat off your brow or whatever.
Click to expand...


There's nothing more dangerous than a Jewish atheist.


----------



## RKMBrown

Indeependent said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. 
> &#8213; Ayn Rand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree...disband our military...NOW!
Click to expand...


Why disband our military?  Some force is required to defend the country, dumb ass.


----------



## Bombur

Indeependent said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree...disband our military...NOW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is great for horribly stupid quotes. Hopefully he posts some more. How about that one about owning the sweat off your brow or whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing more dangerous than a Jewish atheist.
Click to expand...


My great grandfather was a Jewish atheist. He wasn't that dangerous.


----------



## RKMBrown

thereisnospoon said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government already had one bite at that apple( Capital gains).
> I've heard this music before. You flaming libs are incensed that you cannot get your sticky hands on capital gains income.
> Why is it you feel entitled to take from people that which you have no right?
Click to expand...


Actually the libtards made capital gains progressive and the republicans caved to it.

2014:


> Capital Gains tax rates vary depending on whether the gains are short-term or long-term.
> 
> Short-term gains taxed at ordinary income tax rates.
> 
> Long-term gains and qualified dividends taxed at
> 
> 0% if taxable income falls in the 10% or 15% marginal tax brackets
> 15% if taxable income falls in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% marginal tax brackets
> 20% if taxable income falls in the 39.6% marginal tax bracket
> 25% on Depreciation Recapture
> 28% on Collectibles
> 28% on qualified small business stock after exclusion



So the libtards will have to shut the eff up now.  Course they will just talk about years past.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government already had one bite at that apple( Capital gains).
> I've heard this music before. You flaming libs are incensed that you cannot get your sticky hands on capital gains income.
> Why is it you feel entitled to take from people that which you have no right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the libtards made capital gains progressive and the republicans caved to it.
> 
> 2014:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital Gains tax rates vary depending on whether the gains are short-term or long-term.
> 
> Short-term gains taxed at ordinary income tax rates.
> 
> Long-term gains and qualified dividends taxed at
> 
> 0% if taxable income falls in the 10% or 15% marginal tax brackets
> 15% if taxable income falls in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% marginal tax brackets
> 20% if taxable income falls in the 39.6% marginal tax bracket
> 25% on Depreciation Recapture
> 28% on Collectibles
> 28% on qualified small business stock after exclusion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the libtards will have to shut the eff up now.  Course they will just talk about years past.
Click to expand...


So capital gains taxes are less. 

Were you going to make an argument or do you regularly post facts that support the other side and then claim victory?


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government already had one bite at that apple( Capital gains).
> I've heard this music before. You flaming libs are incensed that you cannot get your sticky hands on capital gains income.
> Why is it you feel entitled to take from people that which you have no right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the libtards made capital gains progressive and the republicans caved to it.
> 
> 2014:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital Gains tax rates vary depending on whether the gains are short-term or long-term.
> 
> Short-term gains taxed at ordinary income tax rates.
> 
> Long-term gains and qualified dividends taxed at
> 
> 0% if taxable income falls in the 10% or 15% marginal tax brackets
> 15% if taxable income falls in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% marginal tax brackets
> 20% if taxable income falls in the 39.6% marginal tax bracket
> 25% on Depreciation Recapture
> 28% on Collectibles
> 28% on qualified small business stock after exclusion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the libtards will have to shut the eff up now.  Course they will just talk about years past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So capital gains taxes are less.
> 
> Were you going to make an argument or do you regularly post facts that support the other side and then claim victory?
Click to expand...


You lost me.  How is 0% greater than 15%?  How is 15% greater than 20%?  

Huh?  The richer folk got a 33% increase in tax rates on capital gains, the folks with low income were given a 100% decrease in taxes for capital gains.  And your response is capital gains taxes are less.  HUH?  Less only for the poor, more for the rich, and the same for the middle.

Libtard math is infuriating.

What we need to fix is this IDIOTIC PASSION LIBTARDS HAVE FOR SCREWING OVER THE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS.


----------



## KevinWestern

RKMBrown said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. &#8221;
> &#8213; Ayn Rand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree...disband our military...NOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why disband our military?  Some force is required to defend the country, dumb ass.
Click to expand...


Probably could scale it back a bit though. We spent over $3,000,000,000,000 conquering and then rebuilding Iraq? Was that really necessary?   

I'm sure those tax dollars of ours made a whole lot of private entities very, very rich. Again, I chalk it up to Crony Capitalism.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the libtards made capital gains progressive and the republicans caved to it.
> 
> 2014:
> 
> 
> So the libtards will have to shut the eff up now.  Course they will just talk about years past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So capital gains taxes are less.
> 
> Were you going to make an argument or do you regularly post facts that support the other side and then claim victory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost me.  How is 0% greater than 15%?  How is 15% greater than 20%?
> 
> Huh?  The richer folk got a 33% increase in tax rates on capital gains, the folks with low income were given a 100% decrease in taxes for capital gains.  And your response is capital gains taxes are less.  HUH?  Less only for the poor, more for the rich, and the same for the middle.
> 
> Libtard math is infuriating.
> 
> What we need to fix is this IDIOTIC PASSION LIBTARDS HAVE FOR SCREWING OVER THE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS.
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is that we have to have lower effective tax rates on the rich and wealthy because WTF KNOWS BECAUSE YOUR POSTS DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE EVEN WHEN YOU USE ALL CAPS randomly.


----------



## RKMBrown

KevinWestern said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree...disband our military...NOW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why disband our military?  Some force is required to defend the country, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably could scale it back a bit though. We spent over $3,000,000,000,000 conquering and then rebuilding Iraq? Was that really necessary?
> 
> I'm sure those tax dollars of ours made a whole lot of private entities very, very rich. Again, I chalk it up to Crony Capitalism.
Click to expand...


I see no reason whatsoever for our military to be conquering and occupying half the planet.  IMO we should pull back from our on going world wide military occupation strategy employed at the end of WWII. 

That said, where did you get the figure for 3t spent just on iraq? Damn that's a lot.  I have my doubts. Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## freedombecki

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*


I'd rather be unequal than not here.

 Communism is a parasitic scheme. It eats the host, then perishes because there's no more food after the host has been fully digested and brought to total desecration. It gets one full lunch, then nothing but hunger follows because every promise they made, they died before they could keep it, and 4 generations later it was a matter of dog eat dog.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why disband our military?  Some force is required to defend the country, dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably could scale it back a bit though. We spent over $3,000,000,000,000 conquering and then rebuilding Iraq? Was that really necessary?
> 
> I'm sure those tax dollars of ours made a whole lot of private entities very, very rich. Again, I chalk it up to Crony Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no reason whatsoever for our military to be conquering and occupying half the planet.  IMO we should pull back from our on going world wide military occupation strategy employed at the end of WWII.
> 
> That said, where did you get the figure for 3t spent just on iraq? Damn that's a lot.  I have my doubts. Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


It's a case of both sides manipulating the numbers to get the implication they want.

The $1T number is based on direct cost in the Middle East.

The higher numbers include all back end support.  The problem with that is they are including the cost of anything that supported Iraq, including money that would have been spent anyway.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> So capital gains taxes are less.
> 
> Were you going to make an argument or do you regularly post facts that support the other side and then claim victory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me.  How is 0% greater than 15%?  How is 15% greater than 20%?
> 
> Huh?  The richer folk got a 33% increase in tax rates on capital gains, the folks with low income were given a 100% decrease in taxes for capital gains.  And your response is capital gains taxes are less.  HUH?  Less only for the poor, more for the rich, and the same for the middle.
> 
> Libtard math is infuriating.
> 
> What we need to fix is this IDIOTIC PASSION LIBTARDS HAVE FOR SCREWING OVER THE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that we have to have lower effective tax rates on the rich and wealthy because WTF KNOWS BECAUSE YOUR POSTS DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE EVEN WHEN YOU USE ALL CAPS randomly.
Click to expand...


Libtards are so stupid. What I'm saying, dumb ass, is that tax rates should not punish people for earning more money, Increasing the amount we tax people simply because they earn more is outlandish.  Stealing from the working class to pay the poor to sit on their fat asses pisses me off.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me.  How is 0% greater than 15%?  How is 15% greater than 20%?
> 
> Huh?  The richer folk got a 33% increase in tax rates on capital gains, the folks with low income were given a 100% decrease in taxes for capital gains.  And your response is capital gains taxes are less.  HUH?  Less only for the poor, more for the rich, and the same for the middle.
> 
> Libtard math is infuriating.
> 
> What we need to fix is this IDIOTIC PASSION LIBTARDS HAVE FOR SCREWING OVER THE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that we have to have lower effective tax rates on the rich and wealthy because WTF KNOWS BECAUSE YOUR POSTS DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE EVEN WHEN YOU USE ALL CAPS randomly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libtards are so stupid. What I'm saying, dumb ass, is that tax rates should not punish people for earning more money, Increasing the amount we tax people simply because they earn more is outlandish.  Stealing from the working class to pay the poor to sit on their fat asses pisses me off.
Click to expand...


You don't believe in progressive taxation? It is based on having people pay taxes based on what they can afford to pay and based on how much they have benefited from society. 

Calling taxation stealing is pretty stupid.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably could scale it back a bit though. We spent over $3,000,000,000,000 conquering and then rebuilding Iraq? Was that really necessary?
> 
> I'm sure those tax dollars of ours made a whole lot of private entities very, very rich. Again, I chalk it up to Crony Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason whatsoever for our military to be conquering and occupying half the planet.  IMO we should pull back from our on going world wide military occupation strategy employed at the end of WWII.
> 
> That said, where did you get the figure for 3t spent just on iraq? Damn that's a lot.  I have my doubts. Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a case of both sides manipulating the numbers to get the implication they want.
> 
> The $1T number is based on direct cost in the Middle East.
> 
> The higher numbers include all back end support.  The problem with that is they are including the cost of anything that supported Iraq, including money that would have been spent anyway.
Click to expand...


Yeah well.. while I applaud our fighting men, I despise the colonial like strategy we've been employing ever since the germans, japaneese and brits dropped the ball on their attempts to conquer the planet.  You'd think we would have learned something.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that we have to have lower effective tax rates on the rich and wealthy because WTF KNOWS BECAUSE YOUR POSTS DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE EVEN WHEN YOU USE ALL CAPS randomly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libtards are so stupid. What I'm saying, dumb ass, is that tax rates should not punish people for earning more money, Increasing the amount we tax people simply because they earn more is outlandish.  Stealing from the working class to pay the poor to sit on their fat asses pisses me off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't believe in progressive taxation? It is based on having people pay taxes based on what they can afford to pay and based on how much they have benefited from society.
> 
> Calling taxation stealing is pretty stupid.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not a follower of Marx, so I don't believe in progressive taxation. 

When I'm forced to pay 30% tax and my neighbor pays 0% tax, and receives checks from the government from my frigging income... Ayup that's stealing.  Using a middle man to do it does not make it right.


----------



## KevinWestern

RKMBrown said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why disband our military?  Some force is required to defend the country, dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably could scale it back a bit though. We spent over $3,000,000,000,000 conquering and then rebuilding Iraq? Was that really necessary?
> 
> I'm sure those tax dollars of ours made a whole lot of private entities very, very rich. Again, I chalk it up to Crony Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no reason whatsoever for our military to be conquering and occupying half the planet.  IMO we should pull back from our on going world wide military occupation strategy employed at the end of WWII.
> 
> That said, where did you get the figure for 3t spent just on iraq? Damn that's a lot.  I have my doubts. Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Got it from a newspaper awhile back. Here's another source:
Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion - The Washington Post

$4-$6 Trillion for Iraq/Afghanistan!


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason whatsoever for our military to be conquering and occupying half the planet.  IMO we should pull back from our on going world wide military occupation strategy employed at the end of WWII.
> 
> That said, where did you get the figure for 3t spent just on iraq? Damn that's a lot.  I have my doubts. Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a case of both sides manipulating the numbers to get the implication they want.
> 
> The $1T number is based on direct cost in the Middle East.
> 
> The higher numbers include all back end support.  The problem with that is they are including the cost of anything that supported Iraq, including money that would have been spent anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well.. while I applaud our fighting men, I despise the colonial like strategy we've been employing ever since the germans, japaneese and brits dropped the ball on their attempts to conquer the planet.  You'd think we would have learned something.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm sure you remember from our being in many discussions of these topics that I am opposed to our presence in the middle east entirely, much less fighting other people's wars for them.

I was just commenting on the money calculation.


----------



## RKMBrown

KevinWestern said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably could scale it back a bit though. We spent over $3,000,000,000,000 conquering and then rebuilding Iraq? Was that really necessary?
> 
> I'm sure those tax dollars of ours made a whole lot of private entities very, very rich. Again, I chalk it up to Crony Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason whatsoever for our military to be conquering and occupying half the planet.  IMO we should pull back from our on going world wide military occupation strategy employed at the end of WWII.
> 
> That said, where did you get the figure for 3t spent just on iraq? Damn that's a lot.  I have my doubts. Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it from a newspaper awhile back. Here's another source:
> Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion - The Washington Post
> 
> $4-$6 Trillion for Iraq/Afghanistan!
Click to expand...


I see so what you mean to say is college folk have argued that the human cost of the iraq war over the coming decades could raise the theoretical cost of the iraq war to as much as 3-4trillion based on estimates of lost potential income and further estimates of health care costs for veterans.   Thus not "what we spent" on the Iraq War but rather what it may mean to us financially over time, this assuming war veterans will be incapable of working behind a desk. Nudge


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a case of both sides manipulating the numbers to get the implication they want.
> 
> The $1T number is based on direct cost in the Middle East.
> 
> The higher numbers include all back end support.  The problem with that is they are including the cost of anything that supported Iraq, including money that would have been spent anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well.. while I applaud our fighting men, I despise the colonial like strategy we've been employing ever since the germans, japaneese and brits dropped the ball on their attempts to conquer the planet.  You'd think we would have learned something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure you remember from our being in many discussions of these topics that I am opposed to our presence in the middle east entirely, much less fighting other people's wars for them.
> 
> I was just commenting on the money calculation.
Click to expand...


 I know.. and I was just clarifying what I meant.  Did not want anyone to take my points as meaning I don't support the troops.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.
> 
> 
> I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.
> 
> taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at your chart again. It is truncated to demonstrate your point, but even so it shows that revenues had dropped once the taxes were cut and remained depressed ever since -- they never returned to the pre-Reagan trend.
> 
> Yes the tax revenues eventually started to rise thanks to inflation and growing economy. But they remained lower than they would be if not for the tax cuts. And that lead to the biggest expansion in government deficit in the post-war history.
> 
> BTW, it was George H. W. Bush who called it voodoo economics, and it turned out this way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhmmm the chart says "inflation adjusted." It's on the frigging chart.  Thus takes into effect inflation.  Thus does not show inflation.  It shows increase in revenue in spite of inflation not because of inflation.  The chart shows revenue going up as tax rates go down.  Duh.
Click to expand...


OK, it is is inflation adjusted, but the point remains -- the increased revenue reflect economic growth. But they remained below pre-Reagan trend and never recovered from the tax cuts.



> The mistake libtards, like you, make is not understanding that humans are good at avoiding high tax rates.



LOL, tell it to IRS! "Humans" are good at avoiding high taxes only when they are provided with suitable loopholes. Eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved. Sure there were a few morons, like Leona "Only the little people pay taxes" Helmsley, but once they end up in jail, others start to see the light.


----------



## ilia25

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at your chart again. It is truncated to demonstrate your point, but even so it shows that revenues had dropped once the taxes were cut and remained depressed ever since -- they never returned to the pre-Reagan trend.
> 
> Yes the tax revenues eventually started to rise thanks to inflation and growing economy. But they remained lower than they would be if not for the tax cuts. And that lead to the biggest expansion in government deficit in the post-war history.
> 
> BTW, it was George H. W. Bush who called it voodoo economics, and it turned out this way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhmmm the chart says "inflation adjusted." It's on the frigging chart.  Thus takes into effect inflation.  Thus does not show inflation.  It shows increase in revenue in spite of inflation not because of inflation.  The chart shows revenue going up as tax rates go down.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, it is is inflation adjusted, but the point remains -- the increased revenue reflect economic growth. But they remained below pre-Reagan trend and never recovered from the tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake libtards, like you, make is not understanding that humans are good at avoiding high tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, tell it to IRS! "Humans" are good at avoiding high taxes only when they are provided with suitable loopholes. Eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved. Sure there were a few morons, like Leona "Only the little people pay taxes" Helmsley, but once they end up in jail, others start to see the light.
Click to expand...


And here is what happen if you don't truncate the graph:






You can clearly see that the tax revenues never recovered to the pre-cuts trend (shown in red) and they are the source of the record Reagan era deficits.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well.. while I applaud our fighting men, I despise the colonial like strategy we've been employing ever since the germans, japaneese and brits dropped the ball on their attempts to conquer the planet.  You'd think we would have learned something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure you remember from our being in many discussions of these topics that I am opposed to our presence in the middle east entirely, much less fighting other people's wars for them.
> 
> I was just commenting on the money calculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.. and I was just clarifying what I meant.  Did not want anyone to take my points as meaning I don't support the troops.
Click to expand...


Fair enough.  The middle east is a failure of politicians, not our troops.  My brother (Navy) and cousin (Air Force) have fought in Iraq and my niece (Army) and her husband (Army) in Afghanistan.  They have done a great job with what they were asked to do.


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at your chart again. It is truncated to demonstrate your point, but even so it shows that revenues had dropped once the taxes were cut and remained depressed ever since -- they never returned to the pre-Reagan trend.
> 
> Yes the tax revenues eventually started to rise thanks to inflation and growing economy. But they remained lower than they would be if not for the tax cuts. And that lead to the biggest expansion in government deficit in the post-war history.
> 
> BTW, it was George H. W. Bush who called it voodoo economics, and it turned out this way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhmmm the chart says "inflation adjusted." It's on the frigging chart.  Thus takes into effect inflation.  Thus does not show inflation.  It shows increase in revenue in spite of inflation not because of inflation.  The chart shows revenue going up as tax rates go down.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, it is is inflation adjusted, but the point remains -- the increased revenue reflect economic growth. But they remained below pre-Reagan trend and never recovered from the tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake libtards, like you, make is not understanding that humans are good at avoiding high tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, tell it to IRS! "Humans" are good at avoiding high taxes only when they are provided with suitable loopholes. Eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved. Sure there were a few morons, like Leona "Only the little people pay taxes" Helmsley, but once they end up in jail, others start to see the light.
Click to expand...


"The increased revenue reflect economic growth..." Uhm yeah that's the point, lower tax rates and you generate economic growth.

Then you say "they remained below pre-reagan trend."  Huh? Where is anything to do with pre-reagan shown on that chart?  What trend? Economic growth, Tax Revenue? Can you not see the revenue per capita "after" inflation has been adjusted going up to higher than at the start of reagan on that chart?  What planet were you on back in the 70s?  My memory was of America in Decline pre-reagan, sort of like it's been under Obama's reign of terror. 

Then you say all we have to do is "eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved." ROFL
Rich folk don't need loopholes. Take all the loopholes out of income tax and the solution is, fine I won't take any income.  This is not rocket science.  Why would a rich man pay himself income from his business when most of that money is gonna be taken by the government?  In the good ole days of high income tax rates the rich had company cars, planes, homes, parties etc.  They didn't need high income.  Further, we live in an international economy, there's nothing tying a rich man down to the states, they can come and go where they please sheltering their income on an island in the atlantic is a time honored tradition of the rich.


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhmmm the chart says "inflation adjusted." It's on the frigging chart.  Thus takes into effect inflation.  Thus does not show inflation.  It shows increase in revenue in spite of inflation not because of inflation.  The chart shows revenue going up as tax rates go down.  Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, it is is inflation adjusted, but the point remains -- the increased revenue reflect economic growth. But they remained below pre-Reagan trend and never recovered from the tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake libtards, like you, make is not understanding that humans are good at avoiding high tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, tell it to IRS! "Humans" are good at avoiding high taxes only when they are provided with suitable loopholes. Eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved. Sure there were a few morons, like Leona "Only the little people pay taxes" Helmsley, but once they end up in jail, others start to see the light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here is what happen if you don't truncate the graph:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can clearly see that the tax revenues never recovered to the pre-cuts trend (shown in red) and they are the source of the record Reagan era deficits.
Click to expand...


ROFL nice hockey stick there Mr. Gore.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhmmm the chart says "inflation adjusted." It's on the frigging chart.  Thus takes into effect inflation.  Thus does not show inflation.  It shows increase in revenue in spite of inflation not because of inflation.  The chart shows revenue going up as tax rates go down.  Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, it is is inflation adjusted, but the point remains -- the increased revenue reflect economic growth. But they remained below pre-Reagan trend and never recovered from the tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake libtards, like you, make is not understanding that humans are good at avoiding high tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, tell it to IRS! "Humans" are good at avoiding high taxes only when they are provided with suitable loopholes. Eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved. Sure there were a few morons, like Leona "Only the little people pay taxes" Helmsley, but once they end up in jail, others start to see the light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The increased revenue reflect economic growth..." Uhm yeah that's the point, lower tax rates and you generate economic growth.
Click to expand...


Yeah, right, like the economy was never growing before St. Reagan.. It always does, saving short periods when it was in recession.



> Then you say "they remained below pre-reagan trend."  Huh? Where is anything to do with pre-reagan shown on that chart?  What trend? Economic growth, Tax Revenue?



Tax revenue trend of course, and the chart shows a little bit of pre-Reagan trend. I just made another one that shows more.




> Can you not see the revenue per capita "after" inflation has been adjusted going up to higher than at the start of reagan on that chart?



Because with time the economy grew sufficiently for revenues to rise. But they never returned back to the trend, they remained depressed because of the tax cuts.



> Then you say all we have to do is "eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved." ROFL
> Rich folk don't need loopholes. Take all the loopholes out of income tax and the solution is, fine I won't take any income.  This is not rocket science.



That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, it is is inflation adjusted, but the point remains -- the increased revenue reflect economic growth. But they remained below pre-Reagan trend and never recovered from the tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, tell it to IRS! "Humans" are good at avoiding high taxes only when they are provided with suitable loopholes. Eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved. Sure there were a few morons, like Leona "Only the little people pay taxes" Helmsley, but once they end up in jail, others start to see the light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is what happen if you don't truncate the graph:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can clearly see that the tax revenues never recovered to the pre-cuts trend (shown in red) and they are the source of the record Reagan era deficits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL nice hockey stick there Mr. Gore.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about?..


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, it is is inflation adjusted, but the point remains -- the increased revenue reflect economic growth. But they remained below pre-Reagan trend and never recovered from the tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, tell it to IRS! "Humans" are good at avoiding high taxes only when they are provided with suitable loopholes. Eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved. Sure there were a few morons, like Leona "Only the little people pay taxes" Helmsley, but once they end up in jail, others start to see the light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The increased revenue reflect economic growth..." Uhm yeah that's the point, lower tax rates and you generate economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, right, like the economy was never growing before St. Reagan.. It always does, saving short periods when it was in recession.
> 
> 
> 
> Tax revenue trend of course, and the chart shows a little bit of pre-Reagan trend. I just made another one that shows more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you not see the revenue per capita "after" inflation has been adjusted going up to higher than at the start of reagan on that chart?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because with time the economy grew sufficiently for revenues to rise. But they never returned back to the trend, they remained depressed because of the tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you say all we have to do is "eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved." ROFL
> Rich folk don't need loopholes. Take all the loopholes out of income tax and the solution is, fine I won't take any income.  This is not rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
Click to expand...


Where did I say anything about working less?  Are you retarded?


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The increased revenue reflect economic growth..." Uhm yeah that's the point, lower tax rates and you generate economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right, like the economy was never growing before St. Reagan.. It always does, saving short periods when it was in recession.
> 
> 
> 
> Tax revenue trend of course, and the chart shows a little bit of pre-Reagan trend. I just made another one that shows more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because with time the economy grew sufficiently for revenues to rise. But they never returned back to the trend, they remained depressed because of the tax cuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you say all we have to do is "eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved." ROFL
> Rich folk don't need loopholes. Take all the loopholes out of income tax and the solution is, fine I won't take any income.  This is not rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say anything about working less?  Are you retarded?
Click to expand...


Company home, are you kidding? Don't you think IRS can deal with that too? Unless the guy would prefer to actually live in a real office, his ass would be busted. Same for cars, etc.


----------



## P@triot

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you say all we have to do is "eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved." ROFL
> Rich folk don't need loopholes. Take all the loopholes out of income tax and the solution is, fine I won't take any income.  This is not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
Click to expand...


The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources... 

Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News

Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013

5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News


----------



## itfitzme

You might want to look at it per capita as well.  The economy grows on simple population growth.  

Also missing is the outlays, especially the discretionary.  Non-descresionary funds are deficit neutral.  

The only way to conclude that tax rate changes affected output is by ignoring deficit spending.


----------



## itfitzme

Rottweiler said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you say all we have to do is "eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved." ROFL
> Rich folk don't need loopholes. Take all the loopholes out of income tax and the solution is, fine I won't take any income.  This is not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
Click to expand...


5 people..... anechdotal and meaningless.


----------



## itfitzme

Rottweiler said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you say all we have to do is "eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved." ROFL
> Rich folk don't need loopholes. Take all the loopholes out of income tax and the solution is, fine I won't take any income.  This is not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
Click to expand...


5 people..... anechdotal and meaningless.  Kinda like "4 out ot 5 dentists surveyed prefer.."  You know how they get that, they keep surveying until they do.

"Proof" isn't a strong characteristic here.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?*


*

God Bless America, that is truly outstanding.  BTW, in a free country, opportunity is equal.  In a socialist one, the poverty results are.  Well, except for your political leaders who are fabulously wealthy.*


----------



## itfitzme

Rottweiler said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you say all we have to do is "eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved." ROFL
> Rich folk don't need loopholes. Take all the loopholes out of income tax and the solution is, fine I won't take any income.  This is not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
Click to expand...


One problem of "lazy Dumbocrat " is that states that are predominately Democrat produce more gross state output than the Republican states.  2/3rd of the GDP is from the Democrat states.


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One problem of "lazy Dumbocrat " is that states that are predominately Democrat produce more gross state output than the Republican states.  2/3rd of the GDP is from the Democrat states.
Click to expand...


There are liars, dirty liars and statisticians....


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One problem of "lazy Dumbocrat " is that states that are predominately Democrat produce more gross state output than the Republican states.  2/3rd of the GDP is from the Democrat states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are liars, dirty liars and statisticians....
Click to expand...


There are facts and there are idiots that don't know how to count.


----------



## itfitzme

Rottweiler said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you say all we have to do is "eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved." ROFL
> Rich folk don't need loopholes. Take all the loopholes out of income tax and the solution is, fine I won't take any income.  This is not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
Click to expand...


So of;

" 1,800 people to renounce U.S. citizenship or give up their green cards in the first half of 2013. In the second quarter alone, there were 1,130 renunciations according to government data -- more than the 932 recorded for all of last year."

Five left to avoid paying taxes.

That would be what?  5/(2845) or .2%.


----------



## P@triot

itfitzme said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One problem of "lazy Dumbocrat " is that states that are predominately Democrat produce more gross state output than the Republican states.  2/3rd of the GDP is from the Democrat states.
Click to expand...


Oh really? You mean, like Detroit? 

I know, I know - you're going to attempt to cover the epic Dumbocrat failure by claiming "Detroit is not a state" (as if that somehow excuses the Dumbocrats bankrupting that city into a 3rd world country shit-hole). Well, then how about California? What are they, $70 billion in debt now? Yeah - sure are "producing" there!


----------



## Iceweasel

itfitzme said:


> One problem of "lazy Dumbocrat " is that states that are predominately Democrat produce more gross state output than the Republican states.  2/3rd of the GDP is from the Democrat states.


It couldn't by chance has anything to do with population density?


----------



## itfitzme

Rottweiler said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One problem of "lazy Dumbocrat " is that states that are predominately Democrat produce more gross state output than the Republican states.  2/3rd of the GDP is from the Democrat states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really? You mean, like Detroit?
> 
> I know, I know - you're going to attempt to cover the epic Dumbocrat failure by claiming "Detroit is not a state" (as if that somehow excuses the Dumbocrats bankrupting that city into a 3rd world country shit-hole). Well, then how about California? What are they, $70 billion in debt now? Yeah - sure are "producing" there!
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with anything?  GSP is GSP.

Are you stupid?

"As of 2009, there was $50.7 trillion of debt owed by US households, businesses, and governments,"  ...  So, total business and households would be what?  About $40 Trillion.  

So, again, what does that have to do with gross state output and GNP?

Oh, here is a though..... investment.


----------



## P@triot

itfitzme said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5 people..... anechdotal and meaningless.
Click to expand...




Vintage Dumbocrat.... if you can't deny it, scream "racism", "strawman", or "anecdotal".

This is the REAL world junior. This is what is actually happening. You're inability to accept *reality* over skewed libtard Ivy League "studies" is not my problem.

Game. Set. Match.


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So of;
> 
> " 1,800 people to renounce U.S. citizenship or give up their green cards in the first half of 2013. In the second quarter alone, there were 1,130 renunciations according to government data -- more than the 932 recorded for all of last year."
> 
> Five left to avoid paying taxes.
> 
> That would be what?  5/(2845) or .2%.
Click to expand...


So you admit the numbers are increasing drastically, and all of them left to avoid paying taxes.  The article only discussed 5 of them.


----------



## P@triot

itfitzme said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> One problem of "lazy Dumbocrat " is that states that are predominately Democrat produce more gross state output than the Republican states.  2/3rd of the GDP is from the Democrat states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? You mean, like Detroit?
> 
> I know, I know - you're going to attempt to cover the epic Dumbocrat failure by claiming "Detroit is not a state" (as if that somehow excuses the Dumbocrats bankrupting that city into a 3rd world country shit-hole). Well, then how about California? What are they, $70 billion in debt now? Yeah - sure are "producing" there!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?  GSP is GSP.
> 
> Are you stupid?
Click to expand...


Damn - you take dumb to an art form! "What does that have to do with anything"? Well, when you _actually_ produce, you don't go bankrupt.

California is not "producing". The rare conservative there is producing. The mass idiot Dumbocrats are doing what they do best - mooching like the parasites they are.

Here, let me simplify this for you junior (we'll try basic math):

The few producing - the many mooching = bankruptcy

No wonder you people bankrupt every city, state, and nation you touch. You can't figure out the basics that our average 2nd graders understand.


----------



## itfitzme

Rottweiler said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? You mean, like Detroit?
> 
> I know, I know - you're going to attempt to cover the epic Dumbocrat failure by claiming "Detroit is not a state" (as if that somehow excuses the Dumbocrats bankrupting that city into a 3rd world country shit-hole). Well, then how about California? What are they, $70 billion in debt now? Yeah - sure are "producing" there!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?  GSP is GSP.
> 
> Are you stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn - you take dumb to an art form! "What does that have to do with anything"? Well, when you _actually_ produce, you don't go bankrupt.
> 
> California is not "producing". The rare conservative there is producing. The mass idiot Dumbocrats are doing what they do best - mooching like the parasites they are.
> 
> Here, let me simplify this for you junior (we'll try basic math):
> 
> The few producing - the many mooching = bankruptcy
> 
> No wonder you people bankrupt every city, state, and nation you touch. You can't figure out the basics that our average 2nd graders understand.
Click to expand...


Do you know what investment is?  Do you have a clue what the debt ranking for states are?

Saying "The mass idiot Dumbocrats "  doesn't make you any less an idiot.  Yeah, moron, California, New York and Texas have the three highest GSPs and are among the top GSP per capita.

Here is the list
.................GSP.............Per cap
New York	$1,013,251....$52,288.5
Texas	$1,116,268....$44,392.2
California	$1,672,473....$44,893.8

See, it is called "facts", "numbers" and "counting", something you failed to learn in 1st grade.  There is basic counting for you.   Start there.

Texas, apparently, is top in local debt per capita.  What is interesting is that the highest output is correlated with the highest investment.

So, your "math" just doesn't add up.  You know why?  It isn't math. It is just bullshit.


----------



## freedombecki

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that we have to have lower effective tax rates on the rich and wealthy because WTF KNOWS BECAUSE YOUR POSTS DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE EVEN WHEN YOU USE ALL CAPS randomly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libtards are so stupid. What I'm saying, dumb ass, is that tax rates should not punish people for earning more money, Increasing the amount we tax people simply because they earn more is outlandish. Stealing from the working class to pay the poor to sit on their fat asses pisses me off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't believe in progressive taxation? It is based on having people pay taxes based on what they can afford to pay and based on how much they have benefited from society.
> 
> Calling taxation stealing is pretty stupid.
Click to expand...

 There's more stealing going on than you know when your Democrat Congressmen find a person who's broke or in business failure, makes a law to bail him out, but puts him on the hook forever to raise funds for their quid-pro-quo careers, emptying the taxpayer's hard-earned taxes from the treasury, dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds for their favorite pet rock projects, then tarnishing Republicans for all their sneaky dealing for other things, such as "accidents" they conveniently dispose of business' getting experts to pinpoint the problem, and really pulling the wool over the eyes of the public with the press moving in to show dead birds, dead fish, and chest-thumping Sean Penns coming in to say something nasty about Republicans for free so the base will have a celebrity said so piece of bullshit.

 They're turning this country into a communist nation, and when they're done, pal, you're dead if you criticize them in any way, because communists accept zero free speech from anyone except themselves. So then it's lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and when you call them on it, they just kill you.

 Idiot.


----------



## itfitzme

freedombecki said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libtards are so stupid. What I'm saying, dumb ass, is that tax rates should not punish people for earning more money, Increasing the amount we tax people simply because they earn more is outlandish. Stealing from the working class to pay the poor to sit on their fat asses pisses me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe in progressive taxation? It is based on having people pay taxes based on what they can afford to pay and based on how much they have benefited from society.
> 
> Calling taxation stealing is pretty stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's more stealing going on than you know when your Democrat Congressmen find a person who's broke or in business failure, makes a law to bail him out, but puts him on the hook forever to raise funds for their quid-pro-quo careers, emptying the taxpayer's hard-earned taxes from the treasury, dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds for their favorite pet rock projects, then tarnishing Republicans for all their sneaky dealing for other things, such as "accidents" they conveniently dispose of business' getting experts to pinpoint the problem, and really pulling the wool over the eyes of the public with the press moving in to show dead birds, dead fish, and chest-thumping Sean Penns coming in to say something nasty about Republicans for free so the base will have a celebrity said so piece of bullshit.
> 
> They're turning this country into a communist nation, and when they're done, pal, you're dead if you criticize them in any way, because communists accept zero free speech from anyone except themselves. So then it's lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and when you call them on it, they just kill you.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


See, here is where you prove your lack of intelligence..

"dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds "

The Social Security Administration managed the trust funds for OASI and and DI.  These trust funds have held a considerable surplus.  Instead of leaving it doing nothing, they collect intrest on it by buying Treasury Bonds.  T-bills are the most risk free investments in the world. That is why every bank, hedge fund, and foreign country buys them.

It would be really stupid for SSA to buy stock instead of T-Bills.

Clearly, you simply make shit up.


----------



## freedombecki

itfitzme said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe in progressive taxation? It is based on having people pay taxes based on what they can afford to pay and based on how much they have benefited from society.
> 
> Calling taxation stealing is pretty stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> There's more stealing going on than you know when your Democrat Congressmen find a person who's broke or in business failure, makes a law to bail him out, but puts him on the hook forever to raise funds for their quid-pro-quo careers, emptying the taxpayer's hard-earned taxes from the treasury, dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds for their favorite pet rock projects, then tarnishing Republicans for all their sneaky dealing for other things, such as "accidents" they conveniently dispose of business' getting experts to pinpoint the problem, and really pulling the wool over the eyes of the public with the press moving in to show dead birds, dead fish, and chest-thumping Sean Penns coming in to say something nasty about Republicans for free so the base will have a celebrity said so piece of bullshit.
> 
> They're turning this country into a communist nation, and when they're done, pal, you're dead if you criticize them in any way, because communists accept zero free speech from anyone except themselves. So then it's lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and when you call them on it, they just kill you.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, here is where you prove your lack of intelligence..
> 
> "dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds "
> 
> The Social Security Administration managed the trust funds for OASI and and DI. These trust funds have held a considerable surplus. Instead of leaving it doing nothing, they collect intrest on it by buying Treasury Bonds. T-bills are the most risk free investments in the world. That is why every bank, hedge fund, and foreign country buys them.
> 
> It would be really stupid for SSA to buy stock instead of T-Bills.
> 
> Clearly, you simply make shit up.
Click to expand...

Show me the money, card sharp.


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> One problem of "lazy Dumbocrat " is that states that are predominately Democrat produce more gross state output than the Republican states.  2/3rd of the GDP is from the Democrat states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are liars, dirty liars and statisticians....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are facts and there are idiots that don't know how to count.
Click to expand...


LOL, you didn't even understand what I said.  Actually, the quote says that data can be accurate and yet completely misleading.  First of all, GDP distribution would have to be tied to things like population distribution.  There are serious questions about how it's measured.  And cause and effect isn't even addressed.  Just saying distribution red and blue leaves a hundred questions unanswered for the one that is answered.

Most murders are committed in blue States, can we accept on the surface that liberals are more blood thirsty?


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The wealthy need to be taxed at the same or higher rates than the middle class.*
> 
> They are taxed at a higher rate.
> Will your whining end now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the rich should pay the same effective rate as the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress can't vote on an "effective tax rate."  They can only vote on actual tax rates.
Click to expand...


Again. the effective tax is actual numbers.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libtards are so stupid. What I'm saying, dumb ass, is that tax rates should not punish people for earning more money, Increasing the amount we tax people simply because they earn more is outlandish.  Stealing from the working class to pay the poor to sit on their fat asses pisses me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe in progressive taxation? It is based on having people pay taxes based on what they can afford to pay and based on how much they have benefited from society.
> 
> Calling taxation stealing is pretty stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm not a follower of Marx, so I don't believe in progressive taxation.
> 
> When I'm forced to pay 30% tax and my neighbor pays 0% tax, and receives checks from the government from my frigging income... Ayup that's stealing.  Using a middle man to do it does not make it right.
Click to expand...


You must live in a weird neighborhood if you are being taxed at 30% and your neighbor is getting TANF checks.

I have no problem with either btw. I also don't consider it stealing when you are taxed to guard our larger than average prison population. Bread and circuses is the cost of income inequality. I personally would prefer them getting jobs but our nation has been taken over by supply side idiots.


----------



## Bombur

freedombecki said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libtards are so stupid. What I'm saying, dumb ass, is that tax rates should not punish people for earning more money, Increasing the amount we tax people simply because they earn more is outlandish. Stealing from the working class to pay the poor to sit on their fat asses pisses me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe in progressive taxation? It is based on having people pay taxes based on what they can afford to pay and based on how much they have benefited from society.
> 
> Calling taxation stealing is pretty stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's more stealing going on than you know when your Democrat Congressmen find a person who's broke or in business failure, makes a law to bail him out, but puts him on the hook forever to raise funds for their quid-pro-quo careers, emptying the taxpayer's hard-earned taxes from the treasury, dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds for their favorite pet rock projects, then tarnishing Republicans for all their sneaky dealing for other things, such as "accidents" they conveniently dispose of business' getting experts to pinpoint the problem, and really pulling the wool over the eyes of the public with the press moving in to show dead birds, dead fish, and chest-thumping Sean Penns coming in to say something nasty about Republicans for free so the base will have a celebrity said so piece of bullshit.
> 
> They're turning this country into a communist nation, and when they're done, pal, you're dead if you criticize them in any way, because communists accept zero free speech from anyone except themselves. So then it's lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and when you call them on it, they just kill you.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


Am I supposed to pretend you didn't just make all that up?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the rich should pay the same effective rate as the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress can't vote on an "effective tax rate."  They can only vote on actual tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again. the effective tax is actual numbers.
Click to expand...


You never proved your 3% fable.


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you say all we have to do is "eliminate loopholes, and the problem is solved." ROFL
> Rich folk don't need loopholes. Take all the loopholes out of income tax and the solution is, fine I won't take any income.  This is not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
Click to expand...


That just demonstrates people will try and avoid paying taxes when given the opportunity. That doesn't mean they stop working. Did you think you stumbled onto something meaningful?


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress can't vote on an "effective tax rate."  They can only vote on actual tax rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again. the effective tax is actual numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never proved your 3% fable.
Click to expand...


The problem is the capital gains tax rates being lower. That and the fact FICA pays for too much. That and the regressive nature of state and local taxes. 

The poor tend to do ok but the middle class gets hosed. Anyone relying on labor gets a raw deal too including some of the rich.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of them.
> 
> Last year I paid 3% effective.
> 
> Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.
> 
> The average middle-class American pay 15% average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Last year I paid 3% effective.*
> 
> Show me.
> 
> *Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.*
> 
> If most of your income is taxed at 15% and you donate millions to charity, your rate would drop below 15% as well.
Click to expand...


In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.

You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.


----------



## OnePercenter

thereisnospoon said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government already had one bite at that apple( Capital gains).
> I've heard this music before. You flaming libs are incensed that you cannot get your sticky hands on capital gains income.
> Why is it you feel entitled to take from people that which you have no right?
Click to expand...


Capital gains IS income. Why shouldn't income be taxed?

Besides, can't you defer the income and invest the gain?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

ilia25 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think it didn't work????
> The US would be in a much deeper depression if not for deficit spending.
> 
> And it's not all speculation. First, this is what economics textbook have been saying all along. And, for a change, this time we have experimental results -- in Europe some governments had to cut spending, while others let it grow. And the more a government had to cut spending, the deeper was depression:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your chart doesn't prove anything at all.
> 
> The reason for that is quite simple, it is unreadable. What is change in G? How does it measure private demand? What period of time is covered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The chart is only unreadable if you don't want to read it. Change in G, as you might have guessed, is change in the govt. spending. Private demand is measured by private spending, how else?.. And the depression stared in 2008, so i guess it is from that time till now or maybe a year ago -- but it does not really matter, whether these changes happened in 2 years, or in five.
Click to expand...


I might have guessed change in government spending if I wasn't wired to look at G and see it as the gravitational constant, as it is I wonder how it can change at all. Funny how you can't even answer the simplest fucking question, what period of time is covered by the chart. I guess you made my point for me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of them.
> 
> Last year I paid 3% effective.
> 
> Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.
> 
> The average middle-class American pay 15% average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Last year I paid 3% effective.*
> 
> Show me.
> 
> *Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.*
> 
> If most of your income is taxed at 15% and you donate millions to charity, your rate would drop below 15% as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.
> 
> You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.
Click to expand...


You seem to be unable to prove your fable.

So run through it for me.

Show how your $16.5M gives you a $495k liability.
Pretend I'm a liberal, use small words.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again. the effective tax is actual numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never proved your 3% fable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the capital gains tax rates being lower. That and the fact FICA pays for too much. That and the regressive nature of state and local taxes.
> 
> The poor tend to do ok but the middle class gets hosed. Anyone relying on labor gets a raw deal too including some of the rich.
Click to expand...


*The problem is the capital gains tax rates being lower.*

Why is that a problem?

*The poor tend to do ok but the middle class gets hosed.*

Define middle class. Defined hosed.


----------



## freedombecki

Bombur said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe in progressive taxation? It is based on having people pay taxes based on what they can afford to pay and based on how much they have benefited from society.
> 
> Calling taxation stealing is pretty stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> There's more stealing going on than you know when your Democrat Congressmen find a person who's broke or in business failure, makes a law to bail him out, but puts him on the hook forever to raise funds for their quid-pro-quo careers, emptying the taxpayer's hard-earned taxes from the treasury, dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds for their favorite pet rock projects, then tarnishing Republicans for all their sneaky dealing for other things, such as "accidents" they conveniently dispose of business' getting experts to pinpoint the problem, and really pulling the wool over the eyes of the public with the press moving in to show dead birds, dead fish, and chest-thumping Sean Penns coming in to say something nasty about Republicans for free so the base will have a celebrity said so piece of bullshit.
> 
> They're turning this country into a communist nation, and when they're done, pal, you're dead if you criticize them in any way, because communists accept zero free speech from anyone except themselves. So then it's lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and when you call them on it, they just kill you.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I supposed to pretend you didn't just make all that up?
Click to expand...


1), Solyndra, a company of Obama's biggest supporter showing every sign of going belly up, when the Treasury Department is contacted by the white house for an overnight draft of $535 MILLION taxpayer dollars to these losers under the guaranteed payback bill the Democrats pushed through to reward Democrat donors to lost Green causes. How do we know? Dozens of businesses benefitted by taking up losing propositions, "investing" in them on the American taxpayer's nickel (bazillions of them), and of course, going belly up. Why buy the cow of employing Americans when the milk is free at the expense of the American Taxpayer???​ ​ You surely recall Solyndra, the Company, which 18 months after Obama arranged them to get that half a billion dollar checque against the American Taxpayer's funds, gave the shaft to 1100+ employees in Fremont, California?​ .​ Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Graveyard:​


> .
> 
> 
> Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*​
> SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
> Solyndra ($535 million)*
> Beacon Power ($43 million)*
> Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
> SunPower ($1.2 billion)
> First Solar ($1.46 billion)
> Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
> EnerDel&#8217;s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
> Amonix ($5.9 million)
> Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
> Abound Solar ($400 million)*
> A123 Systems ($279 million)*
> Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
> Johnson Controls ($299 million)
> Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
> ECOtality ($126.2 million)
> Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
> Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
> Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
> Olsen&#8217;s Crop Service and Olsen&#8217;s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
> Range Fuels ($80 million)*
> Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
> Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
> Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
> GreenVolts ($500,000)
> Vestas ($50 million)
> LG Chem&#8217;s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
> Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
> Navistar ($39 million)
> Satcon ($3 million)*
> Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
> Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)


 Updates: President Obama's Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures
.
Giant Methane Bubble Causes BP Explosion - Act of God?​ .​ Methane Gas Pocket​ .​ BP Rig disaster caused by methane gas bubble​ .​ The overzealous shutdown of all America's drillers in the Gulf punished American employment, and not just for one month, either. ​ .​ Gulf Coast Businesses Suffer Strain of Offshore Drilling Slowdown​ .​ August, 2010 Obama's Painful Moratorium Rescinded in Court​


----------



## OnePercenter

thereisnospoon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Share? There is no "share"....What someone else's income may be is nobody else's business.
> Productivity rises with for example, technology, education and technical training. Productivity is realized when fewer people are required to increase output.
> The most wealthy people are not the stereotypical blue blooded Greenwich CT mansion dwelling people you equate with wealth. The fact is most wealthy people work very hard to earn their wages. They also take the highest risk.
> The one constant is this. Higher education and better training lead to higher wages. It has to be that way.
> BTW, opportunity is EARNED. Not given. Not deserved.
> There are far too many of us who work hard so that we may EARN opportunity to see it given away to those who refuse to make it their business to improve their skill set so that they are in the running for higher pay.
> 
> 
> 
> *Where did you get the idea opportunity was something you had to earn, and who have you selected as the judge for deciding who among us deserves opportunity?*
> 
> "op·por·tu·ni·ty noun \&#716;ä-p&#601;r-&#712;tü-n&#601;-t&#275;, -&#712;tyü-\
> : an amount of time or a situation in which something can be done
> plural op·por·tu·ni·ties
> 
> Full Definition of OPPORTUNITY
> 
> 1
> :  a favorable juncture of circumstances <the halt provided an opportunity for rest and refreshment>
> 2
> :  *a good chance for advancement or progress*"
> 
> Opportunity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok....I own a business. I post on line an ad for applicants in my landscaping company. I am looking for a supervisor with a ground applicators license and prefer at least an associates degree in turf management. Plus I prefer at least two years combined supervisory and practical experience.
> I get two applicants looking for an opportunity to work for me in a supervisory capacity.
> One has no supervisory experience but has a turf degree. The other meets all of the criteria in the ad. The latter by meeting the criteria has EARNED the opportunity to come work for me. While the former has not. Very simple concept.
> By acquiring certain skills, the second applicant EARNED that opportunity.
> You object to this concept, why?
Click to expand...


You hire based on the following question:

What are you going to do to facilitate a 100% increase in revenue every 18 months?


----------



## OnePercenter

thereisnospoon said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich pay a lower effective rate?
> Show me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of them.
> 
> Last year I paid 3% effective.
> 
> Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.
> 
> The average middle-class American pay 15% average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3%...Despite the fact that you think that is unfair, you certainly kept the money though, didn't you?
> BTW, you were for specific people who paid effective rates to which you object.
> One other thing...There is no nobility in giving more of your earnings to government.
Click to expand...


I pay what I'm legally obligated to pay, and thanks to Republicans, it's not that much.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That just demonstrates people will try and avoid paying taxes when given the opportunity. That doesn't mean they stop working. Did you think you stumbled onto something meaningful?
Click to expand...


Wrong.  They do stop working if the tax rate is oppressive enough.  In Sweden you can't find a doctor after 5:00 PM.  They're all out on the tennis court.  It doesn't pay them to work more than 40 hours a week because most of the additional income would be taxed away by the government.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Last year I paid 3% effective.*
> 
> Show me.
> 
> *Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.*
> 
> If most of your income is taxed at 15% and you donate millions to charity, your rate would drop below 15% as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.
> 
> You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be unable to prove your fable.
> 
> So run through it for me.
> 
> Show how your $16.5M gives you a $495k liability.
> Pretend I'm a liberal, use small words.
Click to expand...


It's actually pretty simple, he is lying.


----------



## OnePercenter

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who have a lot of capital gains. If you include payroll taxes the issue is even more pronounced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people with capital gains pay the same rate, but don't let the facts spoil your rant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Effective is one of those "adjectives" that libtards like to use to show how life isn't fair.  First they argue for progressive income taxes and vote for separate taxes for different types of income. Then they argue what they built sucks because it means not everyone pays the same tax rates on all types of income.  It's nutz.  I don't think it's possible to please a libtard.  We could give them all of everyone assets and income and they would still bitch it's not enough.
Click to expand...


Effective is used to compare and contrast ACTUAL numbers between two tax paying entities.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. *
> 
> Prove it. Use facts and numbers, not feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> Let us see if we agree on some facts and numbers.
> Revenues for the 1980s increased by 99.6%.
> Does that sound factual or sentimental to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, revenues increased in the 1980s?
> But you said there was a lack of revenue.
> Were you lying, or stupid?
Click to expand...

It's simple, Stool:
The percentage of revenue increase in the 80s was less than it was in the 70s.
Naturally there was a shortage of revenue for Star Wars.
Stay grounded.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us see if we agree on some facts and numbers.
> Revenues for the 1980s increased by 99.6%.
> Does that sound factual or sentimental to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, revenues increased in the 1980s?
> But you said there was a lack of revenue.
> Were you lying, or stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's simple, Stool:
> The percentage of revenue increase in the 80s was less than it was in the 70s.
> Naturally there was a shortage of revenue for Star Wars.
> Stay grounded.
Click to expand...


So you lied when you said there was a lack of revenue. Got it.


----------



## georgephillip

bayoubill said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> folks that put this kinda crap up will insist that the economic pie is a zero-sum equation...
> 
> but it ain't... capital is built up and increased by the hard work and sweat of millions of lowly folks workin' their asses off...
> 
> 'n if you don't know what I'm talkin' about... go take a lesson in basic economics...
Click to expand...

What chapter in your basic economic text explains how one percent of the population increased their incomes by 31% between 2009 and 2012 while the incomes of the remaining 99% grew by 0.4%?


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where did you get the idea opportunity was something you had to earn, and who have you selected as the judge for deciding who among us deserves opportunity?*
> 
> "op·por·tu·ni·ty noun \&#716;ä-p&#601;r-&#712;tü-n&#601;-t&#275;, -&#712;tyü-\
> : an amount of time or a situation in which something can be done
> plural op·por·tu·ni·ties
> 
> Full Definition of OPPORTUNITY
> 
> 1
> :  a favorable juncture of circumstances <the halt provided an opportunity for rest and refreshment>
> 2
> :  *a good chance for advancement or progress*"
> 
> Opportunity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok....I own a business. I post on line an ad for applicants in my landscaping company. I am looking for a supervisor with a ground applicators license and prefer at least an associates degree in turf management. Plus I prefer at least two years combined supervisory and practical experience.
> I get two applicants looking for an opportunity to work for me in a supervisory capacity.
> One has no supervisory experience but has a turf degree. The other meets all of the criteria in the ad. The latter by meeting the criteria has EARNED the opportunity to come work for me. While the former has not. Very simple concept.
> By acquiring certain skills, the second applicant EARNED that opportunity.
> You object to this concept, why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hire based on the following question:
> 
> What are you going to do to facilitate a 100% increase in revenue every 18 months?
Click to expand...


Yeah, right. A company that increased its revenue that fast would be the size of Walmart in 12 years.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> folks that put this kinda crap up will insist that the economic pie is a zero-sum equation...
> 
> but it ain't... capital is built up and increased by the hard work and sweat of millions of lowly folks workin' their asses off...
> 
> 'n if you don't know what I'm talkin' about... go take a lesson in basic economics...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What chapter in your basic economic text explains how one percent of the population increased their incomes by 31% between 2009 and 2012 while the incomes of the remaining 99% grew by 0.4%?
Click to expand...


That's the chapter on liberal fairytales.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Last year I paid 3% effective.*
> 
> Show me.
> 
> *Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.*
> 
> If most of your income is taxed at 15% and you donate millions to charity, your rate would drop below 15% as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.
> 
> You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be unable to prove your fable.
> 
> So run through it for me.
> 
> Show how your $16.5M gives you a $495k liability.
> Pretend I'm a liberal, use small words.
Click to expand...


Tax planning.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.
> 
> You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be unable to prove your fable.
> 
> So run through it for me.
> 
> Show how your $16.5M gives you a $495k liability.
> Pretend I'm a liberal, use small words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax planning.
Click to expand...


Your posts are light on proof, as usual.


----------



## deltex1

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



You're correct...capitalism has made America the richest nation in the world...total inequality among nations....oooorah!!!


----------



## georgephillip

thereisnospoon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Share? There is no "share"....What someone else's income may be is nobody else's business.
> Productivity rises with for example, technology, education and technical training. Productivity is realized when fewer people are required to increase output.
> The most wealthy people are not the stereotypical blue blooded Greenwich CT mansion dwelling people you equate with wealth. The fact is most wealthy people work very hard to earn their wages. They also take the highest risk.
> The one constant is this. Higher education and better training lead to higher wages. It has to be that way.
> BTW, opportunity is EARNED. Not given. Not deserved.
> There are far too many of us who work hard so that we may EARN opportunity to see it given away to those who refuse to make it their business to improve their skill set so that they are in the running for higher pay.
> 
> 
> 
> *Where did you get the idea opportunity was something you had to earn, and who have you selected as the judge for deciding who among us deserves opportunity?*
> 
> "op·por·tu·ni·ty noun \&#716;ä-p&#601;r-&#712;tü-n&#601;-t&#275;, -&#712;tyü-\
> : an amount of time or a situation in which something can be done
> plural op·por·tu·ni·ties
> 
> Full Definition of OPPORTUNITY
> 
> 1
> :  a favorable juncture of circumstances <the halt provided an opportunity for rest and refreshment>
> 2
> :  *a good chance for advancement or progress*"
> 
> Opportunity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok....I own a business. I post on line an ad for applicants in my landscaping company. I am looking for a supervisor with a ground applicators license and prefer at least an associates degree in turf management. Plus I prefer at least two years combined supervisory and practical experience.
> I get two applicants looking for an opportunity to work for me in a supervisory capacity.
> One has no supervisory experience but has a turf degree. The other meets all of the criteria in the ad. The latter by meeting the criteria has EARNED the opportunity to come work for me. While the former has not. Very simple concept.
> By acquiring certain skills, the second applicant EARNED that opportunity.
> You object to this concept, why?
Click to expand...

In the scenario you sketch out, I have no objection to your definition of earned opportunity. I think I was limiting my conception to situations of candidates with equal qualifications for entry-level openings. Thanks for the insight.


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of them.
> 
> Last year I paid 3% effective.
> 
> Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.
> 
> The average middle-class American pay 15% average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Last year I paid 3% effective.*
> 
> Show me.
> 
> *Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.*
> 
> If most of your income is taxed at 15% and you donate millions to charity, your rate would drop below 15% as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.
> 
> You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.
Click to expand...


How much of those gains did you realize?


----------



## georgephillip

deltex1 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're correct...capitalism has made America the richest nation in the world...total inequality among nations....oooorah!!!
Click to expand...

*At no small price to the millions of Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghanis, and Iraqis who've paid for the American lifestyle with their lives, limbs, and homes.*

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

"The extreme dualities of poverty and wealth inevitably create the vulnerable and the powerful, the abuser and the abused. 

"There are wide ranging consequences of such social division, foremost being the erosion or denial of democracy. 

"With money comes power and with power comes political influence, making it inevitable that 'inequality reinforces itself by corroding our political system and our democratic governance,' as Stiglitz says."

*Ooorah for Wall Street and the 1%.*


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok....I own a business. I post on line an ad for applicants in my landscaping company. I am looking for a supervisor with a ground applicators license and prefer at least an associates degree in turf management. Plus I prefer at least two years combined supervisory and practical experience.
> I get two applicants looking for an opportunity to work for me in a supervisory capacity.
> One has no supervisory experience but has a turf degree. The other meets all of the criteria in the ad. The latter by meeting the criteria has EARNED the opportunity to come work for me. While the former has not. Very simple concept.
> By acquiring certain skills, the second applicant EARNED that opportunity.
> You object to this concept, why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hire based on the following question:
> 
> What are you going to do to facilitate a 100% increase in revenue every 18 months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, right. A company that increased its revenue that fast would be the size of Walmart in 12 years.
Click to expand...


Conceivable, depending on the original size, but there aren't any facts that back that up. If you own a business, 100% growth every 18 months should be your goal.


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Last year I paid 3% effective.*
> 
> Show me.
> 
> *Romney, after the additional six moths of moving numbers paid 12%.*
> 
> If most of your income is taxed at 15% and you donate millions to charity, your rate would drop below 15% as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.
> 
> You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much of those gains did you realize?
Click to expand...


$16.5M minus $495k.


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



Free Market Capitalism pretty much balances out cause and effect. There is always going to be some kind of measure of exchange between people. In what alternate reality is outcome guaranteed? Certainly not this one. What exactly do you have of value that you want to exchange? You obviously want to encourage servitude. What is the ultimate payoff to your plan? Prisons? Work Camps? Execution? Mass Executions? Don't hold back, tell us. Why the need to control and redistribute private property that is not yours? What is your problem with the work ethic? Is investment evil? Should we really just give up everything to you, and people like you? Would it make you feel more important? Is that it?


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what criteria would you use to decide which incomes are warranted and which aren't? I ask because I've yet to find a system of making such judgments that is _less_ subject to corruption and graft than free markets. Any scheme which centralizes authority over distributing economic power, regardless of whether it's nominally 'democratic' or not, is a _more_ convenient target for those interested in manipulating matters to their own ends.
> 
> 
> 
> *What are your markets "free" of?
> Undue democratic regulations or the undue monopolistic influence of the richest 0.01% of humanity?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coercion.
> 
> It's not a just means of distributing economic power in my view, regardless of whether it represents the will of the majority. In the end, it's _more_ likely to produce the kind of undue inequities we want to prevent.
Click to expand...

*Am I correct in assuming you want markets free of* "co·er·cion
1.the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
"'*t wasn't slavery because no coercion was used*'
synonyms:	force, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, harassment, intimidation, threats, arm-twisting, pressure"

*Isn't this contrary to human nature?*

https://www.google.com/#q=coercion


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What are your markets "free" of?
> Undue democratic regulations or the undue monopolistic influence of the richest 0.01% of humanity?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coercion.
> 
> It's not a just means of distributing economic power in my view, regardless of whether it represents the will of the majority. In the end, it's _more_ likely to produce the kind of undue inequities we want to prevent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Am I correct in assuming you want markets free of* "co·er·cion
> 1.the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
> "'*t wasn't slavery because no coercion was used*'
> synonyms:	force, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, enforcement, harassment, intimidation, threats, arm-twisting, pressure"
> 
> *Isn't this contrary to human nature?*
> 
> https://www.google.com/#q=coercion
Click to expand...


Are you the exhaustive authority on what human nature is and isn't now? Well excuse me!  What could be more diverse than the full spectrum of what human nature is and isn't?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.
> 
> You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much of those gains did you realize?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $16.5M minus $495k.
Click to expand...


You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?


----------



## georgephillip

RKMBrown said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could've sworn remembering tax revenue skyrocketing.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you remember about the FICA tax rate in the 1980s?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FICA tax is not Income Tax.  Two different animals so not even remotely associated with the issue being discussed.  With regard to SS we didn't have many choices the prior generations had already screwed future generations so the rates had to go up for that system to pay for the retired folks to get their discounted SS checks.
Click to expand...

FICA is a tax based on income.
The issue being discussed was Reagan's skyrocketing revenues produced from tax cuts.
Reagan spiked FICA taxes and three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. It's hypocritical to claim revenue increases in the 80s were due to tax cuts on 25% of the population without mentioning the tax increases experienced by the other 75%.


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never proved your 3% fable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is the capital gains tax rates being lower. That and the fact FICA pays for too much. That and the regressive nature of state and local taxes.
> 
> The poor tend to do ok but the middle class gets hosed. Anyone relying on labor gets a raw deal too including some of the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The problem is the capital gains tax rates being lower.*
> 
> Why is that a problem?
> 
> *The poor tend to do ok but the middle class gets hosed.*
> 
> Define middle class. Defined hosed.
Click to expand...


Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation.  This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse. 

What some people don't seem to get is if you screw over the middle class it is only a matter of time before the entire country is screwed over. But hey lets try supply side economics again.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just demonstrates people will try and avoid paying taxes when given the opportunity. That doesn't mean they stop working. Did you think you stumbled onto something meaningful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  They do stop working if the tax rate is oppressive enough.  In Sweden you can't find a doctor after 5:00 PM.  They're all out on the tennis court.  It doesn't pay them to work more than 40 hours a week because most of the additional income would be taxed away by the government.
Click to expand...


So now you switched tactics to talk about something you heard about Swedish doctors.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of those gains did you realize?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $16.5M minus $495k.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## P@triot

itfitzme said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe in progressive taxation? It is based on having people pay taxes based on what they can afford to pay and based on how much they have benefited from society.
> 
> Calling taxation stealing is pretty stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> There's more stealing going on than you know when your Democrat Congressmen find a person who's broke or in business failure, makes a law to bail him out, but puts him on the hook forever to raise funds for their quid-pro-quo careers, emptying the taxpayer's hard-earned taxes from the treasury, dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds for their favorite pet rock projects, then tarnishing Republicans for all their sneaky dealing for other things, such as "accidents" they conveniently dispose of business' getting experts to pinpoint the problem, and really pulling the wool over the eyes of the public with the press moving in to show dead birds, dead fish, and chest-thumping Sean Penns coming in to say something nasty about Republicans for free so the base will have a celebrity said so piece of bullshit.
> 
> They're turning this country into a communist nation, and when they're done, pal, you're dead if you criticize them in any way, because communists accept zero free speech from anyone except themselves. So then it's lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and when you call them on it, they just kill you.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, here is where you prove your lack of intelligence..
> 
> "dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds "
> 
> The Social Security Administration managed the trust funds for OASI and and DI.  These trust funds have held a considerable surplus.  Instead of leaving it doing nothing, they collect intrest on it by buying Treasury Bonds.  *T-bills are the most risk free investments in the world*. That is why every bank, hedge fund, and foreign country buys them.
> 
> It would be really stupid for SSA to buy stock instead of T-Bills.
> 
> Clearly, you simply make shit up.
Click to expand...


This is so stupid it's downright comical. I don't even know where to begin....

First, the fact that you believe that Treasury Bonds are "the most risk free investment in the world" is fucking fall down hilarious and proves your a blind partisan hack who doesn't have a clue what is going on in the real world. Despite all of Obama's disgusting bullying, threatening, and bribing, the bond rating of the United States has been lowered because Obama has bankrupted this nation and we can no longer pay our bills (hint: the "most risk free" investments in the world don't get their credit ration lowered, _stupid_).

Second, the fact that you believe the SSA should invest in "t-bills" is possibly more fall down hysterical than your previous idiot statement. The SSA is the federal government, dumb ass. So you want them to invest in.....themselves? 

Think of the pure idiocy of that statement. Can you imagine if Apple bought their own stock that they issued? You can only bring additional cash if someone outside of your "circle" (business, government, etc.) buys the stock. Dummy here is too stupid to realize that if Accounts Receivable receives $10 from a stock which was purchased by their own Accounts Payable, the net result is $0.


----------



## KNB

The US has spent $2 billion each week in Afghanistan for over 10 years and the Iraq war cost us over $4 trillion for absolutely no reason.  After ten straight years of constant war and torture, The War Against Terrorism is as close to being won as the 40-year-old war on drugs which was started over complete lies.

So why does every jagoff GOP shill claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility" and blame Obama for the country being broke?


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe in progressive taxation? It is based on having people pay taxes based on what they can afford to pay and based on how much they have benefited from society.
> 
> Calling taxation stealing is pretty stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> There's more stealing going on than you know when your Democrat Congressmen find a person who's broke or in business failure, makes a law to bail him out, but puts him on the hook forever to raise funds for their quid-pro-quo careers, emptying the taxpayer's hard-earned taxes from the treasury, dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds for their favorite pet rock projects, then tarnishing Republicans for all their sneaky dealing for other things, such as "accidents" they conveniently dispose of business' getting experts to pinpoint the problem, and really pulling the wool over the eyes of the public with the press moving in to show dead birds, dead fish, and chest-thumping Sean Penns coming in to say something nasty about Republicans for free so the base will have a celebrity said so piece of bullshit.
> 
> They're turning this country into a communist nation, and when they're done, pal, you're dead if you criticize them in any way, because communists accept zero free speech from anyone except themselves. So then it's lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and when you call them on it, they just kill you.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, here is where you prove your lack of intelligence..
> 
> "dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds "
> 
> The Social Security Administration managed the trust funds for OASI and and DI.  These trust funds have held a considerable surplus.  Instead of leaving it doing nothing, they collect intrest on it by buying Treasury Bonds.  T-bills are the most risk free investments in the world. That is why every bank, hedge fund, and foreign country buys them.
> 
> It would be really stupid for SSA to buy stock instead of T-Bills.
> 
> Clearly, you simply make shit up.
Click to expand...


It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that the government can come out ahead by paying itself interest.  Not only is the interest on T-bills worthless, but the T-bills themselves are worthless to the taxpayers.  Who is on the hook to pay off the T-bills?  The taxpayers.  So how do the taxpayers benefit from their existence in the so-called "trust fund?"  The trust fund is the biggest con ever perpetrated on a hoard of suckers.  If a private firm ever pulled something like that, all its officers would go to prison.


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's more stealing going on than you know when your Democrat Congressmen find a person who's broke or in business failure, makes a law to bail him out, but puts him on the hook forever to raise funds for their quid-pro-quo careers, emptying the taxpayer's hard-earned taxes from the treasury, dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds for their favorite pet rock projects, then tarnishing Republicans for all their sneaky dealing for other things, such as "accidents" they conveniently dispose of business' getting experts to pinpoint the problem, and really pulling the wool over the eyes of the public with the press moving in to show dead birds, dead fish, and chest-thumping Sean Penns coming in to say something nasty about Republicans for free so the base will have a celebrity said so piece of bullshit.
> 
> They're turning this country into a communist nation, and when they're done, pal, you're dead if you criticize them in any way, because communists accept zero free speech from anyone except themselves. So then it's lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and when you call them on it, they just kill you.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, here is where you prove your lack of intelligence..
> 
> "dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds "
> 
> The Social Security Administration managed the trust funds for OASI and and DI.  These trust funds have held a considerable surplus.  Instead of leaving it doing nothing, they collect intrest on it by buying Treasury Bonds.  *T-bills are the most risk free investments in the world*. That is why every bank, hedge fund, and foreign country buys them.
> 
> It would be really stupid for SSA to buy stock instead of T-Bills.
> 
> Clearly, you simply make shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is so stupid it's downright comical. I don't even know where to begin....
> 
> First, the fact that you believe that Treasury Bonds are "the most risk free investment in the world" is fucking fall down hilarious and proves your a blind partisan hack who doesn't have a clue what is going on in the real world. Despite all of Obama's disgusting bullying, threatening, and bribing, the bond rating of the United States has been lowered because Obama has bankrupted this nation and we can no longer pay our bills (hint: the "most risk free" investments in the world don't get their credit ration lowered, _stupid_).
> 
> Second, the fact that you believe the SSA should invest in "t-bills" is possibly more fall down hysterical than your previous idiot statement. The SSA is the federal government, dumb ass. So you want them to invest in.....themselves?
> 
> Think of the pure idiocy of that statement. Can you imagine if Apple bought their own stock that they issued? You can only bring additional cash if someone outside of your "circle" (business, government, etc.) buys the stock. Dummy here is too stupid to realize that if Accounts Receivable receives $10 from a stock which was purchased by their own Accounts Payable, the net result is $0.
Click to expand...


When they were downgraded more people started buying them. You can laugh all you want but they are still considered very close to the most secure investment in the world. 

It would be more like if Apple pensions invested in their own bonds which were extremely low risk.

From a financial risk and return standpoint the SSA investments are too low risk if anything.


----------



## bripat9643

KNB said:


> The US has spent $2 billion each week in Afghanistan for over 10 years and the Iraq war cost us over $4 trillion for absolutely no reason.  After ten straight years of constant war and torture, The War Against Terrorism is as close to being won as the 40-year-old war on drugs which was started over complete lies.
> 
> So why does every jagoff GOP shill claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility" and blame Obama for the country being broke?



Your figures are grossly inflated fabrications, so why would anyone waste their time arguing with you?  Furthermore, your messiah Obama is the one who said Afghanistan is the war we should have been fighting, so how does he escape blame for any of the spending the occurred on his watch?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

georgephillip said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> folks that put this kinda crap up will insist that the economic pie is a zero-sum equation...
> 
> but it ain't... capital is built up and increased by the hard work and sweat of millions of lowly folks workin' their asses off...
> 
> 'n if you don't know what I'm talkin' about... go take a lesson in basic economics...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What chapter in your basic economic text explains how one percent of the population increased their incomes by 31% between 2009 and 2012 while the incomes of the remaining 99% grew by 0.4%?
Click to expand...


The same one that blames Bush.


----------



## bripat9643

Rottweiler said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's more stealing going on than you know when your Democrat Congressmen find a person who's broke or in business failure, makes a law to bail him out, but puts him on the hook forever to raise funds for their quid-pro-quo careers, emptying the taxpayer's hard-earned taxes from the treasury, dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds for their favorite pet rock projects, then tarnishing Republicans for all their sneaky dealing for other things, such as "accidents" they conveniently dispose of business' getting experts to pinpoint the problem, and really pulling the wool over the eyes of the public with the press moving in to show dead birds, dead fish, and chest-thumping Sean Penns coming in to say something nasty about Republicans for free so the base will have a celebrity said so piece of bullshit.
> 
> They're turning this country into a communist nation, and when they're done, pal, you're dead if you criticize them in any way, because communists accept zero free speech from anyone except themselves. So then it's lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and when you call them on it, they just kill you.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, here is where you prove your lack of intelligence..
> 
> "dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds "
> 
> The Social Security Administration managed the trust funds for OASI and and DI.  These trust funds have held a considerable surplus.  Instead of leaving it doing nothing, they collect intrest on it by buying Treasury Bonds.  *T-bills are the most risk free investments in the world*. That is why every bank, hedge fund, and foreign country buys them.
> 
> It would be really stupid for SSA to buy stock instead of T-Bills.
> 
> Clearly, you simply make shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is so stupid it's downright comical. I don't even know where to begin....
> 
> First, the fact that you believe that Treasury Bonds are "the most risk free investment in the world" is fucking fall down hilarious and proves your a blind partisan hack who doesn't have a clue what is going on in the real world. Despite all of Obama's disgusting bullying, threatening, and bribing, the bond rating of the United States has been lowered because Obama has bankrupted this nation and we can no longer pay our bills (hint: the "most risk free" investments in the world don't get their credit ration lowered, _stupid_).
> 
> Second, the fact that you believe the SSA should invest in "t-bills" is possibly more fall down hysterical than your previous idiot statement. The SSA is the federal government, dumb ass. So you want them to invest in.....themselves?
> 
> Think of the pure idiocy of that statement. Can you imagine if Apple bought their own stock that they issued? You can only bring additional cash if someone outside of your "circle" (business, government, etc.) buys the stock. Dummy here is too stupid to realize that if Accounts Receivable receives $10 from a stock which was purchased by their own Accounts Payable, the net result is $0.
Click to expand...


The sure sign of a terminal sucker is expressing a feeling of confidence knowing his Social Security is invested safely in the SS "Trust Fund."


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> The sure sign of a terminal sucker is expressing a feeling of confidence knowing his Social Security is invested safely in the SS "Trust Fund."



Is your fear default?


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> $16.5M minus $495k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Right, and I'm the queen of England.


----------



## KNB

bripat9643 said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US has spent $2 billion each week in Afghanistan for over 10 years and the Iraq war cost us over $4 trillion for absolutely no reason.  After ten straight years of constant war and torture, The War Against Terrorism is as close to being won as the 40-year-old war on drugs which was started over complete lies.
> 
> So why does every jagoff GOP shill claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility" and blame Obama for the country being broke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your figures are grossly inflated fabrications, so why would anyone waste their time arguing with you?  Furthermore, your messiah Obama is the one who said Afghanistan is the war we should have been fighting, so how does he escape blame for any of the spending the occurred on his watch?
Click to expand...

Obama doesn't "escape blame" for anything that happened on his watch, but Bush started these wars after his father and the CIA ensured that Afghanistan could never be won.  Afghanistan cannot be won militarily.  Iraq was always a loss.  And there isn't a dollar price for our nation's soul when we beat POWs to death in secret prisons and rain Hellfire missiles on civilians from remote-controlled planes.

As for "grossly inflated fabrications":
Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion - The Washington Post
The US Cost of the Afghan War: FY2002-FY2013 | Center for Strategic and International Studies
http://fcnl.org/issues/afghanistan/Cost_of_the_Afghanistan_War_By_the_Numbers_13_FEB13.pdf
2,000 Dead: Cost of War in Afghanistan - ABC News
True cost of Afghan, Iraq wars is anyone's guess | Afghanistan & Pakistan | McClatchy DC

The War Against Terrorism is bankrupting our country like it did to the USSR.  There isn't any definition of what victory is in this war, and no one even knows who we are fighting anymore.

Republicans can't claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility" if they're willing to bankrupt the country trying to win a war that the CIA designed to never be won.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sure sign of a terminal sucker is expressing a feeling of confidence knowing his Social Security is invested safely in the SS "Trust Fund."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is your fear default?
Click to expand...


Huh?  Is that your way of admitting that you're the world's biggest sucker?


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sure sign of a terminal sucker is expressing a feeling of confidence knowing his Social Security is invested safely in the SS "Trust Fund."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is your fear default?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?  Is that your way of admitting that you're the world's biggest sucker?
Click to expand...


So it is such a nonsensical fear you can't even explain it. Got it. Thanks.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, here is where you prove your lack of intelligence..
> 
> "dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds "
> 
> The Social Security Administration managed the trust funds for OASI and and DI.  These trust funds have held a considerable surplus.  Instead of leaving it doing nothing, they collect intrest on it by buying Treasury Bonds.  *T-bills are the most risk free investments in the world*. That is why every bank, hedge fund, and foreign country buys them.
> 
> It would be really stupid for SSA to buy stock instead of T-Bills.
> 
> Clearly, you simply make shit up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is so stupid it's downright comical. I don't even know where to begin....
> 
> First, the fact that you believe that Treasury Bonds are "the most risk free investment in the world" is fucking fall down hilarious and proves your a blind partisan hack who doesn't have a clue what is going on in the real world. Despite all of Obama's disgusting bullying, threatening, and bribing, the bond rating of the United States has been lowered because Obama has bankrupted this nation and we can no longer pay our bills (hint: the "most risk free" investments in the world don't get their credit ration lowered, _stupid_).
> 
> Second, the fact that you believe the SSA should invest in "t-bills" is possibly more fall down hysterical than your previous idiot statement. The SSA is the federal government, dumb ass. So you want them to invest in.....themselves?
> 
> Think of the pure idiocy of that statement. Can you imagine if Apple bought their own stock that they issued? You can only bring additional cash if someone outside of your "circle" (business, government, etc.) buys the stock. Dummy here is too stupid to realize that if Accounts Receivable receives $10 from a stock which was purchased by their own Accounts Payable, the net result is $0.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they were downgraded more people started buying them. You can laugh all you want but they are still considered very close to the most secure investment in the world.
> 
> It would be more like if Apple pensions invested in their own bonds which were extremely low risk.
> 
> From a financial risk and return standpoint the SSA investments are too low risk if anything.
Click to expand...


Since the government issued them, how are the worth anything to the government?


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your fear default?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Is that your way of admitting that you're the world's biggest sucker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it is such a nonsensical fear you can't even explain it. Got it. Thanks.
Click to expand...


I just explained it, numskull.  What I can't explain is what the gibberish you posted is intended to signify.

Furthermore, knowing that you have been defrauded isn't a "fear."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is the capital gains tax rates being lower. That and the fact FICA pays for too much. That and the regressive nature of state and local taxes.
> 
> The poor tend to do ok but the middle class gets hosed. Anyone relying on labor gets a raw deal too including some of the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is the capital gains tax rates being lower.*
> 
> Why is that a problem?
> 
> *The poor tend to do ok but the middle class gets hosed.*
> 
> Define middle class. Defined hosed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation.  This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.
> 
> What some people don't seem to get is if you screw over the middle class it is only a matter of time before the entire country is screwed over. But hey lets try supply side economics again.
Click to expand...


*Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. *

That's true of everything government does.

So why are lower capital gains rates a problem?

*The poor tend to do ok but the middle class gets hosed.*

Define middle class. Defined hosed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> $16.5M minus $495k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Now all you have to do is prove it.


----------



## Londoner

Capitalism always reproduces a class of politically disenfranchised serfs to do the labor. The USA has typically maintained these serfs on the periphery - by forming partnerships w/ brutal regimes from China to Taiwan and Vietnam. [Research the condition of the labor forces who make Nike sneakers or Apple iPads]

However, the problem shifted from the periphery to homeland under Reagan who convinced the nation that we needed to lower the cost of production so that our capitalists would invest more and grow the economy. So we listened to him and we shrunk organized labor and we got rid of built-in cost of living wage increase ... and the Fed shifted from policies of full employment to austerity and...  over time ...  the wages of American workers shrunk and, through aggressive trade liberalization, jobs were increasingly shipped to freedom hating nations ... and, lo and behold, our capitalists somehow ended up with enough wealth to buy government . . . and our middle class died.

To make up for the middle class squeeze we created the most steroidal credit economy in history so that Americans could borrow enough money to survive. In short, we spent the last 30 years going deeper and deeper into debt to offset the prosperity that never trickled down. And now&#8230; the disenfranchised labor markets that once existed on the periphery have finally been reproduced in the homeland, which is what capitalism wants: cheap labor, a politically disenfranchised group of desperate serfs who will work for dog food.

Like a cloud of locusts, capital descended upon Washington and turned it into an ATM for the new plutocrats. How do they maintain their power? They pour money into think tanks and pop media in order to seduce under-educated voters with religion, patriotism, tradition, "family values", i.e., the culture war. Like the ordinary Germans who were seduced by Hitler's fabricated demons, the American right has created a block of paranoid revanchists who believe their country has been stolen by homosexual illegal alien islamofascist baby killing environmentalist multicultural atheists ... meanwhile the people who really fund our elections & staff government laugh all the way to the bank.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Since the government issued them, how are the worth anything to the government?



The worth was the revenue collected by the SSA in the first place. The issuance of debt just establishes what revenue stream has debt and which one has a surplus.


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is the capital gains tax rates being lower.*
> 
> Why is that a problem?
> 
> *The poor tend to do ok but the middle class gets hosed.*
> 
> Define middle class. Defined hosed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation.  This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.
> 
> What some people don't seem to get is if you screw over the middle class it is only a matter of time before the entire country is screwed over. But hey lets try supply side economics again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. *
> 
> That's true of everything government does.
> 
> So why are lower capital gains rates a problem?
> 
> *The poor tend to do ok but the middle class gets hosed.*
> 
> Define middle class. Defined hosed.
Click to expand...

I literally answer your question in what you quoted. 

Obtuseness is not a response.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Is that your way of admitting that you're the world's biggest sucker?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it is such a nonsensical fear you can't even explain it. Got it. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just explained it, numskull.  What I can't explain is what the gibberish you posted is intended to signify.
> 
> Furthermore, knowing that you have been defrauded isn't a "fear."
Click to expand...


So it is still a nonsensical fear. Got it. Thanks.


----------



## P@triot

KNB said:


> The US has spent $2 billion each week in Afghanistan for over 10 years and the Iraq war cost us over $4 trillion for absolutely no reason.  After ten straight years of constant war and torture, The War Against Terrorism is as close to being won as the 40-year-old war on drugs which was started over complete lies.
> 
> So why does every jagoff GOP shill claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility" and blame Obama for the country being broke?



Because Obama nearly added as much to the national debt ($7+ trillion) in 5 years as all presidents combined have ($10 trillion) in 230 years... you jagoff Dumbocrat!


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, far from rocket science, it's total bullshit. You have no proof that much higher taxes make people work less (and they don't work less in places like Germany or Scandinavian countries).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That just demonstrates people will try and avoid paying taxes when given the opportunity. That doesn't mean they stop working. Did you think you stumbled onto something meaningful?
Click to expand...


They have stopped working....in the U.S. In your glorious ignorant greed, you bypassed 30% in taxes from the people for 60% in taxes from these people and ended up with 0%.

Basic math not your strong point?


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorant false narrative of the greedy, lazy Dumbocrat continues to collapse under the weight of reality. Here is _undeniable_ *proof* that higher taxes cause people to work less. In fact, they stop working _completely_ (for the U.S.) and start working for nations that embrace their efforts instead of demonizing it. What now idiot - er, uh ilia? Come on, give us some really "clever" excuse for this undeniable reality that is backed up with multiple links from multiple sources...
> 
> Americans renouncing citizenship in record numbers, seek to avoid tax | Fox News
> 
> Americans turn in passports as new tax law hits - Sep. 4, 2013
> 
> 5 citizens who left the U.S. to avoid paying tax - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just demonstrates people will try and avoid paying taxes when given the opportunity. That doesn't mean they stop working. Did you think you stumbled onto something meaningful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have stopped working....in the U.S. In your glorious ignorant greed, you bypassed 30% in taxes from the people for 60% in taxes from these people and ended up with 0%.
> 
> Basic math not your strong point?
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is that people will try and avoid paying taxes. This is such new and interesting information. Thank you so much for providing it.


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sure sign of a terminal sucker is expressing a feeling of confidence knowing his Social Security is invested safely in the SS "Trust Fund."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is your fear default?
Click to expand...


Apparently ignorance is _yours_...


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> That just demonstrates people will try and avoid paying taxes when given the opportunity. That doesn't mean they stop working. Did you think you stumbled onto something meaningful?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have stopped working....in the U.S. In your glorious ignorant greed, you bypassed 30% in taxes from the people for 60% in taxes from these people and ended up with 0%.
> 
> Basic math not your strong point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that *people will try and avoid paying taxes*. This is such new and interesting information. Thank you so much for providing it.
Click to expand...


What's funny is that he gets it, but yet he doesn't _get_ it.... 

(Hint: if you're "bright" enough to figure out people will not accept high taxes, how can you be so stupid as to support high taxes )


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the government issued them, how are the worth anything to the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The worth was the revenue collected by the SSA in the first place. The issuance of debt just establishes what revenue stream has debt and which one has a surplus.
Click to expand...


Meaningless gibberish.  Congress spent all the money that came in.  They issued bonds (worthless IOUs) so they could con the voters into believing that the money wasn't flushed down the toilet.  However, anyone who can do third grade math knows that's exactly what happened.  There is nothing worth a dime in the SS trust fund.  That fact is indisputable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation.  This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.
> 
> What some people don't seem to get is if you screw over the middle class it is only a matter of time before the entire country is screwed over. But hey lets try supply side economics again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. *
> 
> That's true of everything government does.
> 
> So why are lower capital gains rates a problem?
> 
> *The poor tend to do ok but the middle class gets hosed.*
> 
> Define middle class. Defined hosed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I literally answer your question in what you quoted.
> 
> Obtuseness is not a response.
Click to expand...


You did not explain why lower capital gains rates are a problem.

*Obtuseness is not a response.*

I agree, so stop being obtuse.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is such a nonsensical fear you can't even explain it. Got it. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained it, numskull.  What I can't explain is what the gibberish you posted is intended to signify.
> 
> Furthermore, knowing that you have been defrauded isn't a "fear."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it is still a nonsensical fear. Got it. Thanks.
Click to expand...


As I said, there is no "fear. " There is certainty that we have been defrauded because gullible numskulls like you trust politicians to manage your money.


----------



## bripat9643

Rottweiler said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have stopped working....in the U.S. In your glorious ignorant greed, you bypassed 30% in taxes from the people for 60% in taxes from these people and ended up with 0%.
> 
> Basic math not your strong point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that *people will try and avoid paying taxes*. This is such new and interesting information. Thank you so much for providing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is that he gets it, but yet he doesn't _get_ it....
> 
> (Hint: if you're "bright" enough to figure out people will not accept high taxes, how can you be so stupid as to support high taxes )
Click to expand...


What's even funnier is that he believes there's actual money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  That's the sure sign of the terminally naïve.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of those gains did you realize?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $16.5M minus $495k.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?
Click to expand...


We've been over this before with him a dozen times.  He's lying.  The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit.  He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue.  Guy's an idiot.


----------



## freedombecki

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation. This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.
> 
> What some people don't seem to get is if you screw over the middle class it is only a matter of time before the entire country is screwed over. But hey lets try supply side economics again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. *
> 
> That's true of everything government does.
> 
> So why are lower capital gains rates a problem?
> 
> *The poor tend to do ok but the middle class gets hosed.*
> 
> Define middle class. Defined hosed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I literally answer your question in what you quoted.
> 
> Obtuseness is not a response.
Click to expand...


Project much?


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2012 my portfolio made $16.5M and paid $495k total tax.
> 
> You seem to be confused with tax rates vs. actual tax paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much of those gains did you realize?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $16.5M minus $495k.
Click to expand...


I see you don't understand the meaning of "gain."

Do you actually think you're fooling anyone?


----------



## georgephillip

Rottweiler said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's more stealing going on than you know when your Democrat Congressmen find a person who's broke or in business failure, makes a law to bail him out, but puts him on the hook forever to raise funds for their quid-pro-quo careers, emptying the taxpayer's hard-earned taxes from the treasury, dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds for their favorite pet rock projects, then tarnishing Republicans for all their sneaky dealing for other things, such as "accidents" they conveniently dispose of business' getting experts to pinpoint the problem, and really pulling the wool over the eyes of the public with the press moving in to show dead birds, dead fish, and chest-thumping Sean Penns coming in to say something nasty about Republicans for free so the base will have a celebrity said so piece of bullshit.
> 
> They're turning this country into a communist nation, and when they're done, pal, you're dead if you criticize them in any way, because communists accept zero free speech from anyone except themselves. So then it's lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and when you call them on it, they just kill you.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, here is where you prove your lack of intelligence..
> 
> "dipping into their expropriated Social Security funds "
> 
> The Social Security Administration managed the trust funds for OASI and and DI.  These trust funds have held a considerable surplus.  Instead of leaving it doing nothing, they collect intrest on it by buying Treasury Bonds.  *T-bills are the most risk free investments in the world*. That is why every bank, hedge fund, and foreign country buys them.
> 
> It would be really stupid for SSA to buy stock instead of T-Bills.
> 
> Clearly, you simply make shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is so stupid it's downright comical. I don't even know where to begin....
> 
> First, the fact that you believe that Treasury Bonds are "the most risk free investment in the world" is fucking fall down hilarious and proves your a blind partisan hack who doesn't have a clue what is going on in the real world. Despite all of Obama's disgusting bullying, threatening, and bribing, the bond rating of the United States has been lowered because Obama has bankrupted this nation and we can no longer pay our bills (hint: the "most risk free" investments in the world don't get their credit ration lowered, _stupid_).
> 
> Second, the fact that you believe the SSA should invest in "t-bills" is possibly more fall down hysterical than your previous idiot statement. The SSA is the federal government, dumb ass. So you want them to invest in.....themselves?
> 
> Think of the pure idiocy of that statement. Can you imagine if Apple bought their own stock that they issued? You can only bring additional cash if someone outside of your "circle" (business, government, etc.) buys the stock. Dummy here is too stupid to realize that if Accounts Receivable receives $10 from a stock which was purchased by their own Accounts Payable, the net result is $0.
Click to expand...

*Can you imagine what would happen if Apple started printing its own MacMoney?*

"The biggest reasons that T-Bills are so popular is that they are one of the few money market instruments that are affordable to the individual investors. 

"T-bills are usually issued in denominations of $1,000, $5,000, $10,000, $25,000, $50,000, $100,000 and $1 million. 

"Other positives are that T-bills (and all Treasuries) are considered to be the safest investments in the world because the U.S. government backs them. 

"*In fact, they are considered risk-free*. 

"Furthermore, they are exempt from state and local taxes. (For more on this, see Why do commercial bills have higher yields than T-bills?)"

Money Market: Treasury Bills (T-Bills) | Investopedia


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. *
> 
> That's true of everything government does.
> 
> So why are lower capital gains rates a problem?
> 
> *The poor tend to do ok but the middle class gets hosed.*
> 
> Define middle class. Defined hosed.
> 
> 
> 
> I literally answer your question in what you quoted.
> 
> Obtuseness is not a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not explain why lower capital gains rates are a problem.
> 
> *Obtuseness is not a response.*
> 
> I agree, so stop being obtuse.
Click to expand...


Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation. This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse. 

Copy and pasted from my own post that you quoted twice.

Obtuseness is not a response.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained it, numskull.  What I can't explain is what the gibberish you posted is intended to signify.
> 
> Furthermore, knowing that you have been defrauded isn't a "fear."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it is still a nonsensical fear. Got it. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, there is no "fear. " There is certainty that we have been defrauded because gullible numskulls like you trust politicians to manage your money.
Click to expand...


So it is just nonsensical gibberish.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that *people will try and avoid paying taxes*. This is such new and interesting information. Thank you so much for providing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that he gets it, but yet he doesn't _get_ it....
> 
> (Hint: if you're "bright" enough to figure out people will not accept high taxes, how can you be so stupid as to support high taxes )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's even funnier is that he believes there's actual money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  That's the sure sign of the terminally naïve.
Click to expand...


There are special issue securities in the SS Trust Fund.

See there is this movement out there by those with a lot of money to tell people like yourself that SS needs to be cut because it is invested in T-bills. These people want the government to shift the debt away from the General Fund and onto the SS trust fund because they know the GF is more progressively taxed than the SS trust fund. They would rather have the GF problems be fixed on the backs of the middle class.

You are not only wrong, you are the part of the ignorant masses that has been duped to work against your own self interest. Markets don't work when people have really bad information. It is hard to believe that Democracy will work when there are people out there are clueless as you are.


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that *people will try and avoid paying taxes*. This is such new and interesting information. Thank you so much for providing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that he gets it, but yet he doesn't _get_ it....
> 
> (Hint: if you're "bright" enough to figure out people will not accept high taxes, how can you be so stupid as to support high taxes )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's even funnier is that he believes there's actual money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  That's the sure sign of the terminally naïve.
Click to expand...


That is really amazing considering politicians on both sides have openly admitted that the fund was pillaged years ago and has been operating as part of the general budget for about 70 years now.


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that he gets it, but yet he doesn't _get_ it....
> 
> (Hint: if you're "bright" enough to figure out people will not accept high taxes, how can you be so stupid as to support high taxes )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's even funnier is that he believes there's actual money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  That's the sure sign of the terminally naïve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is really amazing considering politicians on both sides have openly admitted that the fund was pillaged years ago and has been operating as part of the general budget for about 70 years now.
Click to expand...


Ohh look the puppy has been duped too.

I am shocked.


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have stopped working....in the U.S. In your glorious ignorant greed, you bypassed 30% in taxes from the people for 60% in taxes from these people and ended up with 0%.
> 
> Basic math not your strong point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that *people will try and avoid paying taxes*. This is such new and interesting information. Thank you so much for providing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is that he gets it, but yet he doesn't _get_ it....
> 
> (Hint: if you're "bright" enough to figure out people will not accept high taxes, how can you be so stupid as to support high taxes )
Click to expand...


It is amazing we collect any taxes at all based on your understanding of taxation. 

The fact that you are establishing is obvious. People avoid taxes when the cost of avoiding them is less than the cost of the tax to them. To turn around and apply this as some universal truth about all taxes is just stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I literally answer your question in what you quoted.
> 
> Obtuseness is not a response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not explain why lower capital gains rates are a problem.
> 
> *Obtuseness is not a response.*
> 
> I agree, so stop being obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation. This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.
> 
> Copy and pasted from my own post that you quoted twice.
> 
> Obtuseness is not a response.
Click to expand...

*
Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. *

Lower income people pay a lower capital gains tax rate than upper income.
Have for decades. 
So why is that a problem?


----------



## Iceweasel

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. *
> 
> Lower income people pay a lower capital gains tax rate than upper income.
> Have for decades.
> So why is that a problem?


You don't expect a lucid response do you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Iceweasel said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. *
> 
> Lower income people pay a lower capital gains tax rate than upper income.
> Have for decades.
> So why is that a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't expect a lucid response do you?
Click to expand...


Not really.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is still a nonsensical fear. Got it. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, there is no "fear. " There is certainty that we have been defrauded because gullible numskulls like you trust politicians to manage your money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it is just nonsensical gibberish.
Click to expand...


Yes, your belief in the "Trust Fund" is nonsensical.


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not explain why lower capital gains rates are a problem.
> 
> *Obtuseness is not a response.*
> 
> I agree, so stop being obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation. This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.
> 
> Copy and pasted from my own post that you quoted twice.
> 
> Obtuseness is not a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. *
> 
> Lower income people pay a lower capital gains tax rate than upper income.
> Have for decades.
> So why is that a problem?
Click to expand...


So what? You have not made a logical connection to what I have already said. You didn't disprove the fact presented nor did you dispute the problems that have arisen due to that.

See there is this thing called logic. When you have a response it helps to create a logical argument and not just throw out red herring after red herring.


----------



## Bombur

Iceweasel said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. *
> 
> Lower income people pay a lower capital gains tax rate than upper income.
> Have for decades.
> So why is that a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't expect a lucid response do you?
Click to expand...


Are you still upset that I showed you that Reagan was a Keynesian?


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that he gets it, but yet he doesn't _get_ it....
> 
> (Hint: if you're "bright" enough to figure out people will not accept high taxes, how can you be so stupid as to support high taxes )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's even funnier is that he believes there's actual money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  That's the sure sign of the terminally naïve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are special issue securities in the SS Trust Fund.
> 
> See there is this movement out there by those with a lot of money to tell people like yourself that SS needs to be cut because it is invested in T-bills. These people want the government to shift the debt away from the General Fund and onto the SS trust fund because they know the GF is more progressively taxed than the SS trust fund. They would rather have the GF problems be fixed on the backs of the middle class.
Click to expand...


That's utter nonsense.  The debt isn't taxed.  People are taxed.  It doesn't matter what kind of shell game the government plays with the numbers, it still owes 'X' amount of dollars.  The taxes you pay have no connection with the "GF" or the "SS Trust Fund."  It's all just revenue, as far as the government is concerned.



Bombur said:


> [You are not only wrong, you are the part of the ignorant masses that has been duped to work against your own self interest. Markets don't work when people have really bad information. It is hard to believe that Democracy will work when there are people out there are clueless as you are.



Sorry, turd, but you're the one who has been duped into believing there is actual money in the SS Trust Fund.  There isn't.   Government spent every dime the minute Congress got its hands on it.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, there is no "fear. " There is certainty that we have been defrauded because gullible numskulls like you trust politicians to manage your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it is just nonsensical gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your belief in the "Trust Fund" is nonsensical.
Click to expand...


My trust in T-Bills is nonsensical?

The biggest threat to SS is not the fact that they are invested in T-bills. It is people like you who are too dumb to tell the difference between the debt of the General Fund and investments made by the SS Trust Fund. People so dumb they will begin to equate the two and after decades of the GF taking on debt they will shift the responsibility of that debt onto the backs of the middle class.

Do you hate the middle class or are you just dumb?


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. *
> 
> Lower income people pay a lower capital gains tax rate than upper income.
> Have for decades.
> So why is that a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't expect a lucid response do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still upset that I showed you that Reagan was a Keynesian?
Click to expand...


You only showed that you're utterly clueless.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's even funnier is that he believes there's actual money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  That's the sure sign of the terminally naïve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are special issue securities in the SS Trust Fund.
> 
> See there is this movement out there by those with a lot of money to tell people like yourself that SS needs to be cut because it is invested in T-bills. These people want the government to shift the debt away from the General Fund and onto the SS trust fund because they know the GF is more progressively taxed than the SS trust fund. They would rather have the GF problems be fixed on the backs of the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's utter nonsense.  The debt isn't taxed.  People are taxed.  It doesn't matter what kind of shell game the government plays with the numbers, it still owes 'X' amount of dollars.  The taxes you pay have no connection with the "GF" or the "SS Trust Fund."  It's all just revenue, as far as the government is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> [You are not only wrong, you are the part of the ignorant masses that has been duped to work against your own self interest. Markets don't work when people have really bad information. It is hard to believe that Democracy will work when there are people out there are clueless as you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you're the one who has been duped into believing there is actual money in the SS Trust Fund.  There isn't.   Government spent every dime the minute Congress got its hands on it.
Click to expand...


Thank you for such a clear and blatant demonstration of your ignorance and your willingness to sell the middle class down the river.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't expect a lucid response do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still upset that I showed you that Reagan was a Keynesian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You only showed that you're utterly clueless.
Click to expand...


So Reagan didn't use a large increase in debt spending?

Your ability to ignore well known facts is fascinating.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is just nonsensical gibberish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your belief in the "Trust Fund" is nonsensical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My trust in T-Bills is nonsensical?
> 
> The biggest threat to SS is not the fact that they are invested in T-bills. It is people like you who are too dumb to tell the difference between the debt of the General Fund and investments made by the SS Trust Fund. People so dumb they will begin to equate the two and after decades of the GF taking on debt they will shift the responsibility of that debt onto the backs of the middle class.
> 
> Do you hate the middle class or are you just dumb?
Click to expand...


When government buys a T-bill, it buys an obligation that it created.  In other words, it loans money to itself.  Calling that an "investment" would be like giving money to Bernie Madoff and calling that an investment.  When the government goes to collect the money for the T-bills, who pays it?  The government!

Only a special kind of moron believes government buying a T-bill is of some benefit to the taxpayer.  I would get the exact same benefit if I wrote "I owe myself $1 billion" on a piece of paper and put it in my file cabinet.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still upset that I showed you that Reagan was a Keynesian?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You only showed that you're utterly clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Reagan didn't use a large increase in debt spending?
> 
> Your ability to ignore well known facts is fascinating.
Click to expand...


As Obama so emphatically demonstrated, deficit spending doesn't do a thing for the economy.  Keynes' theory are all Voo Doo.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your belief in the "Trust Fund" is nonsensical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My trust in T-Bills is nonsensical?
> 
> The biggest threat to SS is not the fact that they are invested in T-bills. It is people like you who are too dumb to tell the difference between the debt of the General Fund and investments made by the SS Trust Fund. People so dumb they will begin to equate the two and after decades of the GF taking on debt they will shift the responsibility of that debt onto the backs of the middle class.
> 
> Do you hate the middle class or are you just dumb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When government buys a T-bill, it buys an obligation that it created.  In other words, it loans money to itself.  Calling that an "investment" would be like giving money to Bernie Madoff and calling that an investment.  When the government goes to collect the money for the T-bills, who pays it?  The government!
> 
> Only a special kind of moron believes government buying a T-bill is of some benefit to the taxpayer.  I would get the exact same benefit if I wrote "I owe myself $1 billion" on a piece of paper and put it in my file cabinet.
Click to expand...


I am not denying that the GF is in debt. I am denying the need to address that debt problem of the GF with changes to SS.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only showed that you're utterly clueless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Reagan didn't use a large increase in debt spending?
> 
> Your ability to ignore well known facts is fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Obama so emphatically demonstrated, deficit spending doesn't do a thing for the economy.  Keynes' theory are all Voo Doo.
Click to expand...


I believe I already made a post on this but the bottom line is that the situation now is vastly different than it was with Reagan or with the 2002 recession.

Something about 3 decades or more of wage stagnation and accumulation of debt at the government level and debt to foreign entities changes things.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Reagan didn't use a large increase in debt spending?
> 
> Your ability to ignore well known facts is fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Obama so emphatically demonstrated, deficit spending doesn't do a thing for the economy.  Keynes' theory are all Voo Doo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe I already made a post on this but the bottom line is that the situation now is vastly different than it was with Reagan or with the 2002 recession.
> 
> Something about 3 decades or more of wage stagnation and accumulation of debt at the government level and debt to foreign entities changes things.
Click to expand...


Yada, yada, yada.  Libturds always have a million excuses for why their lame theories never work.

You've already demonstrated that you don't know what the economic meaning of "gain" is.  

You don' t know the difference between profit and revenue.

You don't know why government "investment" in T-bills is a con.

In short, you have proved over and over that you're an ignoramus.  You're also a liar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation. This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.
> 
> Copy and pasted from my own post that you quoted twice.
> 
> Obtuseness is not a response.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. *
> 
> Lower income people pay a lower capital gains tax rate than upper income.
> Have for decades.
> So why is that a problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? You have not made a logical connection to what I have already said. You didn't disprove the fact presented nor did you dispute the problems that have arisen due to that.
> 
> See there is this thing called logic. When you have a response it helps to create a logical argument and not just throw out red herring after red herring.
Click to expand...


*See there is this thing called logic.*

Use your logic to explain why a capital gains tax rate lower than the income tax rate is a problem.


----------



## ilia25

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Obama so emphatically demonstrated, deficit spending doesn't do a thing for the economy.  Keynes' theory are all Voo Doo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I already made a post on this but the bottom line is that the situation now is vastly different than it was with Reagan or with the 2002 recession.
> 
> Something about 3 decades or more of wage stagnation and accumulation of debt at the government level and debt to foreign entities changes things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yada, yada, yada.  Libturds always have a million excuses for why their lame theories never work.
Click to expand...


Keynes theory work and if it needed any proof, this depression did it many times over. You are just too insecure and scared to admit that your beliefs have always been wrong.


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. *
> 
> Lower income people pay a lower capital gains tax rate than upper income.
> Have for decades.
> So why is that a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? You have not made a logical connection to what I have already said. You didn't disprove the fact presented nor did you dispute the problems that have arisen due to that.
> 
> See there is this thing called logic. When you have a response it helps to create a logical argument and not just throw out red herring after red herring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *See there is this thing called logic.*
> 
> Use your logic to explain why a capital gains tax rate lower than the income tax rate is a problem.
Click to expand...


I already posted this answer twice.


----------



## Misty

Main Entry: welfare capitalism
Function: noun
: capitalism characterized by a concern for the welfare of various social groupings (as workers) expressed usu. through social-security programs, collective-bargaining agreements, state industrial codes, and other guarantees against insecurity. 

There are many types of capitalism. Good luck getting rid of any of them.


----------



## pvsi

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*


I wish you could see it from my view: I would like to agree with you, but enough people never will in order to defeat what is bad about capitalism. I grew up in USSR and I loved the America that was promised. they switch regimes once in a while to give people new hope, but the same people control it behind the scenes, like a gardener. WHAT IS CAPITALISM? is bribing government capitalism? if so, then of course it is evil and the cause of the bad, and everyone will agree with you, but will they agree that that is what capitalism is about? no, those who control the media will tell people that capitalism is small businesses being able to function freely and that the alternative is socialism - I DO NOT believe their lies, but how will we get through to the bamboozled masses of Americans? we have to learn to speak their language, not the lawyer language, but we have to understand what they know as what. I wish we can work together and that you could see my web site... You may say Bush the capitalist invaded Iraq/Afghanistan, if you believe that, you are as brainwashed as all the people on these forums - Hillary Clinton and most democrats voted for authorization. And when they talk about welfare class, they associate it with the poor, because they never mention the real welfare class that usurps the tax money of society which is the ultra rich - kings have always used taxation to rob the poor middle class, not the rich. they turn it around.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Obama so emphatically demonstrated, deficit spending doesn't do a thing for the economy.  Keynes' theory are all Voo Doo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I already made a post on this but the bottom line is that the situation now is vastly different than it was with Reagan or with the 2002 recession.
> 
> Something about 3 decades or more of wage stagnation and accumulation of debt at the government level and debt to foreign entities changes things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yada, yada, yada.  Libturds always have a million excuses for why their lame theories never work.
> 
> You've already demonstrated that you don't know what the economic meaning of "gain" is.
> 
> You don' t know the difference between profit and revenue.
> 
> You don't know why government "investment" in T-bills is a con.
> 
> In short, you have proved over and over that you're an ignoramus.  You're also a liar.
Click to expand...


Who said it didn't work? Well besides you.

Keynesian economics is far from perfect and I believe in monetary manipulation more than increasing government debt spending but I don't think either approaches would fix the fundamental problems facing the US economy. Neither were really ever meant to.

Economics is a complicated field of study and if you are not ready for nuance then you might as well quit before you start.


----------



## Misty

Why capital gains tax rates are lower than income tax rates | New Hampshire Columns

"How are capital gains different from ordinary income?

Ordinary income is usually guaranteed. If you work a certain amount of time, you are legally entitled to the pay that you were offered when you took the job. Capital gains involve risk. They are not guaranteed. You can invest your money and lose it all. Moreover, the year when you receive capital gains may not be the same as the years when they were earned."

Very similar principles apply to businesses. We pay attention to businesses after they have succeeded. But most new businesses do not succeed. Even those businesses that eventually turn out to be enormously successful may go through years of losing money before they have their first year of earning a profit.

Amazon.com spent years losing money before turning a profit for the first time in 2001. McDonald's teetered on the edge of bankruptcy more than once in its early years. Desperate expedients were resorted to by the people who ran McDonald's, in order to just keep their noses above the water, while hoping for better days."

From a great article;


----------



## bripat9643

ilia25 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I already made a post on this but the bottom line is that the situation now is vastly different than it was with Reagan or with the 2002 recession.
> 
> Something about 3 decades or more of wage stagnation and accumulation of debt at the government level and debt to foreign entities changes things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yada, yada, yada.  Libturds always have a million excuses for why their lame theories never work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keynes theory work and if it needed any proof, this depression did it many times over. You are just too insecure and scared to admit that your beliefs have always been wrong.
Click to expand...


No, they obviously don't work.  According to Keynes, you can have high inflation or high unemployment.  You can't have both.  There is supposed to be a trade-off between one and the other.  However, during the recession of 1982 we had both high unemployment and high interest rates.  Also, in all the Latin American kleptocracies, they have had both for decades.

That's only one example of why Keynes is nothing more than a dispenser of Voo Doo used to justify government manipulation of the economy.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yada, yada, yada.  Libturds always have a million excuses for why their lame theories never work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keynes theory work and if it needed any proof, this depression did it many times over. You are just too insecure and scared to admit that your beliefs have always been wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they obviously don't work.  According to Keynes, you can have high inflation or high unemployment.  You can't have both.  There is supposed to be a trade-off between one and the other.  However, during the recession of 1982 we had both high unemployment and high interest rates.  Also, in all the Latin American kleptocracies, they have had both for decades.
> 
> That's only one example of why Keynes is nothing more than a dispenser of Voo Doo used to justify government manipulation of the economy.
Click to expand...


We are not saying it worked because Keynes is perfect. We are not appealing to Keynes as an absolute authority. We are appealing to a theory that was put into practice multiple times in various situations. Including once by Ronald Reagan. So you see you didn't actually logically address the issue before you. 

HTH


----------



## bripat9643

ilia25 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I already made a post on this but the bottom line is that the situation now is vastly different than it was with Reagan or with the 2002 recession.
> 
> Something about 3 decades or more of wage stagnation and accumulation of debt at the government level and debt to foreign entities changes things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yada, yada, yada.  Libturds always have a million excuses for why their lame theories never work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keynes theory work and if it needed any proof, this depression did it many times over. You are just too insecure and scared to admit that your beliefs have always been wrong.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  Sorry, but the depression proved Keynes theories don't work.  If they worked, then why did the depression last for 12 years?


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keynes theory work and if it needed any proof, this depression did it many times over. You are just too insecure and scared to admit that your beliefs have always been wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they obviously don't work.  According to Keynes, you can have high inflation or high unemployment.  You can't have both.  There is supposed to be a trade-off between one and the other.  However, during the recession of 1982 we had both high unemployment and high interest rates.  Also, in all the Latin American kleptocracies, they have had both for decades.
> 
> That's only one example of why Keynes is nothing more than a dispenser of Voo Doo used to justify government manipulation of the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not saying it worked because Keynes is perfect. We are not appealing to Keynes as an absolute authority. We are appealing to a theory that was put into practice multiple times in various situations. Including once by Ronald Reagan. So you see you didn't actually logically address the issue before you.
> 
> HTH
Click to expand...


If you have an example that behaves exactly the opposite of what theory predictions, then your theory is bunk.  It's as simple as that.  Furthermore, we have multiple examples, like the current recession, that behave exactly the opposite of what theory predicts.


----------



## Bombur

Misty said:


> Why capital gains tax rates are lower than income tax rates | New Hampshire Columns
> 
> "How are capital gains different from ordinary income?
> 
> Ordinary income is usually guaranteed. If you work a certain amount of time, you are legally entitled to the pay that you were offered when you took the job. Capital gains involve risk. They are not guaranteed. You can invest your money and lose it all. Moreover, the year when you receive capital gains may not be the same as the years when they were earned."
> 
> Very similar principles apply to businesses. We pay attention to businesses after they have succeeded. But most new businesses do not succeed. Even those businesses that eventually turn out to be enormously successful may go through years of losing money before they have their first year of earning a profit.
> 
> Amazon.com spent years losing money before turning a profit for the first time in 2001. McDonald's teetered on the edge of bankruptcy more than once in its early years. Desperate expedients were resorted to by the people who ran McDonald's, in order to just keep their noses above the water, while hoping for better days."
> 
> From a great article;



The first part of the article focuses on the poor investor and tries to paint a picture that makes it look like the issue is about taxing struggling companies. It isn't. It is about how there is a small number of people making a lot of money in personal income and paying significantly less than others.

There is risk in labor as well. People have to invest their lives into careers that may simply not be there in five years. When a company goes under people lose jobs too. 

There is no doubt that taxation impacts markets and they impact the labor market just like they impact the capital market. The problem with the article is that it is made without any reference to the actual health of those markets. The labor market has struggled for decades while the capital market has exploded.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they obviously don't work.  According to Keynes, you can have high inflation or high unemployment.  You can't have both.  There is supposed to be a trade-off between one and the other.  However, during the recession of 1982 we had both high unemployment and high interest rates.  Also, in all the Latin American kleptocracies, they have had both for decades.
> 
> That's only one example of why Keynes is nothing more than a dispenser of Voo Doo used to justify government manipulation of the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not saying it worked because Keynes is perfect. We are not appealing to Keynes as an absolute authority. We are appealing to a theory that was put into practice multiple times in various situations. Including once by Ronald Reagan. So you see you didn't actually logically address the issue before you.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have an example that behaves exactly the opposite of what theory predictions, then your theory is bunk.  It's as simple as that.  Furthermore, we have multiple examples, like the current recession, that behave exactly the opposite of what theory predicts.
Click to expand...


It is not behaving the exact opposite. If anything the latest recession has shown that drops in government spending slow down economic recovery. 

The thing is that the latest problems demonstrate the need to hold less debt during good periods and to have less foreign debt. If you made your argument about those issues I bet we could find some common ground. 

Government debt spending is not a cure all and neither is monetary policy. If the economy is experiencing a large correction it is experiencing a large correction.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yada, yada, yada.  Libturds always have a million excuses for why their lame theories never work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keynes theory work and if it needed any proof, this depression did it many times over. You are just too insecure and scared to admit that your beliefs have always been wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Sorry, but the depression proved Keynes theories don't work.  If they worked, then why did the depression last for 12 years?
Click to expand...


Reductions in the money supply and the severity of the recession due to the income inequality of the day definitely played their part.


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> The labor market has struggled for decades while the capital market has exploded.



*Why the U.S. Has Lost Manufacturing Jobs*

By Michael S. Rozeff

January 31, 2014

The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by ending its extremely costly interventions overseas and reducing its military establishment..... the reduction in government spending .... matched by tax cuts, then the economy would be given a big leg up to adjust to productive lines of work. The U.S. is over-investing in phantom security.

The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by scrapping Obamacare and freeing up the medical sector of the economy, thereby making it more competitive and producing lower costs and higher quality.

The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by making Social Security optional for them.


.


----------



## georgephillip

pvsi said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you could see it from my view: I would like to agree with you, but enough people never will in order to defeat what is bad about capitalism. I grew up in USSR and I loved the America that was promised. they switch regimes once in a while to give people new hope, but the same people control it behind the scenes, like a gardener. WHAT IS CAPITALISM? is bribing government capitalism? if so, then of course it is evil and the cause of the bad, and everyone will agree with you, but will they agree that that is what capitalism is about? no, those who control the media will tell people that capitalism is small businesses being able to function freely and that the alternative is socialism - I DO NOT believe their lies, but how will we get through to the bamboozled masses of Americans? we have to learn to speak their language, not the lawyer language, but we have to understand what they know as what. I wish we can work together and that you could see my web site... You may say Bush the capitalist invaded Iraq/Afghanistan, if you believe that, you are as brainwashed as all the people on these forums - Hillary Clinton and most democrats voted for authorization. And when they talk about welfare class, they associate it with the poor, because they never mention the real welfare class that usurps the tax money of society which is the ultra rich - kings have always used taxation to rob the poor middle class, not the rich. they turn it around.
Click to expand...

*Economist Dean Baker has been writing about the Conservative Nanny State for years and has a free e-book you can download.

Here's a condensed version Dean wrote for CounterPunch:*

"Progressives have wailed against 'market fundamentalism' for the last quarter-century. 

"They complain that conservatives want to eliminate the government and leave everything to the market. 

"This is nonsense.

"The Right has every bit as much interest in government involvement in the economy as progressives. 

"The difference is that conservatives want the government to intervene in ways that redistribute income upward. 

"The other difference is that the Right is smart enough to hide its interventions, implying that the structures that redistribute income upward are just the natural working of the market. 

"Progressives help the Rights cause when we accuse them of being 'market fundamentalists,' effectively implying that the conservatives structuring of the economy is its natural state."

The Myth of Market Fundamentalism » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

*Welcome to the asylum!*


----------



## RKMBrown

georgephillip said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you remember about the FICA tax rate in the 1980s?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FICA tax is not Income Tax.  Two different animals so not even remotely associated with the issue being discussed.  With regard to SS we didn't have many choices the prior generations had already screwed future generations so the rates had to go up for that system to pay for the retired folks to get their discounted SS checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FICA is a tax based on income.
> The issue being discussed was Reagan's skyrocketing revenues produced from tax cuts.
> Reagan spiked FICA taxes and three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. It's hypocritical to claim revenue increases in the 80s were due to tax cuts on 25% of the population without mentioning the tax increases experienced by the other 75%.
Click to expand...


SS is supposed to be a program funded by the people that receive it.  It's not supposed to be like progressive income tax where the upper income folks are forced to foot the bill for the income folks.  Are you incapable of understanding that?  Why are folks like you always looking for a free ride?  Don't you have any pride at all?


----------



## Bombur

Contumacious said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The labor market has struggled for decades while the capital market has exploded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why the U.S. Has Lost Manufacturing Jobs*
> 
> By Michael S. Rozeff
> 
> January 31, 2014
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by ending its extremely costly interventions overseas and reducing its military establishment..... the reduction in government spending .... matched by tax cuts, then the economy would be given a big leg up to adjust to productive lines of work. The U.S. is over-investing in phantom security.
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by scrapping Obamacare and freeing up the medical sector of the economy, thereby making it more competitive and producing lower costs and higher quality.
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by making Social Security optional for them.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


OK cut military spending.

I think it is pretty obvious that UHC is far more efficient than the horrible Frankenstein monster that is our current system. So I agree with the general problem but there is a lot more evidence supporting UHC than there is in the idea the free market will solve our problems.

Making SS optional would just put more pressure on people to make good decisions and save for themselves. 

If you want legit conservative ways to improve things look to the corporate tax code. The way it works in the US is relatively unique in that it hurts US production and favors foreign production. Other nation's tax codes do the opposite.

You can also look at Chinese manipulation of our currency. That is not really anything either side is for. 

You can also look at regulations from a trade perspective. Having common regulations with Europe and Canada can help facilitate trade.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> FICA tax is not Income Tax.  Two different animals so not even remotely associated with the issue being discussed.  With regard to SS we didn't have many choices the prior generations had already screwed future generations so the rates had to go up for that system to pay for the retired folks to get their discounted SS checks.
> 
> 
> 
> FICA is a tax based on income.
> The issue being discussed was Reagan's skyrocketing revenues produced from tax cuts.
> Reagan spiked FICA taxes and three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. It's hypocritical to claim revenue increases in the 80s were due to tax cuts on 25% of the population without mentioning the tax increases experienced by the other 75%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SS is supposed to be a program funded by the people that receive it.  It's not supposed to be like progressive income tax where the upper income folks are forced to foot the bill for the income folks.  Are you incapable of understanding that?
Click to expand...


I agree that is the case for the majority of the "pension" plan part of SS. The problem is the transfer payment for the low end of the spectrum. I also consider disability and unemployment to be programs that should be funded with a progressive tax.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I literally answer your question in what you quoted.
> 
> Obtuseness is not a response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not explain why lower capital gains rates are a problem.
> 
> *Obtuseness is not a response.*
> 
> I agree, so stop being obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation. This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.
> 
> Copy and pasted from my own post that you quoted twice.
> 
> Obtuseness is not a response.
Click to expand...


The tax code, which is heavily skewed in favor of people with low incomes, gives preferential treatment to people that don't need it?


----------



## Bombur

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not explain why lower capital gains rates are a problem.
> 
> *Obtuseness is not a response.*
> 
> I agree, so stop being obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation. This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.
> 
> Copy and pasted from my own post that you quoted twice.
> 
> Obtuseness is not a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tax code, which is heavily skewed in favor of people with low incomes, gives preferential treatment to people that don't need it?
Click to expand...


I am mostly concerned with the middle class. That said I don't really agree with your statement when you consider things like property taxes funding education and the impact that has on communities.


----------



## Redfish

RKMBrown said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> FICA tax is not Income Tax.  Two different animals so not even remotely associated with the issue being discussed.  With regard to SS we didn't have many choices the prior generations had already screwed future generations so the rates had to go up for that system to pay for the retired folks to get their discounted SS checks.
> 
> 
> 
> FICA is a tax based on income.
> The issue being discussed was Reagan's skyrocketing revenues produced from tax cuts.
> Reagan spiked FICA taxes and three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. It's hypocritical to claim revenue increases in the 80s were due to tax cuts on 25% of the population without mentioning the tax increases experienced by the other 75%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SS is supposed to be a program funded by the people that receive it.  It's not supposed to be like progressive income tax where the upper income folks are forced to foot the bill for the income folks.  Are you incapable of understanding that?  Why are folks like you always looking for a free ride?  Don't you have any pride at all?
Click to expand...


as originally conceived, you are correct, SS was to be a forced savings plan for retirement and you would get your money back if you lived long enough to retire.

As soon as LBJ merged SS funds with the general fund, that ended.   Since then SS is nothing but a tax whereby working people pay for retired people.   As a tax, it should be collected on all income of all kinds.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that he gets it, but yet he doesn't _get_ it....
> 
> (Hint: if you're "bright" enough to figure out people will not accept high taxes, how can you be so stupid as to support high taxes )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's even funnier is that he believes there's actual money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  That's the sure sign of the terminally naïve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are special issue securities in the SS Trust Fund.
> 
> See there is this movement out there by those with a lot of money to tell people like yourself that SS needs to be cut because it is invested in T-bills. These people want the government to shift the debt away from the General Fund and onto the SS trust fund because they know the GF is more progressively taxed than the SS trust fund. They would rather have the GF problems be fixed on the backs of the middle class.
> 
> You are not only wrong, you are the part of the ignorant masses that has been duped to work against your own self interest. Markets don't work when people have really bad information. It is hard to believe that Democracy will work when there are people out there are clueless as you are.
Click to expand...


Which explains why those same people insists that Social Security benefits should be means tested.

Wait, that doesn't make sense. Then again, nothing you have posted on this board that I have seen actually makes sense. Tell me something, o god of stupidity, what are the tax rates on government funds?


----------



## Bombur

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's even funnier is that he believes there's actual money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  That's the sure sign of the terminally naïve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are special issue securities in the SS Trust Fund.
> 
> See there is this movement out there by those with a lot of money to tell people like yourself that SS needs to be cut because it is invested in T-bills. These people want the government to shift the debt away from the General Fund and onto the SS trust fund because they know the GF is more progressively taxed than the SS trust fund. They would rather have the GF problems be fixed on the backs of the middle class.
> 
> You are not only wrong, you are the part of the ignorant masses that has been duped to work against your own self interest. Markets don't work when people have really bad information. It is hard to believe that Democracy will work when there are people out there are clueless as you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which explains why those same people insists that Social Security benefits should be means tested.
> 
> Wait, that doesn't make sense. Then again, nothing you have posted on this board that I have seen actually makes sense. Tell me something, o god of stupidity, what are the tax rates on government funds?
Click to expand...


Means testing SS is just an attempt to cut it in a way that is politically acceptable. 

Your second comment seems to be referencing something I typed incorrectly. I didn't mean to say "GF is more progressively taxed than the SS trust fund," I meant to say "GF is funded more progressively than the SS trust fund."


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bombur said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation. This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.
> 
> Copy and pasted from my own post that you quoted twice.
> 
> Obtuseness is not a response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tax code, which is heavily skewed in favor of people with low incomes, gives preferential treatment to people that don't need it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am mostly concerned with the middle class. That said I don't really agree with your statement when you consider things like property taxes funding education and the impact that has on communities.
Click to expand...


I have a simple answer to your concerns about the middle class, but you won't actually like it.

Since government programs, no matter who they benefit,has always been built on the backs of the middle class, and always will be, stop supporting so many government programs that are designed to siphon money from the only real source of it in the world.

I know you are sputtering incoherently right now, and are probably about to launch into a diatribe, but take some time to examine the evidence first. Rich people have never funded the government, and never will, because they do not have enough money, and can afford to stop working and hunker down if tax rates get too high for them.












Policy Basics: Where Do Federal Tax Revenues Come From? ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keynes theory work and if it needed any proof, this depression did it many times over. You are just too insecure and scared to admit that your beliefs have always been wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Sorry, but the depression proved Keynes theories don't work.  If they worked, then why did the depression last for 12 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reductions in the money supply and the severity of the recession due to the income inequality of the day definitely played their part.
Click to expand...


There is not a shred of evidence that income inequality causes recessions or depressions.  Tightening the money supply is what caused the financial panic in 1929. It's not what caused the depression to continue for 12 years.  FDR's economic policies are what caused it to continue.


----------



## Bombur

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tax code, which is heavily skewed in favor of people with low incomes, gives preferential treatment to people that don't need it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am mostly concerned with the middle class. That said I don't really agree with your statement when you consider things like property taxes funding education and the impact that has on communities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a simple answer to your concerns about the middle class, but you won't actually like it.
> 
> Since government programs, no matter who they benefit,has always been built on the backs of the middle class, and always will be, stop supporting so many government programs that are designed to siphon money from the only real source of it in the world.
> 
> I know you are sputtering incoherently right now, and are probably about to launch into a diatribe, but take some time to examine the evidence first. Rich people have never funded the government, and never will, because they do not have enough money, and can afford to stop working and hunker down if tax rates get too high for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Policy Basics: Where Do Federal Tax Revenues Come From? ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Click to expand...


LOL, rich people never funded the government?


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Sorry, but the depression proved Keynes theories don't work.  If they worked, then why did the depression last for 12 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reductions in the money supply and the severity of the recession due to the income inequality of the day definitely played their part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is not a shred of evidence that income inequality causes recessions or depressions.  Tightening the money supply is what caused the financial panic in 1929. It's not what caused the depression to continue for 12 years.  FDR's economic policies are what caused it to continue.
Click to expand...


Income inequality leads directly to more volatile economic cycles. If you want to talk about why I will happily do so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bombur said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are special issue securities in the SS Trust Fund.
> 
> See there is this movement out there by those with a lot of money to tell people like yourself that SS needs to be cut because it is invested in T-bills. These people want the government to shift the debt away from the General Fund and onto the SS trust fund because they know the GF is more progressively taxed than the SS trust fund. They would rather have the GF problems be fixed on the backs of the middle class.
> 
> You are not only wrong, you are the part of the ignorant masses that has been duped to work against your own self interest. Markets don't work when people have really bad information. It is hard to believe that Democracy will work when there are people out there are clueless as you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which explains why those same people insists that Social Security benefits should be means tested.
> 
> Wait, that doesn't make sense. Then again, nothing you have posted on this board that I have seen actually makes sense. Tell me something, o god of stupidity, what are the tax rates on government funds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing SS is just an attempt to cut it in a way that is politically acceptable.
> 
> Your second comment seems to be referencing something I typed incorrectly. I didn't mean to say "GF is more progressively taxed than the SS trust fund," I meant to say "GF is funded more progressively than the SS trust fund."
Click to expand...


Which is, supposedly, a good thing.

By the way, the fact that you oppose locking down the SS trust fun doesn't make you pro middle class because, under current retirement planning that exists in the US, the middle class needs the trust fund more than poor people do. If you are poor there are other safety net programs that kick in to cushion your retirement. If we don't fix Social Security soon they are going to be forced to raise the payroll taxes, which will take more money out of the pockets of the middle class, even if they raise the cutoff at which people are forced to contribute to SS.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bombur said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am mostly concerned with the middle class. That said I don't really agree with your statement when you consider things like property taxes funding education and the impact that has on communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a simple answer to your concerns about the middle class, but you won't actually like it.
> 
> Since government programs, no matter who they benefit,has always been built on the backs of the middle class, and always will be, stop supporting so many government programs that are designed to siphon money from the only real source of it in the world.
> 
> I know you are sputtering incoherently right now, and are probably about to launch into a diatribe, but take some time to examine the evidence first. Rich people have never funded the government, and never will, because they do not have enough money, and can afford to stop working and hunker down if tax rates get too high for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free
> 
> Policy Basics: Where Do Federal Tax Revenues Come From? ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, rich people never funded the government?
Click to expand...


Feel free to post actual data to prove me wrong.


----------



## Bombur

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which explains why those same people insists that Social Security benefits should be means tested.
> 
> Wait, that doesn't make sense. Then again, nothing you have posted on this board that I have seen actually makes sense. Tell me something, o god of stupidity, what are the tax rates on government funds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Means testing SS is just an attempt to cut it in a way that is politically acceptable.
> 
> Your second comment seems to be referencing something I typed incorrectly. I didn't mean to say "GF is more progressively taxed than the SS trust fund," I meant to say "GF is funded more progressively than the SS trust fund."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is, supposedly, a good thing.
> 
> By the way, the fact that you oppose locking down the SS trust fun doesn't make you pro middle class because, under current retirement planning that exists in the US, the middle class needs the trust fund more than poor people do. If you are poor there are other safety net programs that kick in to cushion your retirement. If we don't fix Social Security soon they are going to be forced to raise the payroll taxes, which will take more money out of the pockets of the middle class, even if they raise the cutoff at which people are forced to contribute to SS.
Click to expand...


I am all for moving disability out of OASDI. I am all for progressively funding the transfer payment inherent in the low end part of OAS. I am also for more progressively funding unemployment insurance which is in large part a guard against the economic cycle at this point.


----------



## Bombur

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a simple answer to your concerns about the middle class, but you won't actually like it.
> 
> Since government programs, no matter who they benefit,has always been built on the backs of the middle class, and always will be, stop supporting so many government programs that are designed to siphon money from the only real source of it in the world.
> 
> I know you are sputtering incoherently right now, and are probably about to launch into a diatribe, but take some time to examine the evidence first. Rich people have never funded the government, and never will, because they do not have enough money, and can afford to stop working and hunker down if tax rates get too high for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free
> 
> Policy Basics: Where Do Federal Tax Revenues Come From? ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, rich people never funded the government?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to post actual data to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


I have to prove you wrong even when you don't even bother to clearly argue your reasoning?

That doesn't seem right.


----------



## Dragonlady

Reagan was not a Keynesian. He was an acolyte of Milton Friedman, hence his destruction of unions, and his attacks against the social safety net and the poor. He also cut business regulations. But he couldn't end social programs. It would have been political suicide. So he was neither fish nor fowl. 

The Republican Party continues its belief in the free market policies Reagan set in place to this day. The destruction of unions had seen the stagnation of wages for the working class. Deregulation has created market volatility leading to instability in the stock market. Tax cuts have transferred wealth to the top 5% and increased poverty. 

Obama has not fully repudiated Friedman economics so again we have have a slowing of the economic recovery. Just as Reagan was hamstrung in fully embracing Friedman economics by the Democrats and public opinion favouring social programs, Obama has been prevented from fully embracing Keynesian economics by the brainwashed Republicans who still think the free market is the solution.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? You have not made a logical connection to what I have already said. You didn't disprove the fact presented nor did you dispute the problems that have arisen due to that.
> 
> See there is this thing called logic. When you have a response it helps to create a logical argument and not just throw out red herring after red herring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *See there is this thing called logic.*
> 
> Use your logic to explain why a capital gains tax rate lower than the income tax rate is a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already posted this answer twice.
Click to expand...


Just the fact that the rates are different is the problem?
Have you supported a flat tax rate for all?

Or is that too logical?


----------



## Contumacious

Dragonlady said:


> Reagan was not a Keynesian. He was an acolyte of Milton Friedman, hence his destruction of unions, and his attacks against the social safety net and the poor. .



*BULLSHIT.*
*
The Myths of Reaganomics *

*I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.*

*Government Spending.* How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? *In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion*. *In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.*

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The labor market has struggled for decades while the capital market has exploded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why the U.S. Has Lost Manufacturing Jobs*
> 
> By Michael S. Rozeff
> 
> January 31, 2014
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by ending its extremely costly interventions overseas and reducing its military establishment..... the reduction in government spending .... matched by tax cuts, then the economy would be given a big leg up to adjust to productive lines of work. The U.S. is over-investing in phantom security.
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by scrapping Obamacare and freeing up the medical sector of the economy, thereby making it more competitive and producing lower costs and higher quality.
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by making Social Security optional for them.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK cut military spending.
> 
> I think it is pretty obvious that UHC is far more efficient than the horrible Frankenstein monster that is our current system. So I agree with the general problem but there is a lot more evidence supporting UHC than there is in the idea the free market will solve our problems.
> 
> Making SS optional would just put more pressure on people to make good decisions and save for themselves.
> 
> If you want legit conservative ways to improve things look to the corporate tax code. The way it works in the US is relatively unique in that it hurts US production and favors foreign production. Other nation's tax codes do the opposite.
> 
> You can also look at Chinese manipulation of our currency. That is not really anything either side is for.
> 
> You can also look at regulations from a trade perspective. Having common regulations with Europe and Canada can help facilitate trade.
Click to expand...


*I think it is pretty obvious that UHC is far more efficient *

Based on what? The British system? The Canadian system? The USPS?

*Making SS optional would just put more pressure on people to make good decisions and save for themselves. *

You're right, we can't treat adults like adults, that would cut into the Dem voter base.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reductions in the money supply and the severity of the recession due to the income inequality of the day definitely played their part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a shred of evidence that income inequality causes recessions or depressions.  Tightening the money supply is what caused the financial panic in 1929. It's not what caused the depression to continue for 12 years.  FDR's economic policies are what caused it to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Income inequality leads directly to more volatile economic cycles. If you want to talk about why I will happily do so.
Click to expand...


Really?  Where is the evidence for that?


----------



## Contumacious

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a shred of evidence that income inequality causes recessions or depressions.  Tightening the money supply is what caused the financial panic in 1929. It's not what caused the depression to continue for 12 years.  FDR's economic policies are what caused it to continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income inequality leads directly to more volatile economic cycles. If you want to talk about why I will happily do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Where is the evidence for that?
Click to expand...


In his imagination.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bombur said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, rich people never funded the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to post actual data to prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to prove you wrong even when you don't even bother to clearly argue your reasoning?
> 
> That doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...


You have a problem with basic math? Tough fucking shit, either prove me wrong using whatever you want, or pretend I didn't actually make a point.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Reagan was not a Keynesian. He was an acolyte of Milton Friedman, hence his destruction of unions, and his attacks against the social safety net and the poor. He also cut business regulations. But he couldn't end social programs. It would have been political suicide. So he was neither fish nor fowl.
> 
> The Republican Party continues its belief in the free market policies Reagan set in place to this day. The destruction of unions had seen the stagnation of wages for the working class. Deregulation has created market volatility leading to instability in the stock market. Tax cuts have transferred wealth to the top 5% and increased poverty.
> 
> Obama has not fully repudiated Friedman economics so again we have have a slowing of the economic recovery. Just as Reagan was hamstrung in fully embracing Friedman economics by the Democrats and public opinion favouring social programs, Obama has been prevented from fully embracing Keynesian economics by the brainwashed Republicans who still think the free market is the solution.



The air controller strike had been brewing for months, and Carter laid out the plan to deal with them if they actually went on strike. All Reagan did was follow the plan, so if that single strike is the reason unions are dead, blame Carter.

In fact, Carter is single handedly responsible for every bad thing that happened to unions, which explains why the Teamsters actually endorsed Reagan rather than Carter.

The Decline of Unions, Part One: President Jimmy Carter, Union-Buster Extraordinaire | RedState


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dragonlady said:


> Reagan was not a Keynesian. He was an acolyte of Milton Friedman, hence his destruction of unions, and his attacks against the social safety net and the poor. He also cut business regulations. But he couldn't end social programs. It would have been political suicide. So he was neither fish nor fowl.
> 
> The Republican Party continues its belief in the free market policies Reagan set in place to this day. The destruction of unions had seen the stagnation of wages for the working class. Deregulation has created market volatility leading to instability in the stock market. Tax cuts have transferred wealth to the top 5% and increased poverty.
> 
> Obama has not fully repudiated Friedman economics so again we have have a slowing of the economic recovery. Just as Reagan was hamstrung in fully embracing Friedman economics by the Democrats and public opinion favouring social programs, Obama has been prevented from fully embracing Keynesian economics by the brainwashed Republicans who still think the free market is the solution.



*The destruction of unions had seen the stagnation of wages for the working class. *

Union destruction of their industries sure didn't help their wages.

*Deregulation has created market volatility leading to instability in the stock market. *

What deregulation, specifically, are you talking about?

*Tax cuts have transferred wealth to the top 5% and increased poverty. *

How do tax cuts increase poverty?


----------



## KevinWestern

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a shred of evidence that income inequality causes recessions or depressions.  Tightening the money supply is what caused the financial panic in 1929. It's not what caused the depression to continue for 12 years.  FDR's economic policies are what caused it to continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income inequality leads directly to more volatile economic cycles. If you want to talk about why I will happily do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Where is the evidence for that?
Click to expand...


Well, in Bombur's defense, according to this study conducted by the Department of Economics at Harvard, which draws on research from over 70 different countries (1960-1985, so rather recent data):

(1) Income inequality increases socio-political instability, (2) creating uncertainty in the politico-economic environment, which (3) reduces investment, ultimately (4) reducing growth of an economy.

If you have another study from a highly reputable institution (that covers a similarly diverse range of data) that reaches a different conclusion, I'd love to see it (in the spirit of debate).


----------



## Contumacious

KevinWestern said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Income inequality leads directly to more volatile economic cycles. If you want to talk about why I will happily do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where is the evidence for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in Bombur's defense, according to this study conducted by the Department of Economics at Harvard, which draws on research from over 70 different countries (1960-1985, so rather recent data):
> *
> (1) Income inequality increases socio-political instability,* .
Click to expand...


That merely means that the parasites find it easier to steal, loot and plunder than to acquire a marketable skill.


.


----------



## KevinWestern

Contumacious said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where is the evidence for that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Bombur's defense, according to this study conducted by the Department of Economics at Harvard, which draws on research from over 70 different countries (1960-1985, so rather recent data):
> *
> (1) Income inequality increases socio-political instability,* .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That merely means that the parasites find it easier to steal, loot and plunder than to acquire a marketable skill.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible. I don't condone people "stealing, looting, or plundering", I just are a rational person who realizes that these things will always occur no matter what. You can't stop it, and therefore you need to learn to work with it.


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why the U.S. Has Lost Manufacturing Jobs*
> 
> By Michael S. Rozeff
> 
> January 31, 2014
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by ending its extremely costly interventions overseas and reducing its military establishment..... the reduction in government spending .... matched by tax cuts, then the economy would be given a big leg up to adjust to productive lines of work. The U.S. is over-investing in phantom security.
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by scrapping Obamacare and freeing up the medical sector of the economy, thereby making it more competitive and producing lower costs and higher quality.
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by making Social Security optional for them.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK cut military spending.
> 
> I think it is pretty obvious that UHC is far more efficient than the horrible Frankenstein monster that is our current system. So I agree with the general problem but there is a lot more evidence supporting UHC than there is in the idea the free market will solve our problems.
> 
> Making SS optional would just put more pressure on people to make good decisions and save for themselves.
> 
> If you want legit conservative ways to improve things look to the corporate tax code. The way it works in the US is relatively unique in that it hurts US production and favors foreign production. Other nation's tax codes do the opposite.
> 
> You can also look at Chinese manipulation of our currency. That is not really anything either side is for.
> 
> You can also look at regulations from a trade perspective. Having common regulations with Europe and Canada can help facilitate trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I think it is pretty obvious that UHC is far more efficient *
> 
> Based on what? The British system? The Canadian system? The USPS?
> 
> *Making SS optional would just put more pressure on people to make good decisions and save for themselves. *
> 
> You're right, we can't treat adults like adults, that would cut into the Dem voter base.
Click to expand...


Every single UHC system of a major industrialized nation is more efficient than the US. The US system is way better because we spend way more but it is horribly inefficient. In large part because we failed to take advantage of market economies and when we tried to we created broken ones that had little to no chance of providing the market pressures needed.


----------



## Bombur

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to post actual data to prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to prove you wrong even when you don't even bother to clearly argue your reasoning?
> 
> That doesn't seem right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a problem with basic math? Tough fucking shit, either prove me wrong using whatever you want, or pretend I didn't actually make a point.
Click to expand...


You didn't prove the point you thought you did that is for sure.


----------



## Redfish

KevinWestern said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Bombur's defense, according to this study conducted by the Department of Economics at Harvard, which draws on research from over 70 different countries (1960-1985, so rather recent data):
> *
> (1) Income inequality increases socio-political instability,* .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That merely means that the parasites find it easier to steal, loot and plunder than to acquire a marketable skill.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible. I don't condone people "stealing, looting, or plundering", I just are a rational person who realizes that these things will always occur no matter what. You can't stop it, and therefore you need to learn to work with it.
Click to expand...



Yes, and capitalism is the only system that achieves that.   Under the socialistic plans desired by most liberals all of the money and all of the power is concentrated in a very small group of super elites, and everyone else is EQUALLY poor and miserable.   

a free market capitalist system elevates the income of the entire population by creating more wealth.  Sure, some have more than others,  so what?


----------



## KevinWestern

Redfish said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> That merely means that the parasites find it easier to steal, loot and plunder than to acquire a marketable skill.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible. I don't condone people "stealing, looting, or plundering", I just are a rational person who realizes that these things will always occur no matter what. You can't stop it, and therefore you need to learn to work with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and capitalism is the only system that achieves that.   Under the socialistic plans desired by most liberals all of the money and all of the power is concentrated in a very small group of super elites, and everyone else is EQUALLY poor and miserable.
> 
> a free market capitalist system elevates the income of the entire population by creating more wealth.  Sure, some have more than others,  so what?
Click to expand...


Hey I'm a fan of capitalism - I said that it's "the best system we've got". However obviously you can have a capitalist society where the wealth is more evenly distributed, and a capitalist society where it is extremely stratified. 

When we reach a state like the latter, we should consider "doing something about it" if you don't want to suffer the negative consequences like a revolution - for example - which will kill investment and economic growth. 

I'm just stating fact, that's all.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a shred of evidence that income inequality causes recessions or depressions.  Tightening the money supply is what caused the financial panic in 1929. It's not what caused the depression to continue for 12 years.  FDR's economic policies are what caused it to continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income inequality leads directly to more volatile economic cycles. If you want to talk about why I will happily do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Where is the evidence for that?
Click to expand...


The income of the 1% is way more volatile than that of the bottom 99%. This is in large part to the way they make money (capital investment) You can see large increases in the income of the top 1% and large decreases as well.

As more and more income is concentrated in that 1% the ups and down of the economic cycle become more pronounced. 

In addition the government is becoming more and more reliant on income taxes as a source of income and therefor there will be larger swings, both up and down, in tax revenues. Failure to account for this has already shaped our last/current recession and will likely have an even bigger impact on the next one unless government learns to plan better.


----------



## Redfish

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Income inequality leads directly to more volatile economic cycles. If you want to talk about why I will happily do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where is the evidence for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The income of the 1% is way more volatile than that of the bottom 99%. This is in large part to the way they make money (capital investment) You can see large increases in the income of the top 1% and large decreases as well.
> 
> As more and more income is concentrated in that 1% the ups and down of the economic cycle become more pronounced.
> 
> In addition the government is becoming more and more reliant on income taxes as a source of income and therefor there will be larger swings, both up and down, in tax revenues. Failure to account for this has already shaped our last/current recession and will likely have an even bigger impact on the next one unless government learns to plan better.
Click to expand...


Do you just make this shit up as you go, or is someone feeding it to you?  That is one of the most ignorant posts I have seen in a long time.


----------



## Bombur

Redfish said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where is the evidence for that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The income of the 1% is way more volatile than that of the bottom 99%. This is in large part to the way they make money (capital investment) You can see large increases in the income of the top 1% and large decreases as well.
> 
> As more and more income is concentrated in that 1% the ups and down of the economic cycle become more pronounced.
> 
> In addition the government is becoming more and more reliant on income taxes as a source of income and therefor there will be larger swings, both up and down, in tax revenues. Failure to account for this has already shaped our last/current recession and will likely have an even bigger impact on the next one unless government learns to plan better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you just make this shit up as you go, or is someone feeding it to you?  That is one of the most ignorant posts I have seen in a long time.
Click to expand...


LOL

I guess this conversation isn't really fair because I actually know what is going on in the world and you just having talking points from people who are in the business of manipulating you.


----------



## Contumacious

KevinWestern said:


> But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible.



Low income --should be bad - for the recipient. But some folks are UNmotivated.

But "society" , by which you mean taxpayers and producers should not be adversely affected. They should be allowed to exercise their right to stand their ground and defend their wealth using deadly force if necessary.

.


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and I'm the queen of England.
Click to expand...


So you're a cross-dresser?


----------



## OnePercenter

Rottweiler said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US has spent $2 billion each week in Afghanistan for over 10 years and the Iraq war cost us over $4 trillion for absolutely no reason.  After ten straight years of constant war and torture, The War Against Terrorism is as close to being won as the 40-year-old war on drugs which was started over complete lies.
> 
> So why does every jagoff GOP shill claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility" and blame Obama for the country being broke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Obama nearly added as much to the national debt ($7+ trillion) in 5 years as all presidents combined have ($10 trillion) in 230 years... you jagoff Dumbocrat!
Click to expand...


How much of that was due to programs started by BushCo?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US has spent $2 billion each week in Afghanistan for over 10 years and the Iraq war cost us over $4 trillion for absolutely no reason.  After ten straight years of constant war and torture, The War Against Terrorism is as close to being won as the 40-year-old war on drugs which was started over complete lies.
> 
> So why does every jagoff GOP shill claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility" and blame Obama for the country being broke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Obama nearly added as much to the national debt ($7+ trillion) in 5 years as all presidents combined have ($10 trillion) in 230 years... you jagoff Dumbocrat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much of that was due to programs started by BushCo?
Click to expand...


Obama couldn't end them?
Why is he so weak?


----------



## Iceweasel

OnePercenter said:


> How much of that was due to programs started by BushCo?


All of it of course. 85 more trillion and maybe he will scratch the surface of the BushCo debt. That's for reminding of that idiotic expression as well.


----------



## OnePercenter

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> $16.5M minus $495k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been over this before with him a dozen times.  He's lying.  The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit.  He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue.  Guy's an idiot.
Click to expand...


Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of those gains did you realize?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $16.5M minus $495k.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you don't understand the meaning of "gain."
> 
> Do you actually think you're fooling anyone?
Click to expand...


Why would I want to fool anyone?


----------



## OnePercenter

Rottweiler said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that he gets it, but yet he doesn't _get_ it....
> 
> (Hint: if you're "bright" enough to figure out people will not accept high taxes, how can you be so stupid as to support high taxes )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's even funnier is that he believes there's actual money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  That's the sure sign of the terminally naïve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is really amazing considering politicians on both sides have openly admitted that the fund was pillaged years ago and has been operating as part of the general budget for about 70 years now.
Click to expand...


Learn something.

snopes.com: Social Security Changes


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> FICA is a tax based on income.
> The issue being discussed was Reagan's skyrocketing revenues produced from tax cuts.
> Reagan spiked FICA taxes and three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. It's hypocritical to claim revenue increases in the 80s were due to tax cuts on 25% of the population without mentioning the tax increases experienced by the other 75%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SS is supposed to be a program funded by the people that receive it.  It's not supposed to be like progressive income tax where the upper income folks are forced to foot the bill for the income folks.  Are you incapable of understanding that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that is the case for the majority of the "pension" plan part of SS. The problem is the transfer payment for the low end of the spectrum. I also consider disability and unemployment to be programs that should be funded with a progressive tax.
Click to expand...


Yeah no kidding.  All libtards want to command the rich to bend over and serve them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

KevinWestern said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Bombur's defense, according to this study conducted by the Department of Economics at Harvard, which draws on research from over 70 different countries (1960-1985, so rather recent data):
> *
> (1) Income inequality increases socio-political instability,* .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That merely means that the parasites find it easier to steal, loot and plunder than to acquire a marketable skill.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible. I don't condone people "stealing, looting, or plundering", I just are a rational person who realizes that these things will always occur no matter what. You can't stop it, and therefore you need to learn to work with it.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't.

The US has been living with higher levels of income inequality than any country in that study for decades. That alone proves that, despite the conclusions of those studies, that income inequality does not trigger social instability. Feel free to speculate on the actual problems given the new data.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bombur said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to prove you wrong even when you don't even bother to clearly argue your reasoning?
> 
> That doesn't seem right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a problem with basic math? Tough fucking shit, either prove me wrong using whatever you want, or pretend I didn't actually make a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't prove the point you thought you did that is for sure.
Click to expand...


How do you know what I point I had? You said  my arguments  were beyond your comprehension.


----------



## RKMBrown

OnePercenter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over this before with him a dozen times.  He's lying.  The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit.  He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue.  Guy's an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.
Click to expand...


Let me make it simple for you.  16.5m gross income, 14.5m sheltered because the 14.5m of the 16.5m is not considered taxable income by the IRS, 2m taxed resulting in .5m taxes.  Or you are a liar or criminal that does not report your revenue, such as a drug dealer.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OnePercenter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over this before with him a dozen times.  He's lying.  The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit.  He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue.  Guy's an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.
Click to expand...


Let me make it even simpler, you are lying.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Income inequality leads directly to more volatile economic cycles. If you want to talk about why I will happily do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where is the evidence for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The income of the 1% is way more volatile than that of the bottom 99%. This is in large part to the way they make money (capital investment) You can see large increases in the income of the top 1% and large decreases as well.
> 
> As more and more income is concentrated in that 1% the ups and down of the economic cycle become more pronounced.
> 
> In addition the government is becoming more and more reliant on income taxes as a source of income and therefor there will be larger swings, both up and down, in tax revenues. Failure to account for this has already shaped our last/current recession and will likely have an even bigger impact on the next one unless government learns to plan better.
Click to expand...


Your Marxist theory that wealth continues to be concentrated in the hands of the capitalists is pure bunk.  Even if it were true, there's no evidence that it would cause recessions to be more severe.  For one thing, the government has actually become less reliant on income taxes as a source of income.   Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes and other taxes account for the majority of government revenue.  For another thing, less revenue to the government does not cause recessions.  It's a symptom of a recession, not the cause.  Less revenue to the government actually promotes economic growth, not a reduction in growth.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over this before with him a dozen times.  He's lying.  The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit.  He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue.  Guy's an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make it even simpler, you are lying.
Click to expand...


Indeed:

People/businesses making $400,000 or more pay 39.6% of their income in taxes, which means someone who earns $16.5 million will actually pay roughly $6,534,000 in taxes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over this before with him a dozen times.  He's lying.  The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit.  He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue.  Guy's an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.
Click to expand...


Prove it.

Make it simple.


----------



## OnePercenter

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not explain why lower capital gains rates are a problem.
> 
> *Obtuseness is not a response.*
> 
> I agree, so stop being obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation. This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.
> 
> Copy and pasted from my own post that you quoted twice.
> 
> Obtuseness is not a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tax code, which is heavily skewed in favor of people with low incomes, gives preferential treatment to people that don't need it?
Click to expand...


Then why does the top 20% get 50% of the overall tax breaks?


----------



## OnePercenter

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> FICA is a tax based on income.
> The issue being discussed was Reagan's skyrocketing revenues produced from tax cuts.
> Reagan spiked FICA taxes and three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. It's hypocritical to claim revenue increases in the 80s were due to tax cuts on 25% of the population without mentioning the tax increases experienced by the other 75%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SS is supposed to be a program funded by the people that receive it.  It's not supposed to be like progressive income tax where the upper income folks are forced to foot the bill for the income folks.  Are you incapable of understanding that?  Why are folks like you always looking for a free ride?  Don't you have any pride at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as originally conceived, you are correct, SS was to be a forced savings plan for retirement and you would get your money back if you lived long enough to retire.
> 
> As soon as LBJ merged SS funds with the general fund, that ended.   Since then SS is nothing but a tax whereby working people pay for retired people.   As a tax, it should be collected on all income of all kinds.
Click to expand...


Educate yourself.

snopes.com: Social Security Changes



> Monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been "put into the general fund." The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself.


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> SS is supposed to be a program funded by the people that receive it.  It's not supposed to be like progressive income tax where the upper income folks are forced to foot the bill for the income folks.  Are you incapable of understanding that?  Why are folks like you always looking for a free ride?  Don't you have any pride at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as originally conceived, you are correct, SS was to be a forced savings plan for retirement and you would get your money back if you lived long enough to retire.
> 
> As soon as LBJ merged SS funds with the general fund, that ended.   Since then SS is nothing but a tax whereby working people pay for retired people.   As a tax, it should be collected on all income of all kinds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Educate yourself.
> 
> snopes.com: Social Security Changes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been "put into the general fund." The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


In other words, it was a con from the start.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem as in the tax code favors one group over the other. The group that the tax code favors doesn't need any favors and the group getting the worse end has seen decades of wage stagnation. This has grown to be such a problem the economy is struggling to recover. Economic volatility has gotten worse. Income inequality has gotten worse.
> 
> Copy and pasted from my own post that you quoted twice.
> 
> Obtuseness is not a response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tax code, which is heavily skewed in favor of people with low incomes, gives preferential treatment to people that don't need it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why does the top 20% get 50% of the overall tax breaks?
Click to expand...


Because, just like your claim about your income and how much you paid, you are lying. Everyone gets the tax breaks, the top 20% more likely to itemize rather than take the standard deduction.


----------



## OnePercenter

RKMBrown said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over this before with him a dozen times.  He's lying.  The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit.  He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue.  Guy's an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make it simple for you.  16.5m gross income, 14.5m sheltered because the 14.5m of the 16.5m is not considered taxable income by the IRS, 2m taxed resulting in .5m taxes.  Or you are a liar or criminal that does not report your revenue, such as a drug dealer.
Click to expand...


Much like Bill Gates, I'm the principal of multiple trusts which are Nevada corporations, but thanks for playing.


----------



## georgephillip

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The labor market has struggled for decades while the capital market has exploded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why the U.S. Has Lost Manufacturing Jobs*
> 
> By Michael S. Rozeff
> 
> January 31, 2014
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by ending its extremely costly interventions overseas and reducing its military establishment..... the reduction in government spending .... matched by tax cuts, then the economy would be given a big leg up to adjust to productive lines of work. The U.S. is over-investing in phantom security.
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by scrapping Obamacare and freeing up the medical sector of the economy, thereby making it more competitive and producing lower costs and higher quality.
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by making Social Security optional for them.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK cut military spending.
> 
> I think it is pretty obvious that UHC is far more efficient than the horrible Frankenstein monster that is our current system. So I agree with the general problem but there is a lot more evidence supporting UHC than there is in the idea the free market will solve our problems.
> 
> Making SS optional would just put more pressure on people to make good decisions and save for themselves.
> 
> If you want legit conservative ways to improve things look to the corporate tax code. The way it works in the US is relatively unique in that it hurts US production and favors foreign production. Other nation's tax codes do the opposite.
> 
> You can also look at Chinese manipulation of our currency. That is not really anything either side is for.
> 
> You can also look at regulations from a trade perspective. Having common regulations with Europe and Canada can help facilitate trade.
Click to expand...

*You mentioned in another post how you thought NAFTA has been beneficial to the US economy (if I remember correctly)

Are you equally impressed with the TPP,particularly its manifest secrecy?*

"WikiLeaks has released the draft text of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, a multilateral free-trade treaty currently being negotiated in secret by 12 Pacific Rim nations.

"The full agreement covers a number of areas, but the chapter published by WikiLeaks focuses on intellectual property rights, an area of law which has effects in areas as diverse as pharmaceuticals and civil liberties.

"Negotiations for the TPP have included representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, and Brunei, but have been conducted behind closed doors. 

"Even members of the US Congress were only allowed to view selected portions of the documents under supervision."

WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership | Media | theguardian.com


----------



## itfitzme

Contumacious said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Low income --should be bad - for the recipient. But some folks are UNmotivated.
> 
> But "society" , by which you mean taxpayers and producers should not be adversely affected. They should be allowed to exercise their right to stand their ground and defend their wealth using deadly force if necessary.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I understood the logic was that less money reduces motivation.  I've read, here, that income taxes on the wealthy causes them to be less motivated to produce. So why would we expect otherwise of everyone else?


----------



## OnePercenter

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over this before with him a dozen times.  He's lying.  The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit.  He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue.  Guy's an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make it even simpler, you are lying.
Click to expand...


Can't stand the fact that the people you've been supporting for years make it easier for the rich to get richer?


----------



## OnePercenter

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tax code, which is heavily skewed in favor of people with low incomes, gives preferential treatment to people that don't need it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does the top 20% get 50% of the overall tax breaks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, just like your claim about your income and how much you paid, you are lying. Everyone gets the tax breaks, the top 20% more likely to itemize rather than take the standard deduction.
Click to expand...


For 50% of the tax breaks, which moots your claim of 'heavily skewed in favor of people with low incomes'.


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> as originally conceived, you are correct, SS was to be a forced savings plan for retirement and you would get your money back if you lived long enough to retire.
> 
> As soon as LBJ merged SS funds with the general fund, that ended.   Since then SS is nothing but a tax whereby working people pay for retired people.   As a tax, it should be collected on all income of all kinds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Educate yourself.
> 
> snopes.com: Social Security Changes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been "put into the general fund." The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, it was a con from the start.
Click to expand...


Which is why ten's of millions receive SS payments every month.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make it simple for you.  16.5m gross income, 14.5m sheltered because the 14.5m of the 16.5m is not considered taxable income by the IRS, 2m taxed resulting in .5m taxes.  Or you are a liar or criminal that does not report your revenue, such as a drug dealer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like Bill Gates, I'm the principal of multiple trusts which are Nevada corporations, but thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


Explain how these trusts reduce your income taxes.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make it simple for you.  16.5m gross income, 14.5m sheltered because the 14.5m of the 16.5m is not considered taxable income by the IRS, 2m taxed resulting in .5m taxes.  Or you are a liar or criminal that does not report your revenue, such as a drug dealer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Bill Gates, I'm the principal of multiple trusts which are Nevada corporations, but thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how these trusts reduce your income taxes.
Click to expand...


Ask your tax guy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Bill Gates, I'm the principal of multiple trusts which are Nevada corporations, but thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how these trusts reduce your income taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask your tax guy.
Click to expand...


I'd rather hear you prove your silly claim.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where is the evidence for that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The income of the 1% is way more volatile than that of the bottom 99%. This is in large part to the way they make money (capital investment) You can see large increases in the income of the top 1% and large decreases as well.
> 
> As more and more income is concentrated in that 1% the ups and down of the economic cycle become more pronounced.
> 
> In addition the government is becoming more and more reliant on income taxes as a source of income and therefor there will be larger swings, both up and down, in tax revenues. Failure to account for this has already shaped our last/current recession and will likely have an even bigger impact on the next one unless government learns to plan better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Marxist theory that wealth continues to be concentrated in the hands of the capitalists is pure bunk.  Even if it were true, there's no evidence that it would cause recessions to be more severe.  For one thing, the government has actually become less reliant on income taxes as a source of income.   Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes and other taxes account for the majority of government revenue.  For another thing, less revenue to the government does not cause recessions.  It's a symptom of a recession, not the cause.  Less revenue to the government actually promotes economic growth, not a reduction in growth.
Click to expand...


Wealth concentration is not a theory. It is either happening or it isn't. 

Recessions are measured in severity based largely on how large the reduction in GDP is. The more significant the loss in income the bigger the loss in GDP, everything else remaining the same. 

Income taxes accounted for around 40% of tax collections in 2013 for states. In 92 it was only 31%. The trend is going to continue since the income tax is the one tax that will see natural growth, especially leading up to the next recession. 

When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners. 

Government revenues are important because the government will also have to respond to the recession. If they raise taxes or cut programs the recession will be larger. Either way they are likely to go into debt just to keep expenses at current service levels. 

Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. I trust you understand that I consider any facts talked about here can be easily confirmed through a couple minutes of using google.


----------



## Bombur

georgephillip said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why the U.S. Has Lost Manufacturing Jobs*
> 
> By Michael S. Rozeff
> 
> January 31, 2014
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by ending its extremely costly interventions overseas and reducing its military establishment..... the reduction in government spending .... matched by tax cuts, then the economy would be given a big leg up to adjust to productive lines of work. The U.S. is over-investing in phantom security.
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by scrapping Obamacare and freeing up the medical sector of the economy, thereby making it more competitive and producing lower costs and higher quality.
> 
> The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by making Social Security optional for them.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK cut military spending.
> 
> I think it is pretty obvious that UHC is far more efficient than the horrible Frankenstein monster that is our current system. So I agree with the general problem but there is a lot more evidence supporting UHC than there is in the idea the free market will solve our problems.
> 
> Making SS optional would just put more pressure on people to make good decisions and save for themselves.
> 
> If you want legit conservative ways to improve things look to the corporate tax code. The way it works in the US is relatively unique in that it hurts US production and favors foreign production. Other nation's tax codes do the opposite.
> 
> You can also look at Chinese manipulation of our currency. That is not really anything either side is for.
> 
> You can also look at regulations from a trade perspective. Having common regulations with Europe and Canada can help facilitate trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You mentioned in another post how you thought NAFTA has been beneficial to the US economy (if I remember correctly)
> 
> Are you equally impressed with the TPP,particularly its manifest secrecy?*
> 
> "WikiLeaks has released the draft text of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, a multilateral free-trade treaty currently being negotiated in secret by 12 Pacific Rim nations.
> 
> "The full agreement covers a number of areas, but the chapter published by WikiLeaks focuses on intellectual property rights, an area of law which has effects in areas as diverse as pharmaceuticals and civil liberties.
> 
> "Negotiations for the TPP have included representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, and Brunei, but have been conducted behind closed doors.
> 
> "Even members of the US Congress were only allowed to view selected portions of the documents under supervision."
> 
> WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership | Media | theguardian.com
Click to expand...


I think generally speaking NAFTA worked out ok. Trade deals generally result in very specific pressures on an economy that have to be recognized. I consider our trade relationship with China to have a much higher cost than NAFTA. 

I have no problem with trade deals. I have problems with nations like China manipulating our currency. I think we can do a much better job when establishing trade deals but whatever really.

Congress would politicize everything and involving them would just slow things down as every corporation lines up to fill their pockets to fight for them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The income of the 1% is way more volatile than that of the bottom 99%. This is in large part to the way they make money (capital investment) You can see large increases in the income of the top 1% and large decreases as well.
> 
> As more and more income is concentrated in that 1% the ups and down of the economic cycle become more pronounced.
> 
> In addition the government is becoming more and more reliant on income taxes as a source of income and therefor there will be larger swings, both up and down, in tax revenues. Failure to account for this has already shaped our last/current recession and will likely have an even bigger impact on the next one unless government learns to plan better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Marxist theory that wealth continues to be concentrated in the hands of the capitalists is pure bunk.  Even if it were true, there's no evidence that it would cause recessions to be more severe.  For one thing, the government has actually become less reliant on income taxes as a source of income.   Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes and other taxes account for the majority of government revenue.  For another thing, less revenue to the government does not cause recessions.  It's a symptom of a recession, not the cause.  Less revenue to the government actually promotes economic growth, not a reduction in growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wealth concentration is not a theory. It is either happening or it isn't.
> 
> Recessions are measured in severity based large on how large the reduction in GDP is. The more significant the loss in income the bigger the loss in GDP is everything else remaining the same.
> 
> Income taxes accounted for around 40% of tax collections in 2013 for states. In 92 it was only 31%. The trend is going to continue since the income tax is the one tax that will see natural growth, especially leading up to the next recession.
> 
> When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners.
> 
> Government revenues are important because the government will also have to respond to the recession. If they raise taxes or cut programs the recession will be larger.
> 
> Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. I trust you understand that I consider any facts talked about here can be easily confirmed through a couple minutes of using google.
Click to expand...


*When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners. *

Yet another problem with our progressive income tax structure.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how these trusts reduce your income taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask your tax guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd rather hear you prove your silly claim.
Click to expand...


Why? You won't believe it. Ask your tax guy. Perhaps you'll save some $$$$.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> SS is supposed to be a program funded by the people that receive it.  It's not supposed to be like progressive income tax where the upper income folks are forced to foot the bill for the income folks.  Are you incapable of understanding that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that is the case for the majority of the "pension" plan part of SS. The problem is the transfer payment for the low end of the spectrum. I also consider disability and unemployment to be programs that should be funded with a progressive tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah no kidding.  All libtards want to command the rich to bend over and serve them.
Click to expand...


Honestly there is either a case for the 3 programs I talked about or not. I don't really care either way but there is no way they should all rest on the shoulders of the middle class in an age of globalization.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Marxist theory that wealth continues to be concentrated in the hands of the capitalists is pure bunk.  Even if it were true, there's no evidence that it would cause recessions to be more severe.  For one thing, the government has actually become less reliant on income taxes as a source of income.   Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes and other taxes account for the majority of government revenue.  For another thing, less revenue to the government does not cause recessions.  It's a symptom of a recession, not the cause.  Less revenue to the government actually promotes economic growth, not a reduction in growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth concentration is not a theory. It is either happening or it isn't.
> 
> Recessions are measured in severity based large on how large the reduction in GDP is. The more significant the loss in income the bigger the loss in GDP is everything else remaining the same.
> 
> Income taxes accounted for around 40% of tax collections in 2013 for states. In 92 it was only 31%. The trend is going to continue since the income tax is the one tax that will see natural growth, especially leading up to the next recession.
> 
> When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners.
> 
> Government revenues are important because the government will also have to respond to the recession. If they raise taxes or cut programs the recession will be larger.
> 
> Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. I trust you understand that I consider any facts talked about here can be easily confirmed through a couple minutes of using google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners. *
> 
> Yet another problem with our progressive income tax structure.
Click to expand...


Which 'volatile tax' was that?


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Marxist theory that wealth continues to be concentrated in the hands of the capitalists is pure bunk.  Even if it were true, there's no evidence that it would cause recessions to be more severe.  For one thing, the government has actually become less reliant on income taxes as a source of income.   Payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes and other taxes account for the majority of government revenue.  For another thing, less revenue to the government does not cause recessions.  It's a symptom of a recession, not the cause.  Less revenue to the government actually promotes economic growth, not a reduction in growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth concentration is not a theory. It is either happening or it isn't.
> 
> Recessions are measured in severity based large on how large the reduction in GDP is. The more significant the loss in income the bigger the loss in GDP is everything else remaining the same.
> 
> Income taxes accounted for around 40% of tax collections in 2013 for states. In 92 it was only 31%. The trend is going to continue since the income tax is the one tax that will see natural growth, especially leading up to the next recession.
> 
> When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners.
> 
> Government revenues are important because the government will also have to respond to the recession. If they raise taxes or cut programs the recession will be larger.
> 
> Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. I trust you understand that I consider any facts talked about here can be easily confirmed through a couple minutes of using google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When the latest recession hit the income tax was by far the most volatile tax and the volatility was mostly due to large changes in income of the top 1% of income earners. *
> 
> Yet another problem with our progressive income tax structure.
Click to expand...


A problem that can be addressed but it is not a deal breaker by any stretch.

Also the corp tax may be technically more volatile but that tax is basically just crazy and not big enough to worry about.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........   what the heck does one have to do with the other?    Nothing.

Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have?    What difference does that make?

Yes, Capitalism does ensure that there will be inequality, but who said equality was good, or that inequality was bad?    Who said you deserve anything?    Does your existence on this planet promise you jack?  Why?  What have you done to earn what you have?   Sucking air?   Pooping?    

The OECD is completely bonkers wrong.   Inequality did not first start in the 1970s.  For heaven sakes, what are you people smoking?   Seriously?   Did you ever read the massive difference between the Rich and the Poor, back in the 1920s?    Or back in the 1800s even?    Or even all the way back to the 1700s when this country was founded?

And here's the other side.    What alternative do you propose?  Socialism?   Are you crazy?

Socialism is even more unequal.   Have you read about the Soviet Union?    Did you read about the private Communist party shops, that were stocked full of goods, while the citizens shops were empty?    Have you read about the shops around Red Square, where the shop owners hid their goods in the back of the store behind curtains, so that common people wouldn't see the goods that Communist leaders had access to, that they did not?    Or about the multi-floor villas reserved only for Communist officials.   Or the yachts, available year around for Communist party members.

Here's the deal... there is no system on the face of this planet, or throughout all human history, in which there has been equality.    Even in tribal peoples living in the forest.... the guy at the top of the tribe, had the bigger mud hut, and had more women to sleep with, had more food to eat, and more water to drink, and worked less than the rest of the people in the tribe.

This is universally true.   All claims of an equal society somewhere are all myths, and lies.

The difference between Socialism, and Capitalism, is that the inequality in socialism is enforced by the states, and the inequality of Capitalism, is based on the individuals providing goods and services to the market.

I read the story of a man from Egypt.  In Egypt past, you are born lower class, you live lower class, and you die lower class.   You can't move up, no matter what you do, because there is a class system, and that's your fate.    This man left Egypt, and moved to the US, where he started working as a janitor for a hospital.   10 years later, he had worked his way up, and earned promotion after promotion, until he was director of maintenance over several hospitals.    That's Capitalism.   He went from minimum wage, to well over six-figure income, while being an immigrant from another country, where the class system would have left him a low-wage low-class worker until he died.

So, I'll take inequality, over socialistic 'equality' any day.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask your tax guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather hear you prove your silly claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? You won't believe it. Ask your tax guy. Perhaps you'll save some $$$$.
Click to expand...


No, I don't believe you.

Prove your claim.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> I think generally speaking NAFTA worked out ok. Trade deals generally result in very specific pressures on an economy that have to be recognized. I consider our trade relationship with China to have a much higher cost than NAFTA.
> 
> I have no problem with trade deals. I have problems with nations like China manipulating our currency. I think we can do a much better job when establishing trade deals but whatever really.
> 
> Congress would politicize everything and involving them would just slow things down as every corporation lines up to fill their pockets to fight for them.



All trade, is by it's very nature, inherently beneficial.  If it wasn't beneficial, we wouldn't do the trade.

You have a car, and you want to sell it for $5,000.   I have $5,000, and I want a car.

The value of your car, to me, is greater than the value of the $5,000.

The value of the $5,000, to you, is greater than the value of the car.

Thus by trading together, me giving you the $5,000, and you giving me the car, we both are better off.

Now what if you are from Canada.   What has changed?   Nothing.   The value of the car, is greater than my $5K to me, and the value of the $5K to you is greater than the car.

We are both better off, by doing the trade.

If at any point, I was worse off doing the trade.... I wouldn't trade.   If the car was not worth more to me than the $5,000, I wouldn't trade.  If the $5K was not worth more to you, than the car, you wouldn't trade.

Trade by it's very nature, is inherently beneficial.

Doesn't matter if you are from Ohio, or Canada, or Mexico, or China.   Makes not the slightest difference.

The only exception, is fraud, and generally that's self eliminating.  If you sell me a bad car, then I likely won't buy another car from you.   Your business goes broke, and you are removed from the economic process.

Now back to China, and the supposed currency manipulation.

There is no completely provable currency manipulation, anymore than the US has currency manipulation.

The only thing you can do with outstanding currency in the market, is either print more money, or stop printing money, just like the US can print more, or print less.

Years ago, China made an open clear statement, that they intended to peg the Yuan to the Dollar.    And they did just that.   When the US inflated their currency, the Chinese inflated theirs in equal measure, so that the value of the Yuan to the Dollar was fixed.

That is exactly what they have done.   Now the government has used this, as an excuse to attack China, claiming they are "manipulating" their currency.   They are not doing any such thing.   Or at least they are not manipulating their currency, any more or less than we are by us printing money ourselves.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think generally speaking NAFTA worked out ok. Trade deals generally result in very specific pressures on an economy that have to be recognized. I consider our trade relationship with China to have a much higher cost than NAFTA.
> 
> I have no problem with trade deals. I have problems with nations like China manipulating our currency. I think we can do a much better job when establishing trade deals but whatever really.
> 
> Congress would politicize everything and involving them would just slow things down as every corporation lines up to fill their pockets to fight for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All trade, is by it's very nature, inherently beneficial.  If it wasn't beneficial, we wouldn't do the trade.
> 
> You have a car, and you want to sell it for $5,000.   I have $5,000, and I want a car.
> 
> The value of your car, to me, is greater than the value of the $5,000.
> 
> The value of the $5,000, to you, is greater than the value of the car.
> 
> Thus by trading together, me giving you the $5,000, and you giving me the car, we both are better off.
> 
> Now what if you are from Canada.   What has changed?   Nothing.   The value of the car, is greater than my $5K to me, and the value of the $5K to you is greater than the car.
> 
> We are both better off, by doing the trade.
> 
> If at any point, I was worse off doing the trade.... I wouldn't trade.   If the car was not worth more to me than the $5,000, I wouldn't trade.  If the $5K was not worth more to you, than the car, you wouldn't trade.
> 
> Trade by it's very nature, is inherently beneficial.
> 
> Doesn't matter if you are from Ohio, or Canada, or Mexico, or China.   Makes not the slightest difference.
> 
> The only exception, is fraud, and generally that's self eliminating.  If you sell me a bad car, then I likely won't buy another car from you.   Your business goes broke, and you are removed from the economic process.
> 
> Now back to China, and the supposed currency manipulation.
> 
> There is no completely provable currency manipulation, anymore than the US has currency manipulation.
> 
> The only thing you can do with outstanding currency in the market, is either print more money, or stop printing money, just like the US can print more, or print less.
> 
> Years ago, China made an open clear statement, that they intended to peg the Yuan to the Dollar.    And they did just that.   When the US inflated their currency, the Chinese inflated theirs in equal measure, so that the value of the Yuan to the Dollar was fixed.
> 
> That is exactly what they have done.   Now the government has used this, as an excuse to attack China, claiming they are "manipulating" their currency.   They are not doing any such thing.   Or at least they are not manipulating their currency, any more or less than we are by us printing money ourselves.
Click to expand...

So there is no proof except the proof and the US also does something with currency so it is ok. 

LOL

I agree it is a trade. A trade that happens to hurt the US labor market. A cost that needs to be recognized and dealt with as opposed to ignored until it ends up being such a problem that the economy stagnates.


----------



## KevinWestern

Contumacious said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Low income --should be bad - for the recipient. But some folks are UNmotivated.
> 
> But "society" , by which you mean taxpayers and producers should not be adversely affected. They should be allowed to exercise their right to stand their ground and defend their wealth using deadly force if necessary.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Hey - I'm not arguing about the morality of it all, I'm just saying that it happens. When you have a finite amount of resources, and 90% are owned by 1 guy in a society of 100, eventually those 99 individuals are going to say "fuck it" and forcibly make the 1 guy share with the rest. This is what happens. 

Even the strongest, cleverest, most powerful lion can't defend itself from 99 jealous peers. It's simply a fact of life.


----------



## Andylusion

OnePercenter said:


> Then why does the top 20% get 50% of the overall tax breaks?



Well... is seems rather logical to me that when the bottom 47% don't even pay tax, that more tax breaks likely benefit those who actually pay tax, than those who don't.

Equally, the people who gain more differing types of income, would also likely be able to use tax breaks designed for those types of income.

For example, if there is a tax break for getting stock options.

While some people earning $80,000 a year or less, might get some stock options as compensation, I think it's safe to say very few do.

But those earning over $200K, often get stock options and other such compensation.

Thus logically, only those getting stock options, and alternative compensation, are likely to benefit from tax breaks for such alternative compensation.

Seriously, this is a very obvious answer.   I more surprised you would ask such a question.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think generally speaking NAFTA worked out ok. Trade deals generally result in very specific pressures on an economy that have to be recognized. I consider our trade relationship with China to have a much higher cost than NAFTA.
> 
> I have no problem with trade deals. I have problems with nations like China manipulating our currency. I think we can do a much better job when establishing trade deals but whatever really.
> 
> Congress would politicize everything and involving them would just slow things down as every corporation lines up to fill their pockets to fight for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All trade, is by it's very nature, inherently beneficial.  If it wasn't beneficial, we wouldn't do the trade.
> 
> You have a car, and you want to sell it for $5,000.   I have $5,000, and I want a car.
> 
> The value of your car, to me, is greater than the value of the $5,000.
> 
> The value of the $5,000, to you, is greater than the value of the car.
> 
> Thus by trading together, me giving you the $5,000, and you giving me the car, we both are better off.
> 
> Now what if you are from Canada.   What has changed?   Nothing.   The value of the car, is greater than my $5K to me, and the value of the $5K to you is greater than the car.
> 
> We are both better off, by doing the trade.
> 
> If at any point, I was worse off doing the trade.... I wouldn't trade.   If the car was not worth more to me than the $5,000, I wouldn't trade.  If the $5K was not worth more to you, than the car, you wouldn't trade.
> 
> Trade by it's very nature, is inherently beneficial.
> 
> Doesn't matter if you are from Ohio, or Canada, or Mexico, or China.   Makes not the slightest difference.
> 
> The only exception, is fraud, and generally that's self eliminating.  If you sell me a bad car, then I likely won't buy another car from you.   Your business goes broke, and you are removed from the economic process.
> 
> Now back to China, and the supposed currency manipulation.
> 
> There is no completely provable currency manipulation, anymore than the US has currency manipulation.
> 
> The only thing you can do with outstanding currency in the market, is either print more money, or stop printing money, just like the US can print more, or print less.
> 
> Years ago, China made an open clear statement, that they intended to peg the Yuan to the Dollar.    And they did just that.   When the US inflated their currency, the Chinese inflated theirs in equal measure, so that the value of the Yuan to the Dollar was fixed.
> 
> That is exactly what they have done.   Now the government has used this, as an excuse to attack China, claiming they are "manipulating" their currency.   They are not doing any such thing.   Or at least they are not manipulating their currency, any more or less than we are by us printing money ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So there is no proof except the proof and the US also does something with currency so it is ok.
> 
> LOL
> 
> I agree it is a trade. A trade that happens to hurt the US labor market. A cost that needs to be recognized and dealt with as opposed to ignored until it ends up being such a problem that the economy stagnates.
Click to expand...


That's exactly right.   There is no proof of some other nefarious 'currency manipulation', except that they print money, or don't print money, just like the US does.

Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot.     Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.

Now if you don't think that, then neither China, nor the US, is engaged in currency manipulation.

That's all there is to it.

Trade does not happen to hurt the US labor markets.  It does not.  Period.  It simply doesn't.   And our economy has never stagnated by engaging in trade.   In fact, the very opposite.   When you reduce trade, inherently both the buyer and the seller are harmed.    Smoot Hawley didn't end the Great Depression, and in fact, contributed to it.

Jamacia, engaged in protectionism, and end up ruined by it.     Japan engaged in protectionism, at the start of the 1990s.   Read up on Japan's "Lost Decade", to see how that worked out.     Venezuela today, is far worse off because of their protectionism against trade.    Just read about how the automobile shortage in Venezuela is so bad, that Used cars, are now selling at a higher price than new cars.   The shortage of new cars, makes used cars more valuable on the market than a new car you can't get.

Protection never protects jobs, as much as it ruins jobs.   I'm speaking from personal experience myself.   If we engaged in protectionism today, my job, and my company, would cease to exist.  No question about it.


----------



## Contumacious

Androw said:


> [
> 
> *Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot. *    Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.
> 
> .



That's because ignorance is bliss.

Our "currency" - is printed and manipulated by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED.

No go forth and sin no more.

.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> All trade, is by it's very nature, inherently beneficial.  If it wasn't beneficial, we wouldn't do the trade.
> 
> You have a car, and you want to sell it for $5,000.   I have $5,000, and I want a car.
> 
> The value of your car, to me, is greater than the value of the $5,000.
> 
> The value of the $5,000, to you, is greater than the value of the car.
> 
> Thus by trading together, me giving you the $5,000, and you giving me the car, we both are better off.
> 
> Now what if you are from Canada.   What has changed?   Nothing.   The value of the car, is greater than my $5K to me, and the value of the $5K to you is greater than the car.
> 
> We are both better off, by doing the trade.
> 
> If at any point, I was worse off doing the trade.... I wouldn't trade.   If the car was not worth more to me than the $5,000, I wouldn't trade.  If the $5K was not worth more to you, than the car, you wouldn't trade.
> 
> Trade by it's very nature, is inherently beneficial.
> 
> Doesn't matter if you are from Ohio, or Canada, or Mexico, or China.   Makes not the slightest difference.
> 
> The only exception, is fraud, and generally that's self eliminating.  If you sell me a bad car, then I likely won't buy another car from you.   Your business goes broke, and you are removed from the economic process.
> 
> Now back to China, and the supposed currency manipulation.
> 
> There is no completely provable currency manipulation, anymore than the US has currency manipulation.
> 
> The only thing you can do with outstanding currency in the market, is either print more money, or stop printing money, just like the US can print more, or print less.
> 
> Years ago, China made an open clear statement, that they intended to peg the Yuan to the Dollar.    And they did just that.   When the US inflated their currency, the Chinese inflated theirs in equal measure, so that the value of the Yuan to the Dollar was fixed.
> 
> That is exactly what they have done.   Now the government has used this, as an excuse to attack China, claiming they are "manipulating" their currency.   They are not doing any such thing.   Or at least they are not manipulating their currency, any more or less than we are by us printing money ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> So there is no proof except the proof and the US also does something with currency so it is ok.
> 
> LOL
> 
> I agree it is a trade. A trade that happens to hurt the US labor market. A cost that needs to be recognized and dealt with as opposed to ignored until it ends up being such a problem that the economy stagnates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly right.   There is no proof of some other nefarious 'currency manipulation', except that they print money, or don't print money, just like the US does.
> 
> Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot.     Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.
> 
> Now if you don't think that, then neither China, nor the US, is engaged in currency manipulation.
> 
> That's all there is to it.
> 
> Trade does not happen to hurt the US labor markets.  It does not.  Period.  It simply doesn't.   And our economy has never stagnated by engaging in trade.   In fact, the very opposite.   When you reduce trade, inherently both the buyer and the seller are harmed.    Smoot Hawley didn't end the Great Depression, and in fact, contributed to it.
> 
> Jamacia, engaged in protectionism, and end up ruined by it.     Japan engaged in protectionism, at the start of the 1990s.   Read up on Japan's "Lost Decade", to see how that worked out.     Venezuela today, is far worse off because of their protectionism against trade.    Just read about how the automobile shortage in Venezuela is so bad, that Used cars, are now selling at a higher price than new cars.   The shortage of new cars, makes used cars more valuable on the market than a new car you can't get.
> 
> Protection never protects jobs, as much as it ruins jobs.   I'm speaking from personal experience myself.   If we engaged in protectionism today, my job, and my company, would cease to exist.  No question about it.
Click to expand...


They are buying USDs. That is their currency manipulation and it is not comparable to the US printing money.

I am not suggesting we engage in protectionism, I am suggesting that China should stop engaging in protectionism.

Imbalanced trade most definitely hurts our labor market. I don't think the Chinese practice of currency manipulation will end well for China either. The best solution to the problem IMO is rising wages in China.


----------



## Andylusion

Contumacious said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> *Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot. *    Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Our "currency" - is printed and manipulated by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED.
> 
> No go forth and sin no more.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Oh bull.   Give me a break.   The Federal Reserve is as much a "private entity" as the US Postal Service.

The Federal Reserve is controlled by congress.   Even recently the Federal Reserve was pushed to do QE3, and it was well documented that people in Congress made it clear they wanted the Federal Reserve to do more stuff.

You don't see Congress sending veiled letters to the Columbus Bank, asking them to do X Y or Z.    Nor do they drag the CEO of Columbus Bank, to Congress to give a statement about their operations.   And nor does the President determine who the chairman of Columbus Bank is, or have a specific legislation about what Columbus Bank does.  Nor can the Columbus Bank, simply ask the Treasury to print out money, and give it to them.

The concept that the Federal Reserve is "private" in any way other than by the letter of the law, is ridiculous.    There is nothing "private" about them.   The Federal Reserve does what the government tells them to, or the guy at the top get's his butt kicked out.

Now as to whether the Federal Reserve has been audited....     again.... it's not private.   It's government.   And government does not like itself being audited.    Government routinely..... ROUTINELY loses money, has corruption, and all kinds of things.   The US Post Office some years ago, lost over a million dollars..... They "LOST" it.

Lost.    Opps.... where'd the million bucks go?  I don know....

The same is true of all government anywhere doing anything.   Of course the Federal Reserve doesn't give open audits.   Question:  Would it be any different if the Treasury Department was doing it?

Did you miss the whole NSA, collecting all phone calls, all message, by everyone everywhere?     And no one knew anything.   Congress itself had no idea.    How many other examples would you like?

Oh but the Federal Reserve is going to be different how?  Now if you want to audit the Federal Reserve, I'm all for it.  But you should grasp two things:

One, any audit of a government agency, whether it's the NSA, Freddie and Fannie, or the Fed Res, those audits are going to be influenced by politics, and usually ignored.    In 2004, we knew that Freddie and Fannie were cooking the books, flipping numbers, and committing fraud, and very little happened.

Two, I understand, that if the Federal Reserve didn't exist, or if the Federal Reserve was on paper as a completely public government entity............   NOTHING WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT.

If the Fed was completely public (on paper), it would be exactly the same as it is today.   If the Fed was eliminated, some other agency would be doing it, and it would be exactly the same as it is today.

I promise you.   100% guarantee it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Contumacious said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> *Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot. *    Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Our "currency" - is printed and manipulated by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED.
> 
> No go forth and sin no more.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


*the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY *

The Fed is "owned" by the government.

*WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED*

Except for all the times it was.

FRB: Annual Report 2012 - Federal Reserve System Audits


----------



## Contumacious

Androw said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> *Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot. *    Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Our "currency" - is printed and manipulated by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED.
> 
> No go forth and sin no more.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh bull.   Give me a break.   The Federal Reserve is as much a "private entity" as the US Postal Service.
> 
> The Federal Reserve is controlled by congress.   .
Click to expand...


It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:

*"The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act*

*Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 04/19/1982)*

.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> They are buying USDs. That is their currency manipulation and it is not comparable to the US printing money.
> 
> I am not suggesting we engage in protectionism, I am suggesting that China should stop engaging in protectionism.
> 
> Imbalanced trade most definitely hurts our labor market. I don't think the Chinese practice of currency manipulation will end well for China either. The best solution to the problem IMO is rising wages in China.



Buying USD is not manipulation.  Many many countries buy USD.
This surprising chart shows which countries own the most U.S. debt
Japan has over $1 Trillion in USD.  Are they engaged in manipulation?  The European Union, owns nearly a trillion in USD.  Are they engaged in manipulation?

The majority of countries around the world, have some holdings of USD, and when you compare that relative to their respective GDPs, they are all taking a significant amount.

Would you suggest the entire planet is manipulating their currency?  In which case, why focus on China?   

Nor can you "stop china" from engaging in protectionism.  Nor should we.

No, it does not hurt our labor markets.   I'm sorry, you are just flat out wrong on this.

There is ZERO evidence that trade imbalance hurt our labor markets.






Look.... it's not there.   During the early to late 90s, the economy was what you would call good.  Unemployment dropped almost continuously until 2001, and all during that time, the trade imbalance was increasing.   

Then in 2001, the trade imbalance decline, and unemployment increased.

From 2003 to 2008, the unemployment rate dropped, while during that same time, the trade imbalance increased.

Then in 2008, the trade imbalance declined again, and unemployment went up.

So let's review.   When unemployment is low, the trade imbalance is high.   When the unemployment his high, the trade imbalance, is low.

This is the exactly opposite of what you are claiming.

Your statement suggests that unemployment should go up, when the trade imbalance goes up, and should go down, when the imbalance goes down.

That is not happening, and has never happened, and there's no.... as in ZERO, support for that claim.   None whatsoever. 

Now if you have some evidence to support your claims, give it.   You would be the first to even try in the last 10 years I've been asking for it.   You'd be a record holder in my book.

But for me, I've looked for evidence to support your position, because I actually used to be a protectionist myself.  I believed we had to protect ourselves from bad trade.     But I did something amazing... I actually looked for real evidence to support my views, and found the opposite.  I haven't found anything in 10 years, to suggest what you say is true.

OH.... and by the way.... Notice also that our trade imbalance with China specifically, is a very small part of the total trade imbalance.    Again, focusing on China, proves to me that this is merely the Government attempting to shift blame.    China was not, and is not, the majority of our trade imbalance.    Focusing on China is just as safe excuse.     The real source of our economic problems, is bad socialistic policies that is harming our economy.    China has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Contumacious

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> *Now I would assume that most people don't think of our government printing money, in and of itself, to be some great evil nefarious currency manipulation plot. *    Now if you do think that.... then we can agree that both the US and the Chinese are manipulating their currency equally.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Our "currency" - is printed and manipulated by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED.
> 
> No go forth and sin no more.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY *
> 
> The Fed is "owned" by the government.
> 
> *WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED*
> 
> Except for all the times it was.
> 
> FRB: Annual Report 2012 - Federal Reserve System Audits
Click to expand...


Shut the fuck up

*Petition to Audit the Fed*

This week, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), took up his father Ron Paul's Audit-the-Fed cause when he introduced S. 209, a bill identical to H.R. 459.

Last year, Congressman Ron Paul's Audit-the-Fed bill (H.R. 459), passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 327-98a veto-proof majority. That bill called for a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States. The bill garnered overwhelming bipartisan support even though the House Democrat Leadership opposed the bill vociferously.

Ron Pauls bill never received a vote in the Senate during the last Congress because Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who publicly supported the bill before it passed the House, refused under pressure from the White House to allow the Senate to take up the House-passed Paul bill despite overwhelming Senate support for the bill."

.


----------



## Andylusion

Contumacious said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Our "currency" - is printed and manipulated by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED.
> 
> No go forth and sin no more.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bull.   Give me a break.   The Federal Reserve is as much a "private entity" as the US Postal Service.
> 
> The Federal Reserve is controlled by congress.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:
> 
> *"The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act*
> 
> *Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 04/19/1982)*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yelling and screaming, doesn't make what you say true.

Now granted, the government does not regulate day to day business at the Federal Reserve.   ..... so..... what?

True or False:  Alan Greenspan was appointed by Reagan?
True or False:  Ben Bernanke was appointed by Bush?
True or False:  Ben Bernanke was an economic adviser to Bush before being appointed for the Fed?
True or False:  Janet Yellen was appointed by Obama, and Approved by Congress?
True or False:  Janet Yellen served as an economic adviser to Clinton in 97-99?
True or False:  Janet Yellen served on the Federal Reserve Board before 97?
True or False:  Timothy Geithner who served as Secretary of the Treasury, was president of the Fed in New York?

Are you seeing a pattern here?   These people weave in and out of government office, into the Fed, and back in to government office, over and over and over again.    The same guy running the Treasury, was running the Fed.  The same guy running the Fed, was on the economic advisers to the President.

These same people, moving from executive, to agency, to Fed, to executive, to agency, to the Fed.

For you to claim that the Federal Government has no bearing on what the Fed Does, when all these guys are shuffling around from government position, to Fed, to Treasury to whatever else.... is absolutely retarded.

I'm just saying.... this is not a supportable position for you.    These guys at the Fed, know their next job comes from someone in Congress appointing them to another government position.   When congress sends over a note saying "You need to do X",.... THEY DO IT.    They are as much a body of the government as the US Postal Service.

I'm sorry.  To claim otherwise is ridiculous.  I don't give a crap what the words on the paper say.   You can cite "well blaw blaw blaw, says they are private, and independent!".  Bull.   I know better.  With all due respect... get a clue man.  Can't you see whats going on?  It's not independent at all.


----------



## Contumacious

KevinWestern said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Low income --should be bad - for the recipient. But some folks are UNmotivated.
> 
> But "society" , by which you mean taxpayers and producers should not be adversely affected. They should be allowed to exercise their right to stand their ground and defend their wealth using deadly force if necessary.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey - I'm not arguing about the morality of it all, I'm just saying that it happens. When you have a finite amount of resources, and 90% are owned by 1 guy in a society of 100, eventually those 99 individuals are going to say "fuck it" and forcibly make the 1 guy share with the rest. This is what happens.
> 
> *Even the strongest, cleverest, most powerful lion can't defend itself from 99 jealous peers. It's simply a fact of life.*
Click to expand...



Of course they can. The only impediment is the federal "judiciary" and they nazistic rulings upholding "laws" regulating "assault weapons" and the size of Rifle Magazines.

.


----------



## Contumacious

Androw said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bull.   Give me a break.   The Federal Reserve is as much a "private entity" as the US Postal Service.
> 
> The Federal Reserve is controlled by congress.   .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:
> 
> *"The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act*
> 
> *Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 04/19/1982)*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yelling and screaming, doesn't make what you say true.
> 
> l.
Click to expand...


*Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region*. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341-361.

*Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 04/19/1982)*


.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Contumacious said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Our "currency" - is printed and manipulated by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED.
> 
> No go forth and sin no more.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY *
> 
> The Fed is "owned" by the government.
> 
> *WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED*
> 
> Except for all the times it was.
> 
> FRB: Annual Report 2012 - Federal Reserve System Audits
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up
> 
> *Petition to Audit the Fed*
> 
> This week, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), took up his father Ron Paul's Audit-the-Fed cause when he introduced S. 209, a bill identical to H.R. 459.
> 
> Last year, Congressman Ron Paul's Audit-the-Fed bill (H.R. 459), passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 327-98a veto-proof majority. That bill called for a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States. The bill garnered overwhelming bipartisan support even though the House Democrat Leadership opposed the bill vociferously.
> 
> Ron Pauls bill never received a vote in the Senate during the last Congress because Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who publicly supported the bill before it passed the House, refused under pressure from the White House to allow the Senate to take up the House-passed Paul bill despite overwhelming Senate support for the bill."
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yeah, Ron was never the brightest bulb in Congress. LOL!

Rand has to walk a fine line.
He'd like to attract conservative voters _and_ keep his dad's nutjob supporters. 
It won't be easy.


----------



## Contumacious

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK - a PRIVATE ENTITY *
> 
> The Fed is "owned" by the government.
> 
> *WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED*
> 
> Except for all the times it was.
> 
> FRB: Annual Report 2012 - Federal Reserve System Audits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up
> 
> *Petition to Audit the Fed*
> 
> This week, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), took up his father Ron Paul's Audit-the-Fed cause when he introduced S. 209, a bill identical to H.R. 459.
> 
> Last year, Congressman Ron Paul's Audit-the-Fed bill (H.R. 459), passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 327-98&#8212;a veto-proof majority. That bill called for a &#8220;full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States.&#8221; The bill garnered overwhelming bipartisan support even though the House Democrat Leadership opposed the bill vociferously.
> 
> Ron Paul&#8217;s bill never received a vote in the Senate during the last Congress because Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who publicly supported the bill before it passed the House, refused under pressure from the White House to allow the Senate to take up the House-passed Paul bill despite overwhelming Senate support for the bill."
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Ron was never the brightest bulb in Congress. LOL!
> 
> Rand has to walk a fine line.
> He'd like to attract conservative voters _and_ keep his dad's nutjob supporters.
> It won't be easy.
Click to expand...


Talking about not being the brightest bulb, did you  notice , by any chance , that the bill seeks to AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Contumacious said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up
> 
> *Petition to Audit the Fed*
> 
> This week, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), took up his father Ron Paul's Audit-the-Fed cause when he introduced S. 209, a bill identical to H.R. 459.
> 
> Last year, Congressman Ron Paul's Audit-the-Fed bill (H.R. 459), passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 327-98a veto-proof majority. That bill called for a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States. The bill garnered overwhelming bipartisan support even though the House Democrat Leadership opposed the bill vociferously.
> 
> Ron Pauls bill never received a vote in the Senate during the last Congress because Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who publicly supported the bill before it passed the House, refused under pressure from the White House to allow the Senate to take up the House-passed Paul bill despite overwhelming Senate support for the bill."
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Ron was never the brightest bulb in Congress. LOL!
> 
> Rand has to walk a fine line.
> He'd like to attract conservative voters _and_ keep his dad's nutjob supporters.
> It won't be easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talking about not being the brightest bulb, did you  notice , by any chance , that the bill seeks to AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yeah, Ron wanted to audit the Fed, but the Fed is audited all the time.

Like I said, he wasn't too bright


----------



## Contumacious

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Ron was never the brightest bulb in Congress. LOL!
> 
> Rand has to walk a fine line.
> He'd like to attract conservative voters _and_ keep his dad's nutjob supporters.
> It won't be easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking about not being the brightest bulb, did you  notice , by any chance , that the bill seeks to AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Ron wanted to audit the Fed, but the Fed is audited all the time.
> 
> Like I said, he wasn't too bright
Click to expand...


THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED AS THAT TERM IS USED BY ACCOUNTANTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*Auditing the Fed Will Audit the State *

If Ron Paul succeeds in getting the Fed audited, the consequences could be far-reaching. Assuming the audit isn't rigged to protect the guilty, as a similar bill was in 1978, the Fed will need every obfuscating Keynesian to testify and write editorials on its behalf, to reassure the public that monetary matters really are best left to the gods who rule us, such as Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner. Monetarists, too, would likely join the "Save the Fed" crusade, perhaps arguing that even a great free market economist like Milton Friedman considered the Fed useful for preventing and curing recessions.

.


----------



## Misty

I'm going to put this as simply as I can, since that seems to be what's required. 

Capitalism is good. High taxes are bad. 






Bombur said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why capital gains tax rates are lower than income tax rates | New Hampshire Columns
> 
> "How are capital gains different from ordinary income?
> 
> Ordinary income is usually guaranteed. If you work a certain amount of time, you are legally entitled to the pay that you were offered when you took the job. Capital gains involve risk. They are not guaranteed. You can invest your money and lose it all. Moreover, the year when you receive capital gains may not be the same as the years when they were earned."
> 
> Very similar principles apply to businesses. We pay attention to businesses after they have succeeded. But most new businesses do not succeed. Even those businesses that eventually turn out to be enormously successful may go through years of losing money before they have their first year of earning a profit.
> 
> Amazon.com spent years losing money before turning a profit for the first time in 2001. McDonald's teetered on the edge of bankruptcy more than once in its early years. Desperate expedients were resorted to by the people who ran McDonald's, in order to just keep their noses above the water, while hoping for better days."
> 
> From a great article;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of the article focuses on the poor investor and tries to paint a picture that makes it look like the issue is about taxing struggling companies. It isn't. It is about how there is a small number of people making a lot of money in personal income and paying significantly less than others.
> 
> There is risk in labor as well. People have to invest their lives into careers that may simply not be there in five years. When a company goes under people lose jobs too.
> 
> There is no doubt that taxation impacts markets and they impact the labor market just like they impact the capital market. The problem with the article is that it is made without any reference to the actual health of those markets. The labor market has struggled for decades while the capital market has exploded.
Click to expand...


----------



## Trajan

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> $16.5M minus $495k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


ok, so I will assume you asked your accountant to also calculate your tax burden at say 22% , then sat down and wrote a check to the US treasury for the difference, just like warren buffett....right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Contumacious said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking about not being the brightest bulb, did you  notice , by any chance , that the bill seeks to AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Ron wanted to audit the Fed, but the Fed is audited all the time.
> 
> Like I said, he wasn't too bright
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED AS THAT TERM IS USED BY ACCOUNTANTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> *Auditing the Fed Will Audit the State *
> 
> If Ron Paul succeeds in getting the Fed audited, the consequences could be far-reaching. Assuming the audit isn't rigged to protect the guilty, as a similar bill was in 1978, the Fed will need every obfuscating Keynesian to testify and write editorials on its behalf, to reassure the public that monetary matters really are best left to the gods who rule us, such as Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner. Monetarists, too, would likely join the "Save the Fed" crusade, perhaps arguing that even a great free market economist like Milton Friedman considered the Fed useful for preventing and curing recessions.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The financial statements of the Board of Governors for 2011 and 2010 were audited by Deloitte & Touche LLP, independent auditors.




March 8, 2012

MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION

To the Committee on Board Affairs:

The management of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ("the Board") is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the balance sheet as of December 31, 2011, and for the related statement of revenues and expenses and changes in cumulative results of operations, and cash flows for the year then ended (the "Financial Statements"). The Financial Statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and, as such, include some amounts which are based on management judgments and estimates. To our knowledge, the Financial Statements are, in all material respects, fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and include all disclosures necessary for such presentation.

Board management is also responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting as it relates to the Financial Statements. Such internal control is designed to provide reasonable assurance to management and to the Committee on Board Affairs regarding the preparation of the Financial Statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The Board's internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Board; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of Financial Statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that the Board's receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of its management; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the Board's assets that could have a material effect on the Financial Statements.

Even effective internal control--no matter how well designed--has inherent limitations, including the possibility of human error. Internal control, therefore, can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to the preparation of reliable Financial Statements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that specific controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Board management assessed its internal control over financial reporting reflected in the Financial Statements based upon the criteria established in the Internal Control--Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

Based on this assessment, we believe that the Board has maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as it relates to its Financial Statements.



Richard A. Anderson
 Chief Operating Officer



William L. Mitchell
 Chief Financial Officer


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

To the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System:

Washington, D.C.

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Board") as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the related statements of revenues and expenses and changes in cumulative results of operations, and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Board's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards as established by the Auditing Standards Board (United States), auditing standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Board's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on the criteria established in Internal Control--Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated March 8, 2012 expressed an unqualified opinion on the Board's internal control over financial reporting.

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated March 8, 2012, on our tests of the Board's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit.



March 8, 2012
 McLean, VA

FRB: Annual Report 2011 - Federal Reserve System Audits

Their auditors beg to differ.


----------



## Indeependent

Misty said:


> I'm going to put this as simply as I can, since that seems to be what's required.
> 
> Capitalism is good. High taxes are bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why capital gains tax rates are lower than income tax rates | New Hampshire Columns
> 
> "How are capital gains different from ordinary income?
> 
> Ordinary income is usually guaranteed. If you work a certain amount of time, you are legally entitled to the pay that you were offered when you took the job. Capital gains involve risk. They are not guaranteed. You can invest your money and lose it all. Moreover, the year when you receive capital gains may not be the same as the years when they were earned."
> 
> Very similar principles apply to businesses. We pay attention to businesses after they have succeeded. But most new businesses do not succeed. Even those businesses that eventually turn out to be enormously successful may go through years of losing money before they have their first year of earning a profit.
> 
> Amazon.com spent years losing money before turning a profit for the first time in 2001. McDonald's teetered on the edge of bankruptcy more than once in its early years. Desperate expedients were resorted to by the people who ran McDonald's, in order to just keep their noses above the water, while hoping for better days."
> 
> From a great article;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of the article focuses on the poor investor and tries to paint a picture that makes it look like the issue is about taxing struggling companies. It isn't. It is about how there is a small number of people making a lot of money in personal income and paying significantly less than others.
> 
> There is risk in labor as well. People have to invest their lives into careers that may simply not be there in five years. When a company goes under people lose jobs too.
> 
> There is no doubt that taxation impacts markets and they impact the labor market just like they impact the capital market. The problem with the article is that it is made without any reference to the actual health of those markets. The labor market has struggled for decades while the capital market has exploded.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


And coupled with off-shoring, business visas and 30 million illegals is GREAT!


----------



## Trajan

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



who cares? .....see george, thats the beauty of it. 

 here you have the right to go get your own....so, go get your own.


----------



## Andylusion

KevinWestern said:


> Hey - I'm not arguing about the morality of it all, I'm just saying that it happens. When you have a finite amount of resources, and 90% are owned by 1 guy in a society of 100, eventually those 99 individuals are going to say "fuck it" and forcibly make the 1 guy share with the rest. This is what happens.
> 
> Even the strongest, cleverest, most powerful lion can't defend itself from 99 jealous peers. It's simply a fact of life.



Not true.   

*Resources are not 'finite', they are dynamic.*

I was listening to a documentary on the BBC about a water utilities in an African country.   And the system was socialized, where the amount money given for water was provided by the government, and there was massive water shortages throughout the country.

Well they privatized it, and a guy started operating the water utilities like a business, and demanding payment for water.   In the process by getting people to provide money for the water, he was able to invest that money into building more systems for getting water.   The percentage of the population with access to clean drinking water, more than doubled if I remember.

*All resources operate this way.*

As the value of resources increases, the value in developing those resources also increases.

Take for example Shale Oil.   Back in the 90s, and even the early 2000s, experts in Oil, said Shale Oil would "never be developed" because it was simply uneconomical to do so.   I can remember guys on forums just like this saying "Shale Oil will never be used".... then 2008 hit.   The price of oil went up to $140 a barrel.    Suddenly, it was economical to invest in Shale Oil.   In the process of investing in Shale Oil, the cost to produce Shale Oil declined down to an average $50 a barrel.   No one predicted this.

Resources are dynamic.   When the price is low, it seems like we have dwindling supplies, because there's no economical way to get many resources.     But when the price is high, it spurs investment, and that investment will lead to more resources being economical.

Water surplus in Israel? With desalination, once unthinkable is possible | Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Water in the desert regions of Israel, is of course rare, and costly.  But that cost, also drove investment.     Today Israel is producing more clean drinking water from Ocean salt water, than the entire country can consume.   They are now selling excess water to Jordan, and a few others.

*Now all of that to say this.*

"Wealth" is also a dynamic resource.    If you deny the benefit to those who grow wealth, wealth will not be grown.   This is why every system where the 99 greedy people, demand that the 1 guy share, end up impoverished.

Look at it another way.     Say I'm the wealthy guy, and I have BMW Z4. MSRP $65K.       Say I have a fleet of them.  And the 99 greedy people, come and take my cars away. 

In about 10 years time, both me, and the 99 greedy people, will end up right back where we are now.  Why?

If you don't have the ability to buy a BMW Z4 now, how will you be able to maintain one if it was stolen from me, and given to you?    The first time something breaks, and you take it into the shop, and they say "yeah, that'll be $2,000 to fix the blaw blaw", you won't have it.

Me on the other hand, if I have the ability to earn enough to buy the BMW Z4 before, then likely I will have it again, and will be able to get another one.

As such, the wealth divided up will be consumed and gone.   The wealth earned, will be replaced.   Wealth itself is dynamic.

This is the universal truth.

Similarly, if you try and prevent me from earning more, I'll simply move to where I can earn more.   When France passed it's wealth tax, thousands of the wealthy in France, moved operations out of the country.

When Venezuela started confiscating the rightfully earned property of the wealthy, they packed up and left.    Over one million people, in a country of only 29 million, have left Venezuela, and most all of them were the wealthy job makers, wealth creators of the country.

And Venezuela is less wealthy, and in fact the worst performing economy in Latin America.

When the people who produce wealth leave, that doesn't mean wealth is spread more evenly among the people.   It means there is less wealth period, and people end up more impoverished.


----------



## Andylusion

Contumacious said:


> *Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region*. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341-361.
> 
> *Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 04/19/1982)*
> 
> 
> .



Last chance.   I don't deal with stupid people.  I don't deal with childish people.

You failed to make a point the first time.  You failed the second time, while repeating yourself like a really dumb child, as if saying it again, makes it all true.

So this is your one and only warning.   Next time you act like a 5-year-old whose parents forgot to put him to bed, you join my ignore list.     There, you will cease to exist in my world, for all time.   You won't be missed, and given the fact you have failed to say anything of value thus far, I will not be missing anything.

Last chance.   Want to discuss stuff?   Fine.  Answer the questions I posed in the prior post, or make a counter point.    That's what adults do.  If that's not you, just make another childish, Forest Gump style post, and I will eliminate you from my world forever!   Up to you!  Grow up, or get out.  Make your choice.  I'm fine either way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make it even simpler, you are lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't stand the fact that the people you've been supporting for years make it easier for the rich to get richer?
Click to expand...



Sorry, you are the one that claims he hates the rich. Personally, I like the idea that people get rich.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does the top 20% get 50% of the overall tax breaks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, just like your claim about your income and how much you paid, you are lying. Everyone gets the tax breaks, the top 20% more likely to itemize rather than take the standard deduction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For 50% of the tax breaks, which moots your claim of 'heavily skewed in favor of people with low incomes'.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't.


----------



## Contumacious

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Their auditors beg to differ.



319 Representatives say it ain't so

*Audit the Fed is back*

*This week, Representative Paul Broun of Georgia introduced an Audit the Fed bill that is identical to Ron Pauls bill, H.R. 459, which passed the House last year 327-98*. The original bill, which carried 319 cosponsors and enjoyed widespread public support according to polls, was killed in the Senate. Theres little reason to believe that it will avoid a similar fate this session."

.


----------



## Contumacious

Androw said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region*. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341-361.
> 
> *Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 04/19/1982)*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last chance.   I don't deal with stupid people.  I don't deal with childish people.
> 
> You failed to make a point the first time.  You failed the second time, while repeating yourself like a really dumb child, as if saying it again, makes it all true.
> 
> So this is your one and only warning.   Next time you act like a 5-year-old whose parents forgot to put him to bed, you join my ignore list.     There, you will cease to exist in my world, for all time.   You won't be missed, and given the fact you have failed to say anything of value thus far, I will not be missing anything.
> 
> Last chance.   Want to discuss stuff?   Fine.  Answer the questions I posed in the prior post, or make a counter point.    That's what adults do.  If that's not you, just make another childish, Forest Gump style post, and I will eliminate you from my world forever!   Up to you!  Grow up, or get out.  Make your choice.  I'm fine either way.
Click to expand...


Now go fuck yourself and continue ignoring the facts. Be selectively blind.

.


----------



## Bombur

Misty said:


> I'm going to put this as simply as I can, since that seems to be what's required.
> 
> Capitalism is good. High taxes are bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why capital gains tax rates are lower than income tax rates | New Hampshire Columns
> 
> "How are capital gains different from ordinary income?
> 
> Ordinary income is usually guaranteed. If you work a certain amount of time, you are legally entitled to the pay that you were offered when you took the job. Capital gains involve risk. They are not guaranteed. You can invest your money and lose it all. Moreover, the year when you receive capital gains may not be the same as the years when they were earned."
> 
> Very similar principles apply to businesses. We pay attention to businesses after they have succeeded. But most new businesses do not succeed. Even those businesses that eventually turn out to be enormously successful may go through years of losing money before they have their first year of earning a profit.
> 
> Amazon.com spent years losing money before turning a profit for the first time in 2001. McDonald's teetered on the edge of bankruptcy more than once in its early years. Desperate expedients were resorted to by the people who ran McDonald's, in order to just keep their noses above the water, while hoping for better days."
> 
> From a great article;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of the article focuses on the poor investor and tries to paint a picture that makes it look like the issue is about taxing struggling companies. It isn't. It is about how there is a small number of people making a lot of money in personal income and paying significantly less than others.
> 
> There is risk in labor as well. People have to invest their lives into careers that may simply not be there in five years. When a company goes under people lose jobs too.
> 
> There is no doubt that taxation impacts markets and they impact the labor market just like they impact the capital market. The problem with the article is that it is made without any reference to the actual health of those markets. The labor market has struggled for decades while the capital market has exploded.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yet we have taxes so we talk about how they can be better.


----------



## American4Americ

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



Inequality is not a problem. I would rather see 3,000,000,000 starve, before to sanctioning theft. Freedom and liberty are the two single most important things on earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Contumacious said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their auditors beg to differ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 319 Representatives say it ain't so
> 
> *Audit the Fed is back*
> 
> *This week, Representative Paul Broun of Georgia introduced an Audit the Fed bill that is identical to Ron Pauls bill, H.R. 459, which passed the House last year 327-98*. The original bill, which carried 319 cosponsors and enjoyed widespread public support according to polls, was killed in the Senate. Theres little reason to believe that it will avoid a similar fate this session."
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Dumb Congressmen? That's a shock.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are buying USDs. That is their currency manipulation and it is not comparable to the US printing money.
> 
> I am not suggesting we engage in protectionism, I am suggesting that China should stop engaging in protectionism.
> 
> Imbalanced trade most definitely hurts our labor market. I don't think the Chinese practice of currency manipulation will end well for China either. The best solution to the problem IMO is rising wages in China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buying USD is not manipulation.  Many many countries buy USD.
> This surprising chart shows which countries own the most U.S. debt
> Japan has over $1 Trillion in USD.  Are they engaged in manipulation?  The European Union, owns nearly a trillion in USD.  Are they engaged in manipulation?
> 
> The majority of countries around the world, have some holdings of USD, and when you compare that relative to their respective GDPs, they are all taking a significant amount.
> 
> Would you suggest the entire planet is manipulating their currency?  In which case, why focus on China?
> 
> Nor can you "stop china" from engaging in protectionism.  Nor should we.
> 
> No, it does not hurt our labor markets.   I'm sorry, you are just flat out wrong on this.
> 
> There is ZERO evidence that trade imbalance hurt our labor markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look.... it's not there.   During the early to late 90s, the economy was what you would call good.  Unemployment dropped almost continuously until 2001, and all during that time, the trade imbalance was increasing.
> 
> Then in 2001, the trade imbalance decline, and unemployment increased.
> 
> From 2003 to 2008, the unemployment rate dropped, while during that same time, the trade imbalance increased.
> 
> Then in 2008, the trade imbalance declined again, and unemployment went up.
> 
> So let's review.   When unemployment is low, the trade imbalance is high.   When the unemployment his high, the trade imbalance, is low.
> 
> This is the exactly opposite of what you are claiming.
> 
> Your statement suggests that unemployment should go up, when the trade imbalance goes up, and should go down, when the imbalance goes down.
> 
> That is not happening, and has never happened, and there's no.... as in ZERO, support for that claim.   None whatsoever.
> 
> Now if you have some evidence to support your claims, give it.   You would be the first to even try in the last 10 years I've been asking for it.   You'd be a record holder in my book.
> 
> But for me, I've looked for evidence to support your position, because I actually used to be a protectionist myself.  I believed we had to protect ourselves from bad trade.     But I did something amazing... I actually looked for real evidence to support my views, and found the opposite.  I haven't found anything in 10 years, to suggest what you say is true.
> 
> OH.... and by the way.... Notice also that our trade imbalance with China specifically, is a very small part of the total trade imbalance.    Again, focusing on China, proves to me that this is merely the Government attempting to shift blame.    China was not, and is not, the majority of our trade imbalance.    Focusing on China is just as safe excuse.     The real source of our economic problems, is bad socialistic policies that is harming our economy.    China has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


China made up almost half of our trade imbalance in 2013. Not only do they represent the biggest trade imbalance by far the ratio of imports to exports is the worst of any major trading partner by far. 

Yes Germany also uses capital flows to ensure a trade balance they want. So has Japan. It is not a huge surprise that Japan has the problems they have now considering how they grew their economy in the past. They can't manipulate the USD forever and neither can China.

As for the employment figures, I wouldn't expect a direct impact like that. Those numbers change the way they do because imports are based on demand and demand goes up and down with the economic cycle (ie unemployment). The problems with the trade imbalance can be seen with the stagnation of wages in the US.

The idea that it is our socialists policies is ridiculous. If anything US labor would be more competitive with UHC.


----------



## Contumacious

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their auditors beg to differ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 319 Representatives say it ain't so
> 
> *Audit the Fed is back*
> 
> *This week, Representative Paul Broun of Georgia introduced an Audit the Fed bill that is identical to Ron Pauls bill, H.R. 459, which passed the House last year 327-98*. The original bill, which carried 319 cosponsors and enjoyed widespread public support according to polls, was killed in the Senate. Theres little reason to believe that it will avoid a similar fate this session."
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb Congressmen? That's a shock.
Click to expand...



*70 Percent of Americans Favor Auditing the Federal Reserve*

Emily Ekins|Sep. 27, 2012 1:40 pm


Despite increasing interest in the Federal Reserves actions since the 2008 financial crisis, few polls have asked Americans about auditing the nations central bank. Consequently, the Reason-Rupe September Pollasked Americans if they would favor or oppose a law that would allow Congress to conduct an annual internal review of the Federal Reserve, 70 percent favor and 21 percent oppose.

In fact, auditing the Federal Reserve is one of the few things that all partisan can agree, although Republicans are more amplified than Democrats. Sixty-five percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of Independents favor a Federal Reserve audit."

.


----------



## Contumacious

*Federal Banking Agency Audit Act enacted in 1978 as Public Law 95-320 and Section 31 USC 714 of U.S. Code establish that the Federal Reserve may be audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).[59] *The GAO has authority to audit check-processing, currency storage and shipments, and some regulatory and bank examination functions, however there are restrictions to what the GAO may in fact audit.* Audits of the Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks may not include:*

    transactions for or with a foreign central bank or government, or nonprivate international financing organization;
    deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters;
    transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
    a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items (1), (2), or (3).[60][61]&#8221;


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Contumacious said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 319 Representatives say it ain't so
> 
> *Audit the Fed is back*
> 
> *This week, Representative Paul Broun of Georgia introduced an Audit the Fed bill that is identical to Ron Pauls bill, H.R. 459, which passed the House last year 327-98*. The original bill, which carried 319 cosponsors and enjoyed widespread public support according to polls, was killed in the Senate. Theres little reason to believe that it will avoid a similar fate this session."
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb Congressmen? That's a shock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *70 Percent of Americans Favor Auditing the Federal Reserve*
> 
> Emily Ekins|Sep. 27, 2012 1:40 pm
> 
> 
> Despite increasing interest in the Federal Reserves actions since the 2008 financial crisis, few polls have asked Americans about auditing the nations central bank. Consequently, the Reason-Rupe September Pollasked Americans if they would favor or oppose a law that would allow Congress to conduct an annual internal review of the Federal Reserve, 70 percent favor and 21 percent oppose.
> 
> In fact, auditing the Federal Reserve is one of the few things that all partisan can agree, although Republicans are more amplified than Democrats. Sixty-five percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of Independents favor a Federal Reserve audit."
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ignorant Americans pressuring their Congressmen to do something that's already being done. Shocker!


----------



## Contumacious

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb Congressmen? That's a shock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *70 Percent of Americans Favor Auditing the Federal Reserve*
> 
> Emily Ekins|Sep. 27, 2012 1:40 pm
> 
> 
> Despite increasing interest in the Federal Reserves actions since the 2008 financial crisis, few polls have asked Americans about auditing the nations central bank. Consequently, the Reason-Rupe September Pollasked Americans if they would favor or oppose a law that would allow Congress to conduct an annual internal review of the Federal Reserve, 70 percent favor and 21 percent oppose.
> 
> In fact, auditing the Federal Reserve is one of the few things that all partisan can agree, although Republicans are more amplified than Democrats. Sixty-five percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of Independents favor a Federal Reserve audit."
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorant Americans pressuring their Congressmen to do something that's already being done. Shocker!
Click to expand...


Do you work for the Federal Reserve Board?

Federal Banking Agency Audit Act enacted in 1978 as Public Law 95-320 and Section 31 USC 714 of U.S. Code establish that the Federal Reserve may be audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).[59] The GAO has authority to audit check-processing, currency storage and shipments, and some regulatory and bank examination functions, however there are restrictions to what the GAO may in fact audit.* [Presently] Audits of the Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks may not include:*

transactions for or with a foreign central bank or government, or nonprivate international financing organization;
deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters;
transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items (1), (2), or (3).[60][61]

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Contumacious said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *70 Percent of Americans Favor Auditing the Federal Reserve*
> 
> Emily Ekins|Sep. 27, 2012 1:40 pm
> 
> 
> Despite increasing interest in the Federal Reserves actions since the 2008 financial crisis, few polls have asked Americans about auditing the nations central bank. Consequently, the Reason-Rupe September Pollasked Americans if they would favor or oppose a law that would allow Congress to conduct an annual internal review of the Federal Reserve, 70 percent favor and 21 percent oppose.
> 
> In fact, auditing the Federal Reserve is one of the few things that all partisan can agree, although Republicans are more amplified than Democrats. Sixty-five percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of Independents favor a Federal Reserve audit."
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant Americans pressuring their Congressmen to do something that's already being done. Shocker!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you work for the Federal Reserve Board?
> 
> Federal Banking Agency Audit Act enacted in 1978 as Public Law 95-320 and Section 31 USC 714 of U.S. Code establish that the Federal Reserve may be audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).[59] The GAO has authority to audit check-processing, currency storage and shipments, and some regulatory and bank examination functions, however there are restrictions to what the GAO may in fact audit.* [Presently] Audits of the Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks may not include:*
> 
> transactions for or with a foreign central bank or government, or nonprivate international financing organization;
> deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters;
> transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
> a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items (1), (2), or (3).[60][61]
> 
> .
Click to expand...


*THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED AS THAT TERM IS USED BY ACCOUNTANTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

How are their audits different than an audit of a Fortune 500 company?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does the top 20% get 50% of the overall tax breaks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... is seems rather logical to me that when the bottom 47% don't even pay tax, that more tax breaks likely benefit those who actually pay tax, than those who don't.
> 
> Equally, the people who gain more differing types of income, would also likely be able to use tax breaks designed for those types of income.
> 
> For example, if there is a tax break for getting stock options.
> 
> While some people earning $80,000 a year or less, might get some stock options as compensation, I think it's safe to say very few do.
> 
> But those earning over $200K, often get stock options and other such compensation.
> 
> Thus logically, only those getting stock options, and alternative compensation, are likely to benefit from tax breaks for such alternative compensation.
> 
> Seriously, this is a very obvious answer.   I more surprised you would ask such a question.
Click to expand...

*Where did you get the idea that...?*

"Forty-seven percent of Americans dont pay taxes.

"The most pernicious misconception about people who dont pay federal income taxes is that they dont pay any taxes. That oft-heard claim ignores all the other taxes Americans encounter in their daily lives. 

"Almost two-thirds of the 47 percent work, for example, and their payroll taxes help finance Social Security and Medicare. 

"Accounting for this, the share of households paying no net federal taxes falls to 28 percent."

Five myths about the 47 percent - The Washington Post

*There's also federal taxes on gasoline, beer, and cigarettes along with state and local sales and property taxes which are often more regressive than federal income taxes.*


----------



## georgephillip

Bombur said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK cut military spending.
> 
> I think it is pretty obvious that UHC is far more efficient than the horrible Frankenstein monster that is our current system. So I agree with the general problem but there is a lot more evidence supporting UHC than there is in the idea the free market will solve our problems.
> 
> Making SS optional would just put more pressure on people to make good decisions and save for themselves.
> 
> If you want legit conservative ways to improve things look to the corporate tax code. The way it works in the US is relatively unique in that it hurts US production and favors foreign production. Other nation's tax codes do the opposite.
> 
> You can also look at Chinese manipulation of our currency. That is not really anything either side is for.
> 
> You can also look at regulations from a trade perspective. Having common regulations with Europe and Canada can help facilitate trade.
> 
> 
> 
> *You mentioned in another post how you thought NAFTA has been beneficial to the US economy (if I remember correctly)
> 
> Are you equally impressed with the TPP,particularly its manifest secrecy?*
> 
> "WikiLeaks has released the draft text of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, a multilateral free-trade treaty currently being negotiated in secret by 12 Pacific Rim nations.
> 
> "The full agreement covers a number of areas, but the chapter published by WikiLeaks focuses on intellectual property rights, an area of law which has effects in areas as diverse as pharmaceuticals and civil liberties.
> 
> "Negotiations for the TPP have included representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, and Brunei, but have been conducted behind closed doors.
> 
> "Even members of the US Congress were only allowed to view selected portions of the documents under supervision."
> 
> WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership | Media | theguardian.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think generally speaking NAFTA worked out ok. Trade deals generally result in very specific pressures on an economy that have to be recognized. I consider our trade relationship with China to have a much higher cost than NAFTA.
> 
> I have no problem with trade deals. I have problems with nations like China manipulating our currency. I think we can do a much better job when establishing trade deals but whatever really.
> 
> Congress would politicize everything and involving them would just slow things down as every corporation lines up to fill their pockets to fight for them.
Click to expand...

*Based on what little has been revealed so far about TPP, many of its provisions seem largely unrelated to freedom or trade:*

"Evan Greer, campaign manager for Fight for the Future, said: 'The documents revealed by WikiLeaks make it clear why the US government has worked so hard to keep the TPP negotiatons secret. 

"'While claiming to champion an open Internet, the Obama administration is quietly pushing for extreme, SOPA-like copyright policies that benefit Hollywood and giant pharmaceutical companies at the expense of our most basic rights to freedom of expression online.'"

WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership | Media | theguardian.com


----------



## RKMBrown

OnePercenter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make it simple for you.  16.5m gross income, 14.5m sheltered because the 14.5m of the 16.5m is not considered taxable income by the IRS, 2m taxed resulting in .5m taxes.  Or you are a liar or criminal that does not report your revenue, such as a drug dealer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like Bill Gates, I'm the principal of multiple trusts which are Nevada corporations, but thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


IOW the money is not yours at all and everything you've said has been a lie.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that is the case for the majority of the "pension" plan part of SS. The problem is the transfer payment for the low end of the spectrum. I also consider disability and unemployment to be programs that should be funded with a progressive tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah no kidding.  All libtards want to command the rich to bend over and serve them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly there is either a case for the 3 programs I talked about or not. I don't really care either way but there is no way they should all rest on the shoulders of the middle class in an age of globalization.
Click to expand...

What does globalization have to do with whether or not people take personal responsibility or function as useless parasites?


----------



## Redfish

What has this country become when some Americans actually favor socialism?

Have we forgotten our history?

Have we forgotten the history of the world?

Have we forgotten the constitution?

Has our education system become a socialist indoctrination system?


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah no kidding.  All libtards want to command the rich to bend over and serve them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly there is either a case for the 3 programs I talked about or not. I don't really care either way but there is no way they should all rest on the shoulders of the middle class in an age of globalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does globalization have to do with whether or not people take personal responsibility or function as useless parasites?
Click to expand...


You just jumped the shark.


----------



## Bombur

georgephillip said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You mentioned in another post how you thought NAFTA has been beneficial to the US economy (if I remember correctly)
> 
> Are you equally impressed with the TPP,particularly its manifest secrecy?*
> 
> "WikiLeaks has released the draft text of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, a multilateral free-trade treaty currently being negotiated in secret by 12 Pacific Rim nations.
> 
> "The full agreement covers a number of areas, but the chapter published by WikiLeaks focuses on intellectual property rights, an area of law which has effects in areas as diverse as pharmaceuticals and civil liberties.
> 
> "Negotiations for the TPP have included representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, and Brunei, but have been conducted behind closed doors.
> 
> "Even members of the US Congress were only allowed to view selected portions of the documents under supervision."
> 
> WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership | Media | theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think generally speaking NAFTA worked out ok. Trade deals generally result in very specific pressures on an economy that have to be recognized. I consider our trade relationship with China to have a much higher cost than NAFTA.
> 
> I have no problem with trade deals. I have problems with nations like China manipulating our currency. I think we can do a much better job when establishing trade deals but whatever really.
> 
> Congress would politicize everything and involving them would just slow things down as every corporation lines up to fill their pockets to fight for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Based on what little has been revealed so far about TPP, many of its provisions seem largely unrelated to freedom or trade:*
> 
> "Evan Greer, campaign manager for Fight for the Future, said: 'The documents revealed by WikiLeaks make it clear why the US government has worked so hard to keep the TPP negotiatons secret.
> 
> "'While claiming to champion an open Internet, the Obama administration is quietly pushing for extreme, SOPA-like copyright policies that benefit Hollywood and giant pharmaceutical companies at the expense of our most basic rights to freedom of expression online.'"
> 
> WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership | Media | theguardian.com
Click to expand...


Of course the US is fighting for those things. We make them.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are buying USDs. That is their currency manipulation and it is not comparable to the US printing money.
> 
> I am not suggesting we engage in protectionism, I am suggesting that China should stop engaging in protectionism.
> 
> Imbalanced trade most definitely hurts our labor market. I don't think the Chinese practice of currency manipulation will end well for China either. The best solution to the problem IMO is rising wages in China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buying USD is not manipulation.  Many many countries buy USD.
> This surprising chart shows which countries own the most U.S. debt
> Japan has over $1 Trillion in USD.  Are they engaged in manipulation?  The European Union, owns nearly a trillion in USD.  Are they engaged in manipulation?
> 
> The majority of countries around the world, have some holdings of USD, and when you compare that relative to their respective GDPs, they are all taking a significant amount.
> 
> Would you suggest the entire planet is manipulating their currency?  In which case, why focus on China?
> 
> Nor can you "stop china" from engaging in protectionism.  Nor should we.
> 
> No, it does not hurt our labor markets.   I'm sorry, you are just flat out wrong on this.
> 
> There is ZERO evidence that trade imbalance hurt our labor markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look.... it's not there.   During the early to late 90s, the economy was what you would call good.  Unemployment dropped almost continuously until 2001, and all during that time, the trade imbalance was increasing.
> 
> Then in 2001, the trade imbalance decline, and unemployment increased.
> 
> From 2003 to 2008, the unemployment rate dropped, while during that same time, the trade imbalance increased.
> 
> Then in 2008, the trade imbalance declined again, and unemployment went up.
> 
> So let's review.   When unemployment is low, the trade imbalance is high.   When the unemployment his high, the trade imbalance, is low.
> 
> This is the exactly opposite of what you are claiming.
> 
> Your statement suggests that unemployment should go up, when the trade imbalance goes up, and should go down, when the imbalance goes down.
> 
> That is not happening, and has never happened, and there's no.... as in ZERO, support for that claim.   None whatsoever.
> 
> Now if you have some evidence to support your claims, give it.   You would be the first to even try in the last 10 years I've been asking for it.   You'd be a record holder in my book.
> 
> But for me, I've looked for evidence to support your position, because I actually used to be a protectionist myself.  I believed we had to protect ourselves from bad trade.     But I did something amazing... I actually looked for real evidence to support my views, and found the opposite.  I haven't found anything in 10 years, to suggest what you say is true.
> 
> OH.... and by the way.... Notice also that our trade imbalance with China specifically, is a very small part of the total trade imbalance.    Again, focusing on China, proves to me that this is merely the Government attempting to shift blame.    China was not, and is not, the majority of our trade imbalance.    Focusing on China is just as safe excuse.     The real source of our economic problems, is bad socialistic policies that is harming our economy.    China has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China made up almost half of our trade imbalance in 2013. Not only do they represent the biggest trade imbalance by far the ratio of imports to exports is the worst of any major trading partner by far.
> 
> Yes Germany also uses capital flows to ensure a trade balance they want. So has Japan. It is not a huge surprise that Japan has the problems they have now considering how they grew their economy in the past. They can't manipulate the USD forever and neither can China.
> 
> As for the employment figures, I wouldn't expect a direct impact like that. Those numbers change the way they do because imports are based on demand and demand goes up and down with the economic cycle (ie unemployment). The problems with the trade imbalance can be seen with the stagnation of wages in the US.
> 
> The idea that it is our socialists policies is ridiculous. If anything US labor would be more competitive with UHC.
Click to expand...


Only because the rest of our trade balance disappeared.   You can see clearly from the chart, that from 96 to 09, China made up far less than half.

Further, you implication is that this "manipulation" will destroy the country doing the manipulation.    If that's the case, then we should do nothing about it, and allow them to destroy themselves.   It certainly didn't hurt us.

I don't see wages being stagnate, unless you are looking at "household income" numbers, in which case, the numbers are skewed.

Household income has fallen, but not because of imports.  It's fallen because the number one way to stay poor and impoverished, is to divorce, or not get married at all, both of which have become exceptionally common in our culture.

Think about it.   You have two people earning an income, and married.   Then they divorce.   You take one household with a high income, and separate it into two homes both of which have a much lower income.   Obviously that's going to massively drag the average down.

Additionally, we used to have a culture where kids lived at home, worked a job, and went to college.   Now those kids are getting their own apartment, and working a job, while going to college.    Again, taking one household with a large household income, and splitting it into two households, both of which, with a lower income.

There is no real drop in wages.  At least none worth talking about.

And yes of course it's our socialistic policies that have caused this, and claiming that UHC would be a net benefit is ridiculous as well.   Go tell that to Europe.   Tell Greece they are more competitive because they have UHC.    Tell that to Spain.   Tell that to Cuba and Venezuela.   Double the tax rate, to cover UHC, and then thing we're going to be competitive?     Not to mention that their health care sucks compared to ours, and people come here from all over the world to get health care.   Being "more competitive" while having more people die, is not an even trade.


----------



## Andylusion

Contumacious said:


> Now go (wah wah wah I'm a baby who isn't mature enough, or intelligent enought to carry on an adult conversation, please mute me for life!) blaw blaw blaw
> 
> .



No problem!  You are gone!   History!  You no longer exist in my world!  You won't be missed, have a nice life in baby world.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buying USD is not manipulation.  Many many countries buy USD.
> This surprising chart shows which countries own the most U.S. debt
> Japan has over $1 Trillion in USD.  Are they engaged in manipulation?  The European Union, owns nearly a trillion in USD.  Are they engaged in manipulation?
> 
> The majority of countries around the world, have some holdings of USD, and when you compare that relative to their respective GDPs, they are all taking a significant amount.
> 
> Would you suggest the entire planet is manipulating their currency?  In which case, why focus on China?
> 
> Nor can you "stop china" from engaging in protectionism.  Nor should we.
> 
> No, it does not hurt our labor markets.   I'm sorry, you are just flat out wrong on this.
> 
> There is ZERO evidence that trade imbalance hurt our labor markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look.... it's not there.   During the early to late 90s, the economy was what you would call good.  Unemployment dropped almost continuously until 2001, and all during that time, the trade imbalance was increasing.
> 
> Then in 2001, the trade imbalance decline, and unemployment increased.
> 
> From 2003 to 2008, the unemployment rate dropped, while during that same time, the trade imbalance increased.
> 
> Then in 2008, the trade imbalance declined again, and unemployment went up.
> 
> So let's review.   When unemployment is low, the trade imbalance is high.   When the unemployment his high, the trade imbalance, is low.
> 
> This is the exactly opposite of what you are claiming.
> 
> Your statement suggests that unemployment should go up, when the trade imbalance goes up, and should go down, when the imbalance goes down.
> 
> That is not happening, and has never happened, and there's no.... as in ZERO, support for that claim.   None whatsoever.
> 
> Now if you have some evidence to support your claims, give it.   You would be the first to even try in the last 10 years I've been asking for it.   You'd be a record holder in my book.
> 
> But for me, I've looked for evidence to support your position, because I actually used to be a protectionist myself.  I believed we had to protect ourselves from bad trade.     But I did something amazing... I actually looked for real evidence to support my views, and found the opposite.  I haven't found anything in 10 years, to suggest what you say is true.
> 
> OH.... and by the way.... Notice also that our trade imbalance with China specifically, is a very small part of the total trade imbalance.    Again, focusing on China, proves to me that this is merely the Government attempting to shift blame.    China was not, and is not, the majority of our trade imbalance.    Focusing on China is just as safe excuse.     The real source of our economic problems, is bad socialistic policies that is harming our economy.    China has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China made up almost half of our trade imbalance in 2013. Not only do they represent the biggest trade imbalance by far the ratio of imports to exports is the worst of any major trading partner by far.
> 
> Yes Germany also uses capital flows to ensure a trade balance they want. So has Japan. It is not a huge surprise that Japan has the problems they have now considering how they grew their economy in the past. They can't manipulate the USD forever and neither can China.
> 
> As for the employment figures, I wouldn't expect a direct impact like that. Those numbers change the way they do because imports are based on demand and demand goes up and down with the economic cycle (ie unemployment). The problems with the trade imbalance can be seen with the stagnation of wages in the US.
> 
> The idea that it is our socialists policies is ridiculous. If anything US labor would be more competitive with UHC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because the rest of our trade balance disappeared.   You can see clearly from the chart, that from 96 to 09, China made up far less than half.
> 
> Further, you implication is that this "manipulation" will destroy the country doing the manipulation.    If that's the case, then we should do nothing about it, and allow them to destroy themselves.   It certainly didn't hurt us.
> 
> I don't see wages being stagnate, unless you are looking at "household income" numbers, in which case, the numbers are skewed.
> 
> Household income has fallen, but not because of imports.  It's fallen because the number one way to stay poor and impoverished, is to divorce, or not get married at all, both of which have become exceptionally common in our culture.
> 
> Think about it.   You have two people earning an income, and married.   Then they divorce.   You take one household with a high income, and separate it into two homes both of which have a much lower income.   Obviously that's going to massively drag the average down.
> 
> Additionally, we used to have a culture where kids lived at home, worked a job, and went to college.   Now those kids are getting their own apartment, and working a job, while going to college.    Again, taking one household with a large household income, and splitting it into two households, both of which, with a lower income.
> 
> There is no real drop in wages.  At least none worth talking about.
> 
> And yes of course it's our socialistic policies that have caused this, and claiming that UHC would be a net benefit is ridiculous as well.   Go tell that to Europe.   Tell Greece they are more competitive because they have UHC.    Tell that to Spain.   Tell that to Cuba and Venezuela.   Double the tax rate, to cover UHC, and then thing we're going to be competitive?     Not to mention that their health care sucks compared to ours, and people come here from all over the world to get health care.   Being "more competitive" while having more people die, is not an even trade.
Click to expand...


Dude I don't care about your chart. In reality China made up almost half of the trade deficit. Almost $300 billion of the $600 billion or so deficit.

It will hurt both of us and is hurting both of us.

Your explanation of the drop in wages is hilarious. 

The lesson of Spain and Greece is that capital flows between nations matter. Spain didn't have that much government debt as industrialized nations go but they did rely on foreign capital. Surprise surprise their production problems were masked by consumption that was artificially boosted by foreign capital. Eventually that debt gets paid back and the economy sees a large drop in demand. 

UHC is more efficient. It is not the only trade issue though. Capital flows are far more important.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Yet we have taxes so we talk about how they can be better.



There is no such thing as a "better" tax.  It's only a "less horrible" tax.    The only good tax, is the non-existent tax.   Zero tax.... that's "better" in that it doesn't exist.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet we have taxes so we talk about how they can be better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "better" tax.  It's only a "less horrible" tax.    The only good tax, is the non-existent tax.   Zero tax.... that's "better" in that it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


Good luck with that.


----------



## Contumacious

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet we have taxes so we talk about how they can be better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "better" tax.  It's only a "less horrible" tax.    *The only good tax, is the non-existent tax.   Zero tax....* that's "better" in that it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


There you go.

We concur.

But remember the private entity known as the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD inflates the fuck out of the currency , that constitutes an indirect tax.

* The Inflation Tax*

by Ron Paul


All government spending represents a tax. The inflation tax, while largely ignored, hurts middle-class and low-income Americans the most. Simply put, printing money to pay for federal spending dilutes the value of the dollar, which causes higher prices for goods and services. Inflation may be an indirect tax, but it is very real  the individuals who suffer most from cost of living increases certainly pay a tax.."

.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........   what the heck does one have to do with the other?    Nothing.
> 
> Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have?    What difference does that make?
> 
> Yes, Capitalism does ensure that there will be inequality, but who said equality was good, or that inequality was bad?    Who said you deserve anything?    Does your existence on this planet promise you jack?  Why?  What have you done to earn what you have?   Sucking air?   Pooping?
> 
> The OECD is completely bonkers wrong.   Inequality did not first start in the 1970s.  For heaven sakes, what are you people smoking?   Seriously?   Did you ever read the massive difference between the Rich and the Poor, back in the 1920s?    Or back in the 1800s even?    Or even all the way back to the 1700s when this country was founded?
> 
> And here's the other side.    What alternative do you propose?  Socialism?   Are you crazy?
> 
> Socialism is even more unequal.   Have you read about the Soviet Union?    Did you read about the private Communist party shops, that were stocked full of goods, while the citizens shops were empty?    Have you read about the shops around Red Square, where the shop owners hid their goods in the back of the store behind curtains, so that common people wouldn't see the goods that Communist leaders had access to, that they did not?    Or about the multi-floor villas reserved only for Communist officials.   Or the yachts, available year around for Communist party members.
> 
> Here's the deal... there is no system on the face of this planet, or throughout all human history, in which there has been equality.    Even in tribal peoples living in the forest.... the guy at the top of the tribe, had the bigger mud hut, and had more women to sleep with, had more food to eat, and more water to drink, and worked less than the rest of the people in the tribe.
> 
> This is universally true.   All claims of an equal society somewhere are all myths, and lies.
> 
> The difference between Socialism, and Capitalism, is that the inequality in socialism is enforced by the states, and the inequality of Capitalism, is based on the individuals providing goods and services to the market.
> 
> I read the story of a man from Egypt.  In Egypt past, you are born lower class, you live lower class, and you die lower class.   You can't move up, no matter what you do, because there is a class system, and that's your fate.    This man left Egypt, and moved to the US, where he started working as a janitor for a hospital.   10 years later, he had worked his way up, and earned promotion after promotion, until he was director of maintenance over several hospitals.    That's Capitalism.   He went from minimum wage, to well over six-figure income, while being an immigrant from another country, where the class system would have left him a low-wage low-class worker until he died.
> 
> So, I'll take inequality, over socialistic 'equality' any day.
Click to expand...

*Your words:*

"When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........   what the heck does one have to do with the other?    Nothing.

"Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have?    What difference does that make?"

*Tell me if you accept the following definition of...*

"...DEMOCRACY

1
a :  government by the people; especially :  rule of the majority
b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
:  a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized :  the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy  C. M. Roberts>
*4
:  the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
:  the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"*

*When incomes of 1% of the population increase 31% while the incomes of the other 99% rise 0.4% between 2009 -2012 that should tell you the common people are having their political choices vetted by the richest 1% long before election day. That, in turn, dilutes the political authority of the majority.

Hereditary and arbitrary class distinctions guarantee the sort of economic inequality we've seen since 2008, and their consequence will only become worse.

When three individuals control more wealth than the combined GDP of the last 47 countries, you're living in a world where oligarchy and not democracy controls the political processes of the major nation states.

You may console yourself with the false dichotomy of capitalism or socialism, others aren't so ignorant.*

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does the top 20% get 50% of the overall tax breaks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... is seems rather logical to me that when the bottom 47% don't even pay tax, that more tax breaks likely benefit those who actually pay tax, than those who don't.
> 
> Equally, the people who gain more differing types of income, would also likely be able to use tax breaks designed for those types of income.
> 
> For example, if there is a tax break for getting stock options.
> 
> While some people earning $80,000 a year or less, might get some stock options as compensation, I think it's safe to say very few do.
> 
> But those earning over $200K, often get stock options and other such compensation.
> 
> Thus logically, only those getting stock options, and alternative compensation, are likely to benefit from tax breaks for such alternative compensation.
> 
> Seriously, this is a very obvious answer.   I more surprised you would ask such a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Where did you get the idea that...?*
> 
> "Forty-seven percent of Americans dont pay taxes.
> 
> "The most pernicious misconception about people who dont pay federal income taxes is that they dont pay any taxes. That oft-heard claim ignores all the other taxes Americans encounter in their daily lives.
> 
> "Almost two-thirds of the 47 percent work, for example, and their payroll taxes help finance Social Security and Medicare.
> 
> "Accounting for this, the share of households paying no net federal taxes falls to 28 percent."
> 
> Five myths about the 47 percent - The Washington Post
> 
> *There's also federal taxes on gasoline, beer, and cigarettes along with state and local sales and property taxes which are often more regressive than federal income taxes.*
Click to expand...


While everything you say is technically true, it's also irrelevant to the point of the prior poster.    The prior poster was complaining about deductions and tax breaks that the wealthy have, that the poor do not use.

All of these taxes, are ones that no one has any exception for.   Do wealthy people have an exemption from Gasoline tax?  No.   So obviously bringing up that tax, as well as smokes and beer, was pointless.  It didn't support the original claim.

Further, rich people have no tax breaks on Social Security or Medicare either.   So there was no point in bringing that up.

The primary tax breaks that rich people use deductions on, that poor people can not, is income tax deductions.   And the primary reason the poor do not use those tax breaks is because they don't pay any income tax.

The only other exceptions, would be deductions on specific types of property, like a yacht.   There's a deduction for the depreciation of a yacht.   Obviously poor people can't use that deduction, because they can't buy the yacht.   But the other side of that argument is that, they also don't pay the tax to have a yacht anchored in the US either, and the amount of that tax, is far greater than the amount of the deduction.

So while everything you said was technically accurate, it was also irrelevant to the original point.

*THAT SAID.......*

I'm assuming that you are a leftist.   It's rare that a right-wing person would make the argument you are making.  If I am wrong.... oops.

You people on the left need to figure out which way you want to think about Social Security and Medicare.

If it's a tax... ok then it's a tax.   Social Security, and Medicare, is the most oppressive anti-poor, anti-lower-class socialist policy the world has ever known.   It takes money away from the lowest income citizens, and gives them little to nothing.    Nothing has held down the poor and impoverished, more than Social Security and Medicare.

When I say that....  It's suddenly not a tax.  It's a contribution for an insurance policy.

Ok....   Then 47% of the population pays no tax, and you have no valid reason to complain about the wealthy not paying enough tax, because they are paying nearly all of it.

When I say that.... It's suddenly a tax again.

Look.... you can't have it both ways.   You can't just change your position to conveniently fit whatever situation you are talking about.   It's one, or the other.

I happen to believe it is a tax, and Social Security and Medicare are both horribly oppressive, and cruel socialistic policies that harm the poor the most.   We should dismantle them.   There was ZERO demand for Social Security or Medicare, before they were created.  The Government had to push, and sell these programs to the public, and manufacture demand for them.    Poor people were, and would be, better able to take care of themselves if they HAD THEIR OWN MONEY, instead of it being stolen by the government.

But you people on the left, pick your position.  Either it is a tax, and a horrible oppressive system, or it's not a tax, and 47% don't pay taxes.  Take your pick.  One or the other.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........   what the heck does one have to do with the other?    Nothing.
> 
> Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have?    What difference does that make?
> 
> Yes, Capitalism does ensure that there will be inequality, but who said equality was good, or that inequality was bad?    Who said you deserve anything?    Does your existence on this planet promise you jack?  Why?  What have you done to earn what you have?   Sucking air?   Pooping?
> 
> The OECD is completely bonkers wrong.   Inequality did not first start in the 1970s.  For heaven sakes, what are you people smoking?   Seriously?   Did you ever read the massive difference between the Rich and the Poor, back in the 1920s?    Or back in the 1800s even?    Or even all the way back to the 1700s when this country was founded?
> 
> And here's the other side.    What alternative do you propose?  Socialism?   Are you crazy?
> 
> Socialism is even more unequal.   Have you read about the Soviet Union?    Did you read about the private Communist party shops, that were stocked full of goods, while the citizens shops were empty?    Have you read about the shops around Red Square, where the shop owners hid their goods in the back of the store behind curtains, so that common people wouldn't see the goods that Communist leaders had access to, that they did not?    Or about the multi-floor villas reserved only for Communist officials.   Or the yachts, available year around for Communist party members.
> 
> Here's the deal... there is no system on the face of this planet, or throughout all human history, in which there has been equality.    Even in tribal peoples living in the forest.... the guy at the top of the tribe, had the bigger mud hut, and had more women to sleep with, had more food to eat, and more water to drink, and worked less than the rest of the people in the tribe.
> 
> This is universally true.   All claims of an equal society somewhere are all myths, and lies.
> 
> The difference between Socialism, and Capitalism, is that the inequality in socialism is enforced by the states, and the inequality of Capitalism, is based on the individuals providing goods and services to the market.
> 
> I read the story of a man from Egypt.  In Egypt past, you are born lower class, you live lower class, and you die lower class.   You can't move up, no matter what you do, because there is a class system, and that's your fate.    This man left Egypt, and moved to the US, where he started working as a janitor for a hospital.   10 years later, he had worked his way up, and earned promotion after promotion, until he was director of maintenance over several hospitals.    That's Capitalism.   He went from minimum wage, to well over six-figure income, while being an immigrant from another country, where the class system would have left him a low-wage low-class worker until he died.
> 
> So, I'll take inequality, over socialistic 'equality' any day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your words:*
> 
> "When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........   what the heck does one have to do with the other?    Nothing.
> 
> "Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have?    What difference does that make?"
> 
> *Tell me if you accept the following definition of...*
> 
> "...DEMOCRACY
> 
> 1
> a :  government by the people; especially :  rule of the majority
> b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
> 2
> :  a political unit that has a democratic government
> 3
> capitalized :  the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy  C. M. Roberts>
> *4
> :  the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
> 5
> :  the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"*
> 
> *When incomes of 1% of the population increase 31% while the incomes of the other 99% rise 0.4% between 2009 -2012 that should tell you the common people are having their political choices vetted by the richest 1% long before election day. That, in turn, dilutes the political authority of the majority.
> 
> Hereditary and arbitrary class distinctions guarantee the sort of economic inequality we've seen since 2008, and their consequence will only become worse.
> 
> When three individuals control more wealth than the combined GDP of the last 47 countries, you're living in a world where oligarchy and not democracy controls the political processes of the major nation states.
> 
> You may console yourself with the false dichotomy of capitalism or socialism, others aren't so ignorant.*
> 
> Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


No it shouldn't.   Your income is has nothing to do with your ability to vote, or your voice in government.    Political authority, and your pay check, are not connected.   Has nothing to do with each other.

Democracy, and income equality, are not causally linked, or even related.

Nor is there Hereditary and arbitrary class distinction in America.    Nor do these non-existent class distinctions cause income inequality.  Nor is income inequality bad.

80% of this countries millionaires, are all first generation rich.   Many people started off at the very bottom of the income ladder, and worked their way up to the top 20%.

Sorry, you are just wrong on this.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> China made up almost half of our trade imbalance in 2013. Not only do they represent the biggest trade imbalance by far the ratio of imports to exports is the worst of any major trading partner by far.
> 
> Yes Germany also uses capital flows to ensure a trade balance they want. So has Japan. It is not a huge surprise that Japan has the problems they have now considering how they grew their economy in the past. They can't manipulate the USD forever and neither can China.
> 
> As for the employment figures, I wouldn't expect a direct impact like that. Those numbers change the way they do because imports are based on demand and demand goes up and down with the economic cycle (ie unemployment). The problems with the trade imbalance can be seen with the stagnation of wages in the US.
> 
> The idea that it is our socialists policies is ridiculous. If anything US labor would be more competitive with UHC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because the rest of our trade balance disappeared.   You can see clearly from the chart, that from 96 to 09, China made up far less than half.
> 
> Further, you implication is that this "manipulation" will destroy the country doing the manipulation.    If that's the case, then we should do nothing about it, and allow them to destroy themselves.   It certainly didn't hurt us.
> 
> I don't see wages being stagnate, unless you are looking at "household income" numbers, in which case, the numbers are skewed.
> 
> Household income has fallen, but not because of imports.  It's fallen because the number one way to stay poor and impoverished, is to divorce, or not get married at all, both of which have become exceptionally common in our culture.
> 
> Think about it.   You have two people earning an income, and married.   Then they divorce.   You take one household with a high income, and separate it into two homes both of which have a much lower income.   Obviously that's going to massively drag the average down.
> 
> Additionally, we used to have a culture where kids lived at home, worked a job, and went to college.   Now those kids are getting their own apartment, and working a job, while going to college.    Again, taking one household with a large household income, and splitting it into two households, both of which, with a lower income.
> 
> There is no real drop in wages.  At least none worth talking about.
> 
> And yes of course it's our socialistic policies that have caused this, and claiming that UHC would be a net benefit is ridiculous as well.   Go tell that to Europe.   Tell Greece they are more competitive because they have UHC.    Tell that to Spain.   Tell that to Cuba and Venezuela.   Double the tax rate, to cover UHC, and then thing we're going to be competitive?     Not to mention that their health care sucks compared to ours, and people come here from all over the world to get health care.   Being "more competitive" while having more people die, is not an even trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude I don't care about your chart. In reality China made up almost half of the trade deficit. Almost $300 billion of the $600 billion or so deficit.
> 
> It will hurt both of us and is hurting both of us.
> 
> Your explanation of the drop in wages is hilarious.
> 
> The lesson of Spain and Greece is that capital flows between nations matter. Spain didn't have that much government debt as industrialized nations go but they did rely on foreign capital. Surprise surprise their production problems were masked by consumption that was artificially boosted by foreign capital. Eventually that debt gets paid back and the economy sees a large drop in demand.
> 
> UHC is more efficient. It is not the only trade issue though. Capital flows are far more important.
Click to expand...


Well the chart shows the facts.  If you don't care about the facts, then there is no point in you talking about this subject.  You can claim it's hurting us, but that's all it is, a claim.   What is hurting us, is bad socialist policies.

My explanation of the drop in wages, is a mathematical, and historical fact.

UHC is not more efficient.   That was a ridiculous unsupportable claim.   The per person overhead of Medicare, is just under double the per person overhead of private insurance companies.  Nor is it more 'efficient' in any other country.  You don't know what you are talking about.

Spainish capital flows were created by the government of Spain, which encouraged investment into "infrastructure". (sound familiar?)   These infrastructure investments, were pushed by the government as being a boost to future economic growth.   Instead they created no growth, and crashed.   There are numerous examples.

Greece was a mess, building and investing into infrastructure, like a rail service, that was so expensive, they could have hired a private taxi cab for each passenger, and saved money over the cost of the rail service.

You are blaming the tool of foreign investment, for the problem caused by bad economic socialist policies.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only because the rest of our trade balance disappeared.   You can see clearly from the chart, that from 96 to 09, China made up far less than half.
> 
> Further, you implication is that this "manipulation" will destroy the country doing the manipulation.    If that's the case, then we should do nothing about it, and allow them to destroy themselves.   It certainly didn't hurt us.
> 
> I don't see wages being stagnate, unless you are looking at "household income" numbers, in which case, the numbers are skewed.
> 
> Household income has fallen, but not because of imports.  It's fallen because the number one way to stay poor and impoverished, is to divorce, or not get married at all, both of which have become exceptionally common in our culture.
> 
> Think about it.   You have two people earning an income, and married.   Then they divorce.   You take one household with a high income, and separate it into two homes both of which have a much lower income.   Obviously that's going to massively drag the average down.
> 
> Additionally, we used to have a culture where kids lived at home, worked a job, and went to college.   Now those kids are getting their own apartment, and working a job, while going to college.    Again, taking one household with a large household income, and splitting it into two households, both of which, with a lower income.
> 
> There is no real drop in wages.  At least none worth talking about.
> 
> And yes of course it's our socialistic policies that have caused this, and claiming that UHC would be a net benefit is ridiculous as well.   Go tell that to Europe.   Tell Greece they are more competitive because they have UHC.    Tell that to Spain.   Tell that to Cuba and Venezuela.   Double the tax rate, to cover UHC, and then thing we're going to be competitive?     Not to mention that their health care sucks compared to ours, and people come here from all over the world to get health care.   Being "more competitive" while having more people die, is not an even trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I don't care about your chart. In reality China made up almost half of the trade deficit. Almost $300 billion of the $600 billion or so deficit.
> 
> It will hurt both of us and is hurting both of us.
> 
> Your explanation of the drop in wages is hilarious.
> 
> The lesson of Spain and Greece is that capital flows between nations matter. Spain didn't have that much government debt as industrialized nations go but they did rely on foreign capital. Surprise surprise their production problems were masked by consumption that was artificially boosted by foreign capital. Eventually that debt gets paid back and the economy sees a large drop in demand.
> 
> UHC is more efficient. It is not the only trade issue though. Capital flows are far more important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the chart shows the facts.  If you don't care about the facts, then there is no point in you talking about this subject.  You can claim it's hurting us, but that's all it is, a claim.   What is hurting us, is bad socialist policies.
> 
> My explanation of the drop in wages, is a mathematical, and historical fact.
> 
> UHC is not more efficient.   That was a ridiculous unsupportable claim.   The per person overhead of Medicare, is just under double the per person overhead of private insurance companies.  Nor is it more 'efficient' in any other country.  You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Spainish capital flows were created by the government of Spain, which encouraged investment into "infrastructure". (sound familiar?)   These infrastructure investments, were pushed by the government as being a boost to future economic growth.   Instead they created no growth, and crashed.   There are numerous examples.
> 
> Greece was a mess, building and investing into infrastructure, like a rail service, that was so expensive, they could have hired a private taxi cab for each passenger, and saved money over the cost of the rail service.
> 
> You are blaming the tool of foreign investment, for the problem caused by bad economic socialist policies.
Click to expand...


The trade imbalance with China is public record. Your entire argument is based off of incorrect facts. Your explanation for the drop of wages is comical and based on nothing. 

Spain's government debt was no worse than other countries. Continuing to claim otherwise just demonstrates to me that you are working with bad facts. 

UHC is more efficient consistently. The US spends way more than other countries so we get better results in many areas but the system is horribly inefficient.

Basically everything you say doesn't even pass a basic sniff test.


----------



## georgephillip

Trajan said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who cares? .....see george, thats the beauty of it.
> 
> here you have the right to go get your own....so, go get your own.
Click to expand...

*Trajan, has it ever occurred to you it's not worth getting?*

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.
Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth."

*Have you considered the possibility that private wealth is the poison here?* 

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region*. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341-361.
> 
> *Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 04/19/1982)*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last chance.   I don't deal with stupid people.  I don't deal with childish people.
> 
> You failed to make a point the first time.  You failed the second time, while repeating yourself like a really dumb child, as if saying it again, makes it all true.
> 
> So this is your one and only warning.   Next time you act like a 5-year-old whose parents forgot to put him to bed, you join my ignore list.     There, you will cease to exist in my world, for all time.   You won't be missed, and given the fact you have failed to say anything of value thus far, I will not be missing anything.
> 
> Last chance.   Want to discuss stuff?   Fine.  Answer the questions I posed in the prior post, or make a counter point.    That's what adults do.  If that's not you, just make another childish, Forest Gump style post, and I will eliminate you from my world forever!   Up to you!  Grow up, or get out.  Make your choice.  I'm fine either way.
Click to expand...

"Q: Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank?
A: There are actually 12 different Federal Reserve Banks around the country, and they are owned by big private banks. 

"But the banks dont necessarily run the show. 

"Nationally, the Federal Reserve System is led by a Board of Governors whose seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

"FULL ANSWER
"The stockholders in the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are the privately owned banks that fall under the Federal Reserve System. 

"These include all national banks (chartered by the federal government) and those state-chartered banks that wish to join and meet certain requirements. 

"About 38 percent of the nations more than 8,000 banks are members of the system, and thus own the Fed banks.

"The concept of 'ownership' needs some explaining here, however. The member banks must by law invest 3 percent of their capital as stock in the Reserve Banks, and they cannot sell or trade their stock or even use that stock as collateral to borrow money. 

"They do receive dividends of 6 percent per year from the Reserve Banks and get to elect each Reserve Banks board of directors."

Federal Reserve Bank Ownership


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well... is seems rather logical to me that when the bottom 47% don't even pay tax, that more tax breaks likely benefit those who actually pay tax, than those who don't.
> 
> Equally, the people who gain more differing types of income, would also likely be able to use tax breaks designed for those types of income.
> 
> For example, if there is a tax break for getting stock options.
> 
> While some people earning $80,000 a year or less, might get some stock options as compensation, I think it's safe to say very few do.
> 
> But those earning over $200K, often get stock options and other such compensation.
> 
> Thus logically, only those getting stock options, and alternative compensation, are likely to benefit from tax breaks for such alternative compensation.
> 
> Seriously, this is a very obvious answer.   I more surprised you would ask such a question.
> 
> 
> 
> *Where did you get the idea that...?*
> 
> "Forty-seven percent of Americans dont pay taxes.
> 
> "The most pernicious misconception about people who dont pay federal income taxes is that they dont pay any taxes. That oft-heard claim ignores all the other taxes Americans encounter in their daily lives.
> 
> "Almost two-thirds of the 47 percent work, for example, and their payroll taxes help finance Social Security and Medicare.
> 
> "Accounting for this, the share of households paying no net federal taxes falls to 28 percent."
> 
> Five myths about the 47 percent - The Washington Post
> 
> *There's also federal taxes on gasoline, beer, and cigarettes along with state and local sales and property taxes which are often more regressive than federal income taxes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While everything you say is technically true, it's also irrelevant to the point of the prior poster.    The prior poster was complaining about deductions and tax breaks that the wealthy have, that the poor do not use.
> 
> All of these taxes, are ones that no one has any exception for.   Do wealthy people have an exemption from Gasoline tax?  No.   So obviously bringing up that tax, as well as smokes and beer, was pointless.  It didn't support the original claim.
> 
> Further, rich people have no tax breaks on Social Security or Medicare either.   So there was no point in bringing that up.
> 
> The primary tax breaks that rich people use deductions on, that poor people can not, is income tax deductions.   And the primary reason the poor do not use those tax breaks is because they don't pay any income tax.
> 
> The only other exceptions, would be deductions on specific types of property, like a yacht.   There's a deduction for the depreciation of a yacht.   Obviously poor people can't use that deduction, because they can't buy the yacht.   But the other side of that argument is that, they also don't pay the tax to have a yacht anchored in the US either, and the amount of that tax, is far greater than the amount of the deduction.
> 
> So while everything you said was technically accurate, it was also irrelevant to the original point.
> 
> *THAT SAID.......*
> 
> I'm assuming that you are a leftist.   It's rare that a right-wing person would make the argument you are making.  If I am wrong.... oops.
> 
> You people on the left need to figure out which way you want to think about Social Security and Medicare.
> 
> If it's a tax... ok then it's a tax.   Social Security, and Medicare, is the most oppressive anti-poor, anti-lower-class socialist policy the world has ever known.   It takes money away from the lowest income citizens, and gives them little to nothing.    Nothing has held down the poor and impoverished, more than Social Security and Medicare.
> 
> When I say that....  It's suddenly not a tax.  It's a contribution for an insurance policy.
> 
> Ok....   Then 47% of the population pays no tax, and you have no valid reason to complain about the wealthy not paying enough tax, because they are paying nearly all of it.
> 
> When I say that.... It's suddenly a tax again.
> 
> Look.... you can't have it both ways.   You can't just change your position to conveniently fit whatever situation you are talking about.   It's one, or the other.
> 
> I happen to believe it is a tax, and Social Security and Medicare are both horribly oppressive, and cruel socialistic policies that harm the poor the most.   We should dismantle them.   There was ZERO demand for Social Security or Medicare, before they were created.  The Government had to push, and sell these programs to the public, and manufacture demand for them.    Poor people were, and would be, better able to take care of themselves if they HAD THEIR OWN MONEY, instead of it being stolen by the government.
> 
> But you people on the left, pick your position.  Either it is a tax, and a horrible oppressive system, or it's not a tax, and 47% don't pay taxes.  Take your pick.  One or the other.
Click to expand...

*Where did you get the idea rich people have no tax breaks on Social Security when the tax they pay applies only to the first $117,000 they earn and is not imposed on investment income of any kind?*

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.



As previously stated individuals are responsible for learning the appropriate skills to be gainfully employed.

But you are saying that the parasites are capable of using violence in order to force taxpayers to be support them in the comfort of their homes.

.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........   what the heck does one have to do with the other?    Nothing.
> 
> Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have?    What difference does that make?
> 
> Yes, Capitalism does ensure that there will be inequality, but who said equality was good, or that inequality was bad?    Who said you deserve anything?    Does your existence on this planet promise you jack?  Why?  What have you done to earn what you have?   Sucking air?   Pooping?
> 
> The OECD is completely bonkers wrong.   Inequality did not first start in the 1970s.  For heaven sakes, what are you people smoking?   Seriously?   Did you ever read the massive difference between the Rich and the Poor, back in the 1920s?    Or back in the 1800s even?    Or even all the way back to the 1700s when this country was founded?
> 
> And here's the other side.    What alternative do you propose?  Socialism?   Are you crazy?
> 
> Socialism is even more unequal.   Have you read about the Soviet Union?    Did you read about the private Communist party shops, that were stocked full of goods, while the citizens shops were empty?    Have you read about the shops around Red Square, where the shop owners hid their goods in the back of the store behind curtains, so that common people wouldn't see the goods that Communist leaders had access to, that they did not?    Or about the multi-floor villas reserved only for Communist officials.   Or the yachts, available year around for Communist party members.
> 
> Here's the deal... there is no system on the face of this planet, or throughout all human history, in which there has been equality.    Even in tribal peoples living in the forest.... the guy at the top of the tribe, had the bigger mud hut, and had more women to sleep with, had more food to eat, and more water to drink, and worked less than the rest of the people in the tribe.
> 
> This is universally true.   All claims of an equal society somewhere are all myths, and lies.
> 
> The difference between Socialism, and Capitalism, is that the inequality in socialism is enforced by the states, and the inequality of Capitalism, is based on the individuals providing goods and services to the market.
> 
> I read the story of a man from Egypt.  In Egypt past, you are born lower class, you live lower class, and you die lower class.   You can't move up, no matter what you do, because there is a class system, and that's your fate.    This man left Egypt, and moved to the US, where he started working as a janitor for a hospital.   10 years later, he had worked his way up, and earned promotion after promotion, until he was director of maintenance over several hospitals.    That's Capitalism.   He went from minimum wage, to well over six-figure income, while being an immigrant from another country, where the class system would have left him a low-wage low-class worker until he died.
> 
> So, I'll take inequality, over socialistic 'equality' any day.
> 
> 
> 
> *Your words:*
> 
> "When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........   what the heck does one have to do with the other?    Nothing.
> 
> "Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have?    What difference does that make?"
> 
> *Tell me if you accept the following definition of...*
> 
> "...DEMOCRACY
> 
> 1
> a :  government by the people; especially :  rule of the majority
> b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
> 2
> :  a political unit that has a democratic government
> 3
> capitalized :  the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy  C. M. Roberts>
> *4
> :  the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
> 5
> :  the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"*
> 
> *When incomes of 1% of the population increase 31% while the incomes of the other 99% rise 0.4% between 2009 -2012 that should tell you the common people are having their political choices vetted by the richest 1% long before election day. That, in turn, dilutes the political authority of the majority.
> 
> Hereditary and arbitrary class distinctions guarantee the sort of economic inequality we've seen since 2008, and their consequence will only become worse.
> 
> When three individuals control more wealth than the combined GDP of the last 47 countries, you're living in a world where oligarchy and not democracy controls the political processes of the major nation states.
> 
> You may console yourself with the false dichotomy of capitalism or socialism, others aren't so ignorant.*
> 
> Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it shouldn't.   Your income is has nothing to do with your ability to vote, or your voice in government.    Political authority, and your pay check, are not connected.   Has nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Democracy, and income equality, are not causally linked, or even related.
> 
> Nor is there Hereditary and arbitrary class distinction in America.    Nor do these non-existent class distinctions cause income inequality.  Nor is income inequality bad.
> 
> 80% of this countries millionaires, are all first generation rich.   Many people started off at the very bottom of the income ladder, and worked their way up to the top 20%.
> 
> Sorry, you are just wrong on this.
Click to expand...

Can you prove 80% of US millionaires are first generation rich?
How many Americans who started off at the very bottom of the income ladder and reached the top quintile?
Increasing income inequality leads to a form of government known as oligarchy.
Oligarchy and Democracy have been in conflict for thousands of years.
When the richest one percent of the US voters decide by the size of campaign donations which candidates will receive their party's nomination in the general election, they are restricting your voice in government. 

That's why the US is widely believed to have the best government money can buy.


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As previously stated individuals are responsible for learning the appropriate skills to be gainfully employed.
> 
> But you are saying that the parasites are capable of using violence in order to force taxpayers to be support them in the comfort of their homes.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Individuals are more likely to learn the appropriate skills needed for employment when their society is capable of providing an adequate number of jobs for each new generation. IMHO, the parasites impeding that in the US today work on Wall Street and they have no lack of support in DC from elected Republicans AND Democrats alike.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.

It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.  

They best not over work it, though.

Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income *equality*" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.

And it certainly is not.


----------



## KevinWestern

Androw said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey - I'm not arguing about the morality of it all, I'm just saying that it happens. When you have a finite amount of resources, and 90% are owned by 1 guy in a society of 100, eventually those 99 individuals are going to say "fuck it" and forcibly make the 1 guy share with the rest. This is what happens.
> 
> Even the strongest, cleverest, most powerful lion can't defend itself from 99 jealous peers. It's simply a fact of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> *Resources are not 'finite', they are dynamic.*
> 
> I was listening to a documentary on the BBC about a water utilities in an African country.   And the system was socialized, where the amount money given for water was provided by the government, and there was massive water shortages throughout the country.
> 
> Well they privatized it, and a guy started operating the water utilities like a business, and demanding payment for water.   In the process by getting people to provide money for the water, he was able to invest that money into building more systems for getting water.   The percentage of the population with access to clean drinking water, more than doubled if I remember.
> 
> *All resources operate this way.*
> 
> As the value of resources increases, the value in developing those resources also increases.
> 
> Take for example Shale Oil.   Back in the 90s, and even the early 2000s, experts in Oil, said Shale Oil would "never be developed" because it was simply uneconomical to do so.   I can remember guys on forums just like this saying "Shale Oil will never be used".... then 2008 hit.   The price of oil went up to $140 a barrel.    Suddenly, it was economical to invest in Shale Oil.   In the process of investing in Shale Oil, the cost to produce Shale Oil declined down to an average $50 a barrel.   No one predicted this.
> 
> Resources are dynamic.   When the price is low, it seems like we have dwindling supplies, because there's no economical way to get many resources.     But when the price is high, it spurs investment, and that investment will lead to more resources being economical.
> 
> Water surplus in Israel? With desalination, once unthinkable is possible | Jewish Telegraphic Agency
> Water in the desert regions of Israel, is of course rare, and costly.  But that cost, also drove investment.     Today Israel is producing more clean drinking water from Ocean salt water, than the entire country can consume.   They are now selling excess water to Jordan, and a few others.
> 
> *Now all of that to say this.*
> 
> "Wealth" is also a dynamic resource.    If you deny the benefit to those who grow wealth, wealth will not be grown.   This is why every system where the 99 greedy people, demand that the 1 guy share, end up impoverished.
> 
> Look at it another way.     Say I'm the wealthy guy, and I have BMW Z4. MSRP $65K.       Say I have a fleet of them.  And the 99 greedy people, come and take my cars away.
> 
> In about 10 years time, both me, and the 99 greedy people, will end up right back where we are now.  Why?
> 
> If you don't have the ability to buy a BMW Z4 now, how will you be able to maintain one if it was stolen from me, and given to you?    The first time something breaks, and you take it into the shop, and they say "yeah, that'll be $2,000 to fix the blaw blaw", you won't have it.
> 
> Me on the other hand, if I have the ability to earn enough to buy the BMW Z4 before, then likely I will have it again, and will be able to get another one.
> 
> As such, the wealth divided up will be consumed and gone.   The wealth earned, will be replaced.   Wealth itself is dynamic.
> 
> This is the universal truth.
> 
> Similarly, if you try and prevent me from earning more, I'll simply move to where I can earn more.   When France passed it's wealth tax, thousands of the wealthy in France, moved operations out of the country.
> 
> When Venezuela started confiscating the rightfully earned property of the wealthy, they packed up and left.    Over one million people, in a country of only 29 million, have left Venezuela, and most all of them were the wealthy job makers, wealth creators of the country.
> 
> And Venezuela is less wealthy, and in fact the worst performing economy in Latin America.
> 
> When the people who produce wealth leave, that doesn't mean wealth is spread more evenly among the people.   It means there is less wealth period, and people end up more impoverished.
Click to expand...


I understand resources are dynamic, and that the poor in the US - for example - probably have a better standard of life than some Kings 400 years ago. But the point I'm making is that it is all a matter of perception. If the 99% feel like the 1% has too much of the general wealth, or is making too much when it comes to income, they will eventually revolt (ie create an situation where things aren't quite stable).

I'm not just pulling this out of my ass either. A well researched, diverse study (by a reputable institution, which I provided earlier) concluded that there is indeed a correlation between income inequality and instability after taking a look at over 70 different countries.
*
Now does it make it right that people revolt? No, not saying that's the case. I'm just saying they do. It's happened over, and over, and over again. *You can't deny the FACTS. 

Therefore, it can be a legitimate problem. I'd rather live and invest in a country that's at peace, vs one in the midst of a civil war. 

You?


----------



## Contumacious

KevinWestern said:


> I understand resources are dynamic, and that the poor in the US - for example - probably have a better standard of life than some Kings 400 years ago. But the point I'm making is that it is all a matter of perception. If the 99% feel like the 1% has too much of the general wealth, or is making too much when it comes to income, they will eventually revolt (ie create an situation where things aren't quite stable).



Their unemployment is caused by the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state. And they should revolt.

.


----------



## georgephillip

IlarMeilyr said:


> The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.
> 
> It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.
> 
> They best not over work it, though.
> 
> Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income *equality*" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.
> 
> And it certainly is not.


Income equality is an economic impossibility; there will always be workers whose efforts are worth more to society than others. 

This thread is arguing the current level of income inequality in the US represents a threat to our Republic that is much greater than any Lenin, Hitler, or Stalin manufactured.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your words:*
> 
> "When I look at the definition of "democracy", and look at your statement about three rich people and combined GDP of some countries........   what the heck does one have to do with the other?    Nothing.
> 
> "Further, who care what percentage of the assets whatever % of the people have?    What difference does that make?"
> 
> *Tell me if you accept the following definition of...*
> 
> "...DEMOCRACY
> 
> 1
> a :  government by the people; especially :  rule of the majority
> b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
> 2
> :  a political unit that has a democratic government
> 3
> capitalized :  the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy  C. M. Roberts>
> *4
> :  the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
> 5
> :  the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"*
> 
> *When incomes of 1% of the population increase 31% while the incomes of the other 99% rise 0.4% between 2009 -2012 that should tell you the common people are having their political choices vetted by the richest 1% long before election day. That, in turn, dilutes the political authority of the majority.
> 
> Hereditary and arbitrary class distinctions guarantee the sort of economic inequality we've seen since 2008, and their consequence will only become worse.
> 
> When three individuals control more wealth than the combined GDP of the last 47 countries, you're living in a world where oligarchy and not democracy controls the political processes of the major nation states.
> 
> You may console yourself with the false dichotomy of capitalism or socialism, others aren't so ignorant.*
> 
> Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it shouldn't.   Your income is has nothing to do with your ability to vote, or your voice in government.    Political authority, and your pay check, are not connected.   Has nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Democracy, and income equality, are not causally linked, or even related.
> 
> Nor is there Hereditary and arbitrary class distinction in America.    Nor do these non-existent class distinctions cause income inequality.  Nor is income inequality bad.
> 
> 80% of this countries millionaires, are all first generation rich.   Many people started off at the very bottom of the income ladder, and worked their way up to the top 20%.
> 
> Sorry, you are just wrong on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove 80% of US millionaires are first generation rich?
> How many Americans who started off at the very bottom of the income ladder and reached the top quintile?
> Increasing income inequality leads to a form of government known as oligarchy.
> Oligarchy and Democracy have been in conflict for thousands of years.
> When the richest one percent of the US voters decide by the size of campaign donations which candidates will receive their party's nomination in the general election, they are restricting your voice in government.
> 
> That's why the US is widely believed to have the best government money can buy.
Click to expand...


Fidelity Survey Finds 86 Percent of Millionaires Are Self-Made

_BOSTON -- Fidelity Investments® today released results of its fifth Fidelity® Millionaire Outlook, an in-depth survey analyzing the investing attitudes and behaviors of more than 1,000 millionaire households1. This years study found that 86 percent of millionaires are self-made and that their path to wealth, financial outlook and goals greatly impact their investment behaviors. In addition, millionaires outlook on the future financial environment is at its highest level in the surveys history, underscored by their confidence in the stock market, as millionaires ranked domestic stocks their number one investment added in the last year.​_


----------



## IlarMeilyr

georgephillip said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.
> 
> It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.
> 
> They best not over work it, though.
> 
> Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income *equality*" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.
> 
> And it certainly is not.
> 
> 
> 
> Income equality is an economic impossibility;
Click to expand...


Yes it is.  And that's GREAT news in its own right.



georgephillip said:


> there will always be workers whose efforts are worth more to society than others.



Absolutely correct.  Which makes the liberal clamor and railing against so-called "income inequality" that much less coherent. 



georgephillip said:


> This thread is arguing the current level of income inequality in the US represents a threat to our Republic



WHich is, of course, a silly and baseless absurd, ridiculous and very "liberal" "argument."



georgephillip said:


> that is much greater than any Lenin, Hitler, or Stalin manufactured.



An even wilder set of absurd contentions:  This is why (upon any serious study and reflection) the thes*e*s of modern American liberalism are uniformly revealed to be laughable.


----------



## The T

IlarMeilyr said:


> The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.
> 
> It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.
> 
> They best not over work it, though.
> 
> Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income *equality*" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.
> 
> And it certainly is not.



Income equality is only good as the tools you have taken the time to arm yourself with to get through life as you have sought fit as a responsible person.

It irritates me to have to have to pay for individuals that haven't taken the time to arm themselves and therefore EXPECT the rest of us to carry them.
But then why work when you have the producers carrying your water and the Government making it easy to get in but not so much to get out?

The problem is Opportunity...and Government's willingness to make them less with their attacks upon the private sector/citizen with heavy-handed taxation, regulation all for the sake of their control.

The Founders would be aghast at what this Republic has become.


----------



## KevinWestern

Contumacious said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand resources are dynamic, and that the poor in the US - for example - probably have a better standard of life than some Kings 400 years ago. But the point I'm making is that it is all a matter of perception. If the 99% feel like the 1% has too much of the general wealth, or is making too much when it comes to income, they will eventually revolt (ie create an situation where things aren't quite stable).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their unemployment is caused by the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state. And they should revolt.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well it's my opinion is that capitalism is great however it tends to have a little flaw in that at the "end states" wealth will begin to pool and accumulate between a very few people (because money makes money, and once you hit a billion - as long as you're not a complete dimwit - you can make tens of millions a year with little to no effort). 

This is why we have a scenario where there's 85 individuals who have more combined wealth than the bottom 4,500,000,000. 

Again in absolutely no way am I saying those 85 are "evil" or they didn't work hard for their money (some did, some didn't), or that the money isn't rightfully theirs, I'm simply saying that humans are jealous by nature and if this gap continues to become more and more extreme PEOPLE WILL REVOLT and forcibly make those 85 redistribute. Just happens...

.


----------



## KevinWestern

The T said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.
> 
> It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.
> 
> They best not over work it, though.
> 
> Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income *equality*" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.
> 
> And it certainly is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income equality is only good as the tools you have taken the time to arm yourself with to get through life as you have sought fit as a responsible person.
> 
> It irritates me to have to have to pay for individuals that haven't taken the time to arm themselves and therefore EXPECT the rest of us to carry them.
> But then why work when you have the producers carrying your water and the Government making it easy to get in but not so much to get out?
> 
> The problem is Opportunity...and Government's willingness to make them less with their attacks upon the private sector/citizen with heavy-handed taxation, regulation all for the sake of their control.
> 
> The Founders would be aghast at what this Republic has become.
Click to expand...


Agree with a lot of that. And revolting due to wealth inequality DOES have a lot to do with firing people up about it. 

A family might have everything they need, and are happy and secure, and are totally stable UNTIL they *hear* that "person X owns 40% of wealth" or whatever. Then the jealousy/comparisons kick in and before you know it there's a revolution. With the internet and such, facts about inequality are more prevalent than ever, and why we're seeing a lot of stir about things. 

Nonetheless, the Dems - I believe - are just playing political games by getting these buzzwords going.

Who are they to fucking trust anyways? They too are as crony as any Republican. Al Gore - for pete's sake - is just as rich as Mitt Romney.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it shouldn't.   Your income is has nothing to do with your ability to vote, or your voice in government.    Political authority, and your pay check, are not connected.   Has nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Democracy, and income equality, are not causally linked, or even related.
> 
> Nor is there Hereditary and arbitrary class distinction in America.    Nor do these non-existent class distinctions cause income inequality.  Nor is income inequality bad.
> 
> 80% of this countries millionaires, are all first generation rich.   Many people started off at the very bottom of the income ladder, and worked their way up to the top 20%.
> 
> Sorry, you are just wrong on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove 80% of US millionaires are first generation rich?
> How many Americans who started off at the very bottom of the income ladder and reached the top quintile?
> Increasing income inequality leads to a form of government known as oligarchy.
> Oligarchy and Democracy have been in conflict for thousands of years.
> When the richest one percent of the US voters decide by the size of campaign donations which candidates will receive their party's nomination in the general election, they are restricting your voice in government.
> 
> That's why the US is widely believed to have the best government money can buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fidelity Survey Finds 86 Percent of Millionaires Are Self-Made
> 
> _BOSTON -- Fidelity Investments® today released results of its fifth Fidelity® Millionaire Outlook, an in-depth survey analyzing the investing attitudes and behaviors of more than 1,000 millionaire households1. This years study found that 86 percent of millionaires are self-made and that their path to wealth, financial outlook and goals greatly impact their investment behaviors. In addition, millionaires outlook on the future financial environment is at its highest level in the surveys history, underscored by their confidence in the stock market, as millionaires ranked domestic stocks their number one investment added in the last year.​_
Click to expand...

*Your study seems to rely on self-reporting:*

"Eighty-six percent of todays millionaires did not consider themselves wealthy growing up ('self-made'), while only 14 percent said they grew up wealthy ('born-wealthy')"

*The picture at the apex of US wealth is significantly different and may be getting worse as far as creating new billionaires is concerned.*

"The release of the latest Forbes 400 List of Americans is, once again, being billed as a triumph of self-made wealth.

"Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison  all self-made  topped the list, once again. And Forbes heralds that fact that 'a record 70% of the Forbes listers are self-made.'

Yet their announcement obscures the fact that half of the top 10 on the Forbes list have inherited all or some of their wealth, making Americas billboard chart of opportunity look increasingly like the the lucky sperm club..."

"The rise of the heirs on the Forbes list signals a larger worry, however.  America may not be able to create new wealth the way it has for the past 20 years.  

"All of the forces that drove billionaire creation  strong economic growth, a 20-year-bull market, huge technological change and investment  are weakening.  

"We will still create new billionaires, with the occasional Zuckerbergs keeping the flame alive.

"Yet preserved family wealth may well start eclipsing earned new wealth.  Its possible that we could be heading into a period like the 1930s, 40s and 50s, when most of the large wealth in America came from one of two places  oil and trust funds."

Are We Entering the Age of Inherited Wealth? - The Wealth Report - WSJ


----------



## The T

KevinWestern said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.
> 
> It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.
> 
> They best not over work it, though.
> 
> Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income *equality*" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.
> 
> And it certainly is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income equality is only good as the tools you have taken the time to arm yourself with to get through life as you have sought fit as a responsible person.
> 
> It irritates me to have to have to pay for individuals that haven't taken the time to arm themselves and therefore EXPECT the rest of us to carry them.
> But then why work when you have the producers carrying your water and the Government making it easy to get in but not so much to get out?
> 
> The problem is Opportunity...and Government's willingness to make them less with their attacks upon the private sector/citizen with heavy-handed taxation, regulation all for the sake of their control.
> 
> The Founders would be aghast at what this Republic has become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with a lot of that. And revolting due to wealth inequality DOES have a lot to do with firing people up about it.
> 
> A family might have everything they need, and are happy and secure, and are totally stable UNTIL they *hear* that "person X owns 40% of wealth" or whatever. Then the jealousy/comparisons kick in and before you know it there's a revolution. With the internet and such, facts about inequality are more prevalent than ever, and why we're seeing a lot of stir about things.
> 
> Nonetheless, the Dems - I believe - are just playing political games by getting these buzzwords going.
> 
> Who are they to fucking trust anyways? They too are as crony as any Republican. Al Gore - for pete's sake - is just as rich as Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...

...And just as guilty for playing the PEOPLE for suckers.


----------



## bayoubill

history has shown that, near the end of their lives or following their deaths, the persons who accumulated massive fortunes have bequeathed most if not all of it to the public good...

and even when they instead gave it to their heirs, it didn't hurt the economy...


more to the point... government policies that impose onerous capital gains taxes discourage such capital holders from moving their money out from an under-performing enterprise and then putting it into an enterprise that holds promise to create new wealth for all involved...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

KevinWestern said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand resources are dynamic, and that the poor in the US - for example - probably have a better standard of life than some Kings 400 years ago. But the point I'm making is that it is all a matter of perception. If the 99% feel like the 1% has too much of the general wealth, or is making too much when it comes to income, they will eventually revolt (ie create an situation where things aren't quite stable).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their unemployment is caused by the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state. And they should revolt.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's my opinion is that capitalism is great however it tends to have a little flaw in that at the "end states" wealth will begin to pool and accumulate between a very few people (because money makes money, and once you hit a billion - as long as you're not a complete dimwit - you can make tens of millions a year with little to no effort).
> 
> This is why we have a scenario where there's 85 individuals who have more combined wealth than the bottom 4,500,000,000.
> 
> Again in absolutely no way am I saying those 85 are "evil" or they didn't work hard for their money (some did, some didn't), or that the money isn't rightfully theirs, I'm simply saying that humans are jealous by nature and if this gap continues to become more and more extreme PEOPLE WILL REVOLT and forcibly make those 85 redistribute. Just happens...
> 
> .
Click to expand...




You are confusing capitalism with cronyism.


----------



## Contumacious

KevinWestern said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand resources are dynamic, and that the poor in the US - for example - probably have a better standard of life than some Kings 400 years ago. But the point I'm making is that it is all a matter of perception. If the 99% feel like the 1% has too much of the general wealth, or is making too much when it comes to income, they will eventually revolt (ie create an situation where things aren't quite stable).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Their unemployment is caused by the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state. And they should revolt.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's my opinion is that capitalism is great however it tends to have a little flaw in that at the "end states" wealth will begin to pool and accumulate between a very few people (because money makes money, and once you hit a billion -
> 
> .
Click to expand...


There is NO  relationship between CAPITALISM and he gargantuan welfare/warfare police state. 

.


----------



## gnarlylove

The banking crisis which had a prominent feature in the market did indeed have a major role in the welfare state where the welfare state relieved many CEOs of making responsible actions on credit default swaps and the like. Capitalism as it operates today is massively tied into the government and directly so. Subsidy programs are huge, totaling billions of tax payer money. Capitalism likes these incentives. Your idea that they can work separately is unfounded.

Having not followed the ins and outs of the last 50 pages, I apologize in advance if this is no longer our topic. But I think the following graph may help




Image from this interesting read

To deny capitalism concentrates wealth is to deny its basic principles. One must have capital to make capital, a very fundamental economics saying. However, certain levels of inequality are harmful to society. Without government, without a regulator, we have free markets, and free markets do not have subsidy programs without government. In a free-market we can expect social castes and classes to be entirely rigid where you are born is where you die. We see low social mobility in America, among the lowest in any developed nation. I'm not necessarily advocating for a larger government for the sake of big government but to lack regulation on the market allows it to do funky things. The fundamental premise that Alan Greenspan ran the economy on for 4 decades, he admitted, was "fundamentally flawed." in a hearing on Oct. 23 2008. This Fact taken together with the idea that certain levels of inequality harm a society, we might want to give some credit to the original post for pointing out a source of harm for society. We might want to give more credit to regulation as benefiting the public interests over private gain. I don't expect anyone to read the link but on the off chance you do, I think you'll have learned something (like I did).

Is inequality bad for economic growth?


----------



## freedombecki

KevinWestern said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.
> 
> It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.
> 
> They best not over work it, though.
> 
> Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income *equality*" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.
> 
> And it certainly is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income equality is only good as the tools you have taken the time to arm yourself with to get through life as you have sought fit as a responsible person.
> 
> It irritates me to have to have to pay for individuals that haven't taken the time to arm themselves and therefore EXPECT the rest of us to carry them.
> But then why work when you have the producers carrying your water and the Government making it easy to get in but not so much to get out?
> 
> The problem is Opportunity...and Government's willingness to make them less with their attacks upon the private sector/citizen with heavy-handed taxation, regulation all for the sake of their control.
> 
> The Founders would be aghast at what this Republic has become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree with a lot of that. And revolting due to wealth inequality DOES have a lot to do with firing people up about it.
> 
> A family might have everything they need, and are happy and secure, and are totally stable UNTIL they *hear* that "person X owns 40% of wealth" or whatever. Then the jealousy/comparisons kick in and before you know it there's a revolution. With the internet and such, facts about inequality are more prevalent than ever, and why we're seeing a lot of stir about things.
> 
> Nonetheless, the Dems - I believe - are just playing political games by getting these buzzwords going.
> 
> Who are they to fucking trust anyways? They too are as crony as any Republican. Al Gore - for pete's sake - is just as rich as Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...

Al Gore isn't as rich as Mitt Romney. He may show an equality at the bottom line, but the way he got it was by engaging in a fantasy do-gooder scheme that lifted money from the pockets of the Europeans, and now they're so pissed off at him they won't even let his 650 misstatements in his thema/schema on AGW be read by any child in Europe nor the British Isles, for that matter.

 After his power grab for presidency through calumny didn't work, he decided to dream up a nearly impossible-to-disprove Green-themed racket to make people feel good to give him as much money as he could rake in from his bargain with for-sale 'scientist' AGW pushers for a killing off gullible listeners, taken in by tripe cooked up by pretender scientists calling up other scientists to sign on to an omuerta scheme that would remove data to "prove" that AGW exists, and that people with money to burn could do something about it and save the world from its path to ultimate destruction for contributing sums to bolster Al Gore's fairy-tale life. Through it all, he lost his wife and family, associates mainly with other for-sale people, and now has encountered an EU that is mad as hell at him for telling all those little white lies for their cash and jewels, and making fools of them for believing him.

 There are some nice things people can do for their fellow man--pick up roadside trash to beautify the world, bathe, take care of themselves, and best of all mind their own business which is engaged in honestly.

 The hocus pocus of spending 500% of the world's money to eliminate mankind's paltry contribution to pollution in the skies which is less than seven thousandths of one percent when natural H2O processes are taken into consideration. Hiding a modicum of data from eras that disprove the AGW balderdash, makes it seem true, and drilling it home with what-to-do-about-its that all the world's resources for the next 50 generations to eliminate that small seven/1000th of one percent man-made contribution is simply just crazy.

 As I said, we can improve the environment more by picking up trash along the roadsides and growing a garden.


----------



## georgephillip

IlarMeilyr said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The uptick in the amount of USE of the meaningless liberal term "income inequality" is noticeable.
> 
> It is one of the hugely ridiculous lolberal Democrat talking points probably heading right up until and well into the elections.
> 
> They best not over work it, though.
> 
> Sooner or later the majority of the people might just start collectively questioning whether "income *equality*" is in any way a desirable thing for our Republic and its people.
> 
> And it certainly is not.
> 
> 
> 
> Income equality is an economic impossibility;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  And that's GREAT news in its own right.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.  Which makes the liberal clamor and railing against so-called "income inequality" that much less coherent.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is arguing the current level of income inequality in the US represents a threat to our Republic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHich is, of course, a silly and baseless absurd, ridiculous and very "liberal" "argument."
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is much greater than any Lenin, Hitler, or Stalin manufactured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An even wilder set of absurd contentions:  This is why (upon any serious study and reflection) the thes*e*s of modern American liberalism are uniformly revealed to be laughable.
Click to expand...

How much US infrastructure did Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao manage to destroy?
How many US civilians did your authoritarian soul-mates murder, maim, and displace?
Do you chuckle at the prospect of Civil War 2.0 in the home of the fee and the land of the slave?


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> The banking crisis which had a prominent feature in the market did indeed have a major role in the welfare state where the welfare state relieved many CEOs of making responsible actions on credit default swaps and the like. Capitalism as it operates today is massively tied into the government and directly so. Subsidy programs are huge, totaling billions of tax payer money. Capitalism likes these incentives. Your idea that they can work separately is unfounded.
> 
> Having not followed the ins and outs of the last 50 pages, I apologize in advance if this is no longer our topic. But I think the following graph may help
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Image from this interesting read
> 
> To deny capitalism concentrates wealth is to deny its basic principles. One must have capital to make capital, a very fundamental economics saying. However, certain levels of inequality are harmful to society. Without government, without a regulator, we have free markets, and free markets do not have subsidy programs without government. In a free-market we can expect social castes and classes to be entirely rigid where you are born is where you die. We see low social mobility in America, among the lowest in any developed nation. I'm not necessarily advocating for a larger government for the sake of big government but to lack regulation on the market allows it to do funky things. The fundamental premise that Alan Greenspan ran the economy on for 4 decades, he admitted, was "fundamentally flawed." in a hearing on Oct. 23 2008. This Fact taken together with the idea that certain levels of inequality harm a society, we might want to give some credit to the original post for pointing out a source of harm for society. We might want to give more credit to regulation as benefiting the public interests over private gain. I don't expect anyone to read the link but on the off chance you do, I think you'll have learned something (like I did).
> 
> Is inequality bad for economic growth?


*For starters, I learned...*

"Theory #1: *High inequality leads to under-investments in education.* 

"This was an idea put forward by economist Joseph Stiglitz. Inequality of income leads to inequality of education. Lower-income kids end up in lower-quality schools and are less able to go on to college. 

"The result: The workforce as a whole ends up less productive overall than it would be in a more equitable economy.

"But how do you prove this? 

"It's true that wealthier families tend to spend more on educational materials  books, tutors, art and music lessons. 

"And the gap in college completion rates between students in the top and bottom income brackets in the United States has grown over time (see chart). 

"*Growing inequality of income does seem to be leading to more inequality of education*.

Is inequality bad for economic growth?


----------



## dblack

So, what's the solution, [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]?


----------



## georgephillip

bayoubill said:


> history has shown that, near the end of their lives or following their deaths, the persons who accumulated massive fortunes have bequeathed most if not all of it to the public good...
> 
> and even when they instead gave it to their heirs, it didn't hurt the economy...
> 
> 
> more to the point... government policies that impose onerous capital gains taxes discourage such capital holders from moving their money out from an under-performing enterprise and then putting it into an enterprise that holds promise to create new wealth for all involved...


...like mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps.

The rise of Finance Capitalism in the 21st century comes from a predatory profit without production ethic that predates Industrial Capitalism: "Finance can extract profits from any money income and stock of money - its profits are not limited to the fresh flows of value produced annually."

History also shows how some of the great European museums and cathedrals were paid for with American silver mined by American slaves.

Costas Lapavitsas Discusses the Financialization of Capitalism


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> So, what's the solution, [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]?


FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what's the solution, [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]?
> 
> 
> 
> FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.
Click to expand...


I meant in terms of policy. What do we want the new crew to _do_ about the dubious income inequality?


----------



## deltex1

The Super Bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?


----------



## dblack

deltex1 said:


> The Super Bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?



Well, the NFL takes steps to share revenue between winning and losing franchises. But I hesitate to use that as an example for free markets. In sports, an exciting contest is the point. In the 'real world' results are the point - we want the best 'teams' to dominate, and the losers to find something else to do.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

In this country everyone is guarantees equal opportunity, not an equal outcome.

To make it in this country as well as anywhere in the world, a person must get an education, learn a skill and work hard. 

College degrees isn't a requirement. Some make it just fine without a high school diploma.  

Famous, Rich, and Successful People Who Were High School or College Dropouts


----------



## editec

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what's the solution, [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]?
> 
> 
> 
> FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant in terms of policy. What do we want the new crew to _do_ about the dubious income inequality?
Click to expand...


Simple to say but hard to get into policy, DB.

Basically there's two ways to deal with this growing inequity

*1.  AT the place of employment (workers take a larger share of the profits) or

2 By progressive taxation which spreads the wealth around through policies that either put money into the hands of the workers or creates beneficial policies that take the burden cost of living down, like supporting public transit, education and health care.
*

Those are the two avenues to fixing this inequity.

There are countless policies that might be done leading down those avenues.

Whiuch is the better of the two?

NUMBER 1

Why?

Because then the inequity is dealt with by the workers and employers and the GOVERNMENT doesn't get its hands on the money.

Why don't we do that?

We destroyed that ability when conditions started killing UNIONISM.


----------



## Bombur

editec said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant in terms of policy. What do we want the new crew to _do_ about the dubious income inequality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple to say but hard to get into policy, DB.
> 
> Basically there's two ways to deal with this growing inequity
> 
> 1.  AT the place of employment (workers take a larger share of the profits) or
> 
> 2 By taxation which spread the wealth around through policies that either put money into the hands of the workers or creates beneficial policies that take the burden csst of living down, like ppublic transuit, education and health care.
> 
> Those are the two avenues to fixing this problem.
> 
> There are countless policies that might be done leading down those avenues.
Click to expand...


Trade relations also matter.


----------



## dblack

Lonestar_logic said:


> In this country everyone is guarantees equal opportunity, not an equal outcome.



Yeah but 'opportunity' is a pretty fuzzy concept. Does someone with no money behind them have equal opportunity? What if they are genetically 'disadvantaged'?


----------



## dblack

editec said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant in terms of policy. What do we want the new crew to _do_ about the dubious income inequality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple to say but hard to get into policy, DB.
> 
> Basically there's two ways to deal with this growing inequity
> 
> *1.  AT the place of employment (workers take a larger share of the profits) or
> 
> 2 By progressive taxation which spreads the wealth around through policies that either put money into the hands of the workers or creates beneficial policies that take the burden cost of living down, like supporting public transit, education and health care.
> *
> 
> Those are the two avenues to fixing this inequity.
> 
> There are countless policies that might be done leading down those avenues.
> 
> Whiuch is the better of the two?
> 
> NUMBER 1
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because then the inequity is dealt with by the workers and employers and the GOVERNMENT doesn't get its hands on the money.
> 
> Why don't we do that?
> 
> We destroyed that ability when conditions started killing UNIONISM.
Click to expand...


I think it's worth looking for ways to address the problem that don't put government in charge of dictating our personal economic decisions. Economic freedom is fundamental. If government is running the economy, they're running everything.


----------



## Contumacious

deltex1 said:


> The Super Bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?



It depends.

If the welfare state politicians discover that there are a significantly higher number of fans in Colorado than Washington and that they are able to greatly increase their chance of getting elected, then they will demand that the NFL make the broncos touchdowns be worth 50 points each.
.


----------



## Indeependent

deltex1 said:


> The Super Bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?



Darn!  The losing team should be paid!
Wait a moment!  They ARE paid!


----------



## GISMYS

indeependent said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the super bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> darn!  The losing team should be paid!
> Wait a moment!  They are paid!
Click to expand...


the "liberal" answer is not to even keep score,just say no one lost so no one will cry!!!   === you wimps!!! Lol


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what's the solution, [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]?
> 
> 
> 
> FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.
Click to expand...


Flush all the Democrats first.


----------



## gnarlylove

#1 problem is Big Money in politics. Each Congress member is suggested to fundraise 5 hours a day. Granted their work-week is 3 days usually, they have to talk to people with money. And most people with money want more money and that means vote Republican. But what it really mean with all this money is the public interest, the public good looses to private interests almost everytime. If you made a deal to receive a cool 200,000 dollar contribution from a coal company, by-god they expect you to honor that money and vote coal every change you get. Now there is many loopholes that makes no requirements of such voting but we'd have to be blind to not see it happening. Take gun legislation and 80% of the public approved it but it wouldn't pass. Why? NRA is good at what they do. Why? Money and power. Another example of the crafty NRA is in last years recall election in Colorado where Democrats lost seats despite public opinion favoring the Democrats on this issue.

That is the #1 issue ruining democracy and turning our America into "the Rich's America" aka PLUTOCRACY!!! Top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth including assets.

Solution?
Public financing of elections plain and simple. Also repealing Citizen's United and striking down McCutheon V. Alabama, a case loosening campaign contributions.

Without this how can our government serve the constitution which clearly notes the people give the power and that all people are equal. "Money as a form of speech" is terminating equality out in the open! The representatives are more concerned about staying in office and their personal opinions. The pubic is a vehicle to stay elected but the public has much less to do with their decision making than it should. Their decision making should be to 100% represent the voices of their constituency. We lost this ideal long ago though. The Zapatistas have got it right.


----------



## gnarlylove

To reduce inequality the answer is simple: any CEO of a minimum wage operation like fastfood, wal-mart and all those chains we see across America can afford to pay a living wage. 10 bucks is nice but if we really want genuine equality (which most is drowned out or muddled by all the money in politics and media) we would pay a wage where people are not required to go into debt. In 2011 the median household debt was well over their household income at 75,000! This is what makes the rich so much richer: utter dependency. We should start at 10 and work our way up gradually to 15 over the course of 3-6 years. I means for McDonalds employees to be guided to welfare is showing that the CEO and Board of Directors want profits over people.

Propoganda and misinformation/media bias is another threat to democracy. Telling the news as a form of entertainment usually intended to rile people up into anger and action is not how information should be delivers. If we all work with different pieces of info, how can we expect to agree and make decisions that do good for humanity? Well, right now our interests are not necessarily the public good but how can we grow the economy and offer more choices to more people. I vehemently disagree with this approach and see here for the answer.


----------



## Indeependent

gnarlylove said:


> To reduce inequality the answer is simple: any CEO of a minimum wage operation like fastfood, wal-mart and all those chains we see across America can afford to pay a living wage. 10 bucks is nice but if we really want genuine equality (which most is drowned out or muddled by all the money in politics and media) we would pay a wage where people are not required to go into debt. In 2011 the median household debt was well over their household income at 75,000! This is what makes the rich so much richer: utter dependency.
> 
> Propoganda and misinformation/media bias is another threat to democracy. Telling the news as a form of entertainment usually intended to rile people up into anger and action is not how information should be delivers. If we all work with different pieces of info, how can we expect to agree and make decisions that do good for humanity? Well, right now our interests are not necessarily the public good but how can we grow the economy and offer more choices to more people. I vehemently disagree with this approach and see here for the answer.



Equality for workers is not a good idea.
I go into stores where there are shelf stockers who have various levels of savvy.
Some are incredibly helpful with where items are, if something will be discounted at the register and will even take notes on an item to submit a Purchase Order.


----------



## gnarlylove

You realize you are saying humans are not equal. They should be stuck in class systems to rank their worth.

I think if all humans were given similar opportunities, encouragement, love and security that we would expect to see the most productive society. But by your logic its good like it is. That must mean you have never had to decide between food or electric. Without ever having been homeless (or at least camped for extended periods) you can never know what you really value in the same way if you don't know any short people, you can't know any tall people either. Having wealth requires having not ha wealth to fully understand what your wealth means. I doubt you have a clue about what your wealth means other than it sustains your life.

Your low sample set (you are the only sample) says very little for how society should operate. Our meritocracy is really absurd which is the idea that people earn where they deserve to be in society, whether at the bottom or the top--everyone gravitates to their natural worth. Want to know why?
Alain de Botton: A kinder, gentler philosophy of success


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> You realize you are saying humans are not equal. They should be stuck in class systems to rank their worth.



That's not what I'm saying. Equal rights under the law is a crucial foundation of a free society and we reject any kind of class system that attempts to violate that. That's not in dispute. What in question is how we distribute economic power, particularly whether we do it via voluntary, individual decisions, or through coercive state mandate.


----------



## Contumacious

gnarlylove said:


> You realize you are saying humans are not equal. They should be stuck in class systems to rank their worth.
> 
> I think if all humans were given similar opportunities, encouragement, love and security that we would expect to see the most productive society. But by your logic its good like it is. That must mean you have never had to decide between food or electric.



Been there,  done that, got the tea shirt.

Didn't like.

I ate spaghetti noodles and Prego sauce EVERY FUCKING DAY while in college.

I did it,  so can you.

Quit the bullshit, learn a marketable skill(s) and become gainfully employed.

.


----------



## gnarlylove

This basic idea of a meritocracy sounds great and support for such a system is in all the water we drink so it's unlikely you can even remotely recognize the problems with it. This isn't about me Contumacious and your remarks offer no information. It's just you promoting yourself, how surprising. Gigantic egos tend to render the self incapable of understanding obvious truths because it reduces the power of you ego. Like I'm not employed, what they hell do you know about my job (or you accuse me of a lack of one)? You may have eat poorly through college but I didn't because I worked sometimes two jobs and helf the maximum amount of credits. I don't need your damned ego accusing me of just dumb shit that comes from your deeply seated odium for your fellow man. But this ins't about whether your upset I have a job or not, this is about fundamental US policy. Dragging your dick on the board and smearing pre-cum has no value. The idea of a meritocracy is good in paper only.

I forgot to post the link so if you care click here to watch the short video on why meritocracy is not really the best we can do. We should do better but I bet living in a world where you can't trample people underfoot because they are poor/homeless/unemployed would shock you. Having to treat people with dignity regardless of status causes your internal anger to skyrocket. Having been homeless, I can assure you everyone I met in similar circumstances had more skill and innovation in their ass hairs than your whole body. If you were found without your precious money you'd be without the skills to survive. That's not someone I care to take advice from.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> What in question is how we distribute economic power, particularly whether we do it via voluntary, individual decisions, or through coercive state mandate.



We need to keep in mind that the current state of affairs in the launching pad for developing a better, more equal and just society, economy etc. I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's attitudes on this matter which are found in "On Anarchism." The better we do at providing genuine representation I think we will naturally seek a just system. What's feasible and what should be are often radically different yet they can lead to the same end.

We can agree our current system is designed to provide more power to those with money so that as society evolves we can expect to see these trends continue. I think the trends since the 80s has been abysmal for equality. More super market choices and brands does not lead to greater satisfaction with one's life, in fact, as I posted above, it has the opposite effect!


----------



## itfitzme

Contumacious said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Super Bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends.
> 
> If the welfare state politicians discover that there are a significantly higher number of fans in Colorado than Washington and that they are able to greatly increase their chance of getting elected, then they will demand that the NFL make the broncos touchdowns be worth 50 points each.
> .
Click to expand...


Completely meaningless and ignorant comments adding nothing to the convorsation except hyperbole.


----------



## itfitzme

The Census Burea keeps stats on poverty here

Poverty Data - Historical Poverty Tables: People - U.S Census Bureau


----------



## Londoner

Contumacious said:


> Quit the bullshit, learn a marketable skill(s) and become gainfully employed.



Our largest employer, Walmart, doesn't pay people enough to survive, much less meet the demand requirements needed by Main Street. You can tell all those people to get better jobs, but you can't simply get rid of Walmart jobs, or the workers who inevitably fill them. At some point you have to look at the structural flaw of an economic system which does not pay its workers enough to consume. This means that those workers will likely assume massive debts and draw heavily on government services. Henry Ford had it right. If you don't pay your workers enough to buy what they produce, your economy eventually dies from a lack of demand, which comes after the consumer self-destructs trying to borrow the money that never trickled down. At some point capitalism's drive for ever cheaper labor turns into a demand crisis, one that is inevitably fixed by a crippling expansion of credit.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in question is how we distribute economic power, particularly whether we do it via voluntary, individual decisions, or through coercive state mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to keep in mind that the current state of affairs in the launching pad for developing a better, more equal and just society, economy etc. I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's attitudes on this matter which are found in "On Anarchism." The better we do at providing genuine representation I think we will naturally seek a just system. What's feasible and what should be are often radically different yet they can lead to the same end.
> 
> We can agree our current system is designed to provide more power to those with money so that as society evolves we can expect to see these trends continue. I think the trends since the 80s has been abysmal for equality. More super market choices and brands does not lead to greater satisfaction with one's life, in fact, as I posted above, it has the opposite effect!
Click to expand...


Our current system allows us to give economic power to whomever we want. That's the ultimately "representative" nature of the free market, it's radically egalitarian in that it gives each of us the freedom to vote with our dollars. As long as our economic decisions are made free from coercion I see nothing wrong, and everything right, with such an approach. What is generally proposed as its alternative is a system where coercion overrides our personal values and forces the will of government (in a democracy, ideally the will of the majority) on individuals. 

Majority rules is a reasonable way to handle political decisions where consensus and conformity are required. But where it's not necessary, it's better to let people decide for themselves how to express their values and build the kind of society they want.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in question is how we distribute economic power, particularly whether we do it via voluntary, individual decisions, or through coercive state mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to keep in mind that the current state of affairs in the launching pad for developing a better, more equal and just society, economy etc. I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's attitudes on this matter which are found in "On Anarchism." The better we do at providing genuine representation I think we will naturally seek a just system. What's feasible and what should be are often radically different yet they can lead to the same end.
> 
> We can agree our current system is designed to provide more power to those with money so that as society evolves we can expect to see these trends continue. I think the trends since the 80s has been abysmal for equality. More super market choices and brands does not lead to greater satisfaction with one's life, in fact, as I posted above, it has the opposite effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our current system allows us to give economic power to whomever we want. That's the ultimately "representative" nature of the free market, it's radically egalitarian in that it gives each of us the freedom to vote with our dollars. As long as our economic decisions are made free from coercion I see nothing wrong, and everything right with such an approach. What is generally proposed as its alternative is a system where coercion overrides our personal values and forces the will of government (in a democracy, ideally the will of the majority) on individuals.
> 
> Majority rules is a reasonable way to handle political decisions where consensus and conformity are required. But where it's not necessary, it's better to let people decide for themselves how to express their values and build the kind of society they want.
Click to expand...


Where does the manipulation of the USD by China fit into your equation?

What about our own tax code that impacts our markets?

Your post creates a world view where the choice is A or B where A is the obvious answer but in reality A doesn't exist and to the extent it exists there are many other things to consider.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to keep in mind that the current state of affairs in the launching pad for developing a better, more equal and just society, economy etc. I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's attitudes on this matter which are found in "On Anarchism." The better we do at providing genuine representation I think we will naturally seek a just system. What's feasible and what should be are often radically different yet they can lead to the same end.
> 
> We can agree our current system is designed to provide more power to those with money so that as society evolves we can expect to see these trends continue. I think the trends since the 80s has been abysmal for equality. More super market choices and brands does not lead to greater satisfaction with one's life, in fact, as I posted above, it has the opposite effect!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our current system allows us to give economic power to whomever we want. That's the ultimately "representative" nature of the free market, it's radically egalitarian in that it gives each of us the freedom to vote with our dollars. As long as our economic decisions are made free from coercion I see nothing wrong, and everything right with such an approach. What is generally proposed as its alternative is a system where coercion overrides our personal values and forces the will of government (in a democracy, ideally the will of the majority) on individuals.
> 
> Majority rules is a reasonable way to handle political decisions where consensus and conformity are required. But where it's not necessary, it's better to let people decide for themselves how to express their values and build the kind of society they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the manipulation of the USD by China fit into your equation?
> 
> What about our own tax code that impacts our markets?
> 
> Your post creates a world view where the choice is A or B where A is the obvious answer but in reality A doesn't exist and to the extent it exists there are many other things to consider.
Click to expand...


Huh? I'm arguing in favor of "A" as a goal. Perfection never exists, but we have to choose are targets and aim for them. I'm in favor of maximizing our ability to co-exist voluntarily and minimizing our impulse to reach for organized violence as a way of solving problems.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our current system allows us to give economic power to whomever we want. That's the ultimately "representative" nature of the free market, it's radically egalitarian in that it gives each of us the freedom to vote with our dollars. As long as our economic decisions are made free from coercion I see nothing wrong, and everything right with such an approach. What is generally proposed as its alternative is a system where coercion overrides our personal values and forces the will of government (in a democracy, ideally the will of the majority) on individuals.
> 
> Majority rules is a reasonable way to handle political decisions where consensus and conformity are required. But where it's not necessary, it's better to let people decide for themselves how to express their values and build the kind of society they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the manipulation of the USD by China fit into your equation?
> 
> What about our own tax code that impacts our markets?
> 
> Your post creates a world view where the choice is A or B where A is the obvious answer but in reality A doesn't exist and to the extent it exists there are many other things to consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? I'm arguing in favor of "A" as a goal. Perfection never exists, but we have to choose are targets and aim for them. I'm in favor of maximizing our ability to co-exist voluntarily and minimizing our impulse to reach for organized violence as a way of solving problems.
Click to expand...


Is the ideal your version of "A" or does the ideal actually take into account results? If we had A and there were problems would it still be your ideal?

Even as an ideal it comes off as very limited in scope and very naïve.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the manipulation of the USD by China fit into your equation?
> 
> What about our own tax code that impacts our markets?
> 
> Your post creates a world view where the choice is A or B where A is the obvious answer but in reality A doesn't exist and to the extent it exists there are many other things to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? I'm arguing in favor of "A" as a goal. Perfection never exists, but we have to choose are targets and aim for them. I'm in favor of maximizing our ability to co-exist voluntarily and minimizing our impulse to reach for organized violence as a way of solving problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the ideal your version of "A" or does the ideal actually take into account results? If we had A and there were problems would it still be your ideal?
> 
> Even as an ideal it comes off as very limited in scope and very naïve.
Click to expand...


Can you be more concrete? What are you talking about? That's not a criticism, I'm speaking in abstract terms as well - but I'm not even sure we're on the same page when it comes to what "A" means. To clarify, I'm in arguing for maximizing individual freedom. That will present challenges, yes. That's what government is for.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? I'm arguing in favor of "A" as a goal. Perfection never exists, but we have to choose are targets and aim for them. I'm in favor of maximizing our ability to co-exist voluntarily and minimizing our impulse to reach for organized violence as a way of solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the ideal your version of "A" or does the ideal actually take into account results? If we had A and there were problems would it still be your ideal?
> 
> Even as an ideal it comes off as very limited in scope and very naïve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you be more concrete? What are you talking about? That's not a criticism, I'm speaking in abstract terms as well - but I'm not even sure we're on the same page when it comes to what "A" means. To clarify, I'm in arguing for maximizing individual freedom. That will present challenges, yes. That's what government is for.
Click to expand...


My problem is that you presented an "ideal" that didn't take into account results. Is the ultimate goal to maximize freedom or is it maximize freedom while taking into account a lot of other things?


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the ideal your version of "A" or does the ideal actually take into account results? If we had A and there were problems would it still be your ideal?
> 
> Even as an ideal it comes off as very limited in scope and very naïve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you be more concrete? What are you talking about? That's not a criticism, I'm speaking in abstract terms as well - but I'm not even sure we're on the same page when it comes to what "A" means. To clarify, I'm in arguing for maximizing individual freedom. That will present challenges, yes. That's what government is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My problem is that you presented an "ideal" that didn't take into account results. Is the ultimate goal to maximize freedom or is it maximize freedom while taking into account a lot of other things?
Click to expand...


When it comes to government, it's to maximize our freedom - including our freedom to address the 'other things' via voluntary cooperation.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in question is how we distribute economic power, particularly whether we do it via voluntary, individual decisions, or through coercive state mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to keep in mind that the current state of affairs in the launching pad for developing a better, more equal and just society, economy etc. I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's attitudes on this matter which are found in "On Anarchism." The better we do at providing genuine representation I think we will naturally seek a just system. What's feasible and what should be are often radically different yet they can lead to the same end.
> 
> We can agree our current system is designed to provide more power to those with money so that as society evolves we can expect to see these trends continue. I think the trends since the 80s has been abysmal for equality. More super market choices and brands does not lead to greater satisfaction with one's life, in fact, as I posted above, it has the opposite effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our current system allows us to give economic power to whomever we want. That's the ultimately "representative" nature of the free market, it's radically egalitarian in that it gives each of us the freedom to vote with our dollars. As long as our economic decisions are made free from coercion I see nothing wrong, and everything right, with such an approach. What is generally proposed as its alternative is a system where coercion overrides our personal values and forces the will of government (in a democracy, ideally the will of the majority) on individuals.
> 
> Majority rules is a reasonable way to handle political decisions where consensus and conformity are required. But where it's not necessary, it's better to let people decide for themselves how to express their values and build the kind of society they want.
Click to expand...


When is conformity ever necessary?


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you be more concrete? What are you talking about? That's not a criticism, I'm speaking in abstract terms as well - but I'm not even sure we're on the same page when it comes to what "A" means. To clarify, I'm in arguing for maximizing individual freedom. That will present challenges, yes. That's what government is for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My problem is that you presented an "ideal" that didn't take into account results. Is the ultimate goal to maximize freedom or is it maximize freedom while taking into account a lot of other things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to government, it's to maximize our freedom - including our freedom to address the 'other things' via voluntary cooperation.
Click to expand...


That is not in the nature of markets.


----------



## gnarlylove

to think money is the most egalitarian idea is massively idealist and clearly is not a reality. the rare person who makes it big are glorified stories to calcify the idea that capitalism is the only way to go. these stories are not the norm by any stretch. the norm is a rigid caste where social mobility is low and this is what we have in America. taking a glance around park avenue in NYC, one could see that people of equal inherent value have radically different lives. This is due to geographic happenstance. Being born into a rich family almost always enables opportunities that the poor person on the other side of park avenue would never even come to know. yet somehow this is our aim?

we need serious regulation if this is your idealist aim because free markets tend to crowd out moral values. i see it happening in your fondness of the idea of markets over the human right to not go hungry or have no medical care. there are ways around it but this social structure should not be so widely praised if it allows the master/slave dialectic to continue. for real, 85 richest ppl in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion (USA Today). read "What Money Can't Buy" by Michael Sandel to see how morals can be ousted due to market values taking over. Its an authentic approach to the value of markets.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> When is conformity ever necessary?



Fiat money derives its sole value from the fact that we think it holds value. Conformity is essential for markets and transactions.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> to think money is the most egalitarian idea is massively idealist and clearly is not a reality. the rare person who makes it big are glorified stories to calcify the idea that capitalism is the only way to go. these stories are not the norm by any stretch. the norm is a rigid caste where social mobility is low and this is what we have in America. taking a glance around park avenue in NYC, one could see that people of equal inherent value have radically different lives. This is due to geographic happenstance. Being born into a rich family almost always enables opportunities that the poor person on the other side of park avenue would never even come to know. yet somehow this is our aim?



Do think replacing money and individual economic freedom with state mandate would produce more, or less rigidity? Who would have the power then? And it it's not state mandate that you want to replace it with, how should economic power be distributed?

I'm not sure today's 'moderate socialists' have given much thought to how fundamental economic freedom is. If we don't have control over our personal economic decisions, over how we earn and spend our money, all other freedoms are moot. If the state controls your money, they control you. Period.



> we need serious regulation *if this is your idealist aim* because free markets tend to crowd out moral values. i see it happening in your fondness of the idea of markets over the human right to not go hungry or have no medical care. there are ways around it but this social structure should not be so widely praised if it allows the master/slave dialectic to continue. for real, 85 richest ppl in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion (USA Today).



It's not clear to me what you're assuming my 'aim' is. I don't have a fondness for 'markets'. I value freedom and non-violent cooperation. Socialist collectives can be run as a voluntary systems, and those of us who believe this is a better approach to the good life should be free to sign up. I just don't want to see such policies enacted by coercive mandates.



> read "What Money Can't Buy" by Michael Sandel to see how morals can be ousted due to market values taking over. Its an authentic approach to the value of markets.



I'll have a look.


----------



## Contumacious

Londoner said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quit the bullshit, learn a marketable skill(s) and become gainfully employed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our largest employer, Walmart, doesn't pay people enough to survive, much less meet the demand requirements needed by Main Street. .
Click to expand...


While the welfare/warfare state has *destroyed numerous jobs* there are still *a lot of jobs out there that pay very well.*

Furthermore , it is an individual's responsibility to support himself and his family - nothing prevents him/her from relocating to Zurich, Paris, London or points beyond. 

Even though the welfare state politicians have convinced him that he/she does not have to move from his hometown.


.
.


----------



## KevinWestern

gnarlylove said:


> to think money is the most egalitarian idea is massively idealist and clearly is not a reality. the rare person who makes it big are glorified stories to calcify the idea that capitalism is the only way to go. these stories are not the norm by any stretch. the norm is a rigid caste where social mobility is low and this is what we have in America. taking a glance around park avenue in NYC, one could see that people of equal inherent value have radically different lives. This is due to geographic happenstance. Being born into a rich family almost always enables opportunities that the poor person on the other side of park avenue would never even come to know. yet somehow this is our aim?
> 
> we need serious regulation if this is your idealist aim because free markets tend to crowd out moral values. i see it happening in your fondness of the idea of markets over the human right to not go hungry or have no medical care. there are ways around it but this social structure should not be so widely praised if it allows the master/slave dialectic to continue. for real, 85 richest ppl in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion (USA Today). read "What Money Can't Buy" by Michael Sandel to see how morals can be ousted due to market values taking over. Its an authentic approach to the value of markets.



I'm with you in that I'm not a fan of extreme wealth stratification and think it can be damaging to a society - however - I believe that folks should only seriously suggest that capitalism be replaced when they have a serious idea on how to replace it. 

So far, I've heard no good alternatives. Communism/socialism doesn't work great (as we've seen) because positions of power are abused and the lack of motivation yields less innovation, hard work, etc. The barter system doesn't work as well as fiat money because it's so damn inefficient. 

My point is - what do we have as a feasible replacement that can seriously accommodate a world that's moving this quickly, with over 7 billion connected people?


----------



## itfitzme

Contumacious said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quit the bullshit, learn a marketable skill(s) and become gainfully employed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our largest employer, Walmart, doesn't pay people enough to survive, much less meet the demand requirements needed by Main Street. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the welfare/warfare state has *destroyed numerous jobs* there are still *a lot of jobs out there that pay very well.*
> 
> Furthermore , it is an individual's responsibility to support himself and his family - nothing prevents him/her from relocating to Zurich, Paris, London or points beyond.
> 
> Even though the welfare state politicians have convinced him that he/she does not have to move from his hometown.
> 
> 
> .
> .
Click to expand...


The links you provided do nothing to support your claims. 

No one doubts that the world economy is below the leve it was in 2000.

But nothing in those links demonstrates it is because of the "welfare state".

An national economy is a precarious thing.  For producers to higher workers they need demand.  For there to be demand, people need to have jobs. For people to have jobs, producers need to higher them.  

On top of that, in a monetary based economy, there must be a physical supply of money.  If businesses and consumers all start paying down debt, the money supply dissapears.

It takes time for the economy to grow and a moment for it to crash.

And the growth rate is dependent upon, among other things, that people have the skills to match the jobs that will produce the products that have potential demand.


----------



## ilia25

bripat9643 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yada, yada, yada.  Libturds always have a million excuses for why their lame theories never work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keynes theory work and if it needed any proof, this depression did it many times over. You are just too insecure and scared to admit that your beliefs have always been wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they obviously don't work.  According to Keynes, you can have high inflation or high unemployment.  You can't have both.  There is supposed to be a trade-off between one and the other.
Click to expand...


That is correct.



> However, during the recession of 1982 we had both high unemployment and high interest rates.



High interest rates (set by central bank) do not mean high inflation. In 1982 the inflation was dropping like a stone (google "disinfaltion"), and that was goal was being achieved trough high unemployment.






Inflation reached double digits at the end of 70s (blue line). To bring it down Fed sharply raised interest rates (green line). That caused a recession, raised unemployment, and as result, inflation started to drop. When Fed decided that the economy has suffered enough, it dropped the interest rates and the economy recovered quickly.

That event didn't contradict Keynes at all. 



> Also, in all the Latin American kleptocracies, they have had both for decades.



No, they haven't. What they have had is high natural rate of unemployment (google NAIRU), i.e. the rate that can't be lowered w/o rising inflation. That thing varies between societies.


----------



## itfitzme

I was looking at The Economist this morning.  It was for a week in December, if my recollection serves me.  The GDP growth for China compared to the developed economies was trememdous.  

Numerous economic indicators point to China entering the global market in 1998-2000 as being the single turning point that lead to today's anemic economy.  

The problem, I believe, is simply absolute advantage as the standard of living for China's workforce is so much lower that the developed countries.  What has been going on is that while China's standard of living increases, the developed economies standard of living necessarily decreases.  It isn't going to change until they meet somewhere in the middle.

There are certainly other independent issues that are occurring.  That absolute advantage issue is a big one.


----------



## itfitzme

The unemployment vs inflation is the Phillips Curve.

It is an outcome of the money supply.  Economic growth is best when the money supply increases with it.  Prices are sticky upward and a decreasing supply doesn't work well.  Output is also dependent on labor utilization which needs to have matching skill sets.

So,  GDP =  MV = PQ.  Q is clearly a labor dependent function.

So, if M rises faster than Q can keep up then P, prices, have to make up the difference.

That is the ceterus paribus condition.  

The proportion of that relationship then gets affected by all sorts of things.  Rate of efficiency changes and the labor supply are two obvious ones.


----------



## dblack

KevinWestern said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> to think money is the most egalitarian idea is massively idealist and clearly is not a reality. the rare person who makes it big are glorified stories to calcify the idea that capitalism is the only way to go. these stories are not the norm by any stretch. the norm is a rigid caste where social mobility is low and this is what we have in America. taking a glance around park avenue in NYC, one could see that people of equal inherent value have radically different lives. This is due to geographic happenstance. Being born into a rich family almost always enables opportunities that the poor person on the other side of park avenue would never even come to know. yet somehow this is our aim?
> 
> we need serious regulation if this is your idealist aim because free markets tend to crowd out moral values. i see it happening in your fondness of the idea of markets over the human right to not go hungry or have no medical care. there are ways around it but this social structure should not be so widely praised if it allows the master/slave dialectic to continue. for real, 85 richest ppl in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion (USA Today). read "What Money Can't Buy" by Michael Sandel to see how morals can be ousted due to market values taking over. Its an authentic approach to the value of markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you in that I'm not a fan of extreme wealth stratification and think it can be damaging to a society - however - I believe that folks should only seriously suggest that capitalism be replaced when they have a serious idea on how to replace it.
> 
> So far, I've heard no good alternatives. Communism/socialism doesn't work great (as we've seen) because positions of power are abused and the lack of motivation yields less innovation, hard work, etc. The barter system doesn't work as well as fiat money because it's so damn inefficient.
> 
> My point is - what do we have as a feasible replacement that can seriously accommodate a world that's moving this quickly, with over 7 billion connected people?
Click to expand...


I see great promise in independent currencies, like bitcoin, if they can remain free of centralized control.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> #1 problem is Big Money in politics. Each Congress member is suggested to fundraise 5 hours a day. Granted their work-week is 3 days usually, they have to talk to people with money. And most people with money want more money and that means vote Republican. But what it really mean with all this money is the public interest, the public good looses to private interests almost everytime. If you made a deal to receive a cool 200,000 dollar contribution from a coal company, by-god they expect you to honor that money and vote coal every change you get. Now there is many loopholes that makes no requirements of such voting but we'd have to be blind to not see it happening. Take gun legislation and 80% of the public approved it but it wouldn't pass. Why? NRA is good at what they do. Why? Money and power. Another example of the crafty NRA is in last years recall election in Colorado where Democrats lost seats despite public opinion favoring the Democrats on this issue.
> 
> That is the #1 issue ruining democracy and turning our America into "the Rich's America" aka PLUTOCRACY!!! Top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth including assets.
> 
> Solution?
> Public financing of elections plain and simple. Also repealing Citizen's United and striking down McCutheon V. Alabama, a case loosening campaign contributions.
> 
> Without this how can our government serve the constitution which clearly notes the people give the power and that all people are equal. "Money as a form of speech" is terminating equality out in the open! The representatives are more concerned about staying in office and their personal opinions. The pubic is a vehicle to stay elected but the public has much less to do with their decision making than it should. Their decision making should be to 100% represent the voices of their constituency. We lost this ideal long ago though. The Zapatistas have got it right.



*#1 problem is Big Money in politics.*

#1 problem is Big Government controls so much of the economy that it is worthwhile donating money to these assholes. Shrink government by 80% and we could ignore the clowns in DC.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> You realize you are saying humans are not equal. They should be stuck in class systems to rank their worth.
> 
> I think if all humans were given similar opportunities, encouragement, love and security that we would expect to see the most productive society. But by your logic its good like it is. That must mean you have never had to decide between food or electric. Without ever having been homeless (or at least camped for extended periods) you can never know what you really value in the same way if you don't know any short people, you can't know any tall people either. Having wealth requires having not ha wealth to fully understand what your wealth means. I doubt you have a clue about what your wealth means other than it sustains your life.
> 
> Your low sample set (you are the only sample) says very little for how society should operate. Our meritocracy is really absurd which is the idea that people earn where they deserve to be in society, whether at the bottom or the top--everyone gravitates to their natural worth. Want to know why?
> Alain de Botton: A kinder, gentler philosophy of success



*You realize you are saying humans are not equal. *

Of course they aren't. Duh.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Do think replacing money and individual economic freedom with state mandate would produce more, or less rigidity?



No I'm not saying that we should therefore chuck money. But if you think money is just another way for us to be equal, that's only true on an idealist level. Given the money is used as speech, those with less of it naturally have less speech. The way this plays out leads to greater inequality.

Can money produce less inequality? Yes and it did for much of the 20th century. I don't deny it does today on a case by case basis but don't go hiding your eyes to the fact that money is a tool and is used to control. This control is not their right to exercise but it's done anyway for whatever justification you want to slapdash on there.




dblack said:


> I'm not sure today's 'moderate socialists' have given much thought to how fundamental economic freedom is. If we don't have control over our personal economic decisions, over how we earn and spend our money, all other freedoms are moot. If the state controls your money, they control you. Period.



I do not support state sponsored socialism as the halmark of equality or economic freedom. But to think economic freedom leads to greater freedom is a bit convulated and can indeed be more restrictive than liberating. If you want to make this claim again, please first visit this TED talk I have referred to many times.

As for the rest I was not clear on your aim either and am so use to people just ignoring or denying one another that you naturally expect it. I apologize if I came off more aggressive or misconstruing your position. I appreciate the frank discussion and am starving. Ta-ta


----------



## gnarlylove

KevinWestern said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> to think money is the most egalitarian idea is massively idealist and clearly is not a reality. the rare person who makes it big are glorified stories to calcify the idea that capitalism is the only way to go. these stories are not the norm by any stretch. the norm is a rigid caste where social mobility is low and this is what we have in America. taking a glance around park avenue in NYC, one could see that people of equal inherent value have radically different lives. This is due to geographic happenstance. Being born into a rich family almost always enables opportunities that the poor person on the other side of park avenue would never even come to know. yet somehow this is our aim?
> 
> we need serious regulation if this is your idealist aim because free markets tend to crowd out moral values. i see it happening in your fondness of the idea of markets over the human right to not go hungry or have no medical care. there are ways around it but this social structure should not be so widely praised if it allows the master/slave dialectic to continue. for real, 85 richest ppl in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion (USA Today). read "What Money Can't Buy" by Michael Sandel to see how morals can be ousted due to market values taking over. Its an authentic approach to the value of markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you in that I'm not a fan of extreme wealth stratification and think it can be damaging to a society - however - I believe that folks should only seriously suggest that capitalism be replaced when they have a serious idea on how to replace it.
> 
> So far, I've heard no good alternatives. Communism/socialism doesn't work great (as we've seen) because positions of power are abused and the lack of motivation yields less innovation, hard work, etc. The barter system doesn't work as well as fiat money because it's so damn inefficient.
> 
> My point is - what do we have as a feasible replacement that can seriously accommodate a world that's moving this quickly, with over 7 billion connected people?
Click to expand...


Really appreciate your honesty. I think Noam Chomsky really addresses this well in his book On Anarchism. Maybe you can read page 31 on google books or something. That's one of the pages he addresses your exact question.

However, our best bet is to work within the system and outside it whenever we can.

Within it we can establish the policies that could lead to an essentially equal world with a divison of labor. Humans are highly inventive and can solve problems when attuned unlike today. That's because like I said the foundations for the next society have always been in the roots of the previous one. So our ideal of a better society is rooted in how well we operate this one.

As far as the new system, Marx got a heck of a lot right. What happened was his theories were applied under conditions of the state which still favored private gain over public good. We will never find our "utopia" in a meritocracy like the world has today. They can be romanticized but the fact remains they are instruments of maintain the master/slave dialectic and control. Of course the courts are a great equalizer, so we tell ourselves, but they too are riddled with racism and favoritism. I am well aware by virtue of having many first hand encounters in the court room. Money is favored no matter the crime. White is favored no matter the crime. Does this play out every time in overt ways? Not necessarily but as long as we ignore hope and a claim to liberty for all, we remain in the "savage" state of nature of chiefdoms on infinitely larger scales with prime ministers and the rich elite.

Personally I would love to see the crumbling of all world systems. However, this would quickly cause widespread suffering and those with wealth and power would in all likelihood gobble up all the valuable resources so that we would be back where we started at best but likely worse off. So it's conflicting but anarchy is not the just chaos. Again, I refer you to Chomsky's delightful book that gives a good history of this necessary challenge to authority for the good of humanity. Indeed, it stands for our inherent right to liberty and love and life etc etc. and resists challenges to these rights at any turn.






dblack said:


> I see great promise in independent currencies, like bitcoin, if they can remain free of centralized control.


Unfortunately they are not. See Businessweek to see the details of how wealth is naturally advantaged and is cornering the market.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You realize you are saying humans are not equal. *
> 
> Of course they aren't. Duh.



I bet you are anal retentive to what the consitituion says about your right to bear arms.

But when it clearly states "all men (and women) are created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you think it's false. Hmmm.

Regarding your comment on purging the govt which I'm sure would include the EPA among 80% of the depts. and their job is to ensure our drinking water is safe. If we stopped these employees along with Park Rangers etc. we would see what enables the public good to be on the agenda is the fact these agencies exist. I'm not saying every policy of each agency is right but they are the vehicle through which our interests are represented...like for clean water, like safe drugs and foods, inspections into terrorism to "keep us safe."  So you think it would champion the public good to rid America of these services? Man that's whack. It would mean that there would be no regulators and private ventures would be unrestricted.

The first thing to go would be clean water given all the dumpage and pollution that would ensue. But you don't think degrading the environment effects you so I can see why you'd ignore these concerns for a stupid ideology that says small to minimal government is the best route in all situations. Given private pursuits, I'm glad we have some restrictions on what we can and can't do so that it benefits us all.


----------



## P@triot

Indeependent said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Super Bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darn!  The losing team should be paid!
> Wait a moment!  They ARE paid!
Click to expand...


So is _every_ employed person in the U.S. - even the minimum wage workers - dumb ass... :lol;


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You realize you are saying humans are not equal. *
> 
> Of course they aren't. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you are anal retentive to what the consitituion says about your right to bear arms.
> 
> But when it clearly states "all men (and women) are created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you think it's false. Hmmm.
> 
> Regarding your comment on purging the govt which I'm sure would include the EPA among 80% of the depts. and their job is to ensure our drinking water is safe. If we stopped these employees along with Park Rangers etc. we would see what enables the public good to be on the agenda is the fact these agencies exist. I'm not saying every policy of each agency is right but they are the vehicle through which our interests are represented...like for clean water, like safe drugs and foods, inspections into terrorism to "keep us safe."  So you think it would champion the public good to rid America of these services? Man that's whack. It would mean that there would be no regulators and private ventures would be unrestricted.
> 
> The first thing to go would be clean water given all the dumpage and pollution that would ensue. But you don't think degrading the environment effects you so I can see why you'd ignore these concerns for a stupid ideology that says small to minimal government is the best route in all situations. Given private pursuits, I'm glad we have some restrictions on what we can and can't do so that it benefits us all.
Click to expand...


*But when it clearly states "all men (and women) are created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you think it's false. *

Not at all.

*Regarding your comment on purging the govt which I'm sure would include the EPA among 80% of the depts. *

Yeah, we could probably get rid of 80% of the EPA.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You realize you are saying humans are not equal. *
> 
> Of course they aren't. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you are anal retentive to what the consitituion says about your right to bear arms.
> 
> But when it clearly states "all men (and women) are created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you think it's false. Hmmm.
> 
> Regarding your comment on purging the govt which I'm sure would include the EPA among 80% of the depts. and their job is to ensure our drinking water is safe. If we stopped these employees along with Park Rangers etc. we would see what enables the public good to be on the agenda is the fact these agencies exist. I'm not saying every policy of each agency is right but they are the vehicle through which our interests are represented...like for clean water, like safe drugs and foods, inspections into terrorism to "keep us safe."  So you think it would champion the public good to rid America of these services? Man that's whack. It would mean that there would be no regulators and private ventures would be unrestricted.
> 
> *The first thing to go would be clean water* given all the dumpage and pollution that would ensue. But you don't think degrading the environment effects you so I can see why you'd ignore these concerns for a stupid ideology that says small to minimal government is the best route in all situations. Given private pursuits, I'm glad we have some restrictions on what we can and can't do so that it benefits us all.
Click to expand...


Considering water is processed, distributed, and paid for at the local level [MENTION=46376]gnarlylove[/MENTION], _why_ exactly do you need the federal government and the EPA???

I always know when someone is unqualified to discuss U.S. politics when they site local issues (water, police, fire, etc.) as their reason for supporting communism at the federal level...


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what's the solution, [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]?
> 
> 
> 
> FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant in terms of policy. What do we want the new crew to _do_ about the dubious income inequality?
Click to expand...

My first inclination would be to seriously consider the possibility of a Second Constitutional Convention that would decide if corporations are people. I'm not sure if anything can be done about extreme income inequality without radical campaign finance reform, and corporations own the present day political market place. Where would you suggest we start if dozens (or hundreds) of DC incumbents were to ever lose their jobs in a single news cycle?


----------



## georgephillip

deltex1 said:


> The Super Bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?


How about a rematch next week in Denver?

I'm sure you noticed the level playing field and the ratio of regulators to players (7:22)

Professional athletics might be the only meritocracy we have.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You realize you are saying humans are not equal. *
> 
> Of course they aren't. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you are anal retentive to what the consitituion says about your right to bear arms.
> 
> But when it clearly states "all men (and women) are created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you think it's false. Hmmm.
> 
> Regarding your comment on purging the govt which I'm sure would include the EPA among 80% of the depts. and their job is to ensure our drinking water is safe. If we stopped these employees along with Park Rangers etc. we would see what enables the public good to be on the agenda is the fact these agencies exist. I'm not saying every policy of each agency is right but they are the vehicle through which our interests are represented...like for clean water, like safe drugs and foods, inspections into terrorism to "keep us safe."  So you think it would champion the public good to rid America of these services? Man that's whack. It would mean that there would be no regulators and private ventures would be unrestricted.
> 
> The first thing to go would be clean water given all the dumpage and pollution that would ensue. But you don't think degrading the environment effects you so I can see why you'd ignore these concerns for a stupid ideology that says small to minimal government is the best route in all situations. *Given private pursuits, I'm glad we have some restrictions on what we can and can't do so that it benefits us all*.
Click to expand...


In other words, gnarly here is too fuck'n love to actively pursue is own private pursuits - so he would rather petition government to _force_ others to do what he himself is too fuck'n lazy to do... 

See, that's the beauty of the free market... you don't have to do business with anyone who you don't want to do business with. You don't have that luxury with the federal government. Better still, the beauty of the free market is that you can build your own business and do it "right". If a company is providing clean water, you can build your own company that sells clean water.

The one caveat - it requires you to get up off your useless, lazy ass. Something liberals aren't willing to do.


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Super Bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?
> 
> 
> 
> How about a rematch next week in Denver?
> 
> I'm sure you noticed the level playing field and the ratio of regulators to players (7:22)
> 
> Professional athletics might be the only meritocracy we have.
Click to expand...


We had the most perfectly leveled playing field in the history of the U.S. until the rise of the cancer known as liberalism. Now the playing field is completely slanted and fucked up. And your "solution" is to slant it and fuck it up further...


----------



## georgephillip

editec said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant in terms of policy. What do we want the new crew to _do_ about the dubious income inequality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple to say but hard to get into policy, DB.
> 
> Basically there's two ways to deal with this growing inequity
> 
> *1.  AT the place of employment (workers take a larger share of the profits) or
> 
> 2 By progressive taxation which spreads the wealth around through policies that either put money into the hands of the workers or creates beneficial policies that take the burden cost of living down, like supporting public transit, education and health care.
> *
> 
> Those are the two avenues to fixing this inequity.
> 
> There are countless policies that might be done leading down those avenues.
> 
> Whiuch is the better of the two?
> 
> NUMBER 1
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because then the inequity is dealt with by the workers and employers and the GOVERNMENT doesn't get its hands on the money.
> 
> Why don't we do that?
> 
> We destroyed that ability when conditions started killing UNIONISM.
Click to expand...

*Without unions, perhaps we should learn to share?*

"This policy primer from Shareable and the Sustainable Economies Law Center catalogues innovative local policies that city governments have used to help residents share resources, co-produce, and create their own jobs. 

"Focusing on food, housing, transportation, and job sharing, this guide is intended to help cities build community wealth and develop more resilient and democratic local economies. 

"More broadly, the sharing economy highlights how governments can structure infrastructure, services, incentives, and regulations to support this new economy."

Policies for Shareable Cities: A Sharing Economy Policy Primer for Urban Leaders | Community-Wealth.org

*Public banks are another viable substitute for Wall Street.*


----------



## georgephillip

Rottweiler said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Super Bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?
> 
> 
> 
> How about a rematch next week in Denver?
> 
> I'm sure you noticed the level playing field and the ratio of regulators to players (7:22)
> 
> Professional athletics might be the only meritocracy we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had the most perfectly leveled playing field in the history of the U.S. until the rise of the cancer known as liberalism. Now the playing field is completely slanted and fucked up. And your "solution" is to slant it and fuck it up further...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what historical period you're referring to.
Are you?


----------



## Bombur

itfitzme said:


> I was looking at The Economist this morning.  It was for a week in December, if my recollection serves me.  The GDP growth for China compared to the developed economies was trememdous.
> 
> Numerous economic indicators point to China entering the global market in 1998-2000 as being the single turning point that lead to today's anemic economy.
> 
> The problem, I believe, is simply absolute advantage as the standard of living for China's workforce is so much lower that the developed countries.  What has been going on is that while China's standard of living increases, the developed economies standard of living necessarily decreases.  It isn't going to change until they meet somewhere in the middle.
> 
> There are certainly other independent issues that are occurring.  That absolute advantage issue is a big one.



The US has benefited greatly from the productivity gains made in China. The problem is not that the US has benefited it is that China has subsidized this benefit at the cost of US production and Chinese consumption. When a nation has large trade imbalances to the positive that are maintained by capital outflows they are forgoing consumption today. Eventually they have to start consuming and getting paid back for those capital outflows.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I meant in terms of policy. What do we want the new crew to _do_ about the dubious income inequality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple to say but hard to get into policy, DB.
> 
> Basically there's two ways to deal with this growing inequity
> 
> *1.  AT the place of employment (workers take a larger share of the profits) or
> 
> 2 By progressive taxation which spreads the wealth around through policies that either put money into the hands of the workers or creates beneficial policies that take the burden cost of living down, like supporting public transit, education and health care.
> *
> 
> Those are the two avenues to fixing this inequity.
> 
> There are countless policies that might be done leading down those avenues.
> 
> Whiuch is the better of the two?
> 
> NUMBER 1
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because then the inequity is dealt with by the workers and employers and the GOVERNMENT doesn't get its hands on the money.
> 
> Why don't we do that?
> 
> We destroyed that ability when conditions started killing UNIONISM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Without unions, perhaps we should learn to share?*
> 
> "This policy primer from Shareable and the Sustainable Economies Law Center catalogues innovative local policies that city governments have used to help residents share resources, co-produce, and create their own jobs.
> 
> "Focusing on food, housing, transportation, and job sharing, this guide is intended to help cities build community wealth and develop more resilient and democratic local economies.
> 
> "More broadly, the sharing economy highlights how governments can structure infrastructure, services, incentives, and regulations to support this new economy."
> 
> Policies for Shareable Cities: A Sharing Economy Policy Primer for Urban Leaders | Community-Wealth.org
> 
> *Public banks are another viable substitute for Wall Street.*
Click to expand...


If the government is involved, then it isn't "sharing."  It's taking.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what's the solution, [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION]?
> 
> 
> 
> FLUSH as many Democrat AND Republican incumbents from the US Congress as possible next November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flush all the Democrats first.
Click to expand...

Both parties depend on the same 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. Why would you defend either one?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I meant in terms of policy. What do we want the new crew to _do_ about the dubious income inequality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple to say but hard to get into policy, DB.
> 
> Basically there's two ways to deal with this growing inequity
> 
> *1.  AT the place of employment (workers take a larger share of the profits) or
> 
> 2 By progressive taxation which spreads the wealth around through policies that either put money into the hands of the workers or creates beneficial policies that take the burden cost of living down, like supporting public transit, education and health care.
> *
> 
> Those are the two avenues to fixing this inequity.
> 
> There are countless policies that might be done leading down those avenues.
> 
> Whiuch is the better of the two?
> 
> NUMBER 1
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because then the inequity is dealt with by the workers and employers and the GOVERNMENT doesn't get its hands on the money.
> 
> Why don't we do that?
> 
> We destroyed that ability when conditions started killing UNIONISM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Without unions, perhaps we should learn to share?*
> 
> "This policy primer from Shareable and the Sustainable Economies Law Center catalogues innovative local policies that city governments have used to help residents share resources, co-produce, and create their own jobs.
> 
> "Focusing on food, housing, transportation, and job sharing, this guide is intended to help cities build community wealth and develop more resilient and democratic local economies.
> 
> "More broadly, the sharing economy highlights how governments can structure infrastructure, services, incentives, and regulations to support this new economy."
> 
> Policies for Shareable Cities: A Sharing Economy Policy Primer for Urban Leaders | Community-Wealth.org
> 
> *Public banks are another viable substitute for Wall Street.*
Click to expand...


Public banks? Awesome!
Just what Illinois needs, another way for our crooked politicians to reward their friends.


----------



## bripat9643

ilia25 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keynes theory work and if it needed any proof, this depression did it many times over. You are just too insecure and scared to admit that your beliefs have always been wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they obviously don't work.  According to Keynes, you can have high inflation or high unemployment.  You can't have both.  There is supposed to be a trade-off between one and the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, during the recession of 1982 we had both high unemployment and high interest rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> High interest rates (set by central bank) do not mean high inflation. In 1982 the inflation was dropping like a stone (google "disinfaltion"), and that was goal was being achieved trough high unemployment.
Click to expand...


Excuse me, I meant we had both high unemployment and high inflation.  We also had high interest rates - a triple whammy.    That's what the "misery index" referred to. 



ilia25 said:


> Inflation reached double digits at the end of 70s (blue line). To bring it down Fed sharply raised interest rates (green line). That caused a recession, raised unemployment, and as result, inflation started to drop. When Fed decided that the economy has suffered enough, it dropped the interest rates and the economy recovered quickly.



"It started to drop," but it still remained high while unemployment was sky high.  I recall it very distinctly because I was unemployed at the time.



ilia25 said:


> That event didn't contradict Keynes at all.



It sure as hell does because Keynes says that inflation relieves unemployment, but after that recession both unemployment and inflation came down.  They should have gone in opposite directions, according to Keynes.



ilia25 said:


> Also, in all the Latin American kleptocracies, they have had both for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they haven't. What they have had is high natural rate of unemployment (google NAIRU), i.e. the rate that can't be lowered w/o rising inflation. That thing varies between societies.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  Where does Keynes ever refer to "natural unemployment?"  Why should it be higher for one society than another?  Keynes has no explanation.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> to think money is the most egalitarian idea is massively idealist and clearly is not a reality. the rare person who makes it big are glorified stories to calcify the idea that capitalism is the only way to go. these stories are not the norm by any stretch. the norm is a rigid caste where social mobility is low and this is what we have in America. taking a glance around park avenue in NYC, one could see that people of equal inherent value have radically different lives. This is due to geographic happenstance. Being born into a rich family almost always enables opportunities that the poor person on the other side of park avenue would never even come to know. yet somehow this is our aim?
> 
> we need serious regulation if this is your idealist aim because free markets tend to crowd out moral values. i see it happening in your fondness of the idea of markets over the human right to not go hungry or have no medical care. there are ways around it but this social structure should not be so widely praised if it allows the master/slave dialectic to continue. for real, 85 richest ppl in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion (USA Today). read "What Money Can't Buy" by Michael Sandel to see how morals can be ousted due to market values taking over. Its an authentic approach to the value of markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you in that I'm not a fan of extreme wealth stratification and think it can be damaging to a society - however - I believe that folks should only seriously suggest that capitalism be replaced when they have a serious idea on how to replace it.
> 
> So far, I've heard no good alternatives. Communism/socialism doesn't work great (as we've seen) because positions of power are abused and the lack of motivation yields less innovation, hard work, etc. The barter system doesn't work as well as fiat money because it's so damn inefficient.
> 
> My point is - what do we have as a feasible replacement that can seriously accommodate a world that's moving this quickly, with over 7 billion connected people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see great promise in independent currencies, like bitcoin, if they can remain free of centralized control.
Click to expand...


Bitcoin is a scam because it's not backed by anything.  For now investing in bit coin is a fad.  That's the only reason the stock is up.  Once people realize it's a worthless currency, it will collapse.  Any viable alternative currency has to be backed by gold or silver.  that's why government will never allow such a currency.  Government doesn't want competitors for its worthless fiat money.  Nobody would use it if they had an alternative.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> #1 problem is Big Money in politics. Each Congress member is suggested to fundraise 5 hours a day. Granted their work-week is 3 days usually, they have to talk to people with money. And most people with money want more money and that means vote Republican. But what it really mean with all this money is the public interest, the public good looses to private interests almost everytime. If you made a deal to receive a cool 200,000 dollar contribution from a coal company, by-god they expect you to honor that money and vote coal every change you get. Now there is many loopholes that makes no requirements of such voting but we'd have to be blind to not see it happening. Take gun legislation and 80% of the public approved it but it wouldn't pass. Why? NRA is good at what they do. Why? Money and power. Another example of the crafty NRA is in last years recall election in Colorado where Democrats lost seats despite public opinion favoring the Democrats on this issue.
> 
> That is the #1 issue ruining democracy and turning our America into "the Rich's America" aka PLUTOCRACY!!! Top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth including assets.
> 
> Solution?
> Public financing of elections plain and simple. Also repealing Citizen's United and striking down McCutheon V. Alabama, a case loosening campaign contributions.
> 
> Without this how can our government serve the constitution which clearly notes the people give the power and that all people are equal. "Money as a form of speech" is terminating equality out in the open! The representatives are more concerned about staying in office and their personal opinions. The pubic is a vehicle to stay elected but the public has much less to do with their decision making than it should. Their decision making should be to 100% represent the voices of their constituency. We lost this ideal long ago though. The Zapatistas have got it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *#1 problem is Big Money in politics.*
> 
> #1 problem is Big Government controls so much of the economy that it is worthwhile donating money to these assholes. Shrink government by 80% and we could ignore the clowns in DC.
Click to expand...


Getting money and corruption out of government would be like getting wet out of water.


----------



## Indeependent

Is Bitcoin worse than an Amazon Gift Card?


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do think replacing money and individual economic freedom with state mandate would produce more, or less rigidity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not saying that we should therefore chuck money. But if you think money is just another way for us to be equal, that's only true on an idealist level. Given the money is used as speech, those with less of it naturally have less speech. The way this plays out leads to greater inequality.
> 
> Can money produce less inequality? Yes and it did for much of the 20th century. I don't deny it does today on a case by case basis but don't go hiding your eyes to the fact that money is a tool and is used to control. This control is not their right to exercise but it's done anyway for whatever justification you want to slapdash on there.
Click to expand...


To be clear, I'm not opposed to inequality, increasing or otherwise. That's what I was trying to come to terms with with [MENTION=22031]georgephillip[/MENTION] - whether the complaint is the inequality itself, or that the inequality is unwarranted or the result of a skewed system. If the complaint is that our system produces unjust inequality, I'm fairly sympathetic to that view, though I suspect we'd still disagree on the causes and solutions.

But unequal economic power, in general, is a good thing in my view. The beauty of economic freedom is that it allows us to distribute that power voluntarily (and deliberately unequally) according to the wishes of everyone who earns and spends money. We give money (ie economic power) to the people who are using it in ways we approve of.



> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure today's 'moderate socialists' have given much thought to how fundamental economic freedom is. If we don't have control over our personal economic decisions, over how we earn and spend our money, all other freedoms are moot. If the state controls your money, they control you. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not support state sponsored socialism as the halmark of equality or economic freedom. But to think economic freedom leads to greater freedom is a bit convulated and can indeed be more restrictive than liberating. If you want to make this claim again, please first visit this TED talk I have referred to many times.
Click to expand...


I'm familiar with the 'paradox of choice' concept. I'm not sure how it applies to my argument. I'm not advocating for a multitude of consumer choices. I'm arguing for freedom in making economic decisions, decisions like how much money you're willing to work for, how to pay for your health care, or how to save for retirement, for example. We have a heavily interventionist government that seeks to override these kinds of personal decisions routinely 'for our own good' with intrusive regulation. The problem is, such regulations are often more for the good of the lobbyists who write them than the are for the people they claim to protect. In any case, I'm advocating for the general freedom to decide for ourselves what advances our 'own good'. There's no need for government to make those decisions for us.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you in that I'm not a fan of extreme wealth stratification and think it can be damaging to a society - however - I believe that folks should only seriously suggest that capitalism be replaced when they have a serious idea on how to replace it.
> 
> So far, I've heard no good alternatives. Communism/socialism doesn't work great (as we've seen) because positions of power are abused and the lack of motivation yields less innovation, hard work, etc. The barter system doesn't work as well as fiat money because it's so damn inefficient.
> 
> My point is - what do we have as a feasible replacement that can seriously accommodate a world that's moving this quickly, with over 7 billion connected people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see great promise in independent currencies, like bitcoin, if they can remain free of centralized control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bitcoin is a scam because it's not backed by anything.  For now investing in bit coin is a fad.  That's the only reason the stock is up.  Once people realize it's a worthless currency, it will collapse.  Any viable alternative currency has to be backed by gold or silver.  that's why government will never allow such a currency.  Government doesn't want competitors for its worthless fiat money.  Nobody would use it if they had an alternative.
Click to expand...


Bitcoin is 'backed' in the same way gold or silver are. These metals don't carry value because of their usefulness. They have value because of their rarity, and because of a general consensus to use them as currency.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see great promise in independent currencies, like bitcoin, if they can remain free of centralized control.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately they are not. See Businessweek to see the details of how wealth is naturally advantaged and is cornering the market.
Click to expand...


Let me rephrase that. I see great promise if they can remain free of centralized control by compulsive state governments. And I think that is still a very real possibility.


----------



## dblack

Rottweiler said:


> See, that's the beauty of the free market... you don't have to do business with anyone who you don't want to do business with.[/B]



This, more that perhaps anything, is what's missing from the way most people think about capitalism.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they obviously don't work.  According to Keynes, you can have high inflation or high unemployment.  You can't have both.  There is supposed to be a trade-off between one and the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> High interest rates (set by central bank) do not mean high inflation. In 1982 the inflation was dropping like a stone (google "disinfaltion"), and that was goal was being achieved trough high unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me, I meant we had both high unemployment and high inflation.  We also had high interest rates - a triple whammy.    That's what the "misery index" referred to.
> 
> 
> 
> "It started to drop," but it still remained high while unemployment was sky high.  I recall it very distinctly because I was unemployed at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> It sure as hell does because Keynes says that inflation relieves unemployment, but after that recession both unemployment and inflation came down.  They should have gone in opposite directions, according to Keynes.
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, in all the Latin American kleptocracies, they have had both for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they haven't. What they have had is high natural rate of unemployment (google NAIRU), i.e. the rate that can't be lowered w/o rising inflation. That thing varies between societies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Where does Keynes ever refer to "natural unemployment?"  Why should it be higher for one society than another?  Keynes has no explanation.
Click to expand...


I don't think you can really compare the inflation of the 1970's to anything Keynes was talking about with regards to inflation. The inflation of the 70's was a result of bad monetary policy as opposed to a more natural change in the effective money supply due to economic activity and employment relative to the natural employment rate.

Monetary policy is not a cure all. Neither is government debt spending during recessions. Both are meant to help soften the blow of economic corrections but they can't undo the need of a correction.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the beauty of the free market... you don't have to do business with anyone who you don't want to do business with.[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, more that perhaps anything, is what's missing from the way most people think about capitalism.
Click to expand...


That doesn't mean people have any control over the markets they are faced with. Nor does it mean that this will somehow result in the best outcome. The key to capitalism is not blind faith in whatever market we happen to have but a strong understanding of how markets work and why they generally produce great results but why they also fail at times. 

Industrialized nations have all learned that prosperity depends on all sorts of things including things like infrastructure, an educated populace, well regulated financial markets, economic stability, and more. 

When people say they are for "capitalism" I assume they are really talking about free market economics.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the beauty of the free market... you don't have to do business with anyone who you don't want to do business with.[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, more that perhaps anything, is what's missing from the way most people think about capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean people have any control over the markets they are faced with. Nor does it mean that this will somehow result in the best outcome. The key to capitalism is not blind faith in whatever market we happen to have but a strong understanding of how markets work and why they generally produce great results but why they also fail at times.
> 
> Industrialized nations have all learned that prosperity depends on all sorts of things including things like infrastructure, an educated populace, well regulated financial markets, economic stability, and more.
> 
> When people say they are for "capitalism" I assume they are really talking about free market economics.
Click to expand...


I'm for freedom.


----------



## gnarlylove

Rottweiler said:


> Considering water is processed, distributed, and paid for at the local level [MENTION=46376]gnarlylove[/MENTION], _why_ exactly do you need the federal government and the EPA???
> 
> I always know when someone is unqualified to discuss U.S. politics when they site local issues (water, police, fire, etc.) as their reason for supporting communism at the federal level...



I was having an esoteric convo with Todders. I was exaggerating for his benefit. I have no interest discussing the validity of the EPA of the federal govt right now, whether we disagree or not we are living under it and will undoubtedly continue to for the foreseeable future. That is not the topic anyway, it's fixing the inequality that harms people.


----------



## gnarlylove

Rottweiler said:


> In other words, gnarly here is too fuck'n love to actively pursue is own private pursuits - so he would rather petition government to _force_ others to do what he himself is too fuck'n lazy to do...
> 
> See, that's the beauty of the free market... you don't have to do business with anyone who you don't want to do business with. You don't have that luxury with the federal government. Better still, the beauty of the free market is that you can build your own business and do it "right". If a company is providing clean water, you can build your own company that sells clean water.
> 
> The one caveat - it requires you to get up off your useless, lazy ass. Something liberals aren't willing to do.



In your infinite wisdom did it occur to you that you don't know the first thing about my work ethic or that I am highly successful at achieving my private interests and goals? Although generalizing that liberals are lazy is obviously false (I could list tons of hard working liberals) but I am beginning to wonder if all republicans aren't just total dicks and assholes with no mouth or brain. They have no common decency towards someone who opposes their viewpoints. All conversations with them immediately devolves into a childish name-calling/shouting match, not a debate among adults with the first instinct of respect. I refuse to participate in any more of your drivel.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, gnarly here is too fuck'n love to actively pursue is own private pursuits - so he would rather petition government to _force_ others to do what he himself is too fuck'n lazy to do...
> 
> See, that's the beauty of the free market... you don't have to do business with anyone who you don't want to do business with. You don't have that luxury with the federal government. Better still, the beauty of the free market is that you can build your own business and do it "right". If a company is providing clean water, you can build your own company that sells clean water.
> 
> The one caveat - it requires you to get up off your useless, lazy ass. Something liberals aren't willing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your infinite wisdom did it occur to you that you don't know the first thing about my work ethic or that I am highly successful at achieving my private interests and goals? Although generalizing that liberals are lazy is obviously false (I could list tons of hard working liberals) but I am beginning to wonder if all republicans aren't just total dicks and assholes with no mouth or brain. They have no common decency towards someone who opposes their viewpoints. All conversations with them immediately devolves into a childish name-calling/shouting match, not a debate among adults with the first instinct of respect. I refuse to participate in any more of your drivel.
Click to expand...


*They have no common decency towards someone who opposes their viewpoints.*

Racist! Homophobe! Sexist!

Sorry, that's how liberals show their decency towards opposing viewpoints.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering water is processed, distributed, and paid for at the local level [MENTION=46376]gnarlylove[/MENTION], _why_ exactly do you need the federal government and the EPA???
> 
> I always know when someone is unqualified to discuss U.S. politics when they site local issues (water, police, fire, etc.) as their reason for supporting communism at the federal level...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was having an esoteric convo with Todders. I was exaggerating for his benefit. I have no interest discussing the validity of the EPA of the federal govt right now, whether we disagree or not we are living under it and will undoubtedly continue to for the foreseeable future. That is not the topic anyway, it's fixing the inequality that harms people.
Click to expand...


So in other words - you recognize that you have no defense for your support of unconstitutional government?

There is no "inequality". There never has been, there never will be. What harm's people is their lack of effort. We have an _effort_ issue in America, *not* an "inequality" issue.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, gnarly here is too fuck'n love to actively pursue is own private pursuits - so he would rather petition government to _force_ others to do what he himself is too fuck'n lazy to do...
> 
> See, that's the beauty of the free market... you don't have to do business with anyone who you don't want to do business with. You don't have that luxury with the federal government. Better still, the beauty of the free market is that you can build your own business and do it "right". If a company is providing clean water, you can build your own company that sells clean water.
> 
> The one caveat - it requires you to get up off your useless, lazy ass. Something liberals aren't willing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your infinite wisdom did it occur to you that you don't know the first thing about my work ethic or that I am highly successful at achieving my private interests and goals? Although generalizing that liberals are lazy is obviously false (I could list tons of hard working liberals) but I am beginning to wonder if all republicans aren't just total dicks and assholes with no mouth or brain. They have no common decency towards someone who opposes their viewpoints. All conversations with them immediately devolves into a childish name-calling/shouting match, not a debate among adults with the first instinct of respect. I refuse to participate in any more of your drivel.
Click to expand...


Because the fact that you cry about private industry instead of creating your own private industry done in the way you believe is "just" or "right" proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're a typical lazy liberal who finds it easier to ask government to place a gun to the head of someone else and _force_ them to conduct their affairs how you want them to.

As far as "participating" - of course you're not going to do that. I've completely shredded your entire weak argument in only two posts. If I were you, I too would run away (and fast).


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the beauty of the free market... you don't have to do business with anyone who you don't want to do business with.[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, more that perhaps anything, is what's missing from the way most people think about capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean people have any control over the markets they are faced with. Nor does it mean that this will somehow result in the best outcome. The key to capitalism is not blind faith in whatever market we happen to have but a strong understanding of how markets work and why they generally produce great results but why they also fail at times.
> 
> Industrialized nations have all learned that prosperity depends on all sorts of things including things like infrastructure, an educated populace, well regulated financial markets, economic stability, and more.
> 
> When people say they are for "capitalism" I assume they are really talking about free market economics.
Click to expand...


The only markets that fail are one's in which the government got unconstitutionally involved. We never had a "failure" in the housing market until Bill Clinton essentially forced banks to make bad loans with his 1997 Community Re-Investment Act (through Fannie & Freddie).

What liberals are too dumb/idealistic/naive to realize is that the private industry creates _pressure_. You must produce results or you go out of business. You must produce a great product at a great price or you lose to your competitor.

The moment you introduce government - all of that disappears. Before Clinton stuck his nose where it doesn't belong (because like all idiot liberals he felt everyone "deserved" a home if they didn't earn it), banks wouldn't make risky loans. But the minute they were forced to do so and promised that Fannie and Freddie would back the risk loans, they started making them. And that resulted in the predictable way that government interference always ends - in collapse.

In short - the reason liberal policy always ends in collapse is because of their ignorant "safety nets". You want people working the hardest, focused the sharpest, and producing at the highest? Take away the safety nets. As long as you guarantee them that you will bail out their failure, you will end up with failure.


----------



## ilia25

bripat9643 said:


> "It started to drop," but it still remained high while unemployment was sky high.  I recall it very distinctly because I was unemployed at the time.



No, it didn't remained high, it was falling. The relationship is not with absolute level of inflation. Unemployment level affects how inflation is changing. If unemployment shoots up when inflation is in double digits, as it was at the and of 70s, of course it would take some time to cut it in half.




> It sure as hell does because Keynes says that inflation relieves unemployment



Keynes would never say such things. First, the causality goes in opposite direction -- the unemployment affects inflation, not the other way around. And, again, it's not about absolute levels, the unemployment affects how the inflation changes. If a crisis starts when inflation is high, then you will have a period when unemployment has already risen, but inflation is still high.



> but after that recession both unemployment and inflation came down



No, when unemployment started to drop in 1983 inflation stabilized around 4%. It was at 3.5% in 1987.



> ROFL!  Where does Keynes ever refer to "natural unemployment?"  Why should it be higher for one society than another?  Keynes has no explanation.



LOL, NAIRU changes in the same country with time. It depends on a lot of social factors. Also I don't think you understand what Keynes theory is about.

Before Keynes everyone believed that economy is always at full employment, with exception of short periods of adjustments. What Keynes showed, however, is that economy, given powerful enough shock, can shift to another equilibrium, the one with high unemployment, and remain in that state for a long time (a.k.a depression). And Keynes didn't really believed that rising inflation could help to pull economy out of depression simply because it is really hard to rise inflation when interest rates are already at zero. That is why he suggested fiscal stimulus instead.

Anyway, Keynes theory was about depression and the ways to fight it and prevent it -- but the same policies would not work at full employment. E.g. fiscal stimulus would only cause inflation, rather than a permanent drop in unemployment. Some people in 60s/70s were trying to do just that -- apply Keynesian policies to an economy already at full employment, and it didn't work as they expected (the result was called stagflation, but it is misleading term, the economy was not "stagnating", it was at full employment and growing pretty fast -- but the inflation was indeed rising).

But don't blame Keynes for that, he was writing about a depression, which only happened twice in the past 100 years -- in 30s, and after 2008.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> I'm for freedom.



I'm sure you mean individual freedom. But when we ask ourselves was this the initial goal of humans who banded together in hunter-gather tribes and eventually created chiefdoms we find a different goal. It was survival. They were willing to subordinate to sometimes harsh treatment by chiefs and higher-ups so they had the security of food and protection in numbers.

I think this holds light for us today. Our goal should not be greater privacy or liberty per se, it should be survival first. Indeed we a race we fail at this daily. Millions die each year from easily preventable issues while billions suffering from the lack of basic human needs. The rest of us have move beyond the need for mere survival and recognize self-actualization and comfort/satisfaction as the goal. This is a natural step towards a healthy personhood. You might argue "If only we could get everyone to where we are. (ie more freedom)"

This is flawed however. We will never attain a time when no one is overtly exploited so long as we rely on cheap labor, a staple of capitalism. Wage labor has been synonmous with slave labor since its origins. While wage laborers are not strictly slaves, they are essential for the production rates we see with the costs we pay. I'm not saying capitalism is the worse idea ever, it has indeed improved the lives of billions.

Although individualism has brought many welcomed opportunities, it has also led harmful effects. For example, today more than ever people have lavish egos and it doesn't take a psycho-analyst to identify the problems with inflated egos. Our individualism has led to a loss of personal accountability so that for example, when we drive our car we never think about if we could bike or do better: we are doing what we feel like and as long as I can afford it that's all that counts.

This has resulted in environmental degradation on massive scales whether one affirms climate change or not (Michigan study found 50% of America was covered in forests, now only 10% remains). Anecdotally I've seen a resistance to responsibility, even an inability on the behalf of youths to know anything about nature or be able to live in nature without a supermarket. Having worked with teens in the Utah Desert and Colorado forests, I can say it takes weeks for kids to come to grips with basic survival principles. This has implications for all sorts of things with such huge emphasis on individualism over the classic public good. It reduces critical thinking skills because as long as you can fake it to make it, as is the strategy of many kids in school, there's no reason to actually learn it. I'm not saying kids don't learn but their interest are elsewhere (TV, social life, phone). And we have "no right" to think they should do anything that makes them less free.

Moreover, fallacies are rampant on TV and the nightly news. It's pathetic but very influential. I think this has a source in the entertainment transition to news and information in general. People avoid bad stuff and gravitate good stuff, this tends to not solve problems. These all come from the ceaseless emphasis of individual liberty. Turns out individuals don't always make the best decisions with the a lot of freedom. Don't construe this to mean I think that freedom is bad. It is good (and bad) within its context.

I'd say we need to strengthen our ideas about community, togetherness, unity (its on all our coins E Pluribus Unum) because we've seen the effects of refusing to agree: gridlocked congress and tensions are high. We are making little to no progress on solving national or global problems. This stems from individualism and the idea we all just need more freedom which trumps compromise.

So I challenge this goal of freedom and replace it with the goal of removing all barriers that prevent us from viewing one another as essentially the same. All lives are one life having come from the same source and are made up of the same material (star dust from billions of years ago).

Our appearances and thoughts help identify us but should not be our sole evaluation. Ignoring our infinite similarities in favor of our tiny differences made dramatic makes for a divided society--one that struggles to work together (not referring to the labor force). So long as everyone views everyone as essentially different, some totally separate entity, then there is no reason we should treat one another with sympathy, empathy, compassion or love. Such a radical vision of the sameness of humanity might inspire great strides in reducing inequality without ever having to make a policy change. Of course I think changing policy alongside this foundational outlook would be good. This speaks to the reality that attitudes structure our society and the way we treat one another. 

We are all One and all deserve to be treated as we treat our self. This idea was first recorded in Tao Teh Ching and has been pronounced in all major religions yet we can't seem to acknowledge it. We prefer our overgrown egos to respect (I know I did for the longest time and still fight it today).


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, more that perhaps anything, is what's missing from the way most people think about capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean people have any control over the markets they are faced with. Nor does it mean that this will somehow result in the best outcome. The key to capitalism is not blind faith in whatever market we happen to have but a strong understanding of how markets work and why they generally produce great results but why they also fail at times.
> 
> Industrialized nations have all learned that prosperity depends on all sorts of things including things like infrastructure, an educated populace, well regulated financial markets, economic stability, and more.
> 
> When people say they are for "capitalism" I assume they are really talking about free market economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only markets that fail are one's in which the government got unconstitutionally involved. We never had a "failure" in the housing market until Bill Clinton essentially forced banks to make bad loans with his 1997 Community Re-Investment Act (through Fannie & Freddie).
> 
> What liberals are too dumb/idealistic/naive to realize is that the private industry creates _pressure_. You must produce results or you go out of business. You must produce a great product at a great price or you lose to your competitor.
> 
> The moment you introduce government - all of that disappears. Before Clinton stuck his nose where it doesn't belong (because like all idiot liberals he felt everyone "deserved" a home if they didn't earn it), banks wouldn't make risky loans. But the minute they were forced to do so and promised that Fannie and Freddie would back the risk loans, they started making them. And that resulted in the predictable way that government interference always ends - in collapse.
> 
> In short - the reason liberal policy always ends in collapse is because of their ignorant "safety nets". You want people working the hardest, focused the sharpest, and producing at the highest? Take away the safety nets. As long as you guarantee them that you will bail out their failure, you will end up with failure.
Click to expand...


Markets have failed for all sorts of reasons but I think the Constitution allows the government to get involved so I am not sure if you have a point.

The financial collapse wasn't because of CRA although it is hilarious that you think the entire financial system collapsed because of it. 

The market had failures that are far more traditional problems with markets. For one information was not perfect. In fact financial decisions were being made with really bad information provided to them by ratings agencies. The creation of the securities was based off of an equation that was meant to make them A rated but they weren't.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, more that perhaps anything, is what's missing from the way most people think about capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean people have any control over the markets they are faced with. Nor does it mean that this will somehow result in the best outcome. The key to capitalism is not blind faith in whatever market we happen to have but a strong understanding of how markets work and why they generally produce great results but why they also fail at times.
> 
> Industrialized nations have all learned that prosperity depends on all sorts of things including things like infrastructure, an educated populace, well regulated financial markets, economic stability, and more.
> 
> When people say they are for "capitalism" I assume they are really talking about free market economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm for freedom.
Click to expand...


So am I but for some reason I think we have much different ideas for what it takes to actually have freedom in a society today.


----------



## jasonnfree

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in question is how we distribute economic power, particularly whether we do it via voluntary, individual decisions, or through coercive state mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to keep in mind that the current state of affairs in the launching pad for developing a better, more equal and just society, economy etc. I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's attitudes on this matter which are found in "On Anarchism." The better we do at providing genuine representation I think we will naturally seek a just system. What's feasible and what should be are often radically different yet they can lead to the same end.
> 
> We can agree our current system is designed to provide more power to those with money so that as society evolves we can expect to see these trends continue. I think the trends since the 80s has been abysmal for equality. More super market choices and brands does not lead to greater satisfaction with one's life, in fact, as I posted above, it has the opposite effect!
Click to expand...


Chomsky's worth reading.  I Hope there are some school teachers who  introduce Chomsky's essays to their students.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm for freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you mean individual freedom. But when we ask ourselves was this the initial goal of humans who banded together in hunter-gather tribes and eventually created chiefdoms we find a different goal. It was survival. They were willing to subordinate to sometimes harsh treatment by chiefs and higher-ups so they had the security of food and protection in numbers.
> 
> I think this holds light for us today. *Our goal should not be greater privacy or liberty per se, it should be survival first*. Indeed we a race we fail at this daily. Millions die each year from easily preventable issues while billions suffering from the lack of basic human needs. The rest of us have move beyond the need for mere survival and recognize self-actualization and comfort/satisfaction as the goal. This is a natural step towards a healthy personhood. You might argue "If only we could get everyone to where we are. (ie more freedom)"
> 
> This is flawed however. We will never attain a time when no one is overtly exploited so long as we rely on cheap labor, a staple of capitalism. Wage labor has been synonmous with slave labor since its origins. While wage laborers are not strictly slaves, they are essential for the production rates we see with the costs we pay. I'm not saying capitalism is the worse idea ever, it has indeed improved the lives of billions.
> 
> Although individualism has brought many welcomed opportunities, it has also led harmful effects. For example, today more than ever people have lavish egos and it doesn't take a psycho-analyst to identify the problems with inflated egos. Our individualism has led to a loss of personal accountability so that for example, when we drive our car we never think about if we could bike or do better: we are doing what we feel like and as long as I can afford it that's all that counts.
> 
> This has resulted in environmental degradation on massive scales whether one affirms climate change or not (Michigan study found 50% of America was covered in forests, now only 10% remains). Anecdotally I've seen a resistance to responsibility, even an inability on the behalf of youths to know anything about nature or be able to live in nature without a supermarket. Having worked with teens in the Utah Desert and Colorado forests, I can say it takes weeks for kids to come to grips with basic survival principles. This has implications for all sorts of things with such huge emphasis on individualism over the classic public good. It reduces critical thinking skills because as long as you can fake it to make it, as is the strategy of many kids in school, there's no reason to actually learn it. I'm not saying kids don't learn but their interest are elsewhere (TV, social life, phone). And we have "no right" to think they should do anything that makes them less free.
> 
> Moreover, fallacies are rampant on TV and the nightly news. It's pathetic but very influential. I think this has a source in the entertainment transition to news and information in general. People avoid bad stuff and gravitate good stuff, this tends to not solve problems. These all come from the ceaseless emphasis of individual liberty. Turns out individuals don't always make the best decisions with the a lot of freedom. Don't construe this to mean I think that freedom is bad. It is good (and bad) within its context.
> 
> I'd say we need to strengthen our ideas about community, togetherness, unity (its on all our coins E Pluribus Unum) because we've seen the effects of refusing to agree: gridlocked congress and tensions are high. We are making little to no progress on solving national or global problems. This stems from individualism and the idea we all just need more freedom which trumps compromise.
> 
> So I challenge this goal of freedom and replace it with the goal of removing all barriers that prevent us from viewing one another as essentially the same. All lives are one life having come from the same source and are made up of the same material (star dust from billions of years ago).
> 
> Our appearances and thoughts help identify us but should not be our sole evaluation. Ignoring our infinite similarities in favor of our tiny differences made dramatic makes for a divided society--one that struggles to work together (not referring to the labor force). So long as everyone views everyone as essentially different, some totally separate entity, then there is no reason we should treat one another with sympathy, empathy, compassion or love. Such a radical vision of the sameness of humanity might inspire great strides in reducing inequality without ever having to make a policy change. Of course I think changing policy alongside this foundational outlook would be good. This speaks to the reality that attitudes structure our society and the way we treat one another.
> 
> We are all One and all deserve to be treated as we treat our self. This idea was first recorded in Tao Teh Ching and has been pronounced in all major religions yet we can't seem to acknowledge it. We prefer our overgrown egos to respect (I know I did for the longest time and still fight it today).
Click to expand...


Wow.....I mean, *wow*... Pure, unadulterated, disturbing communism. Fuck freedom, what is good for the collective. 

I've got news for you junior, your collectivist utopia is *not* coming.

And you're not doing a very good job of "fighting" your ego. Your arrogance that you know what is "best" for all of us is pretty appalling. The entire point of freedom is survival. One misguided arrogant man (such as yourself) doesn't get to collapse the entire nation. With freedom - your bad choices only effect you. They don't take me down with you.


----------



## gnarlylove

Rot, it basically comes down to striking a balance between our freedoms and subordination/cooperation for the sake of non-zero sum games that benefit us all. You clearly are disgusted with me and so anything you read by me is filtered through a lens of hate or other raw emotions. I understand you don't like opposition and have a hard time dealing with people who disagree with you in a productive manner. you think I'm trying to ruin society but how can unity come to ruin society. If you failed to read my whole post, I encourage you to re-read it so you get a better idea of what I'm saying. I love liberty too and do not think this is a low priority.

But in truth, I didn't say I know what's best for everyone, just read the whole post. It doesn't take much to realize unity on some level is essential in life. It's how we operate as a society. It's how our fiat money works--we all agree it has value. Encouraging unity over petty disagreements can help strengthen communities.

E Plurbus Unum is on all of our coins and its Latin meaning "Out of the many is One." This is all I intended to say. Though we are diverse and all have unique characteristics, these differences are outweighed by the number of our similarities. From dust we come and dust we return. No one escapes this. So it makes sense to acknowledge the humanity in all people. Their ideas about the world are less important than the fact that they are in the world.


----------



## bripat9643

jasonnfree said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in question is how we distribute economic power, particularly whether we do it via voluntary, individual decisions, or through coercive state mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to keep in mind that the current state of affairs in the launching pad for developing a better, more equal and just society, economy etc. I subscribe to Noam Chomsky's attitudes on this matter which are found in "On Anarchism." The better we do at providing genuine representation I think we will naturally seek a just system. What's feasible and what should be are often radically different yet they can lead to the same end.
> 
> We can agree our current system is designed to provide more power to those with money so that as society evolves we can expect to see these trends continue. I think the trends since the 80s has been abysmal for equality. More super market choices and brands does not lead to greater satisfaction with one's life, in fact, as I posted above, it has the opposite effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chomsky's worth reading.  I Hope there are some school teachers who  introduce Chomsky's essays to their students.
Click to expand...


Chomsky is a totalitarian Maoist asshole.  He's also the world's biggest nutburger.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> The banking crisis which had a prominent feature in the market did indeed have a major role in the welfare state where the welfare state relieved many CEOs of making responsible actions on credit default swaps and the like. Capitalism as it operates today is massively tied into the government and directly so. Subsidy programs are huge, totaling billions of tax payer money. Capitalism likes these incentives. Your idea that they can work separately is unfounded.
> 
> Having not followed the ins and outs of the last 50 pages, I apologize in advance if this is no longer our topic. But I think the following graph may help
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Image from this interesting read
> 
> To deny capitalism concentrates wealth is to deny its basic principles. One must have capital to make capital, a very fundamental economics saying. However, certain levels of inequality are harmful to society. Without government, without a regulator, we have free markets, and free markets do not have subsidy programs without government. In a free-market we can expect social castes and classes to be entirely rigid where you are born is where you die. We see low social mobility in America, among the lowest in any developed nation. I'm not necessarily advocating for a larger government for the sake of big government but to lack regulation on the market allows it to do funky things. The fundamental premise that Alan Greenspan ran the economy on for 4 decades, he admitted, was "fundamentally flawed." in a hearing on Oct. 23 2008. This Fact taken together with the idea that certain levels of inequality harm a society, we might want to give some credit to the original post for pointing out a source of harm for society. We might want to give more credit to regulation as benefiting the public interests over private gain. I don't expect anyone to read the link but on the off chance you do, I think you'll have learned something (like I did).
> 
> Is inequality bad for economic growth?



*The problem is, the graph, and those who calculate 'social mobility', fail to factor in choice, and failed to factor in the scale of mobility.
*
For example, Country A, a maximum wage of $100,000, and Country B has a max of $300,000, and two people both earning $20,000 a year.

Five years later, Person in Country A, is earning $60,000 a year, and person in Country B is earning $80,000, which has more social mobility?

In theory, the person in Country A has greater social mobility, because he's in the upper middle of the scale.    Yet the Person in Country B, actually had the greater increase in wage, and is enjoying a greater standard of living.

*The other aspect is that of choice.*    Back in the 90s, when I was in high school, I worked for minimum wage at a fast food joint.   One day a lady showed up, and announced to us, that she intended to only work long enough to qualify for welfare again.  She even told us the day in which she qualified, and sure enough, on that day she stopped showing up for work.

Does that graph include people like this?   Of course.   But does this person reflect an social economic system that prevents moving up the income scale, or does it rather show a choice by the individual to refuse to advance themselves?

That's a choice of the individual, not a problem with our economic system.   If anything, our welfare, and social programs, have setup a system of incentives to encourage people to not advance up the income ladder, and then you use the resulting statistics to justify more of the same programs that caused those statistics.

*Further, no one is denying Capitalism concentrates wealth.*

What we do in fact deny, is that this is bad.

If I refuse to get an education, or get an education in something that has no value, or refuse to do what is needed to advance my career, and become more productive... I choose to not concentrate wealth.  Back to the prior example of the lady who only worked long enough to get back on welfare.    You do realize that 75% of all McDonald's Franchise owners, started out working minimum wage as a crew member?   They are rich, because they worked to advance themselves, by choice.   She'll be poor till she dies, by choice.

The reason people have nothing, is because they spent all my money, and didn't save and invest.

*I call this the difference between the Pinball people, and the Beer Pong people.*

This comes from the story of Warren Buffet.  If you read about Warren Buffet, you'll find that when he was in High school, he worked a paper route.   He saved up money from the paper route, and bought a PinBall machine.   He placed the PinBall machine in a local business, where it earned more money.   Buffet, invested his money, and made more money.

What do most people do?   I can't speak for absolutely everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do, was to buy a keg of beer, and take it to someone's home whose parents were away, and have a party, and play Beer Pong.    Thus they consume their money, and are broke.

That's the difference between the Beer Pong people and the PinBall people.   That's why rich people are rich, and poor people are poor.

You realize that if you save, just a mere $100 a month, every single month from age 20, to retirement, you'll retire a millionaire (or close to it)?   But people don't.  They buy movie tickets, premium cable TV, smart phones, eat out at restaurants every day, and buy cars and other financial boat anchors that sink in value like a rock, and then complain how the wealthy the rich people are.

There's a reason for this.  Actions have consequences.  Even Michael Jackson, who made over a billion dollars in his career, was on the verge of bankruptcy just before his death.  In fact, it was likely because of the stress of his world wide tour, and the pressure from all his creditors and lawsuits, that drove him to his death.

But the idea that somehow it's our economic system that is holding people back, is just absolutely ridiculous.     Phil Robertson, regardless of anything else, is proof our system gives the most opportunity to the lowest of people.    Here's a drunk, a complete drunk guy, living in a shack, whittling duck callers, and now he's a national brand, multimillionaire with his own TV show.

1-800-GOT-JUNK, was started by a high school student, who bought a beat up pickup truck for $800, and a hand painted sign.   Now he's a multimillionaire of an international company.

*Allen Greenspan lost all his credibility*.  He claimed to believe in market principals, but in practice, he himself tried to direct and control the markets.

You can't say that "self regulating markets doesn't work" when *YOU* are the guy directing and regulating the markets.   Sorry, false premise.


----------



## theHawk

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



Do us all a favor and move to North Korea.

Let us know how awesome no capitalism is.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple to say but hard to get into policy, DB.
> 
> Basically there's two ways to deal with this growing inequity
> 
> *1.  AT the place of employment (workers take a larger share of the profits) or
> 
> 2 By progressive taxation which spreads the wealth around through policies that either put money into the hands of the workers or creates beneficial policies that take the burden cost of living down, like supporting public transit, education and health care.
> *
> 
> Those are the two avenues to fixing this inequity.
> 
> There are countless policies that might be done leading down those avenues.
> 
> Whiuch is the better of the two?
> 
> NUMBER 1
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because then the inequity is dealt with by the workers and employers and the GOVERNMENT doesn't get its hands on the money.
> 
> Why don't we do that?
> 
> We destroyed that ability when conditions started killing UNIONISM.
> 
> 
> 
> *Without unions, perhaps we should learn to share?*
> 
> "This policy primer from Shareable and the Sustainable Economies Law Center catalogues innovative local policies that city governments have used to help residents share resources, co-produce, and create their own jobs.
> 
> "Focusing on food, housing, transportation, and job sharing, this guide is intended to help cities build community wealth and develop more resilient and democratic local economies.
> 
> "More broadly, the sharing economy highlights how governments can structure infrastructure, services, incentives, and regulations to support this new economy."
> 
> Policies for Shareable Cities: A Sharing Economy Policy Primer for Urban Leaders | Community-Wealth.org
> 
> *Public banks are another viable substitute for Wall Street.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public banks? Awesome!
> Just what Illinois needs, another way for our crooked politicians to reward their friends.
Click to expand...

*Illinois should go Red*

"But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America. 

"Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota? 

"Why haven't the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?

"Because it works.

"In 1919, the Non-Partisan League, a vibrant populist organization, won a majority in the legislature and voted the bank into existence. 

"The goal was to free North Dakota farmers from impoverishing debt dependence on the big banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York. 

"More than 90 years later, this state-owned bank is thriving as it helps the state's community banks, businesses, consumers and students obtain loans at reasonable rates. 

"It also delivers a handsome profit to its owners -- the 700,000 residents of North Dakota. 

"In 2011, the BND provided more than $70 million to the state's coffers. 

"Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."

Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota? | Alternet

*Awesome, right?*


----------



## georgephillip

theHawk said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do us all a favor and move to North Korea.
> 
> Let us know how awesome no capitalism is.
Click to expand...

*I wonder if you know or care how "awesome" capitalism "shocked" North Korea into the shit hole it is today?*

"Lyuh Woon-hyung (May 25, 1886  July 19, 1947) was a Korean politician who argued that Korean independence was essential to world peace, and a reunification activist who struggled for the independent reunification of Korea since its national division in 1945.

"His pen-name was Mongyang (&#47805;&#50577;; &#22818;&#38525, the Hanja for 'dream' and 'light.' 

"*He is rare among politicians in modern Korean history in that he is revered in both South and North Korea*."

Lyuh Woon-hyung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Mac1958

.

I think it's refreshing to have a lefty so honest about what they actually want.

.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> #1 problem is Big Money in politics. Each Congress member is suggested to fundraise 5 hours a day. Granted their work-week is 3 days usually, they have to talk to people with money. And most people with money want more money and that means vote Republican. But what it really mean with all this money is the public interest, the public good looses to private interests almost everytime. If you made a deal to receive a cool 200,000 dollar contribution from a coal company, by-god they expect you to honor that money and vote coal every change you get. Now there is many loopholes that makes no requirements of such voting but we'd have to be blind to not see it happening. Take gun legislation and 80% of the public approved it but it wouldn't pass. Why? NRA is good at what they do. Why? Money and power. Another example of the crafty NRA is in last years recall election in Colorado where Democrats lost seats despite public opinion favoring the Democrats on this issue.
> 
> That is the #1 issue ruining democracy and turning our America into "the Rich's America" aka PLUTOCRACY!!! Top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth including assets.
> 
> Solution?
> Public financing of elections plain and simple. Also repealing Citizen's United and striking down McCutheon V. Alabama, a case loosening campaign contributions.
> 
> Without this how can our government serve the constitution which clearly notes the people give the power and that all people are equal. "Money as a form of speech" is terminating equality out in the open! The representatives are more concerned about staying in office and their personal opinions. The pubic is a vehicle to stay elected but the public has much less to do with their decision making than it should. Their decision making should be to 100% represent the voices of their constituency. We lost this ideal long ago though. The Zapatistas have got it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *#1 problem is Big Money in politics.*
> 
> #1 problem is Big Government controls so much of the economy that it is worthwhile donating money to these assholes. Shrink government by 80% and we could ignore the clowns in DC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting money and corruption out of government would be like getting wet out of water.
Click to expand...

Actually,  it wouldn't be any harder than getting Christ out of the Constitution was two hundred and forty years ago. Exterminate the political influence of 21st century corporations and you've just eliminated 90% of all corruption in government.


----------



## georgephillip

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I think it's refreshing to have a lefty so honest about what they actually want.
> 
> .


*This lefty wants a reversal of our continuing decay into a corporate oligarchy:*

"Corporate oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities, lobbyists that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative. 

"Monopolies are sometimes granted to state-controlled entities, such as the Royal Charter granted to the East India Company. 

*"Today's multinational corporations function as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected officials.*

Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Without unions, perhaps we should learn to share?*
> 
> "This policy primer from Shareable and the Sustainable Economies Law Center catalogues innovative local policies that city governments have used to help residents share resources, co-produce, and create their own jobs.
> 
> "Focusing on food, housing, transportation, and job sharing, this guide is intended to help cities build community wealth and develop more resilient and democratic local economies.
> 
> "More broadly, the sharing economy highlights how governments can structure infrastructure, services, incentives, and regulations to support this new economy."
> 
> Policies for Shareable Cities: A Sharing Economy Policy Primer for Urban Leaders | Community-Wealth.org
> 
> *Public banks are another viable substitute for Wall Street.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public banks? Awesome!
> Just what Illinois needs, another way for our crooked politicians to reward their friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Illinois should go Red*
> 
> "But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America.
> 
> "Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota?
> 
> "Why haven't the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?
> 
> "Because it works.
> 
> "In 1919, the Non-Partisan League, a vibrant populist organization, won a majority in the legislature and voted the bank into existence.
> 
> "The goal was to free North Dakota farmers from impoverishing debt dependence on the big banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York.
> 
> "More than 90 years later, this state-owned bank is thriving as it helps the state's community banks, businesses, consumers and students obtain loans at reasonable rates.
> 
> "It also delivers a handsome profit to its owners -- the 700,000 residents of North Dakota.
> 
> "In 2011, the BND provided more than $70 million to the state's coffers.
> 
> "Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."
> 
> Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota? | Alternet
> 
> *Awesome, right?*
Click to expand...


Yes, your idiocy is awesome!

*"Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."*

Where is California, or Illinois, going to get the money to start the bank?
Why put the taxpayer on the hook for crony loans?
Even if you somehow started out only making sane, conservative loans, political pressure would soon result in loans to green, that means money-losing, projects.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> The banking crisis which had a prominent feature in the market did indeed have a major role in the welfare state where the welfare state relieved many CEOs of making responsible actions on credit default swaps and the like. Capitalism as it operates today is massively tied into the government and directly so. Subsidy programs are huge, totaling billions of tax payer money. Capitalism likes these incentives. Your idea that they can work separately is unfounded.
> 
> Having not followed the ins and outs of the last 50 pages, I apologize in advance if this is no longer our topic. But I think the following graph may help
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Image from this interesting read
> 
> To deny capitalism concentrates wealth is to deny its basic principles. One must have capital to make capital, a very fundamental economics saying. However, certain levels of inequality are harmful to society. Without government, without a regulator, we have free markets, and free markets do not have subsidy programs without government. In a free-market we can expect social castes and classes to be entirely rigid where you are born is where you die. We see low social mobility in America, among the lowest in any developed nation. I'm not necessarily advocating for a larger government for the sake of big government but to lack regulation on the market allows it to do funky things. The fundamental premise that Alan Greenspan ran the economy on for 4 decades, he admitted, was "fundamentally flawed." in a hearing on Oct. 23 2008. This Fact taken together with the idea that certain levels of inequality harm a society, we might want to give some credit to the original post for pointing out a source of harm for society. We might want to give more credit to regulation as benefiting the public interests over private gain. I don't expect anyone to read the link but on the off chance you do, I think you'll have learned something (like I did).
> 
> Is inequality bad for economic growth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is, the graph, and those who calculate 'social mobility', fail to factor in choice, and failed to factor in the scale of mobility.
> *
> For example, Country A, a maximum wage of $100,000, and Country B has a max of $300,000, and two people both earning $20,000 a year.
> 
> Five years later, Person in Country A, is earning $60,000 a year, and person in Country B is earning $80,000, which has more social mobility?
> 
> In theory, the person in Country A has greater social mobility, because he's in the upper middle of the scale.    Yet the Person in Country B, actually had the greater increase in wage, and is enjoying a greater standard of living.
> 
> *The other aspect is that of choice.*    Back in the 90s, when I was in high school, I worked for minimum wage at a fast food joint.   One day a lady showed up, and announced to us, that she intended to only work long enough to qualify for welfare again.  She even told us the day in which she qualified, and sure enough, on that day she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> Does that graph include people like this?   Of course.   But does this person reflect an social economic system that prevents moving up the income scale, or does it rather show a choice by the individual to refuse to advance themselves?
> 
> That's a choice of the individual, not a problem with our economic system.   If anything, our welfare, and social programs, have setup a system of incentives to encourage people to not advance up the income ladder, and then you use the resulting statistics to justify more of the same programs that caused those statistics.
> 
> *Further, no one is denying Capitalism concentrates wealth.*
> 
> What we do in fact deny, is that this is bad.
> 
> If I refuse to get an education, or get an education in something that has no value, or refuse to do what is needed to advance my career, and become more productive... I choose to not concentrate wealth.  Back to the prior example of the lady who only worked long enough to get back on welfare.    You do realize that 75% of all McDonald's Franchise owners, started out working minimum wage as a crew member?   They are rich, because they worked to advance themselves, by choice.   She'll be poor till she dies, by choice.
> 
> The reason people have nothing, is because they spent all my money, and didn't save and invest.
> 
> *I call this the difference between the Pinball people, and the Beer Pong people.*
> 
> This comes from the story of Warren Buffet.  If you read about Warren Buffet, you'll find that when he was in High school, he worked a paper route.   He saved up money from the paper route, and bought a PinBall machine.   He placed the PinBall machine in a local business, where it earned more money.   Buffet, invested his money, and made more money.
> 
> What do most people do?   I can't speak for absolutely everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do, was to buy a keg of beer, and take it to someone's home whose parents were away, and have a party, and play Beer Pong.    Thus they consume their money, and are broke.
> 
> That's the difference between the Beer Pong people and the PinBall people.   That's why rich people are rich, and poor people are poor.
> 
> You realize that if you save, just a mere $100 a month, every single month from age 20, to retirement, you'll retire a millionaire (or close to it)?   But people don't.  They buy movie tickets, premium cable TV, smart phones, eat out at restaurants every day, and buy cars and other financial boat anchors that sink in value like a rock, and then complain how the wealthy the rich people are.
> 
> There's a reason for this.  Actions have consequences.  Even Michael Jackson, who made over a billion dollars in his career, was on the verge of bankruptcy just before his death.  In fact, it was likely because of the stress of his world wide tour, and the pressure from all his creditors and lawsuits, that drove him to his death.
> 
> But the idea that somehow it's our economic system that is holding people back, is just absolutely ridiculous.     Phil Robertson, regardless of anything else, is proof our system gives the most opportunity to the lowest of people.    Here's a drunk, a complete drunk guy, living in a shack, whittling duck callers, and now he's a national brand, multimillionaire with his own TV show.
> 
> 1-800-GOT-JUNK, was started by a high school student, who bought a beat up pickup truck for $800, and a hand painted sign.   Now he's a multimillionaire of an international company.
> 
> *Allen Greenspan lost all his credibility*.  He claimed to believe in market principals, but in practice, he himself tried to direct and control the markets.
> 
> You can't say that "self regulating markets doesn't work" when *YOU* are the guy directing and regulating the markets.   Sorry, false premise.
Click to expand...


You are talking about entire nations worth of people. Your analysis is based on personal choice. So in essence you are saying that the entire nation has started to be lazy even though any measure of how much Americans work proves you wrong. 

Once again nothing you say holds up to reality.

The alternative theory is that the markets are being impacted in some way which makes a lot more sense than the nonsense you just posted. At least try and make a good argument.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Rot, it basically comes down to striking a balance between our freedoms and subordination/cooperation for the sake of non-zero sum games that benefit us all.



Again - communism. What "benefits us all". But let me ask you - who gets to decide what is "beneficial" for all of us? _You_? Barack Obama? How do you feel about electing me as the one who decides what is beneficial to us all? You still feel good about your plan in that case?

You're a typical "crunchy granola" liberal. You have this immature utopia where everyone rides a bicycle to work for mother earth and we all hug with long hair while not showering for weeks to preserve water.



gnarlylove said:


> You clearly are disgusted with me and so anything you read by me is filtered through a lens of hate or other raw emotions.



I'm not the least bit disgusted by you. I am, however, completely disgusted with your very immature utopian ideology.



gnarlylove said:


> I understand you don't like opposition and have a hard time dealing with people who disagree with you in a productive manner.



Actually, what I don't like is immature utopian ideology pissing on the Constitution. I have _zero_ problems with opposition. In fact, I completely support your desire for communism. Further still, if I were president, I would actually _assist_ you with building your communist ideology (one, I believe in every American have the *freedom* to live their on utopia, and two, I think it would be great to watch it collapse in front of the world so we could point & laugh and prove once again that liberal idiocy ends in collapse). But I would do it the _right_ way. Liberals could actually have their communist utopia any time they want. They are just far too lazy to read the Constitution and far too stupid to figure it out.



gnarlylove said:


> you think I'm trying to ruin society but how can unity come to ruin society.



Ask the U.S.S.R. "how". Their unity collapsed society and ended with everyone (except the controlling elite of course) in extreme poverty in misery. If you think that one example doesn't count, then look at Cuba (extreme poverty and misery). If you think that two examples don't count, look at Cambodia (exreme poverty and misery). If you want to dismiss those as well, look at Vietnam, Ethiopia, Greece, etc., etc., etc. Your entire "unite" philosophy has a failure rate of 100% world wide. It has *never* worked.



gnarlylove said:


> If you failed to read my whole post, I encourage you to re-read it so you get a better idea of what I'm saying. I love liberty too and do not think this is a low priority.



Well you started off by saying that "freedom should not be our goal per se". That's pretty appalling if you ask me. And if you're an American, that's extremely appalling. Millions and millions of American men and women have died and suffered horribly for your freedom. For you to take it for granted like that and look at it as something that is no big deal is so disgusting.



gnarlylove said:


> But in truth, I didn't say I know what's best for everyone, just read the whole post.



Yes, you did. You're entire post was that "unity" (among other things) is best for America (above freedom).



gnarlylove said:


> It doesn't take much to realize unity on some level is essential in life. It's how we operate as a society. It's how our fiat money works--we all agree it has value. Encouraging unity over petty disagreements can help strengthen communities.



You're right! So lets unite over the U.S. Constitution. Lets unit over freedom! But nope - you Dumbocrats want to unite over communism. Sorry chief, ain't "uniting" with you over that shit. You want to unit over the U.S. Consititution and freedom - let me know. I'll be there with a hug and a granola bar for you.



gnarlylove said:


> E Plurbus Unum is on all of our coins and its Latin meaning "Out of the many is One." This is all I intended to say. Though we are diverse and all have unique characteristics, these differences are outweighed by the number of our similarities. From dust we come and dust we return. No one escapes this. So it makes sense to acknowledge the humanity in all people. Their ideas about the world are less important than the fact that they are in the world.



Really? So it was good that the Germans recognized the "humanity" in Adolf Hitler and ignored his ideas about the world? It was good that Italians recognized the "humanity" in Benito Mussolini and ignored his ideas about the world? Jospeh Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao Tse-Tung? Idi Amin?

There is very real, very awful, pure _evil_ in this world. I will not recognize the "humanity" in evil and I sure as hell will not unit with it.

I stand firmly in the shadow of the U.S. Constitution and I will not budge. Not even an inch. If you want to join me, then you need to firmly stand here too. And then I will "unite" with you. Once you force the federal government to adhere to their 18 enumerated powers, and their 18 enumerated powers only, _then_ I will compromise with you. I will not compromise on the U.S. Constitution or my freedoms protected in it.


----------



## gnarlylove

The capitalism love-affair is well documented. I know very few Americans are willing to even conceive of the idea capitalism is not perfect or at least not harmful. The truth is, "A ground-level, global-wide movement is afoot and has announced to the economic, media and political elite that they are on to their schemes. Accordingly, the plundering class and their protectors will no longer be afforded the luxury of insulating themselves (almost absent confrontation) within bubbles of privilege, bubbles of denial, bubbles of insularity." Punching A Hole In Bubbles Of Denial And Addiction: Late capitalism and its discontents of the American Autumn | A World Beyond Borders

No one is denying capitalism has brought about better life for billions of people. But what we refuse to believe is it is impenetrable, that no social structure could be better. We refuse to not try to better our lot by conceiving of better policy and a better system. Lovers of capitalism are not the bottom 20% of the world, why? Because they are getting the raw deal. We refuse to deny people the rights of safety, security, love, food. These are essential to well being and if humans neglect these traits they end up literally defective. More of us are catching on and spreading the world that "hey, capitalism isn't all that great anymore." We need something better. We grew up with the values of liberty and justice and by god I see tons of control and injustice from our racially divided prison system (and hence police force who arrest blacks 10 times the rate they do white drug offenders) to the workers in Singapore making 3 cents for a 75 dollar shirt. This is fucking ridiculous and no just person can stand to tolerate it.

Capitalism is not the be all end all of humanity. There are better policies (within capitalism) in the world today than the one's we have in America. To avoid change is to accept you are happy with your rank in society and that you don't care about the lot of the rest. Mere charity is by no means the solution to global problems of abject poverty. The problem is systemic. Capitalism needs the master/slave dialectic to exist so they can exploit people to produce cheap goods. This social structure is not the final stage of mankind and I think the worldwide movement is catching on to the bull shit shady deals done in private that is the hallmark of capitalism.


----------



## Bombur

gnarlylove said:


> The capitalism love-affair is well documented. I know very few Americans are willing to even conceive of the idea capitalism is not perfect or at least not harmful. The truth is, "A ground-level, global-wide movement is afoot and has announced to the economic, media and political elite that they are on to their schemes. Accordingly, the plundering class and their protectors will no longer be afforded the luxury of insulating themselves (almost absent confrontation) within bubbles of privilege, bubbles of denial, bubbles of insularity." Punching A Hole In Bubbles Of Denial And Addiction: Late capitalism and its discontents of the American Autumn | A World Beyond Borders
> 
> No one is denying capitalism has brought about better life for billions of people. But what we refuse to believe is it is impenetrable, that no social structure could be better. We refuse to not try to better our lot by conceiving of better policy and a better system. Lovers of capitalism are not the bottom 20% of the world, why? Because they are getting the raw deal. We refuse to deny people the rights of safety, security, love, food. These are essential to well being and if humans neglect these traits they end up literally defective. More of us are catching on and spreading the world that "hey, capitalism isn't all that great anymore." We need something better. We grew up with the values of liberty and justice and by god I see tons of control and injustice from our racially divided prison system (and hence police force who arrest blacks 10 times the rate they do white drug offenders) to the workers in Singapore making 3 cents for a 75 dollar shirt. This is fucking ridiculous and no just person can stand to tolerate it.
> 
> Capitalism is the be all end all of humanity. There are better policies in the world today than the one's we have in America. To avoid change is to accept you are happy with your rank in society and that you don't care about the lot of the rest. Mere charity is by no means the solution to global problems of abject poverty. The problem is systemic. Capitalism needs the master/slave dialectic to exist so they can exploit people to produce cheap goods. This social structure is not the final stage of mankind and I think the worldwide movement is catching on you the bull shit shady deals done in private that is the hallmark of capitalism



Capitalism of some form is by far the best way to run an economy. It isn't even remotely close. 

The Capitalism versus socialism argument is essentially dead. What is still being talked about is the nature of the capitalist system. Sweden is a capitalist society but they have a lot of government involvement in their economy. Germany and Japan are capitalist even though they push pro-trade agendas. 

The real discussion is about market economies and how modern nations use government to protect their economic and moral interests.


----------



## gnarlylove

I didn't even say socialism. Plus I bet your idea of socialism is fed on a diet of half truths and propaganda. Maybe not in which case great and I also think socialism as its practiced is not the best way to run an economy.

But we aren't trying to run an economy. We are human begins first. Consumers 2nd or even 10th. If consumer is your first identity then you are hooked by all the rest of the program capitalism offers. I admit it, I've loved and lived in it and it's certainly wonderful IF YOU HAVE MONEY. But if you happen to be born by geographic happenstance into poverty, the chances of leaving that poverty are low.

All we need to do is acknowledged capitalism has major flaws, as its practiced. And thusly we need to institute policy that allows us to address these problems. Everyone is so eager to put words into the mouths of "socialists" or "enemies of capitalism/freedom" but I am not offering black and white lines to choose from. These are results that capitalism has brought to the fore and we need to deal with them if we respect human dignty. People think this runs contrary to "economics" but the whole reason civilization exists is to participate in ever increasing non-zero sum games but if only the rich are winning the poor are loosing, this is not a non-zero sum game anymore. it's working in heavy favor of the wealthy elite and this is not economics, its slavery. Just because you are a cog and not a slave doesn't mean slavery should be dismissed. If you happened to be born in the ghetto in Chicago, you'd likely join a gang and follow this life since capitalism offers you little opportunity.

The point is we need to see the world from other people's shoes and refusing to acknowledge the extreme plight of the world's poor is injustice and runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution that says all are equal. I've been homeless and its then when you realize with all the glamor around you you are digging through the trash so you don't starve. Thanks a lot capitalism! Again, let me remind you capitalism has done wonders for the world and no one is denying this.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> The capitalism love-affair is well documented. I know very few Americans are willing to even conceive of the idea capitalism is not perfect or at least not harmful. The truth is, "A ground-level, global-wide movement is afoot and has announced to the economic, media and political elite that they are on to their schemes. Accordingly, the plundering class and their protectors will no longer be afforded the luxury of insulating themselves (almost absent confrontation) within bubbles of privilege, bubbles of denial, bubbles of insularity." Punching A Hole In Bubbles Of Denial And Addiction: Late capitalism and its discontents of the American Autumn | A World Beyond Borders
> 
> No one is denying capitalism has brought about better life for billions of people. But what we refuse to believe is it is impenetrable, that no social structure could be better. We refuse to not try to better our lot by conceiving of better policy and a better system. Lovers of capitalism are not the bottom 20% of the world, why? Because they are getting the raw deal. We refuse to deny people the rights of safety, security, love, food. These are essential to well being and if humans neglect these traits they end up literally defective. More of us are catching on and spreading the world that "hey, capitalism isn't all that great anymore." We need something better. We grew up with the values of liberty and justice and by god I see tons of control and injustice from our racially divided prison system (and hence police force who arrest blacks 10 times the rate they do white drug offenders) to the workers in Singapore making 3 cents for a 75 dollar shirt. This is fucking ridiculous and no just person can stand to tolerate it.
> 
> Capitalism is not the be all end all of humanity. There are better policies (within capitalism) in the world today than the one's we have in America. To avoid change is to accept you are happy with your rank in society and that you don't care about the lot of the rest. Mere charity is by no means the solution to global problems of abject poverty. The problem is systemic. Capitalism needs the master/slave dialectic to exist so they can exploit people to produce cheap goods. This social structure is not the final stage of mankind and I think the worldwide movement is catching on to the bull shit shady deals done in private that is the hallmark of capitalism.



Capitalism is flawless. It's flawless because it is freedom. The employer is free to make what he/she feels is the best decisions for their business, the employee is free to work where they want. They are *not* "exploited" (that is just the desperate Dumbocrat battle cry to demonize through lies what they cannot demonize through facts) - they freely choose to work where they do and are compensated for their time. If they don't like it, they can quit any time they want and go work somewhere else. Better still, they are even free to quit their job and start their own business!

The reason we have the problems that we do is because we don't have capitalism. We have the government Dumbocrats unconstitutionally interfering with the markets and collapsing what ever they touch (see housing market, investment market, etc.).


----------



## Bombur

Labor laws that prevented children from working were great. Market economies can result in people making some really bad decisions. Some parents even sell their kids into slavery.

Blind faith in freedom leading to the best result is as naïve as those who thought communism would work.

Properly functioning markets will produce a certain type of good result. That doesn't mean markets always work or that a market result is always the best result.


----------



## gnarlylove

Climate change denial, xenophobia, capitalism and empathy | uknowispeaksense

Makes an interesting point about this inability to acknowledge the plight of others. Whether we admit it or think about it or not, there are major injustices in a world today that flies in the face of our ideas of universal equality. This video helps demonstrate this.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g#t=158]RSA Animate - The Empathic Civilisation - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## theHawk

gnarlylove said:


> I didn't even say socialism. Plus I bet your idea of socialism is fed on a diet of half truths and propaganda. Maybe not in which case great and I also think socialism as its practiced is not the best way to run an economy.
> 
> But we aren't trying to run an economy. We are human begins first. Consumers 2nd or even 10th. If consumer is your first identity then you are hooked by all the rest of the program capitalism offers. I admit it, I've loved and lived in it and it's certainly wonderful IF YOU HAVE MONEY. But if you happen to be born by geographic happenstance into poverty, the chances of leaving that poverty are low.
> 
> All we need to do is acknowledged capitalism has major flaws, as its practiced. And thusly we need to institute policy that allows us to address these problems. Everyone is so eager to put words into the mouths of "socialists" or "enemies of capitalism/freedom" but I am not offering black and white lines to choose from. These are results that capitalism has brought to the fore and we need to deal with them if we respect human dignty. People think this runs contrary to "economics" but the whole reason civilization exists is to participate in ever increasing non-zero sum games but if only the rich are winning the poor are loosing, this is not a non-zero sum game anymore. it's working in heavy favor of the wealthy elite and this is not economics, its slavery. Just because you are a cog and not a slave doesn't mean slavery should be dismissed. If you happened to be born in the ghetto in Chicago, you'd likely join a gang and follow this life since capitalism offers you little opportunity.
> 
> *The point is we need to see the world from other people's shoes and refusing to acknowledge the extreme plight of the world's poor is injustice and runs contrary to the spirit of the Constitution that says all are equal.* I've been homeless and its then when you realize with all the glamor around you you are digging through the trash so you don't starve. Thanks a lot capitalism! Again, let me remind you capitalism has done wonders for the world and no one is denying this.



The spirit of the Constitution does not say that all are equal.  It says that all are _created_ equal.  The people of those poor countries continue to be poor because they refuse to better themselves.  Nothing is stopping them or holding them back, especially not capitalism or America.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm for freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you mean individual freedom. But when we ask ourselves was this the initial goal of humans who banded together in hunter-gather tribes and eventually created chiefdoms we find a different goal. It was survival. They were willing to subordinate to sometimes harsh treatment by chiefs and higher-ups so they had the security of food and protection in numbers.
> 
> I think this holds light for us today. Our goal should not be greater privacy or liberty per se, it should be survival first. Indeed we a race we fail at this daily. Millions die each year from easily preventable issues while billions suffering from the lack of basic human needs. The rest of us have move beyond the need for mere survival and recognize self-actualization and comfort/satisfaction as the goal. This is a natural step towards a healthy personhood. You might argue "If only we could get everyone to where we are. (ie more freedom)"
> 
> This is flawed however. We will never attain a time when no one is overtly exploited so long as we rely on cheap labor, a staple of capitalism. Wage labor has been synonmous with slave labor since its origins. While wage laborers are not strictly slaves, they are essential for the production rates we see with the costs we pay. I'm not saying capitalism is the worse idea ever, it has indeed improved the lives of billions.
> 
> Although individualism has brought many welcomed opportunities, it has also led harmful effects. For example, today more than ever people have lavish egos and it doesn't take a psycho-analyst to identify the problems with inflated egos. Our individualism has led to a loss of personal accountability so that for example, when we drive our car we never think about if we could bike or do better: we are doing what we feel like and as long as I can afford it that's all that counts.
> 
> This has resulted in environmental degradation on massive scales whether one affirms climate change or not (Michigan study found 50% of America was covered in forests, now only 10% remains). Anecdotally I've seen a resistance to responsibility, even an inability on the behalf of youths to know anything about nature or be able to live in nature without a supermarket. Having worked with teens in the Utah Desert and Colorado forests, I can say it takes weeks for kids to come to grips with basic survival principles. This has implications for all sorts of things with such huge emphasis on individualism over the classic public good. It reduces critical thinking skills because as long as you can fake it to make it, as is the strategy of many kids in school, there's no reason to actually learn it. I'm not saying kids don't learn but their interest are elsewhere (TV, social life, phone). And we have "no right" to think they should do anything that makes them less free.
> 
> Moreover, fallacies are rampant on TV and the nightly news. It's pathetic but very influential. I think this has a source in the entertainment transition to news and information in general. People avoid bad stuff and gravitate good stuff, this tends to not solve problems. These all come from the ceaseless emphasis of individual liberty. Turns out individuals don't always make the best decisions with the a lot of freedom. Don't construe this to mean I think that freedom is bad. It is good (and bad) within its context.
> 
> I'd say we need to strengthen our ideas about community, togetherness, unity (its on all our coins E Pluribus Unum) because we've seen the effects of refusing to agree: gridlocked congress and tensions are high. We are making little to no progress on solving national or global problems. This stems from individualism and the idea we all just need more freedom which trumps compromise.
> 
> So I challenge this goal of freedom and replace it with the goal of removing all barriers that prevent us from viewing one another as essentially the same. All lives are one life having come from the same source and are made up of the same material (star dust from billions of years ago).
> 
> Our appearances and thoughts help identify us but should not be our sole evaluation. Ignoring our infinite similarities in favor of our tiny differences made dramatic makes for a divided society--one that struggles to work together (not referring to the labor force). So long as everyone views everyone as essentially different, some totally separate entity, then there is no reason we should treat one another with sympathy, empathy, compassion or love. Such a radical vision of the sameness of humanity might inspire great strides in reducing inequality without ever having to make a policy change. Of course I think changing policy alongside this foundational outlook would be good. This speaks to the reality that attitudes structure our society and the way we treat one another.
> 
> We are all One and all deserve to be treated as we treat our self. This idea was first recorded in Tao Teh Ching and has been pronounced in all major religions yet we can't seem to acknowledge it. We prefer our overgrown egos to respect (I know I did for the longest time and still fight it today).
Click to expand...


Interesting post. Though I think you're making several unwarranted assumptions that I'd like to address. 

First, you seem to hold the common misconception that libertarians are libertines, or preoccupied with individual freedom as the ultimate value. I suppose some are, but it's not what drives the movement. I actually agree with most of what you have to say here regarding community and the dangers of the 'cult of the individual'. But the our values and goals as a society can be realized without resorting to force, and they should be. It's an aversion to the use of force that binds libertarian ideas, not a childish resentment of restraint. And it's the recognition that government, among all other social institutions, is granted a monopoly on force that prompts our desire to see it strictly limited.

Second, you seem to view the goals and values of society as synonymous with the goals and values of government, and that's where libertarians see things differently as well. Government is a tool that can be used to facilitate society, but it doesn't define it. Just as you believe that capitalism should not be the be-all-end-all of human society (and fwiw, I agree with that sentiment), neither should government.

Lastly, it might not be your view, so correct me if I'm wrong, but you also seem to equate a reluctance to use government to solve problems or pursue goals as a commentary on the importance of the problems or goals. They're not the same. Opposition to government welfare is not opposition to charity, for example, nor is it a dismissal of the serious problem of poverty. It's just an application of the idea that government is not the proper solution for all, or even most, of the problems we face as a society.


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> Labor laws that prevented children from working were great. Market economies can result in people making some really bad decisions. Some parents even sell their kids into slavery.
> 
> Blind faith in freedom leading to the best result is as naïve as those who thought communism would work.
> 
> Properly functioning markets will produce a certain type of good result. That doesn't mean markets always work or that a market result is always the best result.



What in the hell kind of "logic" is _that_? Kids were terminated under Joseph Stalin in the U.S.S.R. How many Jewish children were slaughtered under Adolf Hitler?

Nobody can control the stupidity or cruelty of parents. I know a guy who made all 3 of his sons do some serious labor (we're talking clearing lumber, gravel, etc.) in the bitter cold while he sat in a warm car eating donuts and watching them. Do you really believe your child labor laws "saved" those children? Hell, at least children got PAID for their labor before those laws. These children didn't even get paid. So tell me, how are those labor laws working? 

You cannot regulate cruelty out of people. Children are going to be mistreated in _any_ system (and they have).

Furthermore, I'm not saying we shouldn't have laws and regulations. I'm *not* an anarchist. I support minimum wage 100% (and again - as I've stated many times on USMB - *not* how it is handled, but I do support having it) for the basic principles that supply exceeds demand when it comes to labor. But the fact is - the federal government had no business getting into the banking business and forcing them to make risky loans.

The undeniable reality is, the free market (with a certain amount of regulation of course) is flawless because it will always balance itself out. The federal government is to blame for about 99.99999% of the issues we have with capitalism.


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Labor laws that prevented children from working were great. Market economies can result in people making some really bad decisions. Some parents even sell their kids into slavery.
> 
> Blind faith in freedom leading to the best result is as naïve as those who thought communism would work.
> 
> Properly functioning markets will produce a certain type of good result. That doesn't mean markets always work or that a market result is always the best result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the hell kind of "logic" is _that_? Kids were terminated under Joseph Stalin in the U.S.S.R. How many Jewish children were slaughtered under Adolf Hitler?
> 
> Nobody can control the stupidity or cruelty of parents. I know a guy who made all 3 of his sons do some serious labor (we're talking clearing lumber, gravel, etc.) in the bitter cold while he sat in a warm car eating donuts and watching them. Do you really believe your child labor laws "saved" those children? Hell, at least children got PAID for their labor before those laws. These children didn't even get paid. So tell me, how are those labor laws working?
> 
> You cannot regulate cruelty out of people. Children are going to be mistreated in _any_ system (and they have).
> 
> Furthermore, I'm not saying we shouldn't have laws and regulations. I'm *not* an anarchist. I support minimum wage 100% (and again - as I've stated many times on USMB - *not* how it is handled, but I do support having it) for the basic principles that supply exceeds demand when it comes to labor. But the fact is - the federal government had no business getting into the banking business and forcing them to make risky loans.
> 
> The undeniable reality is, the free market (with a certain amount of regulation of course) is flawless because it will always balance itself out. The federal government is to blame for about 99.99999% of the issues we have with capitalism.
Click to expand...


Child labor was common because of market pressures and desperation. The lesson of the past and present is not that people can be cruel but that markets can be inelastic and that markets can be short sighted. Especially when people are looking for money to feed their family.

The loans to poor people were not the cause of the crash. The government played some role in the crash but there is plenty of blame to go around and the vast majority comes down to common problems markets can have. In this case a lot of it comes down to bad information being used to make decisions. Investments were graded incorrectly by ratings agencies. Investors thought the investments were secured when they were not. Investors had really no idea what they were really buying. Valuations of homes were simply based on what other homes in the area were going for which doesn't take into account long term predictions of home prices or other changes in the economy. 

A government mandated loan is known to be what it is and investors have been able to adapt.

The other major lesson of the crash is that it tells a story about the nature of capital flows in this country. When interest rates went down the hope was that capital would flow in a way as to help the economy get back on it's feet. The fact that capital flowed to the housing market, oil futures, gold, and other investments that are not US production is a rather clear sign that market is in trouble. Stagnating wages and growing income inequality is another sign.


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> The loans to poor people were not the cause of the crash. The government played some role in the crash but there is plenty of blame to go around and the vast majority comes down to common problems markets can have..



*BULLSHIT*

* The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

.........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria. 

.


----------



## RKMBrown

georgephillip said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I think it's refreshing to have a lefty so honest about what they actually want.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> *This lefty wants a reversal of our continuing decay into a corporate oligarchy:*
> 
> "Corporate oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities, lobbyists that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative.
> 
> "Monopolies are sometimes granted to state-controlled entities, such as the Royal Charter granted to the East India Company.
> 
> *"Today's multinational corporations function as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected officials.*
> 
> Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Pity that neither party is interested in breaking up monopolies or oligarchies, or performing any of their constitutionally assigned duties.   Both parties would rather focus on redistributing our income and acting as morality police than doing their job.


----------



## Bombur

Contumacious said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The loans to poor people were not the cause of the crash. The government played some role in the crash but there is plenty of blame to go around and the vast majority comes down to common problems markets can have..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*
> 
> * The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*
> 
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The loans to poor people were not the cause of the crash. The government played some role in the crash but there is plenty of blame to go around and the vast majority comes down to common problems markets can have..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*
> 
> * The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*
> 
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
Click to expand...


"The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who supported the Carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from. These included various "neighborhood organizations," as they like to call themselves, such as "ACORN" (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). *These organizations claim that over $1 trillion in CRA loans have been made,* although no one seems to know the magnitude with much certainty. A U.S. Senate Banking Committee staffer told me about ten years ago that at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the first twenty years of the Act."

.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The loans to poor people were not the cause of the crash. The government played some role in the crash but there is plenty of blame to go around and the vast majority comes down to common problems markets can have..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*
> 
> * The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*
> 
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you are simply "confused" by the numbers.

The bubble was created by a large number of speculators and "new" home buyers who did not have the income to back up their loans.  They were instead hoping the bubble never popped.  Prior to the CRA speculators and new home buyers had to prove income. The CRA not only ended that, in some cases it resulted in fining banks for requiring borrowers had proof of income.  In response some lenders lowered, and in some cases eliminated, lending requirements.  Prior to these actions America's home lending market was pretty stable, given that the lending requirements were so stiff.  In very short time bundles of risky loans were mixed with good loans hiding the risk to investors in the previously very good market with decent rates of returns.  

Then the bubble popped in the home sales market because of the recession.  Then the people who did not have income to pay for their risky loans had to pay, and they went belly up.. forcing even more homes on the depressed market... boom bubble explodes.  And now even good borrowers and investors are impacted... then everyone finds out about the risk mixing that occurred, thus resulting in cascade failure. 

So was it just the CRA? No, but it sure as hell started it.


----------



## Indeependent

The overwhelmingly number of Sub-Prime loans to non-qualified borrowers was under GW.
Plus the Sub-Primes were <3% of the crash
I would say, "Nice try.", but the idiocy of the statement doesn't deserve such.


----------



## Bombur

contumacious said:


> bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *bullshit*
> 
> * the government-created subprime mortgage meltdown*
> 
> by thomas j. Dilorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 community reinvestment act (cra), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the original lobbyists for the cra were the hardcore leftists who supported the carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the cra that they benefited from. These included various "neighborhood organizations," as they like to call themselves, such as "acorn" (association of community organizations for reform now). *these organizations claim that over $1 trillion in cra loans have been made,* although no one seems to know the magnitude with much certainty. A u.s. Senate banking committee staffer told me about ten years ago that at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the first twenty years of the act."
> 
> .
Click to expand...


lol


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*
> 
> * The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*
> 
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are simply "confused" by the numbers.
> 
> The bubble was created by a large number of speculators and "new" home buyers who did not have the income to back up their loans.  They were instead hoping the bubble never popped.  Prior to the CRA speculators and new home buyers had to prove income. The CRA not only ended that, in some cases it resulted in fining banks for requiring borrowers had proof of income.  In response some lenders lowered, and in some cases eliminated, lending requirements.  Prior to these actions America's home lending market was pretty stable, given that the lending requirements were so stiff.  In very short time bundles of risky loans were mixed with good loans hiding the risk to investors in the previously very good market with decent rates of returns.
> 
> Then the bubble popped in the home sales market because of the recession.  Then the people who did not have income to pay for their risky loans had to pay, and they went belly up.. forcing even more homes on the depressed market... boom bubble explodes.  And now even good borrowers and investors are impacted... then everyone finds out about the risk mixing that occurred, thus resulting in cascade failure.
> 
> So was it just the CRA? No, but it sure as hell started it.
Click to expand...


The only thing you said that was on point was that the risk was hidden to investors.

Your attempt to talk about the failure rate of these loans is not based in reality. The idea that the CRA started it is not based in reality.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are simply "confused" by the numbers.
> 
> The bubble was created by a large number of speculators and "new" home buyers who did not have the income to back up their loans.  They were instead hoping the bubble never popped.  Prior to the CRA speculators and new home buyers had to prove income. The CRA not only ended that, in some cases it resulted in fining banks for requiring borrowers had proof of income.  In response some lenders lowered, and in some cases eliminated, lending requirements.  Prior to these actions America's home lending market was pretty stable, given that the lending requirements were so stiff.  In very short time bundles of risky loans were mixed with good loans hiding the risk to investors in the previously very good market with decent rates of returns.
> 
> Then the bubble popped in the home sales market because of the recession.  Then the people who did not have income to pay for their risky loans had to pay, and they went belly up.. forcing even more homes on the depressed market... boom bubble explodes.  And now even good borrowers and investors are impacted... then everyone finds out about the risk mixing that occurred, thus resulting in cascade failure.
> 
> So was it just the CRA? No, but it sure as hell started it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you said that was on point was that the risk was hidden to investors.
> 
> Your attempt to talk about the failure rate of these loans is not based in reality. The idea that the CRA started it is not based in reality.
Click to expand...


Wrong. 

Government pushing new home ownership was DIRECTLY related to the bubble, the CRA being a HUGE part of the Federal Government actions taken to create the bubble.  Perhaps you don't understand what cause bubbles to start with or what makes them go pop?

Artificially inflating a sector by infusing government regulations and redistributing income.. almost always leads to an artificial price bubble that pops.


----------



## gnarlylove

DBlack, I think our differences are more perceived than actual. We apparently agree on the bulk of what's going on and have at least a few ideas that align on how to tackle it. This is welcomed news since this thread is littered with opposition. How do you propose moving beyond this mire?

Opponents are "right" given the information (ie much is media propaganda) they have but their information is lacking in serious aspects. Who the real culprits are for civilizations' discontent is not the poor who lack opportunities (and are often underfed which leads to developmental issues as kids). Would you agree? I think the responsibility is on our part (ie everyone) to seek truth and empathy over ego. These are hard decisions but must be made if we wish to advance society to a state where everyone benefits more from non-zero sum games, not just the wealthy elite. Of course we all have benefits but its disproportionate on scales that simply do not compute in the realm of justice. like 85 richest ppl=3.5billion poor (USA Today).


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are simply "confused" by the numbers.
> 
> The bubble was created by a large number of speculators and "new" home buyers who did not have the income to back up their loans.  They were instead hoping the bubble never popped.  Prior to the CRA speculators and new home buyers had to prove income. The CRA not only ended that, in some cases it resulted in fining banks for requiring borrowers had proof of income.  In response some lenders lowered, and in some cases eliminated, lending requirements.  Prior to these actions America's home lending market was pretty stable, given that the lending requirements were so stiff.  In very short time bundles of risky loans were mixed with good loans hiding the risk to investors in the previously very good market with decent rates of returns.
> 
> Then the bubble popped in the home sales market because of the recession.  Then the people who did not have income to pay for their risky loans had to pay, and they went belly up.. forcing even more homes on the depressed market... boom bubble explodes.  And now even good borrowers and investors are impacted... then everyone finds out about the risk mixing that occurred, thus resulting in cascade failure.
> 
> So was it just the CRA? No, but it sure as hell started it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you said that was on point was that the risk was hidden to investors.
> 
> Your attempt to talk about the failure rate of these loans is not based in reality. The idea that the CRA started it is not based in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Government pushing new home ownership was DIRECTLY related to the bubble, the CRA being a HUGE part of the Federal Government actions taken to create the bubble.  Perhaps you don't understand what cause bubbles to start with or what makes them go pop?
> 
> Artificially inflating a sector by infusing government regulations and redistributing income.. almost always leads to an artificial price bubble that pops.
Click to expand...


Yeah none of that is true.

If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. Lower interest rates mean lower monthly payments which means people can afford a higher cost house. Ergo prices went up fast. 

Once home prices started going up fast people started treating them like financial instruments which only inflated their prices more. In order for this bubble to happen there has to be a massive capital inflow into these investments. Once again we can look at the Federal Reserve for why that happened. 

I am not one to blame the Federal Reserve for private citizens making bad financial choices even if they had a part in the changes in prices.


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the original lobbyists for the cra were the hardcore leftists who supported the carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the cra that they benefited from. These included various "neighborhood organizations," as they like to call themselves, such as "acorn" (association of community organizations for reform now). *these organizations claim that over $1 trillion in cra loans have been made,* although no one seems to know the magnitude with much certainty. A u.s. Senate banking committee staffer told me about ten years ago that at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the first twenty years of the act."
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


*"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America *billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters."

.


----------



## Bombur

Contumacious said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the original lobbyists for the cra were the hardcore leftists who supported the carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the cra that they benefited from. These included various "neighborhood organizations," as they like to call themselves, such as "acorn" (association of community organizations for reform now). *these organizations claim that over $1 trillion in cra loans have been made,* although no one seems to know the magnitude with much certainty. A u.s. Senate banking committee staffer told me about ten years ago that at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the first twenty years of the act."
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America *billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters."
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## itfitzme

Rottweiler said:


> Capitalism is flawless. It's flawless because it is freedom. The employer is free to make what he/she feels is the best decisions for their business, the employee is free to work where they want. They are *not* "exploited" (that is just the desperate Dumbocrat battle cry to demonize through lies what they cannot demonize through facts) - they freely choose to work where they do and are compensated for their time. If they don't like it, they can quit any time they want and go work somewhere else. Better still, they are even free to quit their job and start their own business!
> 
> The reason we have the problems that we do is because we don't have capitalism. We have the government Dumbocrats unconstitutionally interfering with the markets and collapsing what ever they touch (see housing market, investment market, etc.).



*"Capitalism is flawless. It's flawless because it is freedom. "* and *"The reason we have the problems that we do is because we don't have capitalism." * are statements made by someone that doesn't understand economics.   

If markets met the criteria for an ideal market, then capitalism might be "flawless."  The real economy has what are called inefficiencies.  There are no real markets that are ideal markets.  The problem rests in the fact that real markets are inefficient.

There is simply no such thing as "flawless capitalism".


----------



## itfitzme

The housing bubble was exactly what can be expected of a inefficient free market.  The bubble and it's subsequent collapse were the result of "flippers".  Individuals purchasing three or more homes with the expectation of gaining a return on rising prices, due to demand, drove the rising prices.  This is a typical free market process.  When the prices began to decelerate, they began walking away from the mortgages they held.  The result was futher decelleration in prices.


----------



## itfitzme

The reason that capitalism guaranteed rising inequality is the imbalance in market power between supply and demand within a single market and between different markets.  This can be quantified in terms of the elasticities of demand and supply.

The labor market seldomly has high market power on the supply side.  Obviously, wages are driven down.  There are a number of product markets that have high market power on the supply side.  The demand side has low price elasticity and high price elasticity of supply.  The price elasticity of supply is estimated at 1.61 for gasoline.  

The imbalance of market power and other market inefficiencies results in an uneven flow of money.  Imbalance of market power is a market inefficiency.  The uneven flow of monies away from the majority of markets causes monies to accumulate in small "regions".   "Regions" may be taken litterally, as in N.Y. It also includes particular products, companies, and occupations.

The economy is dependent on the free flow of monies.  When monies become "choked off", due to market power imbalances, it causes the general economy to "wind down".

Google "price elasticity and market power"


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America *billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters."
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


But this is discriminatory!, complained the "community organizations." *Thus, if one browses the ACORN web site, one can read of their boasts of having "predatory lending laws" passed in numerous states which outlaw such fees, prohibiting banks from protecting themselves from the added risk involved in making forced loans to "subprime" borrowers.*

.


----------



## Contumacious

itfitzme said:


> The housing bubble was exactly what can be expected of a inefficient free market.  .



*Excuse me dingle berry, Sir:

Explain clearly and succinctly why is the GOVERNMENT MANDATED CRA considered "free market"?!?!?!?!?*


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The loans to poor people were not the cause of the crash. The government played some role in the crash but there is plenty of blame to go around and the vast majority comes down to common problems markets can have..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*
> 
> * The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*
> 
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
Click to expand...


When banks hand millions of people hundreds of thousands of dollars, but not only do not get the interest on that back, they don't even the principle back - yes, that collapses housing markets.

Ask yourself if you can _do_ basic math!


----------



## itfitzme

Contumacious said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The housing bubble was exactly what can be expected of a inefficient free market.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Excuse me dingle berry, Sir:
> 
> Explain clearly and succinctly why is the GOVERNMENT MANDATED CRA consider "free market"?!?!?!?!?*
Click to expand...


Your big font with no actual information just makes you look really stupid.

First, CRA didn't cause the housing bubble.

Second, the entire economy is entirely dependent on the continuous borrowing of capital to create the money supply.  This includes home loans.  CRA simply balances the flow of monies through the economy.

CRA loans were not the loaned that defaulted.

Additionally, the bubble and subsequent collapse was driven by speculation.

Speculation driven bubbles are a normal and expected free market effect.

The biggest conceptual issue appears to be a lack of understanding of what an ideal free market is and what real inefficient markets are.  Ideal free markets have perfect competition and perfect information.  There is no real perfect or ideal "free markets".

And additional error is in the belief that market regulation means it isn't a free market.  Regulation is often designed to create and maintain free markets.  It often maintains a balance that is required for it to be a free market.  The most basic is contract law.  Without contract law there would be no free markets and trust completely collapsed.  CRA doesn't mean "no free market".  

A big problem that led to the housing speculation bubble collapse was speculators receiving "no doc" and "low doc" loans.  "No doc" and "low doc" are, precisely, less information and thus a market inefficiency.  

In the end, it was the speculative bubble that burst, taking down the financial system as the mortgages were part of MBS and insured by credit default swaps.

The fact is that



> ""While banks did engage in subprime lending in their [CRA] assessment areas, they did so at a lower rate than the market in general and accounted for only a small fraction of subprime loans to lower-income borrowers and lower-income neighborhoods. The data suggest that far from being forced into risky corners of the market, the institutions under the scrutiny of the CRA were crowded out by unregulated lenders."



Inequality and crash: How exactly did inequality fuel the crisis? | The Economist

And it was flippers that defaulted.



> investors likely helped push prices up during 2004-06; but when prices turned down in early 2006, they defaulted in large numbers and thereby contributed importantly to the intensity of the housing cycles downward leg.



?Flip This House?: Investor Speculation and the Housing Bubble - Liberty Street Economics



> know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act



Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek

But, hey, if you don't want to learn about economics from actual economist, it's a free country.

Given the choice of the writers at The Economics, researchers at The Federal Reserve Bank, and experts at business at Business Week or a dingle berry like you, I'll go with the educated professionals.


----------



## itfitzme

Rottweiler said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*
> 
> * The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*
> 
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When banks hand millions of people hundreds of thousands of dollars, but not only do not get the interest on that back, they don't even the principle back - yes, that collapses housing markets.
> 
> Ask yourself if you can _do_ basic math!
Click to expand...


Again, you can't do math because you can't measure reality.


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are simply "confused" by the numbers.
> 
> The bubble was created by a large number of speculators and "new" home buyers who did not have the income to back up their loans.  They were instead hoping the bubble never popped.  Prior to the CRA speculators and new home buyers had to prove income. The CRA not only ended that, in some cases it resulted in fining banks for requiring borrowers had proof of income.  In response some lenders lowered, and in some cases eliminated, lending requirements.  Prior to these actions America's home lending market was pretty stable, given that the lending requirements were so stiff.  In very short time bundles of risky loans were mixed with good loans hiding the risk to investors in the previously very good market with decent rates of returns.
> 
> Then the bubble popped in the home sales market because of the recession.  Then the people who did not have income to pay for their risky loans had to pay, and they went belly up.. forcing even more homes on the depressed market... boom bubble explodes.  And now even good borrowers and investors are impacted... then everyone finds out about the risk mixing that occurred, thus resulting in cascade failure.
> 
> So was it just the CRA? No, but it sure as hell started it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The only thing you said that was on point was that the risk was hidden to investors*.
> 
> Your attempt to talk about the failure rate of these loans is not based in reality. The idea that the CRA started it is not based in reality.
Click to expand...


That is a blatant *LIE* which I have debunked many times already on USMB and which I am getting damn tired of hearing liberals spread because of their own failures.

*Nothing* was "hidden" from investors. Just ask Dr. Michael Burry who created the Credit Default Swaps. He made over $700 million when the housing market bubble burst.

How? Because every last detail was clearly and thoroughly documented in the investment prospectus's. Unlike the lazy liberals and the greedy Republicans, he actually read the prospectus's and saw that the loans kept getting riskier and riskier and kept getting rolled up into more and more "investments" to "hedge" against the risk.

So he went to Wall Street and said "will you sell me insurance against these rolled up housing loan investments". Wall Street, of course, said hell yeah! Enter "Credit Default Swaps". This has been well documented in a book called "The Big Short: inside the doomsday machine" and was also covered in depth by 60 Minutes.

When you claim that anything was "hidden" from investors - you prove you are talking out of your ass, making shit up, and completely ignorant of the subject matter.

Michael Burry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ame=http://youtu.be/FMt_ZczGmEU]60 Min. episode - Wall Street- Inside the Collapse P-1 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## P@triot

itfitzme said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When banks hand millions of people hundreds of thousands of dollars, but not only do not get the interest on that back, they don't even the principle back - yes, that collapses housing markets.
> 
> Ask yourself if you can _do_ basic math!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you can't do math because you can't measure reality.
Click to expand...


We've backed up everything we've said with facts, links, and hard data. What have you got, junior? Nothing but uninformed opinion. You're so far removed from "reality" in your immature daydream of utopia you don't even recognize reality any more. Sad.


----------



## itfitzme

Rottweiler said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> When banks hand millions of people hundreds of thousands of dollars, but not only do not get the interest on that back, they don't even the principle back - yes, that collapses housing markets.
> 
> Ask yourself if you can _do_ basic math!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you can't do math because you can't measure reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've backed up everything we've said with facts, links, and hard data. What have you got, junior? Nothing but uninformed opinion. You're so far removed from "reality" in your immature daydream of utopia you don't even recognize reality any more. Sad.
Click to expand...


It is pretty obvious you haven't debunked or proven anything.  Saying "I debunked it" doesn't make it debunked.  And, in order to say, "hard data", you actually have to have hard data.


----------



## Contumacious

itfitzme said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The housing bubble was exactly what can be expected of a inefficient free market.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Excuse me dingle berry, Sir:
> 
> Explain clearly and succinctly why is the GOVERNMENT MANDATED CRA consider "free market"?!?!?!?!?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your big font with no actual information just makes you look really stupid.
> 
> First, CRA didn't cause the housing bubble.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


BULLSHIT
*
The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

.........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), *which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria. *

.


----------



## itfitzme

Contumacious said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Excuse me dingle berry, Sir:
> 
> Explain clearly and succinctly why is the GOVERNMENT MANDATED CRA consider "free market"?!?!?!?!?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your big font with no actual information just makes you look really stupid.
> 
> First, CRA didn't cause the housing bubble.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
> *
> The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*
> 
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), *which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria. *
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Repeating statements made by hacks with no supporting data doesn't mean anything.

What you have is simple bs.

You can't make all the big fonts you but all you are doing is demonstrating that you can't tell the difference between a font and actual info.

But hey, if you want to waste good money on that hacks book, go ahead.


----------



## Contumacious

itfitzme said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your big font with no actual information just makes you look really stupid.
> 
> First, CRA didn't cause the housing bubble.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
> *
> The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*
> 
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), *which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria. *
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating statements made by hacks with no supporting data doesn't mean anything.
Click to expand...


Isn't it a fact you low life scum sucker that :

"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters." ?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

/


----------



## P@triot

itfitzme said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you can't do math because you can't measure reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've backed up everything we've said with facts, links, and hard data. What have you got, junior? Nothing but uninformed opinion. You're so far removed from "reality" in your immature daydream of utopia you don't even recognize reality any more. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is pretty obvious you haven't debunked or proven anything.  Saying "I debunked it" doesn't make it debunked.  And, in order to say, "hard data", you actually have to have hard data.
Click to expand...


There is nothing worse than the partisan asshat hacks like you. You've been slaughtered with facts in this thread. You're inability to accept reality is your problem. Not ours. You've been thoroughly _owned_...


----------



## gnarlylove

Yeah, Jamie Dimon's bonus was too low. All those poor bankers, they are crippled by CRA. They can't do good business when basic regulatory features that were intended to balance the economy prevents them from profiting all the time. Such a wretched catch 22 to be a banker and not as rich/irresponsible as you wish.


----------



## P@triot

itfitzme said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your big font with no actual information just makes you look really stupid.
> 
> First, CRA didn't cause the housing bubble.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
> *
> The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*
> 
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), *which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria. *
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating statements made by hacks with no supporting data doesn't mean anything.
> 
> What you have is simple bs.
> 
> You can't make all the big fonts you but all you are doing is demonstrating that you can't tell the difference between a font and actual info.
> 
> But hey, if you want to waste good money on that hacks book, go ahead.
Click to expand...


So the person in this article is a "hack", but [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION] who is sitting in his government subsidized home on his government subsidized computer is "someone" 

We've crushed with you facts, links, and indisputable hard data. You're inability to accept reality because it clashes with your immature ideology is _your_ problem junior....

Game. Set. Match.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Yeah, Jamie Dimon's bonus was too low. All those poor bankers, they are crippled by CRA. They can't do good business when basic regulatory features that were intended to balance the economy prevents them from profiting all the time. Such a wretched catch 22 to be a banker and not as rich/irresponsible as you wish.



"Balance the economy"? Really? "Balance the economy"? Oh man, you are _new_ - aren't you? Let me guess, you believe Obama really, truly, actually cares about _you_ as well, uh? 

The Community Re-Investment Act was never intended to "balance" the economy (that's such a nonsensical term I don't know whether to fall down laughing or throw up in disgust). The economy requires no "balancing" (you do realize that an economy is not a car tire, don't you?).

It was done for one reason and one reasonably only (the same reason the Dumbocrats do anything) - to funnel "stuff" to the parasite class in exchange for *power*.

This dude is the most naive crunch granola liberal I have ever encountered. I almost want to take him home with me!


----------



## gnarlylove

I know Obama is the same scum that is groomed by social and political elites. I am not ignorant of this fact Rot. I hope you are not ignorant to the fact neither parties represent public interest as much as their own.

When you think poor people are parasites, its natural for you to think any investment in their well-being or security is outlandish and not worthwhile. That's fine, so long as you know that such policies only further entrench education and achievement gaps creating an ever growing "parasite class." I assume you don't want more parasites do you? CRA helps regulate capital flow in a manner that reduces favoritism towards those who are already wealthy. Us parasites wouldn't be parasites if we had the same opportunities and education but you choose to frame this as a political match rather than real human issues. That's fine and bleed Republican all you want but you cannot escape the fact the same blood you bleed is the same that runs throughout all humanity, even the lowliest of parasites. (4 basic blood types)

DBlack, I know I've offered a bunch of sources but found this to be apt for our discussion:
A Capitalist Road to Communism


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public banks? Awesome!
> Just what Illinois needs, another way for our crooked politicians to reward their friends.
> 
> 
> 
> *Illinois should go Red*
> 
> "But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America.
> 
> "Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota?
> 
> "Why haven't the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?
> 
> "Because it works.
> 
> "In 1919, the Non-Partisan League, a vibrant populist organization, won a majority in the legislature and voted the bank into existence.
> 
> "The goal was to free North Dakota farmers from impoverishing debt dependence on the big banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York.
> 
> "More than 90 years later, this state-owned bank is thriving as it helps the state's community banks, businesses, consumers and students obtain loans at reasonable rates.
> 
> "It also delivers a handsome profit to its owners -- the 700,000 residents of North Dakota.
> 
> "In 2011, the BND provided more than $70 million to the state's coffers.
> 
> "Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."
> 
> Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota? | Alternet
> 
> *Awesome, right?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your idiocy is awesome!
> 
> *"Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."*
> 
> Where is California, or Illinois, going to get the money to start the bank?
> Why put the taxpayer on the hook for crony loans?
> Even if you somehow started out only making sane, conservative loans, political pressure would soon result in loans to green, that means money-losing, projects.
Click to expand...

"As large as California's liabilities are, *they are exceeded by its assets, which are sufficient to capitalize a bank rivaling any in the world. *

"That's the idea behind Assembly Bill 750, introduced by Assemblyman Ben Hueso of San Diego, which would establish a blue ribbon task force to consider the viability of creating the California Investment Trust, a state bank receiving deposits of state funds. 

"Instead of relying on Wall Street banks for credit -- or allowing Wall Street banks to enjoy the benefits of lending its capital -- California may decide to create its own, publicly-owned bank.

"On May 2, AB 750 moved out of the Banking and Finance Committee with only one nay vote and is now on its way to the Appropriations Committee. Three unions submitted their support for the bill -- the California Nurses Association, the California Firefighters and the California Labor Council. 

"The state bank idea also got a nod from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in his speech at the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento the previous day.

"California joins eleven other states that have introduced bills to form state-owned banks or to study their feasibility. 

"Eight of these bills were introduced just since January, including in Oregon, Washington State, Massachusetts, Arizona, Maryland, New Mexico, Maine and California. *Illinois*, Virginia, Hawaii and Louisiana introduced similar bills in 2010. For links, dates and text, see here."

*Can't police your pols?
Move to Jersey.*

Ellen Brown: What a Public Bank Could Mean for California


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> I know Obama is the same scum that is groomed by social and political elites. I am not ignorant of this fact Rot. I hope you are not ignorant to the fact neither parties represent public interest as much as their own.
> 
> When you think poor people are parasites, its natural for you to think any investment in their well-being or security is outlandish and not worthwhile. That's fine, so long as you know that such policies only further entrench education and achievement gaps creating an ever growing "parasite class." I assume you don't want more parasites do you? CRA helps regulate capital flow in a manner that reduces favoritism towards those who are already wealthy. Us parasites wouldn't be parasites if we had the same opportunities and education but you choose to frame this as a political match rather than real human issues. That's fine and bleed Republican all you want but you cannot escape the fact the same blood you bleed is the same that runs throughout all humanity, even the lowliest of parasites. (4 basic blood types)
> 
> DBlack, I know I've offered a bunch of sources but found this to be apt for our discussion:
> A Capitalist Road to Communism



GL - history has proven that people control their own path both _in_ and _out_ of poverty. Make the decision to have "fun" shooting up heroin at a party - end up _in_ poverty. Make the decision to get an education - end up _out_ of poverty.

This is not rocket science and there is no mystical force controlling in all. Therefore, it does not require an unconstitutional "investment" in the parasite class. Any person in poverty right now can get a minimum wage job at McDonald's and have their tuition paid in full.

You operate under the assumption that the entire thing is beyond the control of people and that is simply false. Show me a person in poverty more than a decade and I will show you a person who is either lazy, stupid, or addicted to some substance _every_ time.


----------



## itfitzme

Contumacious said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT
> *
> The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*
> 
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), *which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria. *
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating statements made by hacks with no supporting data doesn't mean anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it a fact you low life scum sucker that :
> 
> "Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters." ?!?!?!?!?!?!!?
> 
> /
Click to expand...


The emotional rhetoric is a complete nonsequiter.  I'm sure you feel that "bureaucratic masters" has meaning.  It doesn't.

I can guarantee that you have no actual evidence to back up " they will have to suffer from more loan defaults".

I am sure you believe these must be true.

I am sure you believe alot of thing must be true that aren't.


----------



## itfitzme

Rottweiler said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've backed up everything we've said with facts, links, and hard data. What have you got, junior? Nothing but uninformed opinion. You're so far removed from "reality" in your immature daydream of utopia you don't even recognize reality any more. Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty obvious you haven't debunked or proven anything.  Saying "I debunked it" doesn't make it debunked.  And, in order to say, "hard data", you actually have to have hard data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing worse than the partisan asshat hacks like you. You've been slaughtered with facts in this thread. You're inability to accept reality is your problem. Not ours. You've been thoroughly _owned_...
Click to expand...


No doubt you believe it.  You haven't done anything though.  All yoi've managed to do is make unsupported claims.  It is one thing to say "it's been debunked".  It js a completely different thing to actually presemt the numbers.  

The problem you have is that you don't know what real substantiating evidence is.


----------



## boedicca

Socialism guarantees increased equality at a level of squalor, excepting of course, the Rarified Overlords entrusted to tell us how to live.


----------



## Contumacious

itfitzme said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating statements made by hacks with no supporting data doesn't mean anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it a fact you low life scum sucker that :
> 
> "Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters." ?!?!?!?!?!?!!?
> 
> /
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The emotional rhetoric is a complete nonsequiter.  I'm sure you feel that "bureaucratic masters" has meaning.  It doesn't.
> 
> I can guarantee that you have no actual evidence to back up " they will have to suffer from more loan defaults".
> 
> I am sure you believe these must be true.
> 
> I am sure you believe alot of thing must be true that aren't.
Click to expand...

*
"Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?," *

*  Yes, it did. *We use exogenous variation in banks incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming."


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The loans to poor people were not the cause of the crash. The government played some role in the crash but there is plenty of blame to go around and the vast majority comes down to common problems markets can have..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*
> 
> * The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*
> 
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

*Wall Street speculators and their DC cronies caused the subprime mortgage meltdown:*

"The subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, not the public market. 

"Subprime is a creature of the private label securitization channel (PLS) market, instead of the Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie). 

"The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.

"Here's some data to back that up: 'More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions... Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.'"

*The majority of loans responsible for the meltdown were made by private institutions not even covered by CRA loan requirements.*

No, Marco Rubio, government did not cause the housing crisis


----------



## itfitzme

Rottweiler said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Jamie Dimon's bonus was too low. All those poor bankers, they are crippled by CRA. They can't do good business when basic regulatory features that were intended to balance the economy prevents them from profiting all the time. Such a wretched catch 22 to be a banker and not as rich/irresponsible as you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Balance the economy"? Really? "Balance the economy"? Oh man, you are _new_ - aren't you? Let me guess, you believe Obama really, truly, actually cares about _you_ as well, uh?
> 
> The Community Re-Investment Act was never intended to "balance" the economy (that's such a nonsensical term I don't know whether to fall down laughing or throw up in disgust). The economy requires no "balancing" (you do realize that an economy is not a car tire, don't you?).
> 
> It was done for one reason and one reasonably only (the same reason the Dumbocrats do anything) - to funnel "stuff" to the parasite class in exchange for *power*.
> 
> This dude is the most naive crunch granola liberal I have ever encountered. I almost want to take him home with me!
Click to expand...


Again, you say nothing significant except to demonstrate ignorance.

Tell us, oh brilliant economist, what is mathematical the definition of price elasticity?  How is it related to market power?

What is the criteria at which a company has maximized profit.  Derive it.

And regarding your CRA bs, surely you can present the histrical data of the percentage of CRA loans; 1st, 2nd, 3rd and fourth mortages; subprime loans; govt guaranteed motgages along with the default rates of each.

It's a little thing that economists like to call "counting".  It is common among the sciences and necessary "to do the math".

Saying "naive crunch granola liberal" means nothing except that you are good at mental masterbation.  You are great at spouting meaningless insults but can't actualy present researched material, hard data, or deductive arguments from basic principles.


----------



## gnarlylove

I agree people are ultimately responsible for their exit of poverty. After all, they are the individuals in question. However, when gaps in education, income, and opportunities are so severe that people are literally better off joining a gang and selling drugs from an economic standpoint then we have a problem. To you we only have a problem when it affects you and the rest of the world can fuck off. This is classic selfish display and is widely held by many Americans. Indeed, selfishness drives the economy.

However, capitalism has not removed scarcity. Scarcity is rampant in Africa, parts of Asia esp Southeast, and definitely here in America. Those lines I've waited in for soup kitchens represent scarcity yet I could walk into any store with endlessly stocked shelves. This demonstrates the raw power capitalism and its success at being able to produce and manufacture goods.

We are really good at production (globally) and we rely on cheap labor (less than 2 dollars oftentimes). In other words, in order to maintain our global production at affordable prices, we need people to live in scarcity otherwise the rest of us who do not have a big savings would be significantly threatened by having to pay many times higher than the currently affordable prices. And not just a few but billions would be threatened since the middle class is the largest class.

So if we ever wish to reduce the number of parasites, we must address our view of selfish behavior as a desirable trait. In capitalism it drives the economy. Other incentives exist such as recognition, praise, internal reward of helping another person among many others. As long as selfish desire is the baseline incentive, we are going to have "parasites." That's why I think capitalism is far from the final stage of social evolution. As long as all humanity stakes claim to dignity and fair treatment and equal access to basic needs capitalism is going to be revised and revised to meet the demands of all us fabulous parasites.

If you could for just one second realize what it would feel like to have people like yourself shouting at you to work at McDonalds "just get a damn job" when it simply isn't that simple. Indeed, if everyone decided to pick themselves up by their bootstraps suddenly, only a small percentage would be hired because there simply aren't enough jobs (because there is not enough demand in the economy) to create an extra 13 million McDonalds jobs (not even to mention the long term unemployed demarcated @ 6 months). So simply getting hired is not even a realistic strategy save for a small number of individuals.

Your understanding of concepts are good but you fail to grasp certain essential concepts that causes your ideas to have holes, quite large like a well worn prostitute.

It's funny you mention MickeyD's. They rely on socialism to succeed or more accurately the welfare state. Their employees simply cannot support themselves or families without public assistance AND MCDONALDS KNOWS THIS. In fact, MickeyD's has a hotline just for employees to learn more about these programs cause they know their wages are too low. Once again the private gain of a few greedy directors results in the taxpayers picking up the slack despite the fact they made 5 Billion in profits last year! Please take a moment to watch this short clip:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olUsgn-Ubh0]McResources "Help" Line - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip

RKMBrown said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I think it's refreshing to have a lefty so honest about what they actually want.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> *This lefty wants a reversal of our continuing decay into a corporate oligarchy:*
> 
> "Corporate oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities, lobbyists that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative.
> 
> "Monopolies are sometimes granted to state-controlled entities, such as the Royal Charter granted to the East India Company.
> 
> *"Today's multinational corporations function as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected officials.*
> 
> Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pity that neither party is interested in breaking up monopolies or oligarchies, or performing any of their constitutionally assigned duties.   Both parties would rather focus on redistributing our income and acting as morality police than doing their job.
Click to expand...

It's impossible for me to imagine how we change this dynamic by continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican for our congressional representatives; there are established third-party alternatives already appearing on many US ballots...?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you said that was on point was that the risk was hidden to investors.
> 
> Your attempt to talk about the failure rate of these loans is not based in reality. The idea that the CRA started it is not based in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Government pushing new home ownership was DIRECTLY related to the bubble, the CRA being a HUGE part of the Federal Government actions taken to create the bubble.  Perhaps you don't understand what cause bubbles to start with or what makes them go pop?
> 
> Artificially inflating a sector by infusing government regulations and redistributing income.. almost always leads to an artificial price bubble that pops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah none of that is true.
> 
> If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. Lower interest rates mean lower monthly payments which means people can afford a higher cost house. Ergo prices went up fast.
> 
> Once home prices started going up fast people started treating them like financial instruments which only inflated their prices more. In order for this bubble to happen there has to be a massive capital inflow into these investments. Once again we can look at the Federal Reserve for why that happened.
> 
> I am not one to blame the Federal Reserve for private citizens making bad financial choices even if they had a part in the changes in prices.
Click to expand...


*If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. *

When did the Fed lower rates "too much"?
What level should they have made rates to prevent the bubble?
At what time?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This lefty wants a reversal of our continuing decay into a corporate oligarchy:*
> 
> "Corporate oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities, lobbyists that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative.
> 
> "Monopolies are sometimes granted to state-controlled entities, such as the Royal Charter granted to the East India Company.
> 
> *"Today's multinational corporations function as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected officials.*
> 
> Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Pity that neither party is interested in breaking up monopolies or oligarchies, or performing any of their constitutionally assigned duties.   Both parties would rather focus on redistributing our income and acting as morality police than doing their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's impossible for me to imagine how we change this dynamic by continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican for our congressional representatives; there are established third-party alternatives already appearing on many US ballots...?
Click to expand...


I encourage you and all your friends to vote for the Communist Party candidate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Illinois should go Red*
> 
> "But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America.
> 
> "Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota?
> 
> "Why haven't the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?
> 
> "Because it works.
> 
> "In 1919, the Non-Partisan League, a vibrant populist organization, won a majority in the legislature and voted the bank into existence.
> 
> "The goal was to free North Dakota farmers from impoverishing debt dependence on the big banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York.
> 
> "More than 90 years later, this state-owned bank is thriving as it helps the state's community banks, businesses, consumers and students obtain loans at reasonable rates.
> 
> "It also delivers a handsome profit to its owners -- the 700,000 residents of North Dakota.
> 
> "In 2011, the BND provided more than $70 million to the state's coffers.
> 
> "Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."
> 
> Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota? | Alternet
> 
> *Awesome, right?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your idiocy is awesome!
> 
> *"Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."*
> 
> Where is California, or Illinois, going to get the money to start the bank?
> Why put the taxpayer on the hook for crony loans?
> Even if you somehow started out only making sane, conservative loans, political pressure would soon result in loans to green, that means money-losing, projects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "As large as California's liabilities are, *they are exceeded by its assets, which are sufficient to capitalize a bank rivaling any in the world. *
> 
> "That's the idea behind Assembly Bill 750, introduced by Assemblyman Ben Hueso of San Diego, which would establish a blue ribbon task force to consider the viability of creating the California Investment Trust, a state bank receiving deposits of state funds.
> 
> "Instead of relying on Wall Street banks for credit -- or allowing Wall Street banks to enjoy the benefits of lending its capital -- California may decide to create its own, publicly-owned bank.
> 
> "On May 2, AB 750 moved out of the Banking and Finance Committee with only one nay vote and is now on its way to the Appropriations Committee. Three unions submitted their support for the bill -- the California Nurses Association, the California Firefighters and the California Labor Council.
> 
> "The state bank idea also got a nod from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in his speech at the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento the previous day.
> 
> "California joins eleven other states that have introduced bills to form state-owned banks or to study their feasibility.
> 
> "Eight of these bills were introduced just since January, including in Oregon, Washington State, Massachusetts, Arizona, Maryland, New Mexico, Maine and California. *Illinois*, Virginia, Hawaii and Louisiana introduced similar bills in 2010. For links, dates and text, see here."
> 
> *Can't police your pols?
> Move to Jersey.*
> 
> Ellen Brown: What a Public Bank Could Mean for California
Click to expand...

*
"As large as California's liabilities are, they are exceeded by its assets, which are sufficient to capitalize a bank rivaling any in the world.*

Which assets should they use to "capitalize" this bank?

*"That's the idea behind Assembly Bill 750, introduced by Assemblyman Ben Hueso of San Diego, which would establish a blue ribbon task force to consider the viability of creating the California Investment Trust, a state bank receiving deposits of state funds.*

State funds? If they take in $104 billion and spend $106 billion, where is this extra money they can lend out coming from?

*"Instead of relying on Wall Street banks for credit -- or allowing Wall Street banks to enjoy the benefits of lending its capital -- California may decide to create its own, publicly-owned bank.*

Yes, more money for politicians to buy favors with!

*"The state bank idea also got a nod from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in his speech at the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento the previous day.*

If Robby is for it, it's clearly a bad idea.

*Ellen Brown*

Silly old hack.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> I agree people are ultimately responsible for their exit of poverty. After all, they are the individuals in question. However, when gaps in education, income, and opportunities are so severe that people are literally better off joining a gang and selling drugs from an economic standpoint then we have a problem. To you we only have a problem when it affects you and the rest of the world can fuck off. This is classic selfish display and is widely held by many Americans. Indeed, selfishness drives the economy.
> 
> However, capitalism has not removed scarcity. Scarcity is rampant in Africa, parts of Asia esp Southeast, and definitely here in America. Those lines I've waited in for soup kitchens represent scarcity yet I could walk into any store with endlessly stocked shelves. This demonstrates the raw power capitalism and its success at being able to produce and manufacture goods.
> 
> We are really good at production (globally) and we rely on cheap labor (less than 2 dollars oftentimes). In other words, in order to maintain our global production at affordable prices, we need people to live in scarcity otherwise the rest of us who do not have a big savings would be significantly threatened by having to pay many times higher than the currently affordable prices. And not just a few but billions would be threatened since the middle class is the largest class.
> 
> So if we ever wish to reduce the number of parasites, we must address our view of selfish behavior as a desirable trait. In capitalism it drives the economy. Other incentives exist such as recognition, praise, internal reward of helping another person among many others. As long as selfish desire is the baseline incentive, we are going to have "parasites." That's why I think capitalism is far from the final stage of social evolution. As long as all humanity stakes claim to dignity and fair treatment and equal access to basic needs capitalism is going to be revised and revised to meet the demands of all us fabulous parasites.
> 
> If you could for just one second realize what it would feel like to have people like yourself shouting at you to work at McDonalds "just get a damn job" when it simply isn't that simple. Indeed, if everyone decided to pick themselves up by their bootstraps suddenly, only a small percentage would be hired because there simply aren't enough jobs (because there is not enough demand in the economy) to create an extra 13 million McDonalds jobs (not even to mention the long term unemployed demarcated @ 6 months). So simply getting hired is not even a realistic strategy save for a small number of individuals.
> 
> Your understanding of concepts are good but you fail to grasp certain essential concepts that causes your ideas to have holes, quite large like a well worn prostitute.
> 
> It's funny you mention MickeyD's. They rely on socialism to succeed or more accurately the welfare state. Their employees simply cannot support themselves or families without public assistance AND MCDONALDS KNOWS THIS. In fact, MickeyD's has a hotline just for employees to learn more about these programs cause they know their wages are too low. Once again the private gain of a few greedy directors results in the taxpayers picking up the slack despite the fact they made 5 Billion in profits last year! Please take a moment to watch this short clip:
> 
> McResources "Help" Line - YouTube



*In fact, MickeyD's has a hotline just for employees to learn more about these programs cause they know their wages are too low. *

Too low? Too low for what?

You want to help increase the wages of Americans working at McDonalds, deport the millions of illegals competing for these low skill, low wage jobs.

Wages will rise very quickly.


----------



## georgephillip

itfitzme said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When banks hand millions of people hundreds of thousands of dollars, but not only do not get the interest on that back, they don't even the principle back - yes, that collapses housing markets.
> 
> Ask yourself if you can _do_ basic math!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you can't do math because you can't measure reality.
Click to expand...

"The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods *where they take deposits*. 

"Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. 

"But its even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that arent subject to the CRA. 

"University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. 

"As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: 'In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.'

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek


----------



## Indeependent

CRA Sub-Primes < 3% of value of 2008 Crash.
Conservatives are all rhetoric and no math.

Maybe I should have used a bigger font?


----------



## thereisnospoon

georgephillip said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not unlike the irony of expecting a supply-side troll to prove a correlation between lower taxes and higher TOTAL revenues in the 1980s, which you haven't even attempted yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.
> 
> 
> I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.
> 
> taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only ignorant trolls missed how the US spent its way to prosperity between 1941-45.
> Command Economy maybe?
> Why do you have problems with the words TOTAL REVENUES for the 1980s, which, of course, includes Corporate Ronnie's spike in FICA taxes which essentially shifted the tax burden from the richest individuals to actual workers. I suppose those ethically challenged enough to conflate tax hikes for the majority and tax cuts for the minority might be retarded enough to actually believe TOTAL REVENUE increases in the 80s came from tax cuts.
> 
> Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts
Click to expand...

Prosperity? Are you kidding? But for the US entry into WW II, the Great Depression would have lasted past the 1950's where it ended, and well into the 60's.
Yes, WW II put a lot of people to work, but it also left the US with crushing debt. And with the post war baby boom, also in desperate need to spend even more to cover the needs of all those soldiers coming home to no jobs. Remember, we no longer needed aircraft, tanks and other materiel for the military. It was peace time. "Rosie the Riveter" lost her job and went back to being a house wife. 
Look, you are a true believer in socialism. That's that. 
If you find socialism more desirable, I am sure you can choose a more suitable country in which to live and head there. Preferably NOW.


----------



## RKMBrown

georgephillip said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This lefty wants a reversal of our continuing decay into a corporate oligarchy:*
> 
> "Corporate oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities, lobbyists that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative.
> 
> "Monopolies are sometimes granted to state-controlled entities, such as the Royal Charter granted to the East India Company.
> 
> *"Today's multinational corporations function as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected officials.*
> 
> Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Pity that neither party is interested in breaking up monopolies or oligarchies, or performing any of their constitutionally assigned duties.   Both parties would rather focus on redistributing our income and acting as morality police than doing their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's impossible for me to imagine how we change this dynamic by continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican for our congressional representatives; there are established third-party alternatives already appearing on many US ballots...?
Click to expand...


Can't happen with this voting system.  The system must be changed to one in which you get to vote for the candidates in the order of your preference.  The current system is designed to force you to pick from two opposing bad choices that each thrive by selling the idea that voting for anyone but them is a vote for the worst choice.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you said that was on point was that the risk was hidden to investors.
> 
> Your attempt to talk about the failure rate of these loans is not based in reality. The idea that the CRA started it is not based in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Government pushing new home ownership was DIRECTLY related to the bubble, the CRA being a HUGE part of the Federal Government actions taken to create the bubble.  Perhaps you don't understand what cause bubbles to start with or what makes them go pop?
> 
> Artificially inflating a sector by infusing government regulations and redistributing income.. almost always leads to an artificial price bubble that pops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah none of that is true.
> 
> If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. Lower interest rates mean lower monthly payments which means people can afford a higher cost house. Ergo prices went up fast.
> 
> Once home prices started going up fast people started treating them like financial instruments which only inflated their prices more. In order for this bubble to happen there has to be a massive capital inflow into these investments. Once again we can look at the Federal Reserve for why that happened.
> 
> I am not one to blame the Federal Reserve for private citizens making bad financial choices even if they had a part in the changes in prices.
Click to expand...


You are correct in pointing out the lending rate as a significant reason for the bubble.  You are wrong to pretend the CRA was not also a significant reason for the very same bubble.


----------



## P@triot

itfitzme said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Jamie Dimon's bonus was too low. All those poor bankers, they are crippled by CRA. They can't do good business when basic regulatory features that were intended to balance the economy prevents them from profiting all the time. Such a wretched catch 22 to be a banker and not as rich/irresponsible as you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Balance the economy"? Really? "Balance the economy"? Oh man, you are _new_ - aren't you? Let me guess, you believe Obama really, truly, actually cares about _you_ as well, uh?
> 
> The Community Re-Investment Act was never intended to "balance" the economy (that's such a nonsensical term I don't know whether to fall down laughing or throw up in disgust). The economy requires no "balancing" (you do realize that an economy is not a car tire, don't you?).
> 
> It was done for one reason and one reasonably only (the same reason the Dumbocrats do anything) - to funnel "stuff" to the parasite class in exchange for *power*.
> 
> This dude is the most naive crunch granola liberal I have ever encountered. I almost want to take him home with me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you say nothing significant except to demonstrate ignorance.
> 
> Tell us, oh brilliant economist, what is mathematical the definition of price elasticity?  How is it related to market power?
> 
> What is the criteria at which a company has maximized profit.  Derive it.
> 
> And regarding your CRA bs, surely you can present the histrical data of the percentage of CRA loans; 1st, 2nd, 3rd and fourth mortages; subprime loans; govt guaranteed motgages along with the default rates of each.
> 
> It's a little thing that economists like to call "counting".  It is common among the sciences and necessary "to do the math".
> 
> Saying "naive crunch granola liberal" means nothing except that you are good at mental masterbation.  You are great at spouting meaningless insults but can't actualy present researched material, hard data, or deductive arguments from basic principles.
Click to expand...


Sadly, you're not even good at _that_. You've been smacked in the face with facts and the best response you can come up with is "that article doesn't count" 

I've provided links, video, etc. to back up _everything_ I've said. And that, my friend, is why you are so pissed off. Sorry - you lose.


----------



## Indeependent

Something went wrong with my browser.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> If you could for just one second realize what it would feel like to have people like yourself shouting at you to work at McDonalds "just get a damn job" when it simply isn't that simple. Indeed, if everyone decided to pick themselves up by their bootstraps suddenly, only a small percentage would be hired because there simply aren't enough jobs (because there is not enough demand in the economy) to create an extra 13 million McDonalds jobs (not even to mention the long term unemployed demarcated @ 6 months). So simply getting hired is not even a realistic strategy save for a small number of individuals.



But that's the beauty of freedom and a free market chief - you don't have to rely on McDonald's to provide you with a job! You can create your own job. And then you can become a billionaire doing it.

Amazon? Built out of a garage with no money. Apple? Built out of a garage with no money. Microsoft? Built out of a dorm room with no money. Facebook? Built out of a dorm room with no money.

You could be the next Bill Gates. Ready? Go!


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Government pushing new home ownership was DIRECTLY related to the bubble, the CRA being a HUGE part of the Federal Government actions taken to create the bubble.  Perhaps you don't understand what cause bubbles to start with or what makes them go pop?
> 
> Artificially inflating a sector by infusing government regulations and redistributing income.. almost always leads to an artificial price bubble that pops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah none of that is true.
> 
> If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. Lower interest rates mean lower monthly payments which means people can afford a higher cost house. Ergo prices went up fast.
> 
> Once home prices started going up fast people started treating them like financial instruments which only inflated their prices more. In order for this bubble to happen there has to be a massive capital inflow into these investments. Once again we can look at the Federal Reserve for why that happened.
> 
> I am not one to blame the Federal Reserve for private citizens making bad financial choices even if they had a part in the changes in prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. *
> 
> When did the Fed lower rates "too much"?
> What level should they have made rates to prevent the bubble?
> At what time?
Click to expand...


Did I say "too much" anywhere? I don't think so.

Blaming the Federal Reserve is misguided and doesn't even come close to telling the whole picture but at least they had some impact on the whole thing. Those who blame CRA are just pushing ignorance. 

The bottom line is that people made investments with bad information. When that happens in a market bad things tend to happen.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Government pushing new home ownership was DIRECTLY related to the bubble, the CRA being a HUGE part of the Federal Government actions taken to create the bubble.  Perhaps you don't understand what cause bubbles to start with or what makes them go pop?
> 
> Artificially inflating a sector by infusing government regulations and redistributing income.. almost always leads to an artificial price bubble that pops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah none of that is true.
> 
> If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. Lower interest rates mean lower monthly payments which means people can afford a higher cost house. Ergo prices went up fast.
> 
> Once home prices started going up fast people started treating them like financial instruments which only inflated their prices more. In order for this bubble to happen there has to be a massive capital inflow into these investments. Once again we can look at the Federal Reserve for why that happened.
> 
> I am not one to blame the Federal Reserve for private citizens making bad financial choices even if they had a part in the changes in prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct in pointing out the lending rate as a significant reason for the bubble.  You are wrong to pretend the CRA was not also a significant reason for the very same bubble.
Click to expand...


CRA loans were a tiny percentage of the defaulting loans. The loans did not perform any worse than anticipated and had no appreciable impact on the crash. If you think you are right show your math IMO. 

It is well documented that the ratings agencies rated the MBS incorrectly. Once the truth came out things went bad fast.


----------



## gnarlylove

All those companies were started by ideas which are free, I give you that. But you know in order to make money you got to spend it right? So everyone needs their own venture capitalist it sounds like...I'm joking. All those people with those free ideas came from educated backgrounds, Harvard, Reed etc. etc. and until such access and opportunity exists among the parasite classes, such visions are far and few between. You know theres a strong link between education and achievement? People with less education naturally achieve less, and it's not hard to understand why. There are dozens of other factors but education is significant.


----------



## Indeependent

Rottweiler said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you could for just one second realize what it would feel like to have people like yourself shouting at you to work at McDonalds "just get a damn job" when it simply isn't that simple. Indeed, if everyone decided to pick themselves up by their bootstraps suddenly, only a small percentage would be hired because there simply aren't enough jobs (because there is not enough demand in the economy) to create an extra 13 million McDonalds jobs (not even to mention the long term unemployed demarcated @ 6 months). So simply getting hired is not even a realistic strategy save for a small number of individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the beauty of freedom and a free market chief - you don't have to rely on McDonald's to provide you with a job! You can create your own job. And then you can become a billionaire doing it.
> 
> Amazon? Built out of a garage with no money. Apple? Built out of a garage with no money. Microsoft? Built out of a dorm room with no money. Facebook? Built out of a dorm room with no money.
> 
> You could be the next Bill Gates. Ready? Go!
Click to expand...


You are basically saying that the only way to become monetarily successful is to create an IT related business.
Maybe these days such a statement rings true.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah none of that is true.
> 
> If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. Lower interest rates mean lower monthly payments which means people can afford a higher cost house. Ergo prices went up fast.
> 
> Once home prices started going up fast people started treating them like financial instruments which only inflated their prices more. In order for this bubble to happen there has to be a massive capital inflow into these investments. Once again we can look at the Federal Reserve for why that happened.
> 
> I am not one to blame the Federal Reserve for private citizens making bad financial choices even if they had a part in the changes in prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct in pointing out the lending rate as a significant reason for the bubble.  You are wrong to pretend the CRA was not also a significant reason for the very same bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CRA loans were a tiny percentage of the defaulting loans. The loans did not perform any worse than anticipated and had no appreciable impact on the crash. If you think you are right show your math IMO.
> 
> It is well documented that the ratings agencies rated the MBS incorrectly. Once the truth came out things went bad fast.
Click to expand...


There is no such designation as a "CRA loan."  Every subprime loan is a CRA loan.  Banks had to lower their criteria for all loans because of CRA.  You don't actually think they had some specially earmarked loans that were designated for black people with bad credit histories, do you?  The use of the term "CRA Loans" indicates only that you're a lying propagandist.   It has no connection with the facts.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> All those companies were started by ideas which are free, I give you that. But you know in order to make money you got to spend it right? So everyone needs their own venture capitalist it sounds like...I'm joking. All those people with those free ideas came from educated backgrounds, Harvard, Reed etc. etc. and until such access and opportunity exists among the parasite classes, such visions are far and few between. You know theres a strong link between education and achievement? People with less education naturally achieve less, and it's not hard to understand why. There are dozens of other factors but education is significant.



Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.  Thousands of kids go to Harvard every year, and many of them never make any real money.  It's not an automatic ticket to vast wealth.  There is nothing particularly luxurious about the childhood of Jeff Bezos.  He was a vice president before he started Amazon, but he worked his way up to that position.  He wasn't born in it.  Steve Jobs was just another average kid from a middle class family. 

Almost anyone can get an education if they simply apply themselves in school.  The son of my ex-wife is getting straight 'A's in school, and he will likely get a full scholarship and go to a respectable state university. His mother only makes $30,000/yr.

The libturd theory that you can't get ahead unless your parents are wealthy is just plain bunk.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you could for just one second realize what it would feel like to have people like yourself shouting at you to work at McDonalds "just get a damn job" when it simply isn't that simple. Indeed, if everyone decided to pick themselves up by their bootstraps suddenly, only a small percentage would be hired because there simply aren't enough jobs (because there is not enough demand in the economy) to create an extra 13 million McDonalds jobs (not even to mention the long term unemployed demarcated @ 6 months). So simply getting hired is not even a realistic strategy save for a small number of individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the beauty of freedom and a free market chief - you don't have to rely on McDonald's to provide you with a job! You can create your own job. And then you can become a billionaire doing it.
> 
> Amazon? Built out of a garage with no money. Apple? Built out of a garage with no money. Microsoft? Built out of a dorm room with no money. Facebook? Built out of a dorm room with no money.
> 
> You could be the next Bill Gates. Ready? Go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are basically saying that the only way to become monetarily successful is to create an IT related business.
> Maybe these days such a statement rings true.
Click to expand...


No, that's not what he's saying.  However, it's apparent that you believe it.  You have resigned yourself to being a loser.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Without unions, perhaps we should learn to share?*
> 
> "This policy primer from Shareable and the Sustainable Economies Law Center catalogues innovative local policies that city governments have used to help residents share resources, co-produce, and create their own jobs.
> 
> "Focusing on food, housing, transportation, and job sharing, this guide is intended to help cities build community wealth and develop more resilient and democratic local economies.
> 
> "More broadly, the sharing economy highlights how governments can structure infrastructure, services, incentives, and regulations to support this new economy."
> 
> Policies for Shareable Cities: A Sharing Economy Policy Primer for Urban Leaders | Community-Wealth.org
> 
> *Public banks are another viable substitute for Wall Street.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public banks? Awesome!
> Just what Illinois needs, another way for our crooked politicians to reward their friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Illinois should go Red*
> 
> "But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America.
> 
> "Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota?
> 
> "Why haven't the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?
> 
> "Because it works.
> 
> "In 1919, the Non-Partisan League, a vibrant populist organization, won a majority in the legislature and voted the bank into existence.
> 
> "The goal was to free North Dakota farmers from impoverishing debt dependence on the big banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York.
> 
> "More than 90 years later, this state-owned bank is thriving as it helps the state's community banks, businesses, consumers and students obtain loans at reasonable rates.
> 
> "It also delivers a handsome profit to its owners -- the 700,000 residents of North Dakota.
> 
> "In 2011, the BND provided more than $70 million to the state's coffers.
> 
> "Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."
> 
> Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota? | Alternet
> 
> *Awesome, right?*
Click to expand...


The interest rates on loans in North Dakota are not any better than the average.

My completely free-market, non-state run bank, has offered me excellent rates for years.

As for providing $70 Million to the state is really great and wonderful.....  *IF* your goal is to enrich politicians and their political supporters.

I have no interest in enriching politicians, and political supporters.

When you say "$70 Million to the State", what I hear is "$70 Million sucked away from growth and the economy, and blown on scummy politicians and their fat cat supporters".

This is not a plus.  It's a negative.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> The banking crisis which had a prominent feature in the market did indeed have a major role in the welfare state where the welfare state relieved many CEOs of making responsible actions on credit default swaps and the like. Capitalism as it operates today is massively tied into the government and directly so. Subsidy programs are huge, totaling billions of tax payer money. Capitalism likes these incentives. Your idea that they can work separately is unfounded.
> 
> Having not followed the ins and outs of the last 50 pages, I apologize in advance if this is no longer our topic. But I think the following graph may help
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Image from this interesting read
> 
> To deny capitalism concentrates wealth is to deny its basic principles. One must have capital to make capital, a very fundamental economics saying. However, certain levels of inequality are harmful to society. Without government, without a regulator, we have free markets, and free markets do not have subsidy programs without government. In a free-market we can expect social castes and classes to be entirely rigid where you are born is where you die. We see low social mobility in America, among the lowest in any developed nation. I'm not necessarily advocating for a larger government for the sake of big government but to lack regulation on the market allows it to do funky things. The fundamental premise that Alan Greenspan ran the economy on for 4 decades, he admitted, was "fundamentally flawed." in a hearing on Oct. 23 2008. This Fact taken together with the idea that certain levels of inequality harm a society, we might want to give some credit to the original post for pointing out a source of harm for society. We might want to give more credit to regulation as benefiting the public interests over private gain. I don't expect anyone to read the link but on the off chance you do, I think you'll have learned something (like I did).
> 
> Is inequality bad for economic growth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is, the graph, and those who calculate 'social mobility', fail to factor in choice, and failed to factor in the scale of mobility.
> *
> For example, Country A, a maximum wage of $100,000, and Country B has a max of $300,000, and two people both earning $20,000 a year.
> 
> Five years later, Person in Country A, is earning $60,000 a year, and person in Country B is earning $80,000, which has more social mobility?
> 
> In theory, the person in Country A has greater social mobility, because he's in the upper middle of the scale.    Yet the Person in Country B, actually had the greater increase in wage, and is enjoying a greater standard of living.
> 
> *The other aspect is that of choice.*    Back in the 90s, when I was in high school, I worked for minimum wage at a fast food joint.   One day a lady showed up, and announced to us, that she intended to only work long enough to qualify for welfare again.  She even told us the day in which she qualified, and sure enough, on that day she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> Does that graph include people like this?   Of course.   But does this person reflect an social economic system that prevents moving up the income scale, or does it rather show a choice by the individual to refuse to advance themselves?
> 
> That's a choice of the individual, not a problem with our economic system.   If anything, our welfare, and social programs, have setup a system of incentives to encourage people to not advance up the income ladder, and then you use the resulting statistics to justify more of the same programs that caused those statistics.
> 
> *Further, no one is denying Capitalism concentrates wealth.*
> 
> What we do in fact deny, is that this is bad.
> 
> If I refuse to get an education, or get an education in something that has no value, or refuse to do what is needed to advance my career, and become more productive... I choose to not concentrate wealth.  Back to the prior example of the lady who only worked long enough to get back on welfare.    You do realize that 75% of all McDonald's Franchise owners, started out working minimum wage as a crew member?   They are rich, because they worked to advance themselves, by choice.   She'll be poor till she dies, by choice.
> 
> The reason people have nothing, is because they spent all my money, and didn't save and invest.
> 
> *I call this the difference between the Pinball people, and the Beer Pong people.*
> 
> This comes from the story of Warren Buffet.  If you read about Warren Buffet, you'll find that when he was in High school, he worked a paper route.   He saved up money from the paper route, and bought a PinBall machine.   He placed the PinBall machine in a local business, where it earned more money.   Buffet, invested his money, and made more money.
> 
> What do most people do?   I can't speak for absolutely everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do, was to buy a keg of beer, and take it to someone's home whose parents were away, and have a party, and play Beer Pong.    Thus they consume their money, and are broke.
> 
> That's the difference between the Beer Pong people and the PinBall people.   That's why rich people are rich, and poor people are poor.
> 
> You realize that if you save, just a mere $100 a month, every single month from age 20, to retirement, you'll retire a millionaire (or close to it)?   But people don't.  They buy movie tickets, premium cable TV, smart phones, eat out at restaurants every day, and buy cars and other financial boat anchors that sink in value like a rock, and then complain how the wealthy the rich people are.
> 
> There's a reason for this.  Actions have consequences.  Even Michael Jackson, who made over a billion dollars in his career, was on the verge of bankruptcy just before his death.  In fact, it was likely because of the stress of his world wide tour, and the pressure from all his creditors and lawsuits, that drove him to his death.
> 
> But the idea that somehow it's our economic system that is holding people back, is just absolutely ridiculous.     Phil Robertson, regardless of anything else, is proof our system gives the most opportunity to the lowest of people.    Here's a drunk, a complete drunk guy, living in a shack, whittling duck callers, and now he's a national brand, multimillionaire with his own TV show.
> 
> 1-800-GOT-JUNK, was started by a high school student, who bought a beat up pickup truck for $800, and a hand painted sign.   Now he's a multimillionaire of an international company.
> 
> *Allen Greenspan lost all his credibility*.  He claimed to believe in market principals, but in practice, he himself tried to direct and control the markets.
> 
> You can't say that "self regulating markets doesn't work" when *YOU* are the guy directing and regulating the markets.   Sorry, false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are talking about entire nations worth of people. Your analysis is based on personal choice. So in essence you are saying that the entire nation has started to be lazy even though any measure of how much Americans work proves you wrong.
> 
> Once again nothing you say holds up to reality.
> 
> The alternative theory is that the markets are being impacted in some way which makes a lot more sense than the nonsense you just posted. At least try and make a good argument.
Click to expand...


It's not just "work more".    You can't just "work more" and expect to get wealthy.   Have you to advance yourself.   And not even just "get education".

I remember hearing this lady call in for advice on what she should do with her finances.   She said she made $30,000 a year, and things were tough, but she was in school, and would be out in a year or two.   The host asked what her degree was, and she said "social work".

Er.... Social Work?  You are going to earn the same when you get that degree, as you already are... except now you'll have thousands of dollars in loans to pay back.   That's a bad plan.

*"But this is what I like to do!"*

Fail!    Life isn't all about "what I like to do".     You don't go to someone's home and say "I want you to hire me to play video games!".    Sorry, not hiring you.    "But it's what I like to do!"   Sorry, I don't give a crap.  I need someone to mow my lawn though.  "But I don't like to do that!"

If anyone wants to be wealthy, you must do something that has value in the market place.    The value is determined by the customer, not your personal preference.

You can work 'long hours' at flipping burgers over, and you'll just remain a burger flipper.   The people who end up franchise owners, they work their way up.  I want to be shift manager.  I want to balance the books.   They save up their burger flipper money, and take courses in management.   They sign up for McDonald's management course.

What they don't do, is put in their 8 hours, and go home, sit in front of the boob tube, and say "man I put in a hard days work".

These are all choices.   Choices have consequences.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Labor laws that prevented children from working were great. Market economies can result in people making some really bad decisions. Some parents even sell their kids into slavery.
> 
> Blind faith in freedom leading to the best result is as naïve as those who thought communism would work.
> 
> Properly functioning markets will produce a certain type of good result. That doesn't mean markets always work or that a market result is always the best result.



When I 16, I wanted to work, and they wouldn't let me work more than 3 hours a day, 4 days a week.    It sucked.   Thanks a lot.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The loans to poor people were not the cause of the crash. The government played some role in the crash but there is plenty of blame to go around and the vast majority comes down to common problems markets can have..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*
> 
> * The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*
> 
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
Click to expand...


Two problems.

The highly paid financial experts, were influenced by the Government.

Second.... warning PERSONAL OPINION HERE....  I don't think it was entirely bad loans that broke the system.

Why?   Because back in 2009, the sub-prime melt down, was killing jobs in the financial world.   Most of the companies that flopped, were all in securities and mortgages.

So how did companies crashing that didn't hire a single minimum wage worker, cause millions of low wage workers to lose their jobs?

I can even remember 'experts' in economics pondering this question, how did something way up there in the economy, crash jobs way down there at the bottom?

AGAIN THIS IS MY OPINION

I think that the sub-prime crash was in fact triggered by the loss of low wage jobs.

I think that the low wage job losses, were caused by something else.  What else happened in 2009?     Does anyone remember?

In 08-09, the minimum wage went up to $7.25 an hour.

Now, sub-prime loan defaults were always bad.  Always.   But if you look at the number, the default rates drastically increased from 08 to 09.    That drastic increase in default rates, caused the sub-prime MBS market to crash, which wiped out all those companies.

Sub-prime loans should never have been made legitimate by the Government.   And certainly, without question, they would have crashed at some point.   But I think the trigger for the crash, was in fact the Minimum wage increase, which killed jobs for the low-wage employees, who made up a significant chunk of the sub-prime loans.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> *Wall Street speculators and their DC cronies caused the subprime mortgage meltdown:*
> 
> "The subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, not the public market.
> 
> "Subprime is a creature of the private label securitization channel (PLS) market, instead of the Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie).
> 
> "The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.
> 
> "Here's some data to back that up: 'More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions... Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.'"
> 
> *The majority of loans responsible for the meltdown were made by private institutions not even covered by CRA loan requirements.*
> 
> No, Marco Rubio, government did not cause the housing crisis





Toddsterpatriot said:


> *If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. *
> 
> When did the Fed lower rates "too much"?
> What level should they have made rates to prevent the bubble?
> At what time?



Once again, I'll walk through the whole thing.

First, interest rates.   Yes, I will agree that having interest rates that are too low, is bad.  Yes the Fed encourages bad practices, by having rates too low.

The problem with that is, there were in fact places with higher interest rates, that still had problems, and there were places with low rates, that did not have problems.

So my answer to that is, I think interest rates exacerbated the problem, but I do not believe they were the cause.

Now that said, let's start at the beginning.

I think most people grasp that the primary driver of the sub-prime mortgage melt down, was of course.... sub-prime loans.   So when did those take off?







This is from Inside Mortgage Finance.   Prior to 1997, the sub-prime loan market was flat, and a niche market.     Then in 1997, the market shot off.   There are two explanations given for this.   One, is "Greed", which requires you to believe that everyone was magically 'not greedy', and then in 1997, magically became 'greedy', or that Aliens shot all the bankers with 'greed guns' that made them all greedy.

The other is that something happened in 1997, that changed the market.  So what might have happened in 1997, that changed the market?

First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --

This is a press release that happened in 1997, from First Union.

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.

 "The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs.
 "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."
     The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating.​
Now let's review.   First Union became Wachovia.  So Wachovia and Bear Stearns, signed a deal to make sub-prime mortgage backed securities, securitized by Freddie Mac, the arm of the Federal Government.   Plus they gave these sub-prime MBS, a 'AAA' rating.   Who gave them the AAA rating?   The government did, in this deal.

But it doesn't end there.

[ame=http://youtu.be/gpj4gcdm_JQ]HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]

This video is of Andrew Cuomo, in 1998, detailing... even bragging, that the Clinton Administration, sued banks, and forced them to make bad sub-prime loans.   Cuomo even openly admits that the default rate on these loans will be higher than prime rate loans.

So lets review... we have government suing banks to force them to make bad loans, at the same time we have government securitizing sub-prime loans, and giving them a AAA rating.

FYI.....

*Many leftists have pointed out that Freddie and Fannie, had very few sub-prime loans compared to the rest of the market.... which is what the prior poster was claiming.*

This is both true, and irrelevant.     Only half of the Fannie and Freddie business, is directly purchasing loans.    The other half of their business, is securitizing loans.   What does that mean? 

Freddie and Fannie both, offer a securitization.  It means that private mortgage originators, can make a loan, package them up, and send them to Freddie and Fannie for approval.  If approved... the originator can sell the mortgage backed securities on the open market, with Freddie or Fannies guarantee.   If the MBS goes bad, Freddie and Fannie pay a chunk of the loss.

Even though Freddie and Fannie did not even purchase sub-prime loans until 2002-04 I think, they had guaranteed millions of them.  It was because of these mortgages gaurantees that caused Freddie and Fannie to go bankrupt, and need bailed out.

Further, even though Freddie and Fannie only owned a small portion of those sub-prime mortgages, it was Freddie and Fannie that ligitimized the sub-prime market to the private market.   Before 1997, the sub-prime market was flat line.

*Lastly, it was this action back in 1997, that caused the housing price bubble.*






Again, you can clearly see, that the housing price boom, started in 1997, when the government through Freddie Mac, securitized sub-prime loans, through their deal with First Union (Wachovia) and Bear Stearns.

This is what caused the sub-prime melt down.   The data clearly shows when it started, and the evidence suggests exactly why it started.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> All those companies were started by ideas which are free, I give you that. But you know in order to make money you got to spend it right? So everyone needs their own venture capitalist it sounds like...I'm joking. All those people with those free ideas came from educated backgrounds, Harvard, Reed etc. etc. and until such access and opportunity exists among the parasite classes, such visions are far and few between. You know theres a strong link between education and achievement? People with less education naturally achieve less, and it's not hard to understand why. There are dozens of other factors but education is significant.



That's simply not true. Steve Jobs never even attended college (he "audited" a few classes here and there). Bill Gates attended Harvard but never even graduated.

Yes, an education is huge. There is no denying that. But don't even try to pretend that these people achieved what they did because of education. They achieved what they did because they had a vision, they were passionate about what they were doing, and they worked relentlessly. Gates & Jobs averaged 18 hour days. Think about that for a minute. That left them with 6 hours per day to commute, sleep, eat, and spend time with their family.

Show me someone in poverty working 18 hour days. You can't. You know why? Because someone working that hard isn't in poverty (at least not for long). By the way - there is another über wealthy entrepreneur I left off this list - Chris Gardner. And guess what? He never attended college either.

And again - there isn't a large or mid-sized corporation in the world that doesn't cover the cost of college in full (and the overwhelming majority of small businesses do as well). The people doing all the crying have one problem and one problem only - their victim mentality. I once had the privilege and the honor to serve under a great leader of men. He used to tell us every day: "excuses are like assholes - everybody has one and they all stink".

So everything the left cries about is not that the opportunities aren't there - it's that everything is not handed to them on a silver platter. And that's what annoys the hell out of me.


----------



## dblack

I have to confess, the core impulse of striving for 'equality', either in opportunity or outcome, seems somewhat pointless. Everyone gets a different deal. No amount of meddling will change that. Equal rights under the law is vital. Freedom to decide for ourselves what to strive for is vital. But all these discussions of what people 'deserve' falls flat (for me). We should be free to distribute economic decision making power to those who do the things we like. If that means a few people get most of the power, why is that bad thing? As long as our freedom to make the call, as individual consumers and producers, is preserved we can always change our minds and give our money to someone else.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah none of that is true.
> 
> If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. Lower interest rates mean lower monthly payments which means people can afford a higher cost house. Ergo prices went up fast.
> 
> Once home prices started going up fast people started treating them like financial instruments which only inflated their prices more. In order for this bubble to happen there has to be a massive capital inflow into these investments. Once again we can look at the Federal Reserve for why that happened.
> 
> I am not one to blame the Federal Reserve for private citizens making bad financial choices even if they had a part in the changes in prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. *
> 
> When did the Fed lower rates "too much"?
> What level should they have made rates to prevent the bubble?
> At what time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say "too much" anywhere? I don't think so.
> 
> Blaming the Federal Reserve is misguided and doesn't even come close to telling the whole picture but at least they had some impact on the whole thing. Those who blame CRA are just pushing ignorance.
> 
> The bottom line is that people made investments with bad information. When that happens in a market bad things tend to happen.
Click to expand...


*Did I say "too much" anywhere? I don't think so.*

You said "look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates".
Did you mean to blame them for not lowering enough?

*When that happens in a market bad things tend to happen.*

Moreso when the government encourages (forces) banks to loan to poor credit risks.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

In practice yes. Idealistically though it's more like wage inequality is why. Heads of companies now make so many times more than their employees it's embarassing. But they could pay their workers much more while taking much less themselves so it's more a matter of greed and a sense of entitlement than anything else. If a company has say 10 employees and after expenses there's a million dollars profit for everyone's pay, a CEO could divy up the profit evenly, everyone getting 100k. But that never happens. The CEO takes the majority of the profit leaving the remaining 9 only a fraction of the minority split to share. Thus that inequality leads to everything else.


----------



## RKMBrown

Delta4Embassy said:


> In practice yes. Idealistically though it's more like wage inequality is why. Heads of companies now make so many times more than their employees it's embarassing. But they could pay their workers much more while taking much less themselves so it's more a matter of greed and a sense of entitlement than anything else. If a company has say 10 employees and after expenses there's a million dollars profit for everyone's pay, a CEO could divy up the profit evenly, everyone getting 100k. But that never happens. The CEO takes the majority of the profit leaving the remaining 9 only a fraction of the minority split to share. Thus that inequality leads to everything else.



At the company I left most workers were making around 100k and the CEO was making 100m after stock bonuses.  Was that fair?  Maybe that company had too much money maybe we should make revenue illegal, that would ensure that no one gets paid to much!


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. *
> 
> When did the Fed lower rates "too much"?
> What level should they have made rates to prevent the bubble?
> At what time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say "too much" anywhere? I don't think so.
> 
> Blaming the Federal Reserve is misguided and doesn't even come close to telling the whole picture but at least they had some impact on the whole thing. Those who blame CRA are just pushing ignorance.
> 
> The bottom line is that people made investments with bad information. When that happens in a market bad things tend to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Did I say "too much" anywhere? I don't think so.*
> 
> You said "look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates".
> Did you mean to blame them for not lowering enough?
> 
> *When that happens in a market bad things tend to happen.*
> 
> Moreso when the government encourages (forces) banks to loan to poor credit risks.
Click to expand...


I specifically said I wasn't blaming the Fed. I was pointing out that there actions did have an impact on the markets though. Which is just a pretty easy thing to observe. In order to argue blame the first thing you have to establish is that there was an impact. 

The theory that it was the CRA doesn't hold up to scrutiny because there is no evidence that the CRA had an impact. It is kind of sad that so many people are so ready to blame poor people and government that they can believe poor people crashed the economy. It doesn't pass a basic common sense appraisal.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is, the graph, and those who calculate 'social mobility', fail to factor in choice, and failed to factor in the scale of mobility.
> *
> For example, Country A, a maximum wage of $100,000, and Country B has a max of $300,000, and two people both earning $20,000 a year.
> 
> Five years later, Person in Country A, is earning $60,000 a year, and person in Country B is earning $80,000, which has more social mobility?
> 
> In theory, the person in Country A has greater social mobility, because he's in the upper middle of the scale.    Yet the Person in Country B, actually had the greater increase in wage, and is enjoying a greater standard of living.
> 
> *The other aspect is that of choice.*    Back in the 90s, when I was in high school, I worked for minimum wage at a fast food joint.   One day a lady showed up, and announced to us, that she intended to only work long enough to qualify for welfare again.  She even told us the day in which she qualified, and sure enough, on that day she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> Does that graph include people like this?   Of course.   But does this person reflect an social economic system that prevents moving up the income scale, or does it rather show a choice by the individual to refuse to advance themselves?
> 
> That's a choice of the individual, not a problem with our economic system.   If anything, our welfare, and social programs, have setup a system of incentives to encourage people to not advance up the income ladder, and then you use the resulting statistics to justify more of the same programs that caused those statistics.
> 
> *Further, no one is denying Capitalism concentrates wealth.*
> 
> What we do in fact deny, is that this is bad.
> 
> If I refuse to get an education, or get an education in something that has no value, or refuse to do what is needed to advance my career, and become more productive... I choose to not concentrate wealth.  Back to the prior example of the lady who only worked long enough to get back on welfare.    You do realize that 75% of all McDonald's Franchise owners, started out working minimum wage as a crew member?   They are rich, because they worked to advance themselves, by choice.   She'll be poor till she dies, by choice.
> 
> The reason people have nothing, is because they spent all my money, and didn't save and invest.
> 
> *I call this the difference between the Pinball people, and the Beer Pong people.*
> 
> This comes from the story of Warren Buffet.  If you read about Warren Buffet, you'll find that when he was in High school, he worked a paper route.   He saved up money from the paper route, and bought a PinBall machine.   He placed the PinBall machine in a local business, where it earned more money.   Buffet, invested his money, and made more money.
> 
> What do most people do?   I can't speak for absolutely everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do, was to buy a keg of beer, and take it to someone's home whose parents were away, and have a party, and play Beer Pong.    Thus they consume their money, and are broke.
> 
> That's the difference between the Beer Pong people and the PinBall people.   That's why rich people are rich, and poor people are poor.
> 
> You realize that if you save, just a mere $100 a month, every single month from age 20, to retirement, you'll retire a millionaire (or close to it)?   But people don't.  They buy movie tickets, premium cable TV, smart phones, eat out at restaurants every day, and buy cars and other financial boat anchors that sink in value like a rock, and then complain how the wealthy the rich people are.
> 
> There's a reason for this.  Actions have consequences.  Even Michael Jackson, who made over a billion dollars in his career, was on the verge of bankruptcy just before his death.  In fact, it was likely because of the stress of his world wide tour, and the pressure from all his creditors and lawsuits, that drove him to his death.
> 
> But the idea that somehow it's our economic system that is holding people back, is just absolutely ridiculous.     Phil Robertson, regardless of anything else, is proof our system gives the most opportunity to the lowest of people.    Here's a drunk, a complete drunk guy, living in a shack, whittling duck callers, and now he's a national brand, multimillionaire with his own TV show.
> 
> 1-800-GOT-JUNK, was started by a high school student, who bought a beat up pickup truck for $800, and a hand painted sign.   Now he's a multimillionaire of an international company.
> 
> *Allen Greenspan lost all his credibility*.  He claimed to believe in market principals, but in practice, he himself tried to direct and control the markets.
> 
> You can't say that "self regulating markets doesn't work" when *YOU* are the guy directing and regulating the markets.   Sorry, false premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about entire nations worth of people. Your analysis is based on personal choice. So in essence you are saying that the entire nation has started to be lazy even though any measure of how much Americans work proves you wrong.
> 
> Once again nothing you say holds up to reality.
> 
> The alternative theory is that the markets are being impacted in some way which makes a lot more sense than the nonsense you just posted. At least try and make a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just "work more".    You can't just "work more" and expect to get wealthy.   Have you to advance yourself.   And not even just "get education".
> 
> I remember hearing this lady call in for advice on what she should do with her finances.   She said she made $30,000 a year, and things were tough, but she was in school, and would be out in a year or two.   The host asked what her degree was, and she said "social work".
> 
> Er.... Social Work?  You are going to earn the same when you get that degree, as you already are... except now you'll have thousands of dollars in loans to pay back.   That's a bad plan.
> 
> *"But this is what I like to do!"*
> 
> Fail!    Life isn't all about "what I like to do".     You don't go to someone's home and say "I want you to hire me to play video games!".    Sorry, not hiring you.    "But it's what I like to do!"   Sorry, I don't give a crap.  I need someone to mow my lawn though.  "But I don't like to do that!"
> 
> If anyone wants to be wealthy, you must do something that has value in the market place.    The value is determined by the customer, not your personal preference.
> 
> You can work 'long hours' at flipping burgers over, and you'll just remain a burger flipper.   The people who end up franchise owners, they work their way up.  I want to be shift manager.  I want to balance the books.   They save up their burger flipper money, and take courses in management.   They sign up for McDonald's management course.
> 
> What they don't do, is put in their 8 hours, and go home, sit in front of the boob tube, and say "man I put in a hard days work".
> 
> These are all choices.   Choices have consequences.
Click to expand...


Once again we are talking about comparing entire nations. Reducing the issue to you hating on social workers and fast food workers is just bizarre. You can't even represent your own country well let alone say anything meaningful about the graph. 

Stay ignorant or not I don't really care but your arguments are laughable.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*
> 
> * The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown*
> 
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> 
> .........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two problems.
> 
> The highly paid financial experts, were influenced by the Government.
> 
> Second.... warning PERSONAL OPINION HERE....  I don't think it was entirely bad loans that broke the system.
> 
> Why?   Because back in 2009, the sub-prime melt down, was killing jobs in the financial world.   Most of the companies that flopped, were all in securities and mortgages.
> 
> So how did companies crashing that didn't hire a single minimum wage worker, cause millions of low wage workers to lose their jobs?
> 
> I can even remember 'experts' in economics pondering this question, how did something way up there in the economy, crash jobs way down there at the bottom?
> 
> AGAIN THIS IS MY OPINION
> 
> I think that the sub-prime crash was in fact triggered by the loss of low wage jobs.
> 
> I think that the low wage job losses, were caused by something else.  What else happened in 2009?     Does anyone remember?
> 
> In 08-09, the minimum wage went up to $7.25 an hour.
> 
> Now, sub-prime loan defaults were always bad.  Always.   But if you look at the number, the default rates drastically increased from 08 to 09.    That drastic increase in default rates, caused the sub-prime MBS market to crash, which wiped out all those companies.
> 
> Sub-prime loans should never have been made legitimate by the Government.   And certainly, without question, they would have crashed at some point.   But I think the trigger for the crash, was in fact the Minimum wage increase, which killed jobs for the low-wage employees, who made up a significant chunk of the sub-prime loans.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO

It was a large number of MBS going from an A rating to a B rating over night because people all of a sudden realized they were rated wrong. This required a massive attempt at liquidation which crashed the balance sheets of financial institutions. 

A sub prime mortgage is rated as a sub-prime mortgage. Investors can and do manage that risk within their portfolio effectively when they know they have this high risk mortgage. What they were doing was hiding that risk and then lending out more money based on this incorrect risk profile. 

Low skilled employees lose their job because demand contracted. When demand contracts it is the most marginally hired employees which are fired. Some sectors are more sensitive to these changes in demand than others. 

The bubble would have burst eventually because home prices were artificially high for multiple reasons. Interest rate being low, the use of homes as financial instruments, incorrect information making the loans look less risky than they were, and no better place to put the capital from the standpoint of investors.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> No, Marco Rubio, government did not cause the housing crisis



Interesting, I wonder who wrote the article?





*MIKE KONCZAL*

A Fellow with the *Roosevelt Institute,* Konczal works on financial reform, unemployment, inequality, and a* progressive vision of the economy.*

*Roosevelt Institution*
Carrying forward the legacy and values of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.


So we have a fucking socialist who works at an institute which celebrates the socialist proclivities of Franklin Del-anus  Roosevelt.

Massive conflict of interests.

.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Labor laws that prevented children from working were great. Market economies can result in people making some really bad decisions. Some parents even sell their kids into slavery.
> 
> Blind faith in freedom leading to the best result is as naïve as those who thought communism would work.
> 
> Properly functioning markets will produce a certain type of good result. That doesn't mean markets always work or that a market result is always the best result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I 16, I wanted to work, and they wouldn't let me work more than 3 hours a day, 4 days a week.    It sucked.   Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...


Yet the economy as a whole has benefited greatly from kids staying out of the workforce. It is almost as if your anecdotal story is irrelevant.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Once again we are talking about comparing entire nations. Reducing the issue to you hating on social workers and fast food workers is just bizarre. You can't even represent your own country well let alone say anything meaningful about the graph.
> 
> Stay ignorant or not I don't really care but your arguments are laughable.



It's not about hate.  That's what ignorant people with weak arguments resort to, a red herrings of "you hate x".   Not a matter of hate.

It's about the reality that choices have consequences.    I worked at Wendy's, and didn't want to be management.  I was only there during high school, so I never advanced, never joined the management training program, and consequently I didn't get a raise.  Nor should I have.

Sucking air, is not a reason for a raise.

Doesn't mean someone 'hates them'.  That's just ignorant talk for "I have no real argument against what you said, so I'll just accuse you of hating".

If that's all you got, then you really need to find something else to do with your time.   Telling everyone you can't argue with "You must hate people!" is not going to convince anyone of anything.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say "too much" anywhere? I don't think so.
> 
> Blaming the Federal Reserve is misguided and doesn't even come close to telling the whole picture but at least they had some impact on the whole thing. Those who blame CRA are just pushing ignorance.
> 
> The bottom line is that people made investments with bad information. When that happens in a market bad things tend to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did I say "too much" anywhere? I don't think so.*
> 
> You said "look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates".
> Did you mean to blame them for not lowering enough?
> 
> *When that happens in a market bad things tend to happen.*
> 
> Moreso when the government encourages (forces) banks to loan to poor credit risks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I specifically said I wasn't blaming the Fed. I was pointing out that there actions did have an impact on the markets though. Which is just a pretty easy thing to observe. In order to argue blame the first thing you have to establish is that there was an impact.
> 
> The theory that it was the CRA doesn't hold up to scrutiny because there is no evidence that the CRA had an impact. It is kind of sad that so many people are so ready to blame poor people and government that they can believe poor people crashed the economy. It doesn't pass a basic common sense appraisal.
Click to expand...


You are not listening.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again we are talking about comparing entire nations. Reducing the issue to you hating on social workers and fast food workers is just bizarre. You can't even represent your own country well let alone say anything meaningful about the graph.
> 
> Stay ignorant or not I don't really care but your arguments are laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about hate.  That's what ignorant people with weak arguments resort to, a red herrings of "you hate x".   Not a matter of hate.
> 
> It's about the reality that choices have consequences.    I worked at Wendy's, and didn't want to be management.  I was only there during high school, so I never advanced, never joined the management training program, and consequently I didn't get a raise.  Nor should I have.
> 
> Sucking air, is not a reason for a raise.
> 
> Doesn't mean someone 'hates them'.  That's just ignorant talk for "I have no real argument against what you said, so I'll just accuse you of hating".
> 
> If that's all you got, then you really need to find something else to do with your time.   Telling everyone you can't argue with "You must hate people!" is not going to convince anyone of anything.
Click to expand...

Your entire argument is a red herring.

I said my argument rather clearly IMO. You are reducing the entire nation to two people you are hating on. Which you are btw. Your entire argument is an emotional argument against imaginary people who you think made bad decisions. 

It is intellectually vapid and offensive.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Did I say "too much" anywhere? I don't think so.*
> 
> You said "look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates".
> Did you mean to blame them for not lowering enough?
> 
> *When that happens in a market bad things tend to happen.*
> 
> Moreso when the government encourages (forces) banks to loan to poor credit risks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically said I wasn't blaming the Fed. I was pointing out that there actions did have an impact on the markets though. Which is just a pretty easy thing to observe. In order to argue blame the first thing you have to establish is that there was an impact.
> 
> The theory that it was the CRA doesn't hold up to scrutiny because there is no evidence that the CRA had an impact. It is kind of sad that so many people are so ready to blame poor people and government that they can believe poor people crashed the economy. It doesn't pass a basic common sense appraisal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not listening.
Click to expand...


LOL

There is nothing to listen to but people repeating a lie about the CRA.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically said I wasn't blaming the Fed. I was pointing out that there actions did have an impact on the markets though. Which is just a pretty easy thing to observe. In order to argue blame the first thing you have to establish is that there was an impact.
> 
> The theory that it was the CRA doesn't hold up to scrutiny because there is no evidence that the CRA had an impact. It is kind of sad that so many people are so ready to blame poor people and government that they can believe poor people crashed the economy. It doesn't pass a basic common sense appraisal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not listening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> There is nothing to listen to but people repeating a lie about the CRA.
Click to expand...


Yes or no, the CRA exists?  

If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it.  Then explain how that did not change the market whatsoever.

Note: in a large market with very small margins a small number of defaults or even small amount of additional risk, can collapse the market.  If your profit is based on only 1% or less of the loans defaulting and 2% of the loans default then you will have no profit.  When you give people money to buy homes that act runs the price of homes up.  

Note: While I fully understand that a great number of the CRA defaults are currently being banked by the tax payer, that does not mean they don't exist.  Have you not heard anything about Obama's bailouts of borrowers who found themselves owing more than their homes were worth, and checks to banks to repay them for what amounts to CRA squatters who can't make house payments because they don't have jobs?  Do you not know anything about current events?


----------



## jodylee

Godboy said:


> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.



that's due to advances in technology, and before you say, oh, but capitalism caused the rise in technology, remember which country was the worlds most technologically advanced in the 1940's - Germany. not an Adam smith in sight.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not listening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> There is nothing to listen to but people repeating a lie about the CRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes or no, the CRA exists?
> 
> If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it.
Click to expand...


The presence of the CRA is not being debated. What is being debated is the impact the CRA had on the crash. 

HTH


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> There is nothing to listen to but people repeating a lie about the CRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no, the CRA exists?
> 
> If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The presence of the CRA is not being debated. What is being debated is the impact the CRA had on the crash.
> 
> HTH
Click to expand...


Yes or no, the CRA exists?

If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it. Then explain how that did not change the market whatsoever.

Note: in a large market with very small margins a small number of defaults or even small amount of additional risk, can collapse the market. If your profit is based on only 1% or less of the loans defaulting and 2% of the loans default then you will have no profit. When you give people money to buy homes that act runs the price of homes up.

Note: While I fully understand that a great number of the CRA defaults are currently being banked by the tax payer, that does not mean they don't exist. Have you not heard anything about Obama's bailouts of borrowers who found themselves owing more than their homes were worth, and checks to banks to repay them for what amounts to CRA squatters who can't make house payments because they don't have jobs? Do you not know anything about current events?


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no, the CRA exists?
> 
> If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of the CRA is not being debated. What is being debated is the impact the CRA had on the crash.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes or no, the CRA exists?
> 
> If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it. Then explain how that did not change the market whatsoever.
> 
> Note: in a large market with very small margins a small number of defaults or even small amount of additional risk, can collapse the market. If your profit is based on only 1% or less of the loans defaulting and 2% of the loans default then you will have no profit. When you give people money to buy homes that act runs the price of homes up.
> 
> Note: While I fully understand that a great number of the CRA defaults are currently being banked by the tax payer, that does not mean they don't exist. Have you not heard anything about Obama's bailouts of borrowers who found themselves owing more than their homes were worth, and checks to banks to repay them for what amounts to CRA squatters who can't make house payments because they don't have jobs? Do you not know anything about current events?
Click to expand...


The CRA does not encompass all sub prime loans. In fact the CRA generally accounts for more regulated sub prime loans. 

I have already explained enough about how investors could invest in these sub prime loans without realizing their risk. Once this happens they are able to take on even more debt which was also more risky than they knew. Once risk is known they have to liquidate and that is why there was a massive liquidation crisis and that is why the government stepped in. The market value of these MBS went way below their actual value because the sellers needed liquidity.

This crash just made the recession that much worse and it fed into itself as the financial crisis would lead to unemployment which would lead to more defaults. The government really had little choice but to try and plug the breaking dam.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of the CRA is not being debated. What is being debated is the impact the CRA had on the crash.
> 
> HTH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no, the CRA exists?
> 
> If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it. Then explain how that did not change the market whatsoever.
> 
> Note: in a large market with very small margins a small number of defaults or even small amount of additional risk, can collapse the market. If your profit is based on only 1% or less of the loans defaulting and 2% of the loans default then you will have no profit. When you give people money to buy homes that act runs the price of homes up.
> 
> Note: While I fully understand that a great number of the CRA defaults are currently being banked by the tax payer, that does not mean they don't exist. Have you not heard anything about Obama's bailouts of borrowers who found themselves owing more than their homes were worth, and checks to banks to repay them for what amounts to CRA squatters who can't make house payments because they don't have jobs? Do you not know anything about current events?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CRA does not encompass all sub prime loans. In fact the CRA generally accounts for more regulated sub prime loans.
> 
> I have already explained enough about how investors could invest in these sub prime loans without realizing their risk. Once this happens they are able to take on even more debt which was also more risky than they knew. Once risk is known they have to liquidate and that is why there was a massive liquidation crisis and that is why the government stepped in. The market value of these MBS went way below their actual value because the sellers needed liquidity.
> 
> This crash just made the recession that much worse and it fed into itself as the financial crisis would lead to unemployment which would lead to more defaults. The government really had little choice but to try and plug the breaking dam.
Click to expand...


Yes, they had a choice.  They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself.  Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer.  They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets.  Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.  

To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.


----------



## KevinWestern

RKMBrown said:


> Yes, they had a choice.  They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself.  Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer.  They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets.  Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
> 
> To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.



I agree that the Government was largely at fault here too:

1.) They didn't regulate/stop the fraud occurring at the bank. If the FBI would have shut the operation down - problem solved (no bubble).

2.) When the shit hit the fan, the Gov't forced taxpayers to bail out banks, which the banks then used to buy up the market pennies on the dollar. Sure we got our "loan" back, but what about the MASSIVE return on investment they made?

3.) Gov't didn't punish any high ranking bankers. We'll certainly see a repeat as a result. Chase getting fined $13 billion isn't the same as a CFO going to jail for 15 years. 

Moral of the story? People are going to do bad things if there are no consequences. The only way to stop people from doing bad things is to punish them. The gov't failed on all counts here.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no, the CRA exists?
> 
> If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it. Then explain how that did not change the market whatsoever.
> 
> Note: in a large market with very small margins a small number of defaults or even small amount of additional risk, can collapse the market. If your profit is based on only 1% or less of the loans defaulting and 2% of the loans default then you will have no profit. When you give people money to buy homes that act runs the price of homes up.
> 
> Note: While I fully understand that a great number of the CRA defaults are currently being banked by the tax payer, that does not mean they don't exist. Have you not heard anything about Obama's bailouts of borrowers who found themselves owing more than their homes were worth, and checks to banks to repay them for what amounts to CRA squatters who can't make house payments because they don't have jobs? Do you not know anything about current events?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CRA does not encompass all sub prime loans. In fact the CRA generally accounts for more regulated sub prime loans.
> 
> I have already explained enough about how investors could invest in these sub prime loans without realizing their risk. Once this happens they are able to take on even more debt which was also more risky than they knew. Once risk is known they have to liquidate and that is why there was a massive liquidation crisis and that is why the government stepped in. The market value of these MBS went way below their actual value because the sellers needed liquidity.
> 
> This crash just made the recession that much worse and it fed into itself as the financial crisis would lead to unemployment which would lead to more defaults. The government really had little choice but to try and plug the breaking dam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they had a choice.  They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself.  Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer.  They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets.  Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
> 
> To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.
Click to expand...


The failure is not the bailout but ever getting to the point where we needed to bail them out. I am not for bailouts but if you really want to prevent another bailout you have to make it so market failures won't result in a reality that is worse than the bailout.


----------



## KevinWestern

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CRA does not encompass all sub prime loans. In fact the CRA generally accounts for more regulated sub prime loans.
> 
> I have already explained enough about how investors could invest in these sub prime loans without realizing their risk. Once this happens they are able to take on even more debt which was also more risky than they knew. Once risk is known they have to liquidate and that is why there was a massive liquidation crisis and that is why the government stepped in. The market value of these MBS went way below their actual value because the sellers needed liquidity.
> 
> This crash just made the recession that much worse and it fed into itself as the financial crisis would lead to unemployment which would lead to more defaults. The government really had little choice but to try and plug the breaking dam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they had a choice.  They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself.  Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer.  They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets.  Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
> 
> To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame gov't close to 100% because I ask you: if there are no consequences, what is going to prevent someone from doing this again in the future? If you're not gonna get arrested, and if you're gonna get bailed out, why would they modify their practices in any way?
> 
> I think we need to approach this problem logically.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## Bombur

KevinWestern said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they had a choice.  They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself.  Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer.  They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets.  Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
> 
> To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I blame gov't close to 100% because I ask you: if there are no consequences, what is going to prevent someone from doing this again in the future? If you're not gonna get arrested, and if you're gonna get bailed out, why would they modify their practices in any way?
> 
> I think we need to approach this problem logically.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prevention, limiting the damage, and a response that can help the economy recover without benefiting those at fault seems to make the most sense to me.
Click to expand...


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two problems.
> 
> The highly paid financial experts, were influenced by the Government.
> 
> Second.... warning PERSONAL OPINION HERE....  I don't think it was entirely bad loans that broke the system.
> 
> Why?   Because back in 2009, the sub-prime melt down, was killing jobs in the financial world.   Most of the companies that flopped, were all in securities and mortgages.
> 
> So how did companies crashing that didn't hire a single minimum wage worker, cause millions of low wage workers to lose their jobs?
> 
> I can even remember 'experts' in economics pondering this question, how did something way up there in the economy, crash jobs way down there at the bottom?
> 
> AGAIN THIS IS MY OPINION
> 
> I think that the sub-prime crash was in fact triggered by the loss of low wage jobs.
> 
> I think that the low wage job losses, were caused by something else.  What else happened in 2009?     Does anyone remember?
> 
> In 08-09, the minimum wage went up to $7.25 an hour.
> 
> Now, sub-prime loan defaults were always bad.  Always.   But if you look at the number, the default rates drastically increased from 08 to 09.    That drastic increase in default rates, caused the sub-prime MBS market to crash, which wiped out all those companies.
> 
> Sub-prime loans should never have been made legitimate by the Government.   And certainly, without question, they would have crashed at some point.   But I think the trigger for the crash, was in fact the Minimum wage increase, which killed jobs for the low-wage employees, who made up a significant chunk of the sub-prime loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO
> 
> It was a large number of MBS going from an A rating to a B rating over night because people all of a sudden realized they were rated wrong. This required a massive attempt at liquidation which crashed the balance sheets of financial institutions.
> 
> A sub prime mortgage is rated as a sub-prime mortgage. Investors can and do manage that risk within their portfolio effectively when they know they have this high risk mortgage. What they were doing was hiding that risk and then lending out more money based on this incorrect risk profile.
> 
> Low skilled employees lose their job because demand contracted. When demand contracts it is the most marginally hired employees which are fired. Some sectors are more sensitive to these changes in demand than others.
> 
> The bubble would have burst eventually because home prices were artificially high for multiple reasons. Interest rate being low, the use of homes as financial instruments, incorrect information making the loans look less risky than they were, and no better place to put the capital from the standpoint of investors.
Click to expand...


Again, as I pointed out in the prior post, sub-prime loans always existed.  In 1997, they shot off.   Something happened in 1997, that caused them to do this.

The answer is that Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating.  I can repost everything here, if you like.

Saying "demand contracted" is like saying the reason water fell from the sky, is because it condensed in the clouds.

Why did this happen?   It's not likely that people stopped going to Wendy's for a meal, simply because some broker on Wall St lost money on a mortgage backed security.    There had to be a trigger.   I think it was the minimum wage, made low wage workers too expensive, thus laying people off, thus contracting demand, and causing the general decline.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Labor laws that prevented children from working were great. Market economies can result in people making some really bad decisions. Some parents even sell their kids into slavery.
> 
> Blind faith in freedom leading to the best result is as naïve as those who thought communism would work.
> 
> Properly functioning markets will produce a certain type of good result. That doesn't mean markets always work or that a market result is always the best result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I 16, I wanted to work, and they wouldn't let me work more than 3 hours a day, 4 days a week.    It sucked.   Thanks a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the economy as a whole has benefited greatly from kids staying out of the workforce. It is almost as if your anecdotal story is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


So you are saying keeping me impoverished, is better for the country?  Gee thanks.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two problems.
> 
> The highly paid financial experts, were influenced by the Government.
> 
> Second.... warning PERSONAL OPINION HERE....  I don't think it was entirely bad loans that broke the system.
> 
> Why?   Because back in 2009, the sub-prime melt down, was killing jobs in the financial world.   Most of the companies that flopped, were all in securities and mortgages.
> 
> So how did companies crashing that didn't hire a single minimum wage worker, cause millions of low wage workers to lose their jobs?
> 
> I can even remember 'experts' in economics pondering this question, how did something way up there in the economy, crash jobs way down there at the bottom?
> 
> AGAIN THIS IS MY OPINION
> 
> I think that the sub-prime crash was in fact triggered by the loss of low wage jobs.
> 
> I think that the low wage job losses, were caused by something else.  What else happened in 2009?     Does anyone remember?
> 
> In 08-09, the minimum wage went up to $7.25 an hour.
> 
> Now, sub-prime loan defaults were always bad.  Always.   But if you look at the number, the default rates drastically increased from 08 to 09.    That drastic increase in default rates, caused the sub-prime MBS market to crash, which wiped out all those companies.
> 
> Sub-prime loans should never have been made legitimate by the Government.   And certainly, without question, they would have crashed at some point.   But I think the trigger for the crash, was in fact the Minimum wage increase, which killed jobs for the low-wage employees, who made up a significant chunk of the sub-prime loans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO
> 
> It was a large number of MBS going from an A rating to a B rating over night because people all of a sudden realized they were rated wrong. This required a massive attempt at liquidation which crashed the balance sheets of financial institutions.
> 
> A sub prime mortgage is rated as a sub-prime mortgage. Investors can and do manage that risk within their portfolio effectively when they know they have this high risk mortgage. What they were doing was hiding that risk and then lending out more money based on this incorrect risk profile.
> 
> Low skilled employees lose their job because demand contracted. When demand contracts it is the most marginally hired employees which are fired. Some sectors are more sensitive to these changes in demand than others.
> 
> The bubble would have burst eventually because home prices were artificially high for multiple reasons. Interest rate being low, the use of homes as financial instruments, incorrect information making the loans look less risky than they were, and no better place to put the capital from the standpoint of investors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, as I pointed out in the prior post, sub-prime loans always existed.  In 1997, they shot off.   Something happened in 1997, that caused them to do this.
> 
> The answer is that Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating.  I can repost everything here, if you like.
> 
> Saying "demand contracted" is like saying the reason water fell from the sky, is because it condensed in the clouds.
> 
> Why did this happen?   It's not likely that people stopped going to Wendy's for a meal, simply because some broker on Wall St lost money on a mortgage backed security.    There had to be a trigger.   I think it was the minimum wage, made low wage workers too expensive, thus laying people off, thus contracting demand, and causing the general decline.
Click to expand...


Freddie Mac is not the only one that was fooled by the rating of the MBS created by private institutions. The ratings agencies were fooled too as were the originating institutions and those who were buying them. 

The idea that the min wage change caused the recession is ridiculous. The idea that the financial crisis didn't ripple through the economy is even more ridiculous. 

The fact is that the recovery was weak and largely built on the housing boom which was destined to hit the wall. Once it did the weakness is the labor market was exposed. The effective supply of money shrunk drastically. The ability of consumption to be supported by debt was finally exposed.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CRA does not encompass all sub prime loans. In fact the CRA generally accounts for more regulated sub prime loans.
> 
> I have already explained enough about how investors could invest in these sub prime loans without realizing their risk. Once this happens they are able to take on even more debt which was also more risky than they knew. Once risk is known they have to liquidate and that is why there was a massive liquidation crisis and that is why the government stepped in. The market value of these MBS went way below their actual value because the sellers needed liquidity.
> 
> This crash just made the recession that much worse and it fed into itself as the financial crisis would lead to unemployment which would lead to more defaults. The government really had little choice but to try and plug the breaking dam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they had a choice.  They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself.  Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer.  They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets.  Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
> 
> To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The failure is not the bailout but ever getting to the point where we needed to bail them out. I am not for bailouts but if you really want to prevent another bailout you have to make it so market failures won't result in a reality that is worse than the bailout.
Click to expand...


Show me proof that we would not be better off today if we did not implement all the bailouts.  Bunch of crybabies, oh my look that bank is gonna fail and the press says they are to big to fail, we're all gonna die if we don't give them money.  ROFL


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again we are talking about comparing entire nations. Reducing the issue to you hating on social workers and fast food workers is just bizarre. You can't even represent your own country well let alone say anything meaningful about the graph.
> 
> Stay ignorant or not I don't really care but your arguments are laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about hate.  That's what ignorant people with weak arguments resort to, a red herrings of "you hate x".   Not a matter of hate.
> 
> It's about the reality that choices have consequences.    I worked at Wendy's, and didn't want to be management.  I was only there during high school, so I never advanced, never joined the management training program, and consequently I didn't get a raise.  Nor should I have.
> 
> Sucking air, is not a reason for a raise.
> 
> Doesn't mean someone 'hates them'.  That's just ignorant talk for "I have no real argument against what you said, so I'll just accuse you of hating".
> 
> If that's all you got, then you really need to find something else to do with your time.   Telling everyone you can't argue with "You must hate people!" is not going to convince anyone of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your entire argument is a red herring.
> 
> I said my argument rather clearly IMO. You are reducing the entire nation to two people you are hating on. Which you are btw. Your entire argument is an emotional argument against imaginary people who you think made bad decisions.
> 
> It is intellectually vapid and offensive.
Click to expand...


Again, your post is what someone with a weak argument says.   "you hate" is not an argument.   My examples are of the reality in the economy, that some people make choices that effect their long term income.

Your argument is "you hate, therefore what you see in real life economy, doesn't matter, and is not relevant.".

Mindlessly mocking arguments, because you can not actually deny them, is simply another way of saying you have no argument.

If you want to repeat your non-argument over and over, I'll point out your non-argument over and over.  Please continue.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they had a choice.  They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself.  Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer.  They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets.  Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
> 
> To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The failure is not the bailout but ever getting to the point where we needed to bail them out. I am not for bailouts but if you really want to prevent another bailout you have to make it so market failures won't result in a reality that is worse than the bailout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me proof that we would not be better off today if we did not implement all the bailouts.  Bunch of crybabies, oh my look that bank is gonna fail and the press says they are to big to fail, we're all gonna die if we don't give them money.  ROFL
Click to expand...


Neither side can prove anything about a reality that never existed. 

Either way the clear solution is to not get into that situation again and there are clear ways to do that.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about hate.  That's what ignorant people with weak arguments resort to, a red herrings of "you hate x".   Not a matter of hate.
> 
> It's about the reality that choices have consequences.    I worked at Wendy's, and didn't want to be management.  I was only there during high school, so I never advanced, never joined the management training program, and consequently I didn't get a raise.  Nor should I have.
> 
> Sucking air, is not a reason for a raise.
> 
> Doesn't mean someone 'hates them'.  That's just ignorant talk for "I have no real argument against what you said, so I'll just accuse you of hating".
> 
> If that's all you got, then you really need to find something else to do with your time.   Telling everyone you can't argue with "You must hate people!" is not going to convince anyone of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire argument is a red herring.
> 
> I said my argument rather clearly IMO. You are reducing the entire nation to two people you are hating on. Which you are btw. Your entire argument is an emotional argument against imaginary people who you think made bad decisions.
> 
> It is intellectually vapid and offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your post is what someone with a weak argument says.   "you hate" is not an argument.   My examples are of the reality in the economy, that some people make choices that effect their long term income.
> 
> Your argument is "you hate, therefore what you see in real life economy, doesn't matter, and is not relevant.".
> 
> Mindlessly mocking arguments, because you can not actually deny them, is simply another way of saying you have no argument.
> 
> If you want to repeat your non-argument over and over, I'll point out your non-argument over and over.  Please continue.
Click to expand...


It is like you are trying to be stupid. You are using made up anecdotal evidence to describe an entire nation and demonize the entire middle class as it relates to other nations. 

You have yet to come close to addressing any of my arguments. You made up some information a couple times and then made some blatantly illogical arguments.


----------



## bripat9643

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I 16, I wanted to work, and they wouldn't let me work more than 3 hours a day, 4 days a week.    It sucked.   Thanks a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the economy as a whole has benefited greatly from kids staying out of the workforce. It is almost as if your anecdotal story is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying keeping me impoverished, is better for the country?  Gee thanks.
Click to expand...


How has the country benefitted?  It certainly doesn't benefit the families of those kids.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The failure is not the bailout but ever getting to the point where we needed to bail them out. I am not for bailouts but if you really want to prevent another bailout you have to make it so market failures won't result in a reality that is worse than the bailout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me proof that we would not be better off today if we did not implement all the bailouts.  Bunch of crybabies, oh my look that bank is gonna fail and the press says they are to big to fail, we're all gonna die if we don't give them money.  ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither side can prove anything about a reality that never existed.
> 
> Either way the clear solution is to not get into that situation again and there are clear ways to do that.
Click to expand...


Nevertheless, the Obama fluffers keep saying how the economy would have been worse without the so-called "stimulus."  You just admitted that they are all full of shit.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Freddie Mac is not the only one that was fooled by the rating of the MBS created by private institutions. The ratings agencies were fooled too as were the originating institutions and those who were buying them.
> 
> The idea that the min wage change caused the recession is ridiculous. The idea that the financial crisis didn't ripple through the economy is even more ridiculous.
> 
> The fact is that the recovery was weak and largely built on the housing boom which was destined to hit the wall. Once it did the weakness is the labor market was exposed. The effective supply of money shrunk drastically. The ability of consumption to be supported by debt was finally exposed.



Ok, I had thought we already posted all this, and established the facts.   Someone seems to have missed the memo, so here it goes again.

Before 1997, there were no Sub-prime Mortgage Backed Securities.  There were loans, but they were a niche market, but no MBS with sub-prime loans.    If you think that there were, by all means provide the evidence of them.

According to Insider Mortgage Finance, it was only in 1997 that Sub-prime mortgages started shooting off.






As you can clearly see, sub-prime was a niche, flat line market before 1997 to 1998.    So something must have happened in 1997 to 1998, to cause the Sub-prime loans to take off.

What was it?   Two things.   It was the carrot, and the stick.

First, the Carrot.  This press release was made by First Union, which later became Wachovia.

*First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
     The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union Corporation and subsidiaries.  Customers will experience no impact - they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
     "The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."
     The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating.*​
Now again, who made this deal?   Freddie Mac did.  The government did.  This was backed by the CRA.   And who gave the senior certificates guaranteed by Freddie Mac an implied AAA rating?   Freddie Mac did.  The Government did.

Freddie Mac was not "fooled by the rating agencies".  Sorry, YOU ARE WRONG.   Freddie Mac MADE THE DEAL.   Freddie Mac GAVE THEM THE RATING.    You are wrong sir.  Sorry.

Second, the stick.

[ame=http://youtu.be/Lr1M1T2Y314]How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter - YouTube[/ame]

The Clinton Administration directly sued banks to make sub-prime loans.  Cuomo in this footage, at 3 minutes, even admits openly that they are higher risk, and will have a higher default rate.

They all knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it anyway.

And you want to tell me that government was "fooled by the credit agencies"?     Bull crap dude.  They knew back in 1998 they were pushing loans that would have a higher default rate.   Even Obama, if you watch the video to the end, said "the idea was a good one".   He knew what he was doing when he was a lawyer for ACORN suing Citigroup to make bad loans.

They all knew.

So let's review huh?   They sued banks to make bad loans.  Community activist groups sued banks based on the CRA, to make bad loans.   Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae, guaranteed and bought sub-prime loans, and gave those loans a AAA rating.

And you think the CRA had nothing to do with it?   Remember First Union, which became Wachovia, after signing that deal with Freddie Mac?

Read this press release:

*Wachovia has earned an "Outstanding" Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating, the highest possible, from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).  Only 14 percent of banks regulated by the OCC achieve the "Outstanding" rating.
Regulators from the OCC analyzed Wachovia's lending, investing and service activities for the period of Oct. 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003.  The merger of First Union National Bank and Wachovia Corp. occurred during this time.  "I'm proud that we earned the highest possible rating for our active involvement in the community," said Ken Thompson, Chairman and CEO.

Its high levels of community development lending.  During the assessment period, Wachovia supplied more than $3.3 billion in community development loans.
      * Its extensive use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).  LIHTC are complex investments that provide equity financing for affordable housing projects.  Uniquely, Wachovia makes LIHTC investments directly, rather than through third party intermediaries.
      * Its leadership role in the creation of the Section 8 Rental Housing Choice Voucher Program, which allows low-income families to apply Section 8 rental vouchers toward mortgage payments for up to 15 years. Wachovia partnered with Fannie Mae to develop and pilot this innovative mortgage program, which seeks to increase homeownership among low-income families.

In 2004, Wachovia:
      * Provided $25 billion in community loans and investments to revitalize neighborhoods.
      * Helped an average of 475 lower-income families buy a home each week.
      * Originated almost $25 billion in mortgage loans, with nearly $6 billion in loans directly benefiting lower-income families and neighborhoods.
      * Received the Fannie Mae Community Lending Hero award for leadership and creativity in addressing low- and moderate-income homeownership issues.
      * Worked with 176 community mortgage partners to provide homeownership counseling and mortgages to more than 1,000 first-time homebuyers.
      * Invested $223 million in equity to create more than 5,000 affordable rental-housing units.
      * Pledged more than $75 billion over five years in community loans and investments to serve communities affected by the SouthTrust merger.
*​
And what happened after doing all these low-income Community investment loans, under the CRA, working with Fannie Mae?

They went bankrupt, just like Bear Stearns did.

I'm sorry... but if you believe that the CRA had no involvement in the crash, when there is tons of direct evidence to the contrary, then you are just denying reality, just like you have in other posts where you accuse me of "hate".    Empty argument.  Empty claims.   Denying clear cut facts.   Living in a hole of ignorance.  Time to come out into the light.   See how the world really is.


----------



## thereisnospoon

RKMBrown said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity that neither party is interested in breaking up monopolies or oligarchies, or performing any of their constitutionally assigned duties.   Both parties would rather focus on redistributing our income and acting as morality police than doing their job.
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible for me to imagine how we change this dynamic by continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican for our congressional representatives; there are established third-party alternatives already appearing on many US ballots...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't happen with this voting system.  The system must be changed to one in which you get to vote for the candidates in the order of your preference.  The current system is designed to force you to pick from two opposing bad choices that each thrive by selling the idea that voting for anyone but them is a vote for the worst choice.
Click to expand...


Can't say I disagree.
The problem is not the people going to Washington. The problem is the system by which they are forced to work within.
IMO, both Senate and House terms should be 4 years. 
In the House, members spend more than half their term campaigning for the next election. 
Senators are too entrenched. The rate of incumbents being reelected is alarming.
Lastly, term limits are desperately needed.


----------



## Indeependent

And all the Cons REFUSE to see the jump on the graph from 2004.
Talk about being blinded by an ideology.


----------



## Contumacious

jodylee said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's due to advances in technology, and before you say, oh, but capitalism caused the rise in technology, remember which country was the worlds most technologically advanced in the 1940's - *Germany. not an Adam smith in sight.*
Click to expand...


HUH?

So the technological advances were due to Otto von Bismarck? Link, please.

.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me proof that we would not be better off today if we did not implement all the bailouts.  Bunch of crybabies, oh my look that bank is gonna fail and the press says they are to big to fail, we're all gonna die if we don't give them money.  ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither side can prove anything about a reality that never existed.
> 
> Either way the clear solution is to not get into that situation again and there are clear ways to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, the Obama fluffers keep saying how the economy would have been worse without the so-called "stimulus."  You just admitted that they are all full of shit.
Click to expand...


No I didn't.


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> There is nothing to listen to but people repeating a lie about the CRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no, the CRA exists?
> 
> If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The presence of the CRA is not being debated. *What is being debated is the impact the CRA had on the crash. *
> 
> HTH
Click to expand...


Why?

Are you a glutton for punishment?

.


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> And all the Cons REFUSE to see the jump on the graph from 2004.
> Talk about being blinded by an ideology.



Because it's doesn't prove anything.     No one denies that Bush, as well as all the others, supported more home ownership.

None that I know, denies that.   All the politicians believed that "more home ownership" was 'good'.      Bush supported the policies.  All of them did.

*The problem is, the housing bubble, had already started by the time Bush got to office.*







You can see clearly that the bubble in housing prices started in 1997.  

Yes, sub-prime mortgage slowed down in 2001, until 2003.   There was a recession then, completely independent of the sub-prime mortgages, the housing bubble, or anything else.

Once that recession was over, the sub-prime rocket continued on.

But the bubble was already a done deal.   Once there is a bubble, there is only one end.... it pops.  The bubble bursts.

What exactly would you have had Bush do?   Pop the bubble early?  Bush would never have done that.   First, I highly doubt that Bush even knew there was a bubble.    Many people denied there was even a problem.

[ame=http://youtu.be/IyqYY72PeRM]Democrats in their own words Covering up Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac scandal - YouTube[/ame]

Democrats investigating Fannie and Freddie in 2004, denied there was any problem at all in the lending going on, and even suggested this was trumped up charges against Franklin Raines, 'appointed' to Fannie by Clinton.

[ame=http://youtu.be/x41prJ-X0xw]Barney Frank in 2005: housing is not a problem no bubble.mov - YouTube[/ame]

Here, Barney Frank 2005, is speaking on the floor of Congress, saying there is no bubble.  Not a problem.  You won't see a collapse like a bubble.    And yet you think Bush should have done what?

Secondly, let's even pretend that Bush did pop the Housing Price Bubble in 2003, or 04, or 05.    You know.... YOU KNOW... that if he had done that, you would be sitting here today talking about how there was absolutely nothing wrong in the housing market until Bush ruined sub-prime mortgages with his policies.

*The bottom line is this.....*

All the data clearly shows that the problem started in 1997.   Before that time, there was no housing price bubble, and there was no growth in Sub-prime mortgages, and there were no Sub-prime Mortgage backed securities.

Now you want to complain about Bush, like children blame shifting, pointing their fingers at everyone they can..... fine.   Ok, Bush supported these policies.   I get it.

Doesn't change the fact that problem originated in 1997, based on legislation push by every president since the one who signed into law, Jimmy 'worst president ever' Carter.

You can scream all you want, and be mocking and sarcastic until the end of time, the facts still show conclusively, it started in 1997.   End of discussion.  Until you can show something.... anything... that suggests the information I just posted is wrong, you are barking in wind.  And you bark about Bush, but the fact is the Democrats openly supported all these policies too.


----------



## bripat9643

jodylee said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's due to advances in technology, and before you say, oh, but capitalism caused the rise in technology, remember which country was the worlds most technologically advanced in the 1940's - Germany. not an Adam smith in sight.
Click to expand...


So you think the USA was a capitalist country during the war?


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither side can prove anything about a reality that never existed.
> 
> Either way the clear solution is to not get into that situation again and there are clear ways to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, the Obama fluffers keep saying how the economy would have been worse without the so-called "stimulus."  You just admitted that they are all full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't.
Click to expand...


Sure you did.  You just said you can prove anything about a reality that never existed.  Is there a reality where Obumer's stimulus wasn't passed?


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> The bubble would have burst eventually because home prices were artificially high for multiple reasons. Interest rate being low, the use of homes as financial instruments, incorrect information making the loans look less risky than they were, and no better place to put the capital from the standpoint of investors.



"Artificially high prices" doesn't cause _anything_ to "burst". People taking out loans that they were not qualified for and could not pay back is what caused the "burst" genius. And guess what happened when banks didn't get back the money they loaned out? They had to start laying off people. Which means _those_ people then couldn't pay their mortgage. The entire thing starts to snowball. Finally, throw in a saturated market of cheap homes that the banks are simply trying to unload and recovere some of their lost investments in and you have the collapse.


----------



## Doubletap

Bombur said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. 
> &#8213; Ayn Rand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree...disband our military...NOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is great for horribly stupid quotes. Hopefully he posts some more. How about that one about owning the sweat off your brow or whatever.
Click to expand...


Wow. Another heavy rebuttal to the quote. Are u always so intellectual? lol


----------



## Indeependent

Doubletap said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree...disband our military...NOW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is great for horribly stupid quotes. Hopefully he posts some more. How about that one about owning the sweat off your brow or whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Another heavy rebuttal to the quote. Are u always so intellectual? lol
Click to expand...


I apologize for being a Member of the Tribe.
You see, MY religion has a whole bunch of societal rules, some of which include taxation for infrastructure.

On one side we have Ayn Rand, self-hating Jew, one the other side, we have God.
Think I'll go with God.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freddie Mac is not the only one that was fooled by the rating of the MBS created by private institutions. The ratings agencies were fooled too as were the originating institutions and those who were buying them.
> 
> The idea that the min wage change caused the recession is ridiculous. The idea that the financial crisis didn't ripple through the economy is even more ridiculous.
> 
> The fact is that the recovery was weak and largely built on the housing boom which was destined to hit the wall. Once it did the weakness is the labor market was exposed. The effective supply of money shrunk drastically. The ability of consumption to be supported by debt was finally exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I had thought we already posted all this, and established the facts.   Someone seems to have missed the memo, so here it goes again.
> 
> Before 1997, there were no Sub-prime Mortgage Backed Securities.  There were loans, but they were a niche market, but no MBS with sub-prime loans.    If you think that there were, by all means provide the evidence of them.
> 
> According to Insider Mortgage Finance, it was only in 1997 that Sub-prime mortgages started shooting off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can clearly see, sub-prime was a niche, flat line market before 1997 to 1998.    So something must have happened in 1997 to 1998, to cause the Sub-prime loans to take off.
> 
> What was it?   Two things.   It was the carrot, and the stick.
> 
> First, the Carrot.  This press release was made by First Union, which later became Wachovia.
> 
> *First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union Corporation and subsidiaries.  Customers will experience no impact - they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
> "The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating.*​
> Now again, who made this deal?   Freddie Mac did.  The government did.  This was backed by the CRA.   And who gave the senior certificates guaranteed by Freddie Mac an implied AAA rating?   Freddie Mac did.  The Government did.
> 
> Freddie Mac was not "fooled by the rating agencies".  Sorry, YOU ARE WRONG.   Freddie Mac MADE THE DEAL.   Freddie Mac GAVE THEM THE RATING.    You are wrong sir.  Sorry.
> 
> Second, the stick.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/Lr1M1T2Y314]How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> The Clinton Administration directly sued banks to make sub-prime loans.  Cuomo in this footage, at 3 minutes, even admits openly that they are higher risk, and will have a higher default rate.
> 
> They all knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it anyway.
> 
> And you want to tell me that government was "fooled by the credit agencies"?     Bull crap dude.  They knew back in 1998 they were pushing loans that would have a higher default rate.   Even Obama, if you watch the video to the end, said "the idea was a good one".   He knew what he was doing when he was a lawyer for ACORN suing Citigroup to make bad loans.
> 
> They all knew.
> 
> So let's review huh?   They sued banks to make bad loans.  Community activist groups sued banks based on the CRA, to make bad loans.   Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae, guaranteed and bought sub-prime loans, and gave those loans a AAA rating.
> 
> And you think the CRA had nothing to do with it?   Remember First Union, which became Wachovia, after signing that deal with Freddie Mac?
> 
> Read this press release:
> 
> *Wachovia has earned an "Outstanding" Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating, the highest possible, from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).  Only 14 percent of banks regulated by the OCC achieve the "Outstanding" rating.
> Regulators from the OCC analyzed Wachovia's lending, investing and service activities for the period of Oct. 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003.  The merger of First Union National Bank and Wachovia Corp. occurred during this time.  "I'm proud that we earned the highest possible rating for our active involvement in the community," said Ken Thompson, Chairman and CEO.
> 
> Its high levels of community development lending.  During the assessment period, Wachovia supplied more than $3.3 billion in community development loans.
> * Its extensive use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).  LIHTC are complex investments that provide equity financing for affordable housing projects.  Uniquely, Wachovia makes LIHTC investments directly, rather than through third party intermediaries.
> * Its leadership role in the creation of the Section 8 Rental Housing Choice Voucher Program, which allows low-income families to apply Section 8 rental vouchers toward mortgage payments for up to 15 years. Wachovia partnered with Fannie Mae to develop and pilot this innovative mortgage program, which seeks to increase homeownership among low-income families.
> 
> In 2004, Wachovia:
> * Provided $25 billion in community loans and investments to revitalize neighborhoods.
> * Helped an average of 475 lower-income families buy a home each week.
> * Originated almost $25 billion in mortgage loans, with nearly $6 billion in loans directly benefiting lower-income families and neighborhoods.
> * Received the Fannie Mae Community Lending Hero award for leadership and creativity in addressing low- and moderate-income homeownership issues.
> * Worked with 176 community mortgage partners to provide homeownership counseling and mortgages to more than 1,000 first-time homebuyers.
> * Invested $223 million in equity to create more than 5,000 affordable rental-housing units.
> * Pledged more than $75 billion over five years in community loans and investments to serve communities affected by the SouthTrust merger.
> *​
> And what happened after doing all these low-income Community investment loans, under the CRA, working with Fannie Mae?
> 
> They went bankrupt, just like Bear Stearns did.
> 
> I'm sorry... but if you believe that the CRA had no involvement in the crash, when there is tons of direct evidence to the contrary, then you are just denying reality, just like you have in other posts where you accuse me of "hate".    Empty argument.  Empty claims.   Denying clear cut facts.   Living in a hole of ignorance.  Time to come out into the light.   See how the world really is.
Click to expand...


F&F are not ratings agencies. 

Not all sub-prime loans are CRA loans.

The crisis is a result of a lot of contributing factors but the mere presence of CRA loans doesn't equate to investors not understanding the risk of a CRA loan or sub-prime loans in general. 

The problem wasn't with the CRA loans or really the sub-prime loans themselves but in the MBS that hid the risk inherent in the loans backing those MBS and the miscalculation of the risk inherent in the underlying mortgages. The financial institutions packaged the MBS and F&F and the rating agencies and the buyers of the MBS all thought they were AAA and they were all wrong. 

Underlying these mistakes was a housing bubble brought out by changes in interest rates. Since people buy houses based on what they can afford per month lower interest rates meant they could afford to pay more for a house. This meant higher home prices.

This surge in home prices resulted in a lot of profit for a lot of financial institutions which attracted investors who were fleeing US treasuries which were offering very little return. To these investors they were buying AAA debt instruments. Some even considered them to be backed by the Federal government because of the involvement of F&F. This influx of capital just fueled the bubble. There were a lot of financial institutions making a lot of money on these MBS.

So I have to wonder how these financial institutions are able to earn massive amounts of money but are not the ones responsible for making financial decisions? Isn't that what they are paid for?

There is a lot of blame to go around and F&F played their part as did the Federal Reserve. The blame doesn't stop there (and neither did the profit) but the CRA mortgages by themselves had little to nothing to do with it. They didn't create the bubble and they didn't pop it either.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, the Obama fluffers keep saying how the economy would have been worse without the so-called "stimulus."  You just admitted that they are all full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did.  You just said you can prove anything about a reality that never existed.  Is there a reality where Obumer's stimulus wasn't passed?
Click to expand...


Are you really trying to act like there is some "gotcha" moment here because I made a distinction between being able to prove something and predicting something?

Obama can never prove what the world without a stimulus would look like. Are you equating that to being full of crap? Are you under some impression that Obama was claiming to have traveled to a future without a stimulus and knows the only way to stop it?


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bubble would have burst eventually because home prices were artificially high for multiple reasons. Interest rate being low, the use of homes as financial instruments, incorrect information making the loans look less risky than they were, and no better place to put the capital from the standpoint of investors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Artificially high prices" doesn't cause _anything_ to "burst". People taking out loans that they were not qualified for and could not pay back is what caused the "burst" genius. And guess what happened when banks didn't get back the money they loaned out? They had to start laying off people. Which means _those_ people then couldn't pay their mortgage. The entire thing starts to snowball. Finally, throw in a saturated market of cheap homes that the banks are simply trying to unload and recovere some of their lost investments in and you have the collapse.
Click to expand...


What I said is far more accurate with regards to the cause of the price increases and the reason why the bubble eventually popped. I agree there would be a snowball effect. Was anyone arguing otherwise?


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did.  You just said you can prove anything about a reality that never existed.  Is there a reality where Obumer's stimulus wasn't passed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really trying to act like there is some "gotcha" moment here because I made a distinction between being able to prove something and predicting something?
Click to expand...


What you did is admit that Obama fluffers are full of shit whenever they claim the economy benefitted from the stimulus.



Bombur said:


> Obama can never prove what the world without a stimulus would look like. Are you equating that to being full of crap?



Since Obama and his fluffers are constantly claiming that the world would have been much worse without his porkulus bill, yes, that is the equivalent of being full of crap.



Bombur said:


> Are you under some impression that Obama was claiming to have traveled to a future without a stimulus and knows the only way to stop it?



He constantly claims that he knows what the future would have been.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

OP GeorgiePorgie's REAL problem with Capitalism and "income inequality" is that capitalism yields a MARKEDLY higher base level for the poor (notwithstanding that they don't have income "equality" with the rich) than socialism can produce.


----------



## Indofred

Capitalism produces inequality because some people are better than others.
Some people are lazy whilst others work hard.
Some people are bright but some are stupid.
Some fuck about in school but others do every homework.

The bright and hard working tend to get paid more or run business.
The rest are toilet cleaners or whatever.

Live with it.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.



I knew this would be said by some lazy thinker. EVERYONE FUCKING KNOWS. The point is Bill Gates HAS ACCESS to these places of learning, growth and networking.

For fucks sake if you think the average person in the "parasite class" has the same opportunity and drive instilled in him through public education (esp. struggling inner-city schools who sometimes have low quality teachers) then you are living on another planet. 

Until access to opprtunity and education becomes similar to that of upper middle class and beyond then we can expect more parasites at McDonalds or unemployed, not millionaires. Of course there's an exception or 100 but don't act like those 100 success stories means everyone can do it. A lot of factors need to line up and typically don't--and it's not a matter of merely trying harder, it involves a slew of well-adjusted skills and motivators. Having a shattered family can hurt the support of dreaming big. People like you telling them they are shitty people is exactly the sort of shit they hear all the time, do you think that helps motivate? Maybe in your world where hate and aggression define your motivations, but people tend to look for support, not harassment.

Of course people can succeed in spite of adversity but you are ruefully ignorant if you think this is the answer for everyone. No, its a fundamental flaw in our precious capitalist economy, that is, if you think having poor people you yell at is a flaw.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> I have to confess, the core impulse of striving for 'equality', either in opportunity or outcome, seems somewhat pointless. Everyone gets a different deal. No amount of meddling will change that. Equal rights under the law is vital. Freedom to decide for ourselves what to strive for is vital. But all these discussions of what people 'deserve' falls flat (for me). We should be free to distribute economic decision making power to those who do the things we like. If that means a few people get most of the power, why is that bad thing? As long as our freedom to make the call, as individual consumers and producers, is preserved we can always change our minds and give our money to someone else.



I like your point. It highlights the finished product of capitalism: inequality to the core.

The question is, do we want to make it our goal to better the lot of those struggling? Welfare helps but is not the answer. So do we want inequality (at varying levels) or not? The answer from those who are on a laptop in a warm house tends to be "I'm good with where I'm at, so the way it is works for me." Yet the billions of people without income or shelter we never see (or at least communicate with) because of well placed social strata. It's way easy to ignore their concern and listen to yours. If anyone possess empathy, this is not a hard gap to bridge and we thus understand capitalism results our success at their defeat.

I'm not accusing that you operate this way, dblack. It's merely a note and nothing more.

Again, for you lovers of capitalism, I am well aware of its shining light and how its benefits billions.


----------



## Wyatt earp

I love this new liberal talking point "income inequality" it is like im 4 years old and watching big bird all over again. 
Hey "girls and boys can you say I n c o m e i n q u e l ty?"
First of all Obama' team plagiarized it from the pope
Second of all like it is anything new..
It is the Chicago way... take the voters mind of of obama care.


----------



## gnarlylove

Indofred said:


> Capitalism produces inequality because some people are better than others.
> Some people are lazy whilst others work hard.
> Some people are bright but some are stupid.
> Some fuck about in school but others do every homework.
> 
> The bright and hard working tend to get paid more or run business.
> The rest are toilet cleaners or whatever.
> 
> Live with it.



It's like Republicans think there's no reason people are smart or stupid. It's an inborn trait (that is inherited?). Believe it or not people can be trained to be smart or stupid. It largely depends on their surroundings and esteem, less so on raw "mental giftedness."

Socrates wanted to prove this point. He took an illiterate and "dumb" Athenian and spent the day with him. In the sand he tried to get the slave to derive basic mathematical conclusions (geometrical in nature) without direct help. End of the day the slave had made several deductions with minimal prodding. Socrates notes this shows mankind understands universal principles if brought into a setting that awakens that epistemology. This has application for today: treat people similarly with similar education and we'd see very different world than we see today in America.

For Rightwingers, it's a matter of overcoming hatred for a certain class of people that are exactly like you except they were born into different circumstances that discouraged human flourishing and skill development. By the luck of the draw you could have been born into the poor family who is despised by all Republicans.

Disclaimer: I disagree with Obama/Democrats as much as I do any Republican official.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to confess, the core impulse of striving for 'equality', either in opportunity or outcome, seems somewhat pointless. Everyone gets a different deal. No amount of meddling will change that. Equal rights under the law is vital. Freedom to decide for ourselves what to strive for is vital. But all these discussions of what people 'deserve' falls flat (for me). We should be free to distribute economic decision making power to those who do the things we like. If that means a few people get most of the power, why is that bad thing? As long as our freedom to make the call, as individual consumers and producers, is preserved we can always change our minds and give our money to someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like your point. It highlights the finished product of capitalism: inequality to the core.
> 
> The question is, do we want to make it our goal to better the lot of those struggling? Welfare helps but is not the answer. So do we want inequality (at varying levels) or not? The answer from those who are on a laptop in a warm house tends to be "I'm good with where I'm at, so the way it is works for me." Yet the billions of people without income or shelter we never see (or at least communicate with) because of well placed social strata. It's way easy to ignore their concern and listen to yours. If anyone possess empathy, this is not a hard gap to bridge and we thus understand capitalism results our success at their defeat.
> 
> I'm not accusing that you operate this way, dblack. It's merely a note and nothing more.
> 
> Again, for you lovers of capitalism, I am well aware of its shining light and how its benefits billions.
Click to expand...


"*The question is, do we want to make it our goal to better the lot of those struggling?*"

No, I don't think that is the question. Or at least, that's not where much disagreement lies. Of course we want to help out people in need. The question is, do we want to employ the coercive power of government in pursuit of that goal? Are we willing to resort to violence to make it happen?

"*So do we want inequality (at varying levels) or not?*"

Economically, yes we most certainly do want inequality. Wealth represents economic decision making power, the power to allocate labor and resources toward activities the benefit society. We want the people who do that well to have more of that power, and those who squander it to have less.


----------



## gnarlylove

My use of inequality there was loose at best. Inequality will exist as long as individuals do. However, what degree of inequality is acceptable? And inequality is on variety of levels, income is just one (and one that I care less about than education gaps or how many citizens view and treat poor humans--akin to a caged chicken you demand production from or you eat it rather than a human).


----------



## Wyatt earp

gnarlylove said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism produces inequality because some people are better than others.
> Some people are lazy whilst others work hard.
> Some people are bright but some are stupid.
> Some fuck about in school but others do every homework.
> 
> The bright and hard working tend to get paid more or run business.
> The rest are toilet cleaners or whatever.
> 
> Live with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like Republicans think there's no reason people are smart or stupid. It's an inborn trait (that is inherited?). Believe it or not people can be trained to be smart or stupid. It largely depends on their surroundings and esteem, less so on raw "mental giftedness."
> 
> Socrates wanted to prove this point. He took an illiterate and "dumb" Athenian and spent the day with him. In the sand he tried to get the slave to derive basic mathematical conclusions (geometrical in nature) without direct help. End of the day the slave had made several deductions with minimal prodding. Socrates notes this shows mankind understands universal principles if brought into a setting that awakens that epistemology. This has application for today: treat people similarly with similar education and we'd see very different world than we see today in America.
> 
> For Rightwingers, it's a matter of overcoming hatred for a certain class of people that are exactly like you except they were born into different circumstances that discouraged human flourishing and skill development. By the luck of the draw you could have been born into the poor family who is despised by all Republicans.
> 
> Disclaimer: I disagree with Obama/Democrats as much as I do any Republican official.
Click to expand...


I agree but democrats in this country try to make them stay dumb for votes. In my little job we wecolme the chance to find a diamond in the ruff. But what are you supposed to do when democrats pay them not to work for two year's?  They don't want to work. And move up with a $12 dollar an hour jobs whem their friends live good in their opinion off of food stamps and ssuch.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say "too much" anywhere? I don't think so.
> 
> Blaming the Federal Reserve is misguided and doesn't even come close to telling the whole picture but at least they had some impact on the whole thing. Those who blame CRA are just pushing ignorance.
> 
> The bottom line is that people made investments with bad information. When that happens in a market bad things tend to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did I say "too much" anywhere? I don't think so.*
> 
> You said "look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates".
> Did you mean to blame them for not lowering enough?
> 
> *When that happens in a market bad things tend to happen.*
> 
> Moreso when the government encourages (forces) banks to loan to poor credit risks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I specifically said I wasn't blaming the Fed. I was pointing out that there actions did have an impact on the markets though. Which is just a pretty easy thing to observe. In order to argue blame the first thing you have to establish is that there was an impact.
> 
> The theory that it was the CRA doesn't hold up to scrutiny because there is no evidence that the CRA had an impact. It is kind of sad that so many people are so ready to blame poor people and government that they can believe poor people crashed the economy. It doesn't pass a basic common sense appraisal.
Click to expand...


Bubbles happen. Always have, always will.
Can the Fed make bubbles worse? Obviously.
Did the CRA cause bank losses? Obviously.
Did Fannie and Freddie turn private losses into taxpayer losses? Obviously.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Did I say "too much" anywhere? I don't think so.*
> 
> You said "look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates".
> Did you mean to blame them for not lowering enough?
> 
> *When that happens in a market bad things tend to happen.*
> 
> Moreso when the government encourages (forces) banks to loan to poor credit risks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically said I wasn't blaming the Fed. I was pointing out that there actions did have an impact on the markets though. Which is just a pretty easy thing to observe. In order to argue blame the first thing you have to establish is that there was an impact.
> 
> The theory that it was the CRA doesn't hold up to scrutiny because there is no evidence that the CRA had an impact. It is kind of sad that so many people are so ready to blame poor people and government that they can believe poor people crashed the economy. It doesn't pass a basic common sense appraisal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bubbles happen. Always have, always will.
> Can the Fed make bubbles worse? Obviously.
> Did the CRA cause bank losses? Obviously.
> Did Fannie and Freddie turn private losses into taxpayer losses? Obviously.
Click to expand...

I just hope the most powerful person on the planet knows what she is doing.  God help us if yellen dont


----------



## Doubletap

Indeependent said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand is great for horribly stupid quotes. Hopefully he posts some more. How about that one about owning the sweat off your brow or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Another heavy rebuttal to the quote. Are u always so intellectual? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for being a Member of the Tribe.
> You see, MY religion has a whole bunch of societal rules, some of which include taxation for infrastructure.
> 
> On one side we have Ayn Rand, self-hating Jew, one the other side, we have God.
> Think I'll go with God.
Click to expand...


You're free to go, sadly, with the unproven.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freddie Mac is not the only one that was fooled by the rating of the MBS created by private institutions. The ratings agencies were fooled too as were the originating institutions and those who were buying them.
> 
> The idea that the min wage change caused the recession is ridiculous. The idea that the financial crisis didn't ripple through the economy is even more ridiculous.
> 
> The fact is that the recovery was weak and largely built on the housing boom which was destined to hit the wall. Once it did the weakness is the labor market was exposed. The effective supply of money shrunk drastically. The ability of consumption to be supported by debt was finally exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I had thought we already posted all this, and established the facts.   Someone seems to have missed the memo, so here it goes again.
> 
> Before 1997, there were no Sub-prime Mortgage Backed Securities.  There were loans, but they were a niche market, but no MBS with sub-prime loans.    If you think that there were, by all means provide the evidence of them.
> 
> According to Insider Mortgage Finance, it was only in 1997 that Sub-prime mortgages started shooting off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can clearly see, sub-prime was a niche, flat line market before 1997 to 1998.    So something must have happened in 1997 to 1998, to cause the Sub-prime loans to take off.
> 
> What was it?   Two things.   It was the carrot, and the stick.
> 
> First, the Carrot.  This press release was made by First Union, which later became Wachovia.
> 
> *First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union Corporation and subsidiaries.  Customers will experience no impact - they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
> "The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating.*​
> Now again, who made this deal?   Freddie Mac did.  The government did.  This was backed by the CRA.   And who gave the senior certificates guaranteed by Freddie Mac an implied AAA rating?   Freddie Mac did.  The Government did.
> 
> Freddie Mac was not "fooled by the rating agencies".  Sorry, YOU ARE WRONG.   Freddie Mac MADE THE DEAL.   Freddie Mac GAVE THEM THE RATING.    You are wrong sir.  Sorry.
> 
> Second, the stick.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/Lr1M1T2Y314]How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> The Clinton Administration directly sued banks to make sub-prime loans.  Cuomo in this footage, at 3 minutes, even admits openly that they are higher risk, and will have a higher default rate.
> 
> They all knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it anyway.
> 
> And you want to tell me that government was "fooled by the credit agencies"?     Bull crap dude.  They knew back in 1998 they were pushing loans that would have a higher default rate.   Even Obama, if you watch the video to the end, said "the idea was a good one".   He knew what he was doing when he was a lawyer for ACORN suing Citigroup to make bad loans.
> 
> They all knew.
> 
> So let's review huh?   They sued banks to make bad loans.  Community activist groups sued banks based on the CRA, to make bad loans.   Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae, guaranteed and bought sub-prime loans, and gave those loans a AAA rating.
> 
> And you think the CRA had nothing to do with it?   Remember First Union, which became Wachovia, after signing that deal with Freddie Mac?
> 
> Read this press release:
> 
> *Wachovia has earned an "Outstanding" Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating, the highest possible, from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).  Only 14 percent of banks regulated by the OCC achieve the "Outstanding" rating.
> Regulators from the OCC analyzed Wachovia's lending, investing and service activities for the period of Oct. 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003.  The merger of First Union National Bank and Wachovia Corp. occurred during this time.  "I'm proud that we earned the highest possible rating for our active involvement in the community," said Ken Thompson, Chairman and CEO.
> 
> Its high levels of community development lending.  During the assessment period, Wachovia supplied more than $3.3 billion in community development loans.
> * Its extensive use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).  LIHTC are complex investments that provide equity financing for affordable housing projects.  Uniquely, Wachovia makes LIHTC investments directly, rather than through third party intermediaries.
> * Its leadership role in the creation of the Section 8 Rental Housing Choice Voucher Program, which allows low-income families to apply Section 8 rental vouchers toward mortgage payments for up to 15 years. Wachovia partnered with Fannie Mae to develop and pilot this innovative mortgage program, which seeks to increase homeownership among low-income families.
> 
> In 2004, Wachovia:
> * Provided $25 billion in community loans and investments to revitalize neighborhoods.
> * Helped an average of 475 lower-income families buy a home each week.
> * Originated almost $25 billion in mortgage loans, with nearly $6 billion in loans directly benefiting lower-income families and neighborhoods.
> * Received the Fannie Mae Community Lending Hero award for leadership and creativity in addressing low- and moderate-income homeownership issues.
> * Worked with 176 community mortgage partners to provide homeownership counseling and mortgages to more than 1,000 first-time homebuyers.
> * Invested $223 million in equity to create more than 5,000 affordable rental-housing units.
> * Pledged more than $75 billion over five years in community loans and investments to serve communities affected by the SouthTrust merger.
> *​
> And what happened after doing all these low-income Community investment loans, under the CRA, working with Fannie Mae?
> 
> They went bankrupt, just like Bear Stearns did.
> 
> I'm sorry... but if you believe that the CRA had no involvement in the crash, when there is tons of direct evidence to the contrary, then you are just denying reality, just like you have in other posts where you accuse me of "hate".    Empty argument.  Empty claims.   Denying clear cut facts.   Living in a hole of ignorance.  Time to come out into the light.   See how the world really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F&F are not ratings agencies.
> 
> Not all sub-prime loans are CRA loans.
> 
> The crisis is a result of a lot of contributing factors but the mere presence of CRA loans doesn't equate to investors not understanding the risk of a CRA loan or sub-prime loans in general.
> 
> The problem wasn't with the CRA loans or really the sub-prime loans themselves but in the MBS that hid the risk inherent in the loans backing those MBS and the miscalculation of the risk inherent in the underlying mortgages. The financial institutions packaged the MBS and F&F and the rating agencies and the buyers of the MBS all thought they were AAA and they were all wrong.
> 
> Underlying these mistakes was a housing bubble brought out by changes in interest rates. Since people buy houses based on what they can afford per month lower interest rates meant they could afford to pay more for a house. This meant higher home prices.
> 
> This surge in home prices resulted in a lot of profit for a lot of financial institutions which attracted investors who were fleeing US treasuries which were offering very little return. To these investors they were buying AAA debt instruments. Some even considered them to be backed by the Federal government because of the involvement of F&F. This influx of capital just fueled the bubble. There were a lot of financial institutions making a lot of money on these MBS.
> 
> So I have to wonder how these financial institutions are able to earn massive amounts of money but are not the ones responsible for making financial decisions? Isn't that what they are paid for?
> 
> There is a lot of blame to go around and F&F played their part as did the Federal Reserve. The blame doesn't stop there (and neither did the profit) but the CRA mortgages by themselves had little to nothing to do with it. They didn't create the bubble and they didn't pop it either.
Click to expand...


Again, if the CRA had nothing to do with it, and if F&F had nothing to do with it, then please give a logical, and rational explanation for why the sub-prime market was completely flat until 1997, and why there were no Sub-prime mortgage backed securities until 1997.

I've looked... and I can't find a single instance where a sub-prime mortgage was given a AAA rating until 1997.   If you can show me an example where it happened before 1997, then you might have a point.

But until 1997, when Freddie Mac gave sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating, it didn't happen.    I even have read that rating agencies never considered rating sub-prime loans because it was well established that they were not worth rating.   Why rate something that you already know will fail to get even the lowest rating?

That is, until the Federal Government, through Freddie Mac, gave them a AAA rating.

This is what I don't get about you people on the left.  You routinely want to use the power of government to influence the market.    But then when government influences the market to do something bad, you blame "the market" for not ignoring the government, and doing the smart thing instead.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.   If you want government to influence the market with the CRA and Freddie and Fannie, then you should expect that when government pushes bad loans, that the market will follow.   You lose the option of blaming the market for making bad loans, when you are suing banks to make bad loans, and pushing bad loans with F&F.


----------



## Toro

The GSEs don't rate loans. Freddie and Fannie don't give AAA ratings, or any ratings, to any pool of bonds.  The federal government doesn't rate bonds.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I had thought we already posted all this, and established the facts.   Someone seems to have missed the memo, so here it goes again.
> 
> Before 1997, there were no Sub-prime Mortgage Backed Securities.  There were loans, but they were a niche market, but no MBS with sub-prime loans.    If you think that there were, by all means provide the evidence of them.
> 
> According to Insider Mortgage Finance, it was only in 1997 that Sub-prime mortgages started shooting off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can clearly see, sub-prime was a niche, flat line market before 1997 to 1998.    So something must have happened in 1997 to 1998, to cause the Sub-prime loans to take off.
> 
> What was it?   Two things.   It was the carrot, and the stick.
> 
> First, the Carrot.  This press release was made by First Union, which later became Wachovia.
> 
> *First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union Corporation and subsidiaries.  Customers will experience no impact - they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
> "The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating.*​
> Now again, who made this deal?   Freddie Mac did.  The government did.  This was backed by the CRA.   And who gave the senior certificates guaranteed by Freddie Mac an implied AAA rating?   Freddie Mac did.  The Government did.
> 
> Freddie Mac was not "fooled by the rating agencies".  Sorry, YOU ARE WRONG.   Freddie Mac MADE THE DEAL.   Freddie Mac GAVE THEM THE RATING.    You are wrong sir.  Sorry.
> 
> Second, the stick.
> 
> How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter - YouTube
> 
> The Clinton Administration directly sued banks to make sub-prime loans.  Cuomo in this footage, at 3 minutes, even admits openly that they are higher risk, and will have a higher default rate.
> 
> They all knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it anyway.
> 
> And you want to tell me that government was "fooled by the credit agencies"?     Bull crap dude.  They knew back in 1998 they were pushing loans that would have a higher default rate.   Even Obama, if you watch the video to the end, said "the idea was a good one".   He knew what he was doing when he was a lawyer for ACORN suing Citigroup to make bad loans.
> 
> They all knew.
> 
> So let's review huh?   They sued banks to make bad loans.  Community activist groups sued banks based on the CRA, to make bad loans.   Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae, guaranteed and bought sub-prime loans, and gave those loans a AAA rating.
> 
> And you think the CRA had nothing to do with it?   Remember First Union, which became Wachovia, after signing that deal with Freddie Mac?
> 
> Read this press release:
> 
> *Wachovia has earned an "Outstanding" Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating, the highest possible, from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).  Only 14 percent of banks regulated by the OCC achieve the "Outstanding" rating.
> Regulators from the OCC analyzed Wachovia's lending, investing and service activities for the period of Oct. 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003.  The merger of First Union National Bank and Wachovia Corp. occurred during this time.  "I'm proud that we earned the highest possible rating for our active involvement in the community," said Ken Thompson, Chairman and CEO.
> 
> Its high levels of community development lending.  During the assessment period, Wachovia supplied more than $3.3 billion in community development loans.
> * Its extensive use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).  LIHTC are complex investments that provide equity financing for affordable housing projects.  Uniquely, Wachovia makes LIHTC investments directly, rather than through third party intermediaries.
> * Its leadership role in the creation of the Section 8 Rental Housing Choice Voucher Program, which allows low-income families to apply Section 8 rental vouchers toward mortgage payments for up to 15 years. Wachovia partnered with Fannie Mae to develop and pilot this innovative mortgage program, which seeks to increase homeownership among low-income families.
> 
> In 2004, Wachovia:
> * Provided $25 billion in community loans and investments to revitalize neighborhoods.
> * Helped an average of 475 lower-income families buy a home each week.
> * Originated almost $25 billion in mortgage loans, with nearly $6 billion in loans directly benefiting lower-income families and neighborhoods.
> * Received the Fannie Mae Community Lending Hero award for leadership and creativity in addressing low- and moderate-income homeownership issues.
> * Worked with 176 community mortgage partners to provide homeownership counseling and mortgages to more than 1,000 first-time homebuyers.
> * Invested $223 million in equity to create more than 5,000 affordable rental-housing units.
> * Pledged more than $75 billion over five years in community loans and investments to serve communities affected by the SouthTrust merger.
> *​
> And what happened after doing all these low-income Community investment loans, under the CRA, working with Fannie Mae?
> 
> They went bankrupt, just like Bear Stearns did.
> 
> I'm sorry... but if you believe that the CRA had no involvement in the crash, when there is tons of direct evidence to the contrary, then you are just denying reality, just like you have in other posts where you accuse me of "hate".    Empty argument.  Empty claims.   Denying clear cut facts.   Living in a hole of ignorance.  Time to come out into the light.   See how the world really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F&F are not ratings agencies.
> 
> Not all sub-prime loans are CRA loans.
> 
> The crisis is a result of a lot of contributing factors but the mere presence of CRA loans doesn't equate to investors not understanding the risk of a CRA loan or sub-prime loans in general.
> 
> The problem wasn't with the CRA loans or really the sub-prime loans themselves but in the MBS that hid the risk inherent in the loans backing those MBS and the miscalculation of the risk inherent in the underlying mortgages. The financial institutions packaged the MBS and F&F and the rating agencies and the buyers of the MBS all thought they were AAA and they were all wrong.
> 
> Underlying these mistakes was a housing bubble brought out by changes in interest rates. Since people buy houses based on what they can afford per month lower interest rates meant they could afford to pay more for a house. This meant higher home prices.
> 
> This surge in home prices resulted in a lot of profit for a lot of financial institutions which attracted investors who were fleeing US treasuries which were offering very little return. To these investors they were buying AAA debt instruments. Some even considered them to be backed by the Federal government because of the involvement of F&F. This influx of capital just fueled the bubble. There were a lot of financial institutions making a lot of money on these MBS.
> 
> So I have to wonder how these financial institutions are able to earn massive amounts of money but are not the ones responsible for making financial decisions? Isn't that what they are paid for?
> 
> There is a lot of blame to go around and F&F played their part as did the Federal Reserve. The blame doesn't stop there (and neither did the profit) but the CRA mortgages by themselves had little to nothing to do with it. They didn't create the bubble and they didn't pop it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if the CRA had nothing to do with it, and if F&F had nothing to do with it, then please give a logical, and rational explanation for why the sub-prime market was completely flat until 1997, and why there were no Sub-prime mortgage backed securities until 1997.
> 
> I've looked... and I can't find a single instance where a sub-prime mortgage was given a AAA rating until 1997.   If you can show me an example where it happened before 1997, then you might have a point.
> 
> But until 1997, when Freddie Mac gave sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating, it didn't happen.    I even have read that rating agencies never considered rating sub-prime loans because it was well established that they were not worth rating.   Why rate something that you already know will fail to get even the lowest rating?
> 
> That is, until the Federal Government, through Freddie Mac, gave them a AAA rating.
> 
> This is what I don't get about you people on the left.  You routinely want to use the power of government to influence the market.    But then when government influences the market to do something bad, you blame "the market" for not ignoring the government, and doing the smart thing instead.
> 
> Sorry, you can't have it both ways.   If you want government to influence the market with the CRA and Freddie and Fannie, then you should expect that when government pushes bad loans, that the market will follow.   You lose the option of blaming the market for making bad loans, when you are suing banks to make bad loans, and pushing bad loans with F&F.
Click to expand...

It is even more sorry (and telling) that you can't provide any evidence of Fannie or Freddy or any other federal governmental agency rating bonds, isn't it?

Why do you regularly post lies, distortions, and disinformation?


----------



## Indofred

gnarlylove said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism produces inequality because some people are better than others.
> Some people are lazy whilst others work hard.
> Some people are bright but some are stupid.
> Some fuck about in school but others do every homework.
> 
> The bright and hard working tend to get paid more or run business.
> The rest are toilet cleaners or whatever.
> 
> Live with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like Republicans think there's no reason people are smart or stupid. It's an inborn trait (that is inherited?). Believe it or not people can be trained to be smart or stupid. It largely depends on their surroundings and esteem, less so on raw "mental giftedness."
> 
> Socrates wanted to prove this point. He took an illiterate and "dumb" Athenian and spent the day with him. In the sand he tried to get the slave to derive basic mathematical conclusions (geometrical in nature) without direct help. End of the day the slave had made several deductions with minimal prodding. Socrates notes this shows mankind understands universal principles if brought into a setting that awakens that epistemology. This has application for today: treat people similarly with similar education and we'd see very different world than we see today in America.
> 
> For Rightwingers, it's a matter of overcoming hatred for a certain class of people that are exactly like you except they were born into different circumstances that discouraged human flourishing and skill development. By the luck of the draw you could have been born into the poor family who is despised by all Republicans.
> 
> Disclaimer: I disagree with Obama/Democrats as much as I do any Republican official.
Click to expand...


I am what you would call a republican but I choose the title, Conservative.
I was inspired by the wonderful Maggie, the angel who saved England from the silly socialists.
As for believing intelligence is down to your surrounding, I do not.
Intelligence is an individual thing and nothing to do with family, upbringing or surroundings.
It does not follow that a shit shovelling low life will have an equally stupid son or daughter.
However, basic genetics makes this more likely.

As for Socrates, you misrepresented the story. If I recall, he took a slave and asked him questions.
That's an important problem with the tale. We have no idea who the slave was and know nothing of his background, only that he was a slave.
He could easily have been a member of a noble family that was defeated and enslaved.
Socrates made basic errors and, even worse, his sample was far too small to show suggest any conclusive results.

As for hatred, not at all.
I have little or no respect for people who want everything but can't be bothered to do something about making themselves worth that pay rise.
That doesn't suggest or imply hatred.

Actually, the other way around.
As I mentioned before, I'm a proud capitalist and, as such, I dislike waste.
That in mind, I suggest a mandatory IQ test at the earliest possible age for ALL children, regardless of background.
The top 5% should be given free education at the best possible schools and universities (dependent on their willingness to work - if they're lazy; toss them back).
That way, the best, in ability and attitude, will rise to the top and (Bonus for the lefties), they're help support their poor families whilst making a massive contribution to the world.
That'll help everyone concerned and, bonus for the right wing, if the best are supporting their previously welfare dependent family, the government has to spend less.

There you are - potential free education at the best schools, even for shit shoveller's sons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism produces inequality because some people are better than others.
> Some people are lazy whilst others work hard.
> Some people are bright but some are stupid.
> Some fuck about in school but others do every homework.
> 
> The bright and hard working tend to get paid more or run business.
> The rest are toilet cleaners or whatever.
> 
> Live with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like Republicans think there's no reason people are smart or stupid. It's an inborn trait (that is inherited?). Believe it or not people can be trained to be smart or stupid. It largely depends on their surroundings and esteem, less so on raw "mental giftedness."
> 
> Socrates wanted to prove this point. He took an illiterate and "dumb" Athenian and spent the day with him. In the sand he tried to get the slave to derive basic mathematical conclusions (geometrical in nature) without direct help. End of the day the slave had made several deductions with minimal prodding. Socrates notes this shows mankind understands universal principles if brought into a setting that awakens that epistemology. This has application for today: treat people similarly with similar education and we'd see very different world than we see today in America.
> 
> For Rightwingers, it's a matter of overcoming hatred for a certain class of people that are exactly like you except they were born into different circumstances that discouraged human flourishing and skill development. By the luck of the draw you could have been born into the poor family who is despised by all Republicans.
> 
> Disclaimer: I disagree with Obama/Democrats as much as I do any Republican official.
Click to expand...


*For Rightwingers, it's a matter of overcoming hatred for a certain class of people that are exactly like you except they were born into different circumstances *

Rightwingers don't hate stupid liberals.


----------



## Contumacious

Indofred said:


> *Capitalism produces inequality because some people are better than others.
> Some people are lazy whilst others work hard.
> Some people are bright but some are stupid.
> Some fuck about in school but others do every homework.
> 
> The bright and hard working tend to get paid more or run business.
> The rest are toilet cleaners or whatever.
> 
> Live with it.*


----------



## bedowin62

The first warning that there was a problem with subprime mortgages came in August 2007. That's when Fannie Mae announced it would skip a benchmark debt offering for the first time since May 2006. This meant that even the highly-rated mortgage-backed securities offered by the government-sponsored entities were being rejected by the secondary market

==============================================================

 GSEs were offering highly-rated mortgage-backed securities. it's what they do.
 like it or not was as much to blame as de-regulation in the mortgage crisis


----------



## dblack

Contumacious said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism produces inequality because some people are better than others.
> Some people are lazy whilst others work hard.
> Some people are bright but some are stupid.
> Some fuck about in school but others do every homework.
> 
> The bright and hard working tend to get paid more or run business.
> The rest are toilet cleaners or whatever.
> 
> Live with it.*
Click to expand...


I'm an ardent advocate of free markets, but this point of view never sets well with me. Economic success is a very narrow measure of a person, and its foolish to say that people who achieve it are 'better' than others. They're just better at economics, and perhaps more industrious. But those aren't the only virtues, not even the most important ones in my view.


----------



## bedowin62

lots of LWNs dont like capitalism i see. where is a place the idiotic Left finds a better example of how society should be then? all of the European Socialist democracies; the ones with the nanny-state benefits; are still capitalist in nature.

 what is the idiotic Left's economic theory called anyway? they dont seem to be able to say. what is an example of it working? where? and if it isnt why not?


----------



## RKMBrown

Indofred said:


> The top 5% should be given free education at the best possible schools and universities (dependent on their willingness to work - if they're lazy; toss them back).



Lefties would never agree to that.  Their plan would be to punish the top 5% as much as possible by forcing them to wait for the bottom 5% to catch up to them.  Using your god given attributes that let you exceed over others is evil to libtards.  You see, libtards are the folks who are failures in life, subsisting only on hand-outs.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I had thought we already posted all this, and established the facts.   Someone seems to have missed the memo, so here it goes again.
> 
> Before 1997, there were no Sub-prime Mortgage Backed Securities.  There were loans, but they were a niche market, but no MBS with sub-prime loans.    If you think that there were, by all means provide the evidence of them.
> 
> According to Insider Mortgage Finance, it was only in 1997 that Sub-prime mortgages started shooting off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can clearly see, sub-prime was a niche, flat line market before 1997 to 1998.    So something must have happened in 1997 to 1998, to cause the Sub-prime loans to take off.
> 
> What was it?   Two things.   It was the carrot, and the stick.
> 
> First, the Carrot.  This press release was made by First Union, which later became Wachovia.
> 
> *First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union Corporation and subsidiaries.  Customers will experience no impact - they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
> "The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating.*​
> Now again, who made this deal?   Freddie Mac did.  The government did.  This was backed by the CRA.   And who gave the senior certificates guaranteed by Freddie Mac an implied AAA rating?   Freddie Mac did.  The Government did.
> 
> Freddie Mac was not "fooled by the rating agencies".  Sorry, YOU ARE WRONG.   Freddie Mac MADE THE DEAL.   Freddie Mac GAVE THEM THE RATING.    You are wrong sir.  Sorry.
> 
> Second, the stick.
> 
> How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter - YouTube
> 
> The Clinton Administration directly sued banks to make sub-prime loans.  Cuomo in this footage, at 3 minutes, even admits openly that they are higher risk, and will have a higher default rate.
> 
> They all knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it anyway.
> 
> And you want to tell me that government was "fooled by the credit agencies"?     Bull crap dude.  They knew back in 1998 they were pushing loans that would have a higher default rate.   Even Obama, if you watch the video to the end, said "the idea was a good one".   He knew what he was doing when he was a lawyer for ACORN suing Citigroup to make bad loans.
> 
> They all knew.
> 
> So let's review huh?   They sued banks to make bad loans.  Community activist groups sued banks based on the CRA, to make bad loans.   Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae, guaranteed and bought sub-prime loans, and gave those loans a AAA rating.
> 
> And you think the CRA had nothing to do with it?   Remember First Union, which became Wachovia, after signing that deal with Freddie Mac?
> 
> Read this press release:
> 
> *Wachovia has earned an "Outstanding" Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating, the highest possible, from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).  Only 14 percent of banks regulated by the OCC achieve the "Outstanding" rating.
> Regulators from the OCC analyzed Wachovia's lending, investing and service activities for the period of Oct. 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003.  The merger of First Union National Bank and Wachovia Corp. occurred during this time.  "I'm proud that we earned the highest possible rating for our active involvement in the community," said Ken Thompson, Chairman and CEO.
> 
> Its high levels of community development lending.  During the assessment period, Wachovia supplied more than $3.3 billion in community development loans.
> * Its extensive use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).  LIHTC are complex investments that provide equity financing for affordable housing projects.  Uniquely, Wachovia makes LIHTC investments directly, rather than through third party intermediaries.
> * Its leadership role in the creation of the Section 8 Rental Housing Choice Voucher Program, which allows low-income families to apply Section 8 rental vouchers toward mortgage payments for up to 15 years. Wachovia partnered with Fannie Mae to develop and pilot this innovative mortgage program, which seeks to increase homeownership among low-income families.
> 
> In 2004, Wachovia:
> * Provided $25 billion in community loans and investments to revitalize neighborhoods.
> * Helped an average of 475 lower-income families buy a home each week.
> * Originated almost $25 billion in mortgage loans, with nearly $6 billion in loans directly benefiting lower-income families and neighborhoods.
> * Received the Fannie Mae Community Lending Hero award for leadership and creativity in addressing low- and moderate-income homeownership issues.
> * Worked with 176 community mortgage partners to provide homeownership counseling and mortgages to more than 1,000 first-time homebuyers.
> * Invested $223 million in equity to create more than 5,000 affordable rental-housing units.
> * Pledged more than $75 billion over five years in community loans and investments to serve communities affected by the SouthTrust merger.
> *​
> And what happened after doing all these low-income Community investment loans, under the CRA, working with Fannie Mae?
> 
> They went bankrupt, just like Bear Stearns did.
> 
> I'm sorry... but if you believe that the CRA had no involvement in the crash, when there is tons of direct evidence to the contrary, then you are just denying reality, just like you have in other posts where you accuse me of "hate".    Empty argument.  Empty claims.   Denying clear cut facts.   Living in a hole of ignorance.  Time to come out into the light.   See how the world really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> F&F are not ratings agencies.
> 
> Not all sub-prime loans are CRA loans.
> 
> The crisis is a result of a lot of contributing factors but the mere presence of CRA loans doesn't equate to investors not understanding the risk of a CRA loan or sub-prime loans in general.
> 
> The problem wasn't with the CRA loans or really the sub-prime loans themselves but in the MBS that hid the risk inherent in the loans backing those MBS and the miscalculation of the risk inherent in the underlying mortgages. The financial institutions packaged the MBS and F&F and the rating agencies and the buyers of the MBS all thought they were AAA and they were all wrong.
> 
> Underlying these mistakes was a housing bubble brought out by changes in interest rates. Since people buy houses based on what they can afford per month lower interest rates meant they could afford to pay more for a house. This meant higher home prices.
> 
> This surge in home prices resulted in a lot of profit for a lot of financial institutions which attracted investors who were fleeing US treasuries which were offering very little return. To these investors they were buying AAA debt instruments. Some even considered them to be backed by the Federal government because of the involvement of F&F. This influx of capital just fueled the bubble. There were a lot of financial institutions making a lot of money on these MBS.
> 
> So I have to wonder how these financial institutions are able to earn massive amounts of money but are not the ones responsible for making financial decisions? Isn't that what they are paid for?
> 
> There is a lot of blame to go around and F&F played their part as did the Federal Reserve. The blame doesn't stop there (and neither did the profit) but the CRA mortgages by themselves had little to nothing to do with it. They didn't create the bubble and they didn't pop it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if the CRA had nothing to do with it, and if F&F had nothing to do with it, then please give a logical, and rational explanation for why the sub-prime market was completely flat until 1997, and why there were no Sub-prime mortgage backed securities until 1997.
> 
> I've looked... and I can't find a single instance where a sub-prime mortgage was given a AAA rating until 1997.   If you can show me an example where it happened before 1997, then you might have a point.
> 
> But until 1997, when Freddie Mac gave sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating, it didn't happen.    I even have read that rating agencies never considered rating sub-prime loans because it was well established that they were not worth rating.   Why rate something that you already know will fail to get even the lowest rating?
> 
> That is, until the Federal Government, through Freddie Mac, gave them a AAA rating.
> 
> This is what I don't get about you people on the left.  You routinely want to use the power of government to influence the market.    But then when government influences the market to do something bad, you blame "the market" for not ignoring the government, and doing the smart thing instead.
> 
> Sorry, you can't have it both ways.   If you want government to influence the market with the CRA and Freddie and Fannie, then you should expect that when government pushes bad loans, that the market will follow.   You lose the option of blaming the market for making bad loans, when you are suing banks to make bad loans, and pushing bad loans with F&F.
Click to expand...


You keep presenting incorrect facts and I keep correcting them. F&F are not ratings agencies. I am in no way denying that F&F thought that the MBS were AAA when they were not. 

The practice was to create AAA rated MBS by mixing different types of loans together. They(Financial Institutions, F&F, and ratings agencies) used a formula(85:15 ratio) to justify this rating. In addition the ratings of the underlying mortgages was incorrect. The regulation of the creation of these mortgages and the creation of these MBS decreased during this time as well.

There were a lot of problems that contributed to the incorrect ratings of both the mortgages and the MBS but the biggest one was the fact that they were not taking into account the bubble that was created by the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates. This failure only lead to the bubble growing bigger as capital flowed to these MBS.

During this time there was a growth in sub-prime loans other than CRA loans in large part due to the fact that the financial institutions were making billions off of the market and were chasing the profit levels they had at the start of the bubble. 

These financial institutions make a lot of money off of these MBS so I have to wonder if you live in a world where they are not responsible for making decisions then why are they making money in the first place?


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> F&F are not ratings agencies.
> 
> Not all sub-prime loans are CRA loans.
> 
> The crisis is a result of a lot of contributing factors but the mere presence of CRA loans doesn't equate to investors not understanding the risk of a CRA loan or sub-prime loans in general.
> 
> The problem wasn't with the CRA loans or really the sub-prime loans themselves but in the MBS that hid the risk inherent in the loans backing those MBS and the miscalculation of the risk inherent in the underlying mortgages. The financial institutions packaged the MBS and F&F and the rating agencies and the buyers of the MBS all thought they were AAA and they were all wrong.
> 
> Underlying these mistakes was a housing bubble brought out by changes in interest rates. Since people buy houses based on what they can afford per month lower interest rates meant they could afford to pay more for a house. This meant higher home prices.
> 
> This surge in home prices resulted in a lot of profit for a lot of financial institutions which attracted investors who were fleeing US treasuries which were offering very little return. To these investors they were buying AAA debt instruments. Some even considered them to be backed by the Federal government because of the involvement of F&F. This influx of capital just fueled the bubble. There were a lot of financial institutions making a lot of money on these MBS.
> 
> So I have to wonder how these financial institutions are able to earn massive amounts of money but are not the ones responsible for making financial decisions? Isn't that what they are paid for?
> 
> There is a lot of blame to go around and F&F played their part as did the Federal Reserve. The blame doesn't stop there (and neither did the profit) but the CRA mortgages by themselves had little to nothing to do with it. They didn't create the bubble and they didn't pop it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if the CRA had nothing to do with it, and if F&F had nothing to do with it, then please give a logical, and rational explanation for why the sub-prime market was completely flat until 1997, and why there were no Sub-prime mortgage backed securities until 1997.
> 
> I've looked... and I can't find a single instance where a sub-prime mortgage was given a AAA rating until 1997.   If you can show me an example where it happened before 1997, then you might have a point.
> 
> But until 1997, when Freddie Mac gave sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating, it didn't happen.    I even have read that rating agencies never considered rating sub-prime loans because it was well established that they were not worth rating.   Why rate something that you already know will fail to get even the lowest rating?
> 
> That is, until the Federal Government, through Freddie Mac, gave them a AAA rating.
> 
> This is what I don't get about you people on the left.  You routinely want to use the power of government to influence the market.    But then when government influences the market to do something bad, you blame "the market" for not ignoring the government, and doing the smart thing instead.
> 
> Sorry, you can't have it both ways.   If you want government to influence the market with the CRA and Freddie and Fannie, then you should expect that when government pushes bad loans, that the market will follow.   You lose the option of blaming the market for making bad loans, when you are suing banks to make bad loans, and pushing bad loans with F&F.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep presenting incorrect facts and I keep correcting them. F&F are not ratings agencies. I am in no way denying that F&F thought that the MBS were AAA when they were not.
> 
> The practice was to create AAA rated MBS by mixing different types of loans together. They(Financial Institutions, F&F, and ratings agencies) used a formula(85:15 ratio) to justify this rating. In addition the ratings of the underlying mortgages was incorrect. The regulation of the creation of these mortgages and the creation of these MBS decreased during this time as well.
> 
> There were a lot of problems that contributed to the incorrect ratings of both the mortgages and the MBS but the biggest one was the fact that they were not taking into account the bubble that was created by the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates. This failure only lead to the bubble growing bigger as capital flowed to these MBS.
> 
> During this time there was a growth in sub-prime loans other than CRA loans in large part due to the fact that the financial institutions were making billions off of the market and were chasing the profit levels they had at the start of the bubble.
> 
> These financial institutions make a lot of money off of these MBS so I have to wonder if you live in a world where they are not responsible for making decisions then why are they making money in the first place?
Click to expand...


Again you blame the bubble on lower interest rates, while completely ignoring the NEW PEOPLE BROUGHT INTO THE MARKET based on reduced qualifications ordered by law.  The new people given loans that would not have been approved at all prior to CRA laws are a big part of the problem.  When you are in a bubble and you add more buyers into the bubble that makes the bubble even larger.  Why?  Because the market at the time was a sellers market in which buyers were bidding up the prices of the homes to astronomical levels that had no support prior to the CRA enactment.   

For example, if there's only one home available in a neighborhood and 10 people are trying to out bid each other to buy it, the mere fact that there are a thousand homes in the neighborhood that are NOT for sale is a moot point.  The new buyers fighting for their piece of the bubble are the ones that typically inflate the bubble with rash decisions.


----------



## ScienceRocks

capitalism is simply the natural way human function. People want something for their work and capitalism answers the question to how we work together.

Not to say that some socialism isn't good too. That's why we have a hybrid system


----------



## Indeependent

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if the CRA had nothing to do with it, and if F&F had nothing to do with it, then please give a logical, and rational explanation for why the sub-prime market was completely flat until 1997, and why there were no Sub-prime mortgage backed securities until 1997.
> 
> I've looked... and I can't find a single instance where a sub-prime mortgage was given a AAA rating until 1997.   If you can show me an example where it happened before 1997, then you might have a point.
> 
> But until 1997, when Freddie Mac gave sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating, it didn't happen.    I even have read that rating agencies never considered rating sub-prime loans because it was well established that they were not worth rating.   Why rate something that you already know will fail to get even the lowest rating?
> 
> That is, until the Federal Government, through Freddie Mac, gave them a AAA rating.
> 
> This is what I don't get about you people on the left.  You routinely want to use the power of government to influence the market.    But then when government influences the market to do something bad, you blame "the market" for not ignoring the government, and doing the smart thing instead.
> 
> Sorry, you can't have it both ways.   If you want government to influence the market with the CRA and Freddie and Fannie, then you should expect that when government pushes bad loans, that the market will follow.   You lose the option of blaming the market for making bad loans, when you are suing banks to make bad loans, and pushing bad loans with F&F.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep presenting incorrect facts and I keep correcting them. F&F are not ratings agencies. I am in no way denying that F&F thought that the MBS were AAA when they were not.
> 
> The practice was to create AAA rated MBS by mixing different types of loans together. They(Financial Institutions, F&F, and ratings agencies) used a formula(85:15 ratio) to justify this rating. In addition the ratings of the underlying mortgages was incorrect. The regulation of the creation of these mortgages and the creation of these MBS decreased during this time as well.
> 
> There were a lot of problems that contributed to the incorrect ratings of both the mortgages and the MBS but the biggest one was the fact that they were not taking into account the bubble that was created by the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates. This failure only lead to the bubble growing bigger as capital flowed to these MBS.
> 
> During this time there was a growth in sub-prime loans other than CRA loans in large part due to the fact that the financial institutions were making billions off of the market and were chasing the profit levels they had at the start of the bubble.
> 
> These financial institutions make a lot of money off of these MBS so I have to wonder if you live in a world where they are not responsible for making decisions then why are they making money in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you blame the bubble on lower interest rates, while completely ignoring the NEW PEOPLE BROUGHT INTO THE MARKET based on reduced qualifications ordered by law.  The new people given loans that would not have been approved at all prior to CRA laws are a big part of the problem.  When you are in a bubble and you add more buyers into the bubble that makes the bubble even larger.  Why?  Because the market at the time was a sellers market in which buyers were bidding up the prices of the homes to astronomical levels that had no support prior to the CRA enactment.
> 
> For example, if there's only one home available in a neighborhood and 10 people are trying to out bid each other to buy it, the mere fact that there are a thousand homes in the neighborhood that are NOT for sale is a moot point.  The new buyers fighting for their piece of the bubble are the ones that typically inflate the bubble with rash decisions.
Click to expand...


Find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if the CRA had nothing to do with it, and if F&F had nothing to do with it, then please give a logical, and rational explanation for why the sub-prime market was completely flat until 1997, and why there were no Sub-prime mortgage backed securities until 1997.
> 
> I've looked... and I can't find a single instance where a sub-prime mortgage was given a AAA rating until 1997.   If you can show me an example where it happened before 1997, then you might have a point.
> 
> But until 1997, when Freddie Mac gave sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating, it didn't happen.    I even have read that rating agencies never considered rating sub-prime loans because it was well established that they were not worth rating.   Why rate something that you already know will fail to get even the lowest rating?
> 
> That is, until the Federal Government, through Freddie Mac, gave them a AAA rating.
> 
> This is what I don't get about you people on the left.  You routinely want to use the power of government to influence the market.    But then when government influences the market to do something bad, you blame "the market" for not ignoring the government, and doing the smart thing instead.
> 
> Sorry, you can't have it both ways.   If you want government to influence the market with the CRA and Freddie and Fannie, then you should expect that when government pushes bad loans, that the market will follow.   You lose the option of blaming the market for making bad loans, when you are suing banks to make bad loans, and pushing bad loans with F&F.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep presenting incorrect facts and I keep correcting them. F&F are not ratings agencies. I am in no way denying that F&F thought that the MBS were AAA when they were not.
> 
> The practice was to create AAA rated MBS by mixing different types of loans together. They(Financial Institutions, F&F, and ratings agencies) used a formula(85:15 ratio) to justify this rating. In addition the ratings of the underlying mortgages was incorrect. The regulation of the creation of these mortgages and the creation of these MBS decreased during this time as well.
> 
> There were a lot of problems that contributed to the incorrect ratings of both the mortgages and the MBS but the biggest one was the fact that they were not taking into account the bubble that was created by the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates. This failure only lead to the bubble growing bigger as capital flowed to these MBS.
> 
> During this time there was a growth in sub-prime loans other than CRA loans in large part due to the fact that the financial institutions were making billions off of the market and were chasing the profit levels they had at the start of the bubble.
> 
> These financial institutions make a lot of money off of these MBS so I have to wonder if you live in a world where they are not responsible for making decisions then why are they making money in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you blame the bubble on lower interest rates, while completely ignoring the NEW PEOPLE BROUGHT INTO THE MARKET based on reduced qualifications ordered by law.  The new people given loans that would not have been approved at all prior to CRA laws are a big part of the problem.  When you are in a bubble and you add more buyers into the bubble that makes the bubble even larger.  Why?  Because the market at the time was a sellers market in which buyers were bidding up the prices of the homes to astronomical levels that had no support prior to the CRA enactment.
> 
> For example, if there's only one home available in a neighborhood and 10 people are trying to out bid each other to buy it, the mere fact that there are a thousand homes in the neighborhood that are NOT for sale is a moot point.  The new buyers fighting for their piece of the bubble are the ones that typically inflate the bubble with rash decisions.
Click to expand...


The bubble was a direct result of the change in interest rates because people buy their home based on the monthly payment and can afford a mortgage based on the monthly payment. 

I have not denied that there was an increase in sub-prime loans. Not all of those loans were CRA loans though. The fact that the market was taking on more risk free of the government doesnt really help your point that the market was avoiding risk and had it forced upon them by government.  

The idea that the CRA increased the prices by increasing demand may very well be true but that increase doesnt even come close to mathematically justifying the size of the bubble or the massive capital inflows into the market that fueled that bubble. It doesnt justify the increases in home prices for all homes. The majority of which are not impacted by the CRA.


----------



## Contumacious

dblack said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism produces inequality because some people are better than others.
> Some people are lazy whilst others work hard.
> Some people are bright but some are stupid.
> Some fuck about in school but others do every homework.
> 
> The bright and hard working tend to get paid more or run business.
> The rest are toilet cleaners or whatever.
> 
> Live with it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an ardent advocate of free markets, but this point of view never sets well with me. Economic success is a very narrow measure of a person, and its foolish to say that people who achieve it are 'better' than others. They're just better at economics, and perhaps more industrious. *But those aren't the only virtues,* not even the most important ones in my view.
Click to expand...


As a taxpayer and a producer those are the characteristics that matter to me. 

The welfare/warfare police state will have no qualms about crushing me if I fail or refuse to financially support the parasites.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep presenting incorrect facts and I keep correcting them. F&F are not ratings agencies. I am in no way denying that F&F thought that the MBS were AAA when they were not.
> 
> The practice was to create AAA rated MBS by mixing different types of loans together. They(Financial Institutions, F&F, and ratings agencies) used a formula(85:15 ratio) to justify this rating. In addition the ratings of the underlying mortgages was incorrect. The regulation of the creation of these mortgages and the creation of these MBS decreased during this time as well.
> 
> There were a lot of problems that contributed to the incorrect ratings of both the mortgages and the MBS but the biggest one was the fact that they were not taking into account the bubble that was created by the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates. This failure only lead to the bubble growing bigger as capital flowed to these MBS.
> 
> During this time there was a growth in sub-prime loans other than CRA loans in large part due to the fact that the financial institutions were making billions off of the market and were chasing the profit levels they had at the start of the bubble.
> 
> These financial institutions make a lot of money off of these MBS so I have to wonder if you live in a world where they are not responsible for making decisions then why are they making money in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you blame the bubble on lower interest rates, while completely ignoring the NEW PEOPLE BROUGHT INTO THE MARKET based on reduced qualifications ordered by law.  The new people given loans that would not have been approved at all prior to CRA laws are a big part of the problem.  When you are in a bubble and you add more buyers into the bubble that makes the bubble even larger.  Why?  Because the market at the time was a sellers market in which buyers were bidding up the prices of the homes to astronomical levels that had no support prior to the CRA enactment.
> 
> For example, if there's only one home available in a neighborhood and 10 people are trying to out bid each other to buy it, the mere fact that there are a thousand homes in the neighborhood that are NOT for sale is a moot point.  The new buyers fighting for their piece of the bubble are the ones that typically inflate the bubble with rash decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bubble was a direct result of the change in interest rates because people buy their home based on the monthly payment and can afford a mortgage based on the monthly payment.
> 
> I have not denied that there was an increase in sub-prime loans. Not all of those loans were CRA loans though. The fact that the market was taking on more risk free of the government doesn&#8217;t really help your point that the market was avoiding risk and had it forced upon them by government.
> 
> The idea that the CRA increased the prices by increasing demand may very well be true but that increase doesn&#8217;t even come close to mathematically justifying the size of the bubble or the massive capital inflows into the market that fueled that bubble. It doesn&#8217;t justify the increases in home prices for all homes. The majority of which are not impacted by the CRA.
Click to expand...


Yes, the bubble was*, in part, *a direct result of the change in interest rates. Because people refinance freeing up capital to buy a second home, move up to a larger home, and become first home buyers based on the lower costs vs. renting etc.

I have not made the point "that *all of *the market was avoiding risk." 

My point was quite the opposite, the government forced the lenders to take risks that the lenders used to not be allowed to take by banking standards, and some of the banks decided to call govco's bluff and cash in on the fast cash business of buying and selling property in a bubble and making cash hand over fist.

Nothing justified the bubbles (dot com first) then the real-estate market in succession. That's why they popped. 

Again... you don't have to be a large part of a market to cause a bubble.  The buyers and sellers in any one year are always a very small percentage of the owners.  Most of the new loans were refinances due to the march of the interest rates to the floor.  Nothing harm or foul was caused by home owners refinancing their home loans, until this bastard of a man took office and started paying people to refinance with tax dollars.


----------



## RKMBrown

Contumacious said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/SIZE][/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an ardent advocate of free markets, but this point of view never sets well with me. Economic success is a very narrow measure of a person, and its foolish to say that people who achieve it are 'better' than others. They're just better at economics, and perhaps more industrious. *But those aren't the only virtues,* not even the most important ones in my view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a taxpayer and a producer those are the characteristics that matter to me.
> 
> The welfare/warfare police state will have no qualms about crushing me if I fail or refuse to financially support the parasites.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Economic success can be measured different ways.  Most in debt? Least in debt? Biggest home? Most number of toys?  Biggest monthly expenses?  Most assets? Most income?  

Me, I'll take my hot wife, fantastic kids, decent home and just enough toys to the bank all day long.  I could make ten times what I make now and not see a single difference to how I live. Nope.. what would happen is govco would take half of it, I'd give some other folks that didn't earn it some money and the rest I'd blow on stuff I don't need or want.  Govco would just waste my money, the people I give money to would likely become dependent.  I'd rather have my time back than spend time earning money I don't need.  You can't buy your time back.


----------



## gnarlylove

To think the right or left differs in mistaken.
The left certainly supports a larger welfare base but the right typically does not say we should eradicate all public assistance programs. 

I imagine most people get their information from major media outlets (virtually all TV news channels and their associated websites) and if one does not seek alternative sources then one is likely to believe in the hype that is broadcast. However, common political views (either red or blue) differ in a matter of degree, not in kind. Even our so-called socialist economies in Europe are integrated with foundational capitalist principles. The main difference comes by virtue of those nations willing to be taxed at much higher rates than American's could ever conceive. But taxation isn't all bad since it results in their public education and healthcare being mostly universal among citizens.

This is state sponsered socialism at best, more like regulated capitalism. Again, this is not a difference in kind, just a difference in degree (of taxes etc.).

Anyone who listens to mainstream media, whether left of right or "centrist" will portray Marxist socialism and especially communism as vile or the most despicable human invention ever. Capitalism relies on competition and sets no limits on how wealthy one can become. We distribute wealth based on labor contributions (or more accurately, economic class since where you are born is statistically where you die). To a person who accepts either Rep. or Dem. views, to change this system is essentially unthinkable. He derives his well being from capitalism and so the positions are not separate from his central identity. Thus, to distribute wealth/goods/food/shelter based on human need rather than labor contributions is insane, to the capitalist who is doing OK. It totally erodes, so they claim, the ideal of earning one's way and incentives. Unfortunately there are many competing incentives other than money but we have decided that money is the main incentive in life. However, this is not necessary to human existence and often erodes any spiritual or empathetic outlook since they lessen or at least fail to contribute to one's wealth. The logic is very circular but one does not see this if they are playing the game.

This sets opposing views at impossible odds, even if alternatives to capitalism made more sense to a lot of people. That's because capitalism has concentrated power and wealth by the social and political elite and they have a good grip on what information gets out and what doesn't (on mainstream channels/websites). So any normal citizen tends to accept what they hear and move on so they can keep making money.

In order for capitalists to even consider socialism or simply the removal of capitalism they say it requires a detailed system laid out step by step to replace it. However, capitalism did not develop via such meticulous methods beforehand, it just tended to happen and worked. As time went along we saw we needed to institute laws to protect civil rights and so we did. So it was a work in progress (and still is), just like any social/economic system is.

But the problem to the alternatives to capitalism is that few understand them with any degree of clarity or fairness. Of course understanding socialism through a biased lens of capitalism will produce desired result: socialism stinks and capitalism rules. They hear it described by capitalists and take their outlook as the word of the lord. This propagates misinformation about the principles of socialism etc. It also shields us from the glaring problems in capitalism that many are incapable of seeing since they rarely if ever think about them.

It would require lazy Americans to do their own homework since mainstream media/powerful elites spout half-truths about alternatives to capitalism. Rep. or Dem are trained to exaggerate differences and capitalize on misfortune of others. So those people are not going to remain calm when confronted with opposing views like reading about communism.

So until we can realize we are all in this together moving beyond our selfish inclinations and realize all of humanity deserves basic food, shelter and love we will continue to trample underfoot their needs because we are serving our "needs" and desires.

Socialism will always be demonized as its a threat to the social and political elite. It takes their wealth and says, share it with us all. The means of production should be owned by the workers, not a private few who make millions and refuse to pay livable wages causing citizens to turn to welfare just to survive despite having a job. We all should have the right to quality food and shelter. Everyone is inherently human and differences are minimal yet they get exaggerated like certain groups of people "lack the will to earn."

This is a misgiving on the part of people who've never been there, guaranteed. To understand socialism requires one to set aside their present assumption of how the world should work and reconsider it from the ground up--unfortunately this is far too much work for the lazy middle class America who works. He sees capitalism as helping him more than hurting him (a mis-perception) so there's no reason to consider an alternative. Tell that to the 3.5 billion people who lack essential needs on a daily basis. That's right, 85 social and political elite own as much wealth as 3.5 billion people. That is fucking gross and will continue to get worse as capitalism devours our planet. No one needs 4 cars but by god we want it so we should have it, regardless of how it impacts others and the globe. That is the fundamental difference in a capitalist brain and an empathetic brain. ramble ramble shut me up!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep presenting incorrect facts and I keep correcting them. F&F are not ratings agencies. I am in no way denying that F&F thought that the MBS were AAA when they were not.
> 
> The practice was to create AAA rated MBS by mixing different types of loans together. They(Financial Institutions, F&F, and ratings agencies) used a formula(85:15 ratio) to justify this rating. In addition the ratings of the underlying mortgages was incorrect. The regulation of the creation of these mortgages and the creation of these MBS decreased during this time as well.
> 
> There were a lot of problems that contributed to the incorrect ratings of both the mortgages and the MBS but the biggest one was the fact that they were not taking into account the bubble that was created by the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates. This failure only lead to the bubble growing bigger as capital flowed to these MBS.
> 
> During this time there was a growth in sub-prime loans other than CRA loans in large part due to the fact that the financial institutions were making billions off of the market and were chasing the profit levels they had at the start of the bubble.
> 
> These financial institutions make a lot of money off of these MBS so I have to wonder if you live in a world where they are not responsible for making decisions then why are they making money in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you blame the bubble on lower interest rates, while completely ignoring the NEW PEOPLE BROUGHT INTO THE MARKET based on reduced qualifications ordered by law.  The new people given loans that would not have been approved at all prior to CRA laws are a big part of the problem.  When you are in a bubble and you add more buyers into the bubble that makes the bubble even larger.  Why?  Because the market at the time was a sellers market in which buyers were bidding up the prices of the homes to astronomical levels that had no support prior to the CRA enactment.
> 
> For example, if there's only one home available in a neighborhood and 10 people are trying to out bid each other to buy it, the mere fact that there are a thousand homes in the neighborhood that are NOT for sale is a moot point.  The new buyers fighting for their piece of the bubble are the ones that typically inflate the bubble with rash decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
Click to expand...


Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.


Did the CRA Lead to Risky Lending? | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy


----------



## Andylusion

Toro said:


> The GSEs don't rate loans. Freddie and Fannie don't give AAA ratings, or any ratings, to any pool of bonds.  The federal government doesn't rate bonds.





georgephillip said:


> It is even more sorry (and telling) that you can't provide any evidence of Fannie or Freddy or any other federal governmental agency rating bonds, isn't it?
> 
> Why do I regularly post lies, distortions, and disinformation?



Guys, I'm open to the idea.   By all means provide some evidence, or any evidence to support the idea that the rating agencies just randomly started giving sub-prime mortgages, a AAA rating.

If you can find evidence that they did, then my whole argument is questionable.   I will freely admit straight up, that if they were giving Sub-prime mortgages AAA ratings in the 80s, or 90, 91,92,93,94,95,96, then that makes my argument hard to support.

In fact, if the first sub-prime mortgage to get a AAA rating was in 2000, or 2001, 02,03,04,05,06.... that would make the argument hard to support.

But as near as I can tell the very first sub-prime mortgage, given a AAA rating, happened in 1997.   And that happens to fit perfectly with the drastic increase in sub-prime loans.    Without that AAA rating, sub-prime loans remained a niche high risk market.

That leaves us with a question.... why did they give a sub-prime mortgage backed security, a AAA rating?  Why did that start in 1997?   What happened in 1997 to cause this?

Again, if you have other evidence, by all means, give it.    But simply pointing fingers and saying "their fault!" is not in an of itself, and argument.

Near as I can tell, the only thing I can find is:

*First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
*     The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union Corporation and subsidiaries.  Customers will experience no impact - they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
     "The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs.
 "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."
*The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating*.​
This press release in 1997, is the best evidence I can find, to suggest why after decades of Sub-prime loans being a tiny niche market, they suddenly shot off.

If you have other evidence... by all means give it.   I'll consider what you have to say.

But other wise, you are simply looking at all the evidence, providing no support whatsoever, and saying "that can't be right".    Sorry, but I need more support for your position than that.   That's a weak argument.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> To think the right or left differs in mistaken.
> The left certainly supports a larger welfare base but the right typically does not say we should eradicate all public assistance programs.
> 
> I imagine most people get their information from major media outlets (virtually all TV news channels and their associated websites) and if one does not seek alternative sources then one is likely to believe in the hype that is broadcast. However, common political views (either red or blue) differ in a matter of degree, not in kind. Even our so-called socialist economies in Europe are integrated with foundational capitalist principles. The main difference comes by virtue of those nations willing to be taxed at much higher rates than American's could ever conceive. But taxation isn't all bad since it results in their public education and healthcare being mostly universal among citizens.
> 
> This is state sponsered socialism at best, more like regulated capitalism. Again, this is not a difference in kind, just a difference in degree (of taxes etc.).
> 
> Anyone who listens to mainstream media, whether left of right or "centrist" will portray Marxist socialism and especially communism as vile or the most despicable human invention ever. Capitalism relies on competition and sets no limits on how wealthy one can become. We distribute wealth based on labor contributions (or more accurately, economic class since where you are born is statistically where you die). To a person who accepts either Rep. or Dem. views, to change this system is essentially unthinkable. He derives his well being from capitalism and so the positions are not separate from his central identity. Thus, to distribute wealth/goods/food/shelter based on human need rather than labor contributions is insane, to the capitalist who is doing OK. It totally erodes, so they claim, the ideal of earning one's way and incentives. Unfortunately there are many competing incentives other than money but we have decided that money is the main incentive in life. However, this is not necessary to human existence and often erodes any spiritual or empathetic outlook since they lessen or at least fail to contribute to one's wealth. The logic is very circular but one does not see this if they are playing the game.
> 
> This sets opposing views at impossible odds, even if alternatives to capitalism made more sense to a lot of people. That's because capitalism has concentrated power and wealth by the social and political elite and they have a good grip on what information gets out and what doesn't (on mainstream channels/websites). So any normal citizen tends to accept what they hear and move on so they can keep making money.
> 
> In order for capitalists to even consider socialism or simply the removal of capitalism they say it requires a detailed system laid out step by step to replace it. However, capitalism did not develop via such meticulous methods beforehand, it just tended to happen and worked. As time went along we saw we needed to institute laws to protect civil rights and so we did. So it was a work in progress (and still is), just like any social/economic system is.
> 
> But the problem to the alternatives to capitalism is that few understand them with any degree of clarity or fairness. Of course understanding socialism through a biased lens of capitalism will produce desired result: socialism stinks and capitalism rules. They hear it described by capitalists and take their outlook as the word of the lord. This propagates misinformation about the principles of socialism etc. It also shields us from the glaring problems in capitalism that many are incapable of seeing since they rarely if ever think about them.
> 
> It would require lazy Americans to do their own homework since mainstream media/powerful elites spout half-truths about alternatives to capitalism. Rep. or Dem are trained to exaggerate differences and capitalize on misfortune of others. So those people are not going to remain calm when confronted with opposing views like reading about communism.
> 
> So until we can realize we are all in this together moving beyond our selfish inclinations and realize all of humanity deserves basic food, shelter and love we will continue to trample underfoot their needs because we are serving our "needs" and desires.
> 
> Socialism will always be demonized as its a threat to the social and political elite. It takes their wealth and says, share it with us all. The means of production should be owned by the workers, not a private few who make millions and refuse to pay livable wages causing citizens to turn to welfare just to survive despite having a job. We all should have the right to quality food and shelter. Everyone is inherently human and differences are minimal yet they get exaggerated like certain groups of people "lack the will to earn."
> 
> This is a misgiving on the part of people who've never been there, guaranteed. To understand socialism requires one to set aside their present assumption of how the world should work and reconsider it from the ground up--unfortunately this is far too much work for the lazy middle class America who works. He sees capitalism as helping him more than hurting him (a mis-perception) so there's no reason to consider an alternative. Tell that to the 3.5 billion people who lack essential needs on a daily basis. That's right, 85 social and political elite own as much wealth as 3.5 billion people. That is fucking gross and will continue to get worse as capitalism devours our planet. No one needs 4 cars but by god we want it so we should have it, regardless of how it impacts others and the globe. That is the fundamental difference in a capitalist brain and an empathetic brain. ramble ramble shut me up!


*
Anyone who listens to mainstream media, whether left of right or "centrist" will portray Marxist socialism and especially communism as vile or the most despicable human invention ever. *

Tens of millions dead last century tend to support that claim.
*
where you are born is statistically where you die*

Liar liar!

*That's right, 85 social and political elite own as much wealth as 3.5 billion people. That is fucking gross *

Unproductive people aren't very productive.


----------



## Iceweasel

gnarlylove said:


> Socialism will always be demonized as its a threat to the social and political elite. It takes their wealth and says, share it with us all. The means of production should be owned by the workers, not a private few who make millions and refuse to pay livable wages causing citizens to turn to welfare just to survive despite having a job. We all should have the right to quality food and shelter. Everyone is inherently human and differences are minimal yet they get exaggerated like certain groups of people "lack the will to earn."


What a bunch of mindless drivel. The irony is that you misrepresent and demonize capitalism while polishing up socialism, WHILE you pretend to be above the fray.

You honestly don't live in the real world. You have never driven around America and seen the homes, cars, boats and lifestyles. Those are the few top percenters capitalizing off the poor downtrodden worker drone. 

Workers do have the right to own production IF they buy the goddamn company. You do not have the right to demand someone else fron the capital, assume the risk and give you a job. You do not have the right to a house, food or sex. It isn't in the Constitution. 

We didn't get to be the nation we are by listening to self absorbed entitled malcontents. And it's high time we put our foot down. On their necks if need be.


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you blame the bubble on lower interest rates, while completely ignoring the NEW PEOPLE BROUGHT INTO THE MARKET based on reduced qualifications ordered by law.  The new people given loans that would not have been approved at all prior to CRA laws are a big part of the problem.  When you are in a bubble and you add more buyers into the bubble that makes the bubble even larger.  Why?  Because the market at the time was a sellers market in which buyers were bidding up the prices of the homes to astronomical levels that had no support prior to the CRA enactment.
> 
> For example, if there's only one home available in a neighborhood and 10 people are trying to out bid each other to buy it, the mere fact that there are a thousand homes in the neighborhood that are NOT for sale is a moot point.  The new buyers fighting for their piece of the bubble are the ones that typically inflate the bubble with rash decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.
> 
> 
> Did the CRA Lead to Risky Lending? | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy
Click to expand...



Once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.

Mortgage Brokers and Bankers had automated systems which denied loans; they then had to whip out PAPER to bypass the standards.

So once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.


----------



## RKMBrown

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.
> 
> 
> Did the CRA Lead to Risky Lending? | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> Mortgage Brokers and Bankers had automated systems which denied loans; they then had to whip out PAPER to bypass the standards.
> 
> So once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93sEBKumfyg]Hogan's Heroes: Stop Digging - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> My point was quite the opposite, the government forced the lenders to take risks that the lenders used to not be allowed to take by banking standards, and some of the banks decided to call govco's bluff and cash in on the fast cash business of buying and selling property in a bubble and making cash hand over fist.



So not only is the government responsible for the CRA loans but all sub prime loans cause.... you said so or something?

Is there any decision in this whole mess that wasn't the fault of the government in your mind?


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> You keep presenting incorrect facts and I keep correcting them. F&F are not ratings agencies. I am in no way denying that F&F thought that the MBS were AAA when they were not.
> 
> The practice was to create AAA rated MBS by mixing different types of loans together. They(Financial Institutions, F&F, and ratings agencies) used a formula(85:15 ratio) to justify this rating. In addition the ratings of the underlying mortgages was incorrect. The regulation of the creation of these mortgages and the creation of these MBS decreased during this time as well.
> 
> There were a lot of problems that contributed to the incorrect ratings of both the mortgages and the MBS but the biggest one was the fact that they were not taking into account the bubble that was created by the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates. This failure only lead to the bubble growing bigger as capital flowed to these MBS.
> 
> During this time there was a growth in sub-prime loans other than CRA loans in large part due to the fact that the financial institutions were making billions off of the market and were chasing the profit levels they had at the start of the bubble.
> 
> These financial institutions make a lot of money off of these MBS so I have to wonder if you live in a world where they are not responsible for making decisions then why are they making money in the first place?



First, back to interest rates.   The housing price bubble started in 1997.   The interest rate in 1997 was 7.6%.   Is that really too low?  Because the interest rate in 1993, was 7.3%, and the bubble didn't start for another 4 years.
Primary Mortgage Market Survey Archives - 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgages - Freddie Mac

Again, if you have real evidence to support your claims, by all means post it.  I'll be more than interested to see your evidence, because I'm not seeing that in the data.   I used to believe your view on this, but I can't justify that position anymore.

*Now to the "financial institutions make a lot of money" argument.*

I'm not denying any of that.    Yes, once a bubble starts, people start jumping on the speculation.   People were buying homes, and selling them a month later for $100K more.     Banks were making crazy loans, knowing that if the guy defaulted, they would get a house back that was worth more than the original loan.

I agree with ALL OF THIS.   100% correct! No question about it!

Here's the problem.... what started it?   Yes, once the bubble got going, all that stuff you mentioned is going to happen.

WHAT WAS THE CAUSE?

That's where my issue comes in.   Because if you say the cause was "greed", then you have to believe in black magic.   Human nature hasn't changed in 6,000 years.

If "greed" was the cause, why didn't the sub-prime bubble start in the 1980s?  Why not 1990?   Why not 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96?   Why not any of those years?    Why didn't it wait until 1999?  Or 2000?  Or 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06?

Again, you can't tell me it was interest rates, because interest rates were lower in 1993, than in 1997.   Why didn't it start in 1993?    Besides, is one quarter of a point, that different?    7.8% is good, but 7.6% is bad?   Not a logical argument.

So we're still left with the question.... why 1997?    Did aliens come and zap all the bankers with greed guns?

Still not a logical argument.   Something fundamental in the mortgage industry had to change, and until you can provide something.... anything... to support your position, my bet still remains on that deal with Freddie Mac, guaranteeing sub-prime loans, with an implied AAA rating.

If you have something else to suggest, by all means.  Post your evidence.  I'll consider it.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GSEs don't rate loans. Freddie and Fannie don't give AAA ratings, or any ratings, to any pool of bonds.  The federal government doesn't rate bonds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is even more sorry (and telling) that you can't provide any evidence of Fannie or Freddy or any other federal governmental agency rating bonds, isn't it?
> 
> Why do I regularly post lies, distortions, and disinformation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guys, I'm open to the idea.   By all means provide some evidence, or any evidence to support the idea that the rating agencies just randomly started giving sub-prime mortgages, a AAA rating.
Click to expand...


Sub-prime mortgages don't have a AAA rating by definition. Care to clarify?


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was quite the opposite, the government forced the lenders to take risks that the lenders used to not be allowed to take by banking standards, and some of the banks decided to call govco's bluff and cash in on the fast cash business of buying and selling property in a bubble and making cash hand over fist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So not only is the government responsible for the CRA loans but all sub prime loans cause.... you said so or something?
> 
> Is there any decision in this whole mess that wasn't the fault of the government in your mind?
Click to expand...


>>> So not only is the government responsible for the CRA loans but all sub prime loans cause.... you said so or something?

Irregardless of my opinion, it's govco's job to regulate this particular industry

>>> Is there any decision in this whole mess that wasn't the fault of the government in your mind?

No, not in my opinion.  Failure on compound failure all attributable to govco actions and more importantly, in-actions, resulting in epic failure, followed by even worse behavior by our government.


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep presenting incorrect facts and I keep correcting them. F&F are not ratings agencies. I am in no way denying that F&F thought that the MBS were AAA when they were not.
> 
> The practice was to create AAA rated MBS by mixing different types of loans together. They(Financial Institutions, F&F, and ratings agencies) used a formula(85:15 ratio) to justify this rating. In addition the ratings of the underlying mortgages was incorrect. The regulation of the creation of these mortgages and the creation of these MBS decreased during this time as well.
> 
> There were a lot of problems that contributed to the incorrect ratings of both the mortgages and the MBS but the biggest one was the fact that they were not taking into account the bubble that was created by the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates. This failure only lead to the bubble growing bigger as capital flowed to these MBS.
> 
> During this time there was a growth in sub-prime loans other than CRA loans in large part due to the fact that the financial institutions were making billions off of the market and were chasing the profit levels they had at the start of the bubble.
> 
> These financial institutions make a lot of money off of these MBS so I have to wonder if you live in a world where they are not responsible for making decisions then why are they making money in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you blame the bubble on lower interest rates, while completely ignoring the NEW PEOPLE BROUGHT INTO THE MARKET based on reduced qualifications ordered by law.  The new people given loans that would not have been approved at all prior to CRA laws are a big part of the problem.  When you are in a bubble and you add more buyers into the bubble that makes the bubble even larger.  Why?  Because the market at the time was a sellers market in which buyers were bidding up the prices of the homes to astronomical levels that had no support prior to the CRA enactment.
> 
> For example, if there's only one home available in a neighborhood and 10 people are trying to out bid each other to buy it, the mere fact that there are a thousand homes in the neighborhood that are NOT for sale is a moot point.  The new buyers fighting for their piece of the bubble are the ones that typically inflate the bubble with rash decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
Click to expand...


First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact - they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs.
"First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating.​
Direct conclusive evidence that lending standards were lowered.  Those loans under the original Prime Rate lending standards, would never be guaranteed by Freddie Mac.


----------



## Indeependent

RKMBrown said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.
> 
> 
> Did the CRA Lead to Risky Lending? | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> Mortgage Brokers and Bankers had automated systems which denied loans; they then had to whip out PAPER to bypass the standards.
> 
> So once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93sEBKumfyg]Hogan's Heroes: Stop Digging - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I have lots of people in my community who work(ed) as mortgage brokers and bankers; the standards were never lowered.
I know people who WOULDN'T override the standards due to religious reasons.
Some of them fell on hard times.

It's amazing how people can pull up the most archaic documents from SOMEWHERE in this great Internet age but still can't manage to find ONE civil published document top prove the standards were lowered.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GSEs don't rate loans. Freddie and Fannie don't give AAA ratings, or any ratings, to any pool of bonds.  The federal government doesn't rate bonds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is even more sorry (and telling) that you can't provide any evidence of Fannie or Freddy or any other federal governmental agency rating bonds, isn't it?
> 
> Why do I regularly post lies, distortions, and disinformation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guys, I'm open to the idea.   By all means provide some evidence, or any evidence to support the idea that the rating agencies just randomly started giving sub-prime mortgages, a AAA rating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sub-prime mortgages don't have a AAA rating by definition. Care to clarify?
Click to expand...


He's conflating the combining of AAA rated loans with Sub-prime mortgage loans that occurred due to deregulation, and was supported by govco failures to correctly audit, by asking how Sub-prime mortgage loans became AAA rated loans. IOW he's talking out his ass.  The real problem with the Sub-primes was the bubble making them all successful whether or not the owner could pay in the sellers market.  Thus hiding the ensuing crash when the market stopped going up exponentially.  There's not a whole lot of risk in realestate when all homes are going up in value.


----------



## RKMBrown

Indeependent said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> Mortgage Brokers and Bankers had automated systems which denied loans; they then had to whip out PAPER to bypass the standards.
> 
> So once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93sEBKumfyg]Hogan's Heroes: Stop Digging - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I have lots of people in my community who work(ed) as mortgage brokers and bankers; the standards were never lowered.
> I know people who WOULDN'T override the standards due to religious reasons.
> Some of them fell on hard times.
> 
> It's amazing how people can pull up the most archaic documents from SOMEWHERE in this great Internet age but still can't manage to find ONE civil published document top prove the standards were lowered.
Click to expand...


That would be because the standards were not lowered by "everyone."


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was quite the opposite, the government forced the lenders to take risks that the lenders used to not be allowed to take by banking standards, and some of the banks decided to call govco's bluff and cash in on the fast cash business of buying and selling property in a bubble and making cash hand over fist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So not only is the government responsible for the CRA loans but all sub prime loans cause.... you said so or something?
> 
> Is there any decision in this whole mess that wasn't the fault of the government in your mind?
Click to expand...


In my opinion no.    Not on this particular topic.

The way I come to that conclusion, is because I understand human nature.   I can even put myself in the position, and determine what I would do myself.

Say that there was a massive Coke-Kola shortage.    What would happen?    People would be stocking up massive stock piles of coke, and selling them for $20 a can.

When there was an ammo shortage, and prices for rounds was doing through the roof, people were on craigslist selling a box of 9mm rounds, normally $10, for $50.

In New York, after the hurricane, people were stock piling gasoline, and selling fuel for $10 a gallon.

This is human nature.   People always speculate when there is a price bubble.     To blame humans for being humans, is ridiculous, and unproductive.

You can blame banks until the end of time, BUT if you encourage the actions that led to the bubble, you will end up with the same result again and again, and again.

The actions the led to the Bubble, was Freddie Mac securitizing sub-prime loans, and giving them an implied AAA rating in 1997.  

You can say "everyone else should have known better", but I promise you right now, that if we have another housing price bubble, caused by government encouraging bad loans to unqualified buyers, you are going to end up with the exact same results all over again.

All this other stuff you are complaining about, are effects.  The cause of the effect is what you should focus on.    The cause, is government.


----------



## Indeependent

RKMBrown said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hogan's Heroes: Stop Digging - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I have lots of people in my community who work(ed) as mortgage brokers and bankers; the standards were never lowered.
> I know people who WOULDN'T override the standards due to religious reasons.
> Some of them fell on hard times.
> 
> It's amazing how people can pull up the most archaic documents from SOMEWHERE in this great Internet age but still can't manage to find ONE civil published document top prove the standards were lowered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be because the standards were not lowered by "everyone."
Click to expand...


Since 1981, when I started as a programmer working in banking, I have experienced banks, investment and brokerage firms always allowing the rules to be bypassed.
The bypass was accomplished by the system requiring an explanation or by bypassing the system altogether.
It is sad that loans were being approved on paper willy nilly and everyone "knew" they would "never" be audited because "the sky was the limit".


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GSEs don't rate loans. Freddie and Fannie don't give AAA ratings, or any ratings, to any pool of bonds.  The federal government doesn't rate bonds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is even more sorry (and telling) that you can't provide any evidence of Fannie or Freddy or any other federal governmental agency rating bonds, isn't it?
> 
> Why do I regularly post lies, distortions, and disinformation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guys, I'm open to the idea.   By all means provide some evidence, or any evidence to support the idea that the rating agencies just randomly started giving sub-prime mortgages, a AAA rating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sub-prime mortgages don't have a AAA rating by definition. Care to clarify?
Click to expand...


No, you are making *MY* point.   There was no way that a sub-prime loan could get a AAA rating.... until Freddie Mac made it happen.    When the government of the US, says through it's mortgage lending arm called Freddie Mac, that these loans have an "implied AAA rating", that the only way a sub-prime loan could end up being given a AAA rating.

What's why until 1997, there were no sub-prime mortgage backed securities.   That's why before 1997, sub-prime mortgages were a niche market.







Look at the growth in sub-prime loans before that 1997 Freddie Mac deal..... looks flat..... because it is flat.... because sub-prime was a risky niche market.

What happened after 1997 and the Freddie Mac deal?   Massive spike in sub-prime loans.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep presenting incorrect facts and I keep correcting them. F&F are not ratings agencies. I am in no way denying that F&F thought that the MBS were AAA when they were not.
> 
> The practice was to create AAA rated MBS by mixing different types of loans together. They(Financial Institutions, F&F, and ratings agencies) used a formula(85:15 ratio) to justify this rating. In addition the ratings of the underlying mortgages was incorrect. The regulation of the creation of these mortgages and the creation of these MBS decreased during this time as well.
> 
> There were a lot of problems that contributed to the incorrect ratings of both the mortgages and the MBS but the biggest one was the fact that they were not taking into account the bubble that was created by the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates. This failure only lead to the bubble growing bigger as capital flowed to these MBS.
> 
> During this time there was a growth in sub-prime loans other than CRA loans in large part due to the fact that the financial institutions were making billions off of the market and were chasing the profit levels they had at the start of the bubble.
> 
> These financial institutions make a lot of money off of these MBS so I have to wonder if you live in a world where they are not responsible for making decisions then why are they making money in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, back to interest rates.   The housing price bubble started in 1997.   The interest rate in 1997 was 7.6%.   Is that really too low?  Because the interest rate in 1993, was 7.3%, and the bubble didn't start for another 4 years.
> Primary Mortgage Market Survey Archives - 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgages - Freddie Mac
> 
> Again, if you have real evidence to support your claims, by all means post it.  I'll be more than interested to see your evidence, because I'm not seeing that in the data.   I used to believe your view on this, but I can't justify that position anymore.
> 
> *Now to the "financial institutions make a lot of money" argument.*
> 
> I'm not denying any of that.    Yes, once a bubble starts, people start jumping on the speculation.   People were buying homes, and selling them a month later for $100K more.     Banks were making crazy loans, knowing that if the guy defaulted, they would get a house back that was worth more than the original loan.
> 
> I agree with ALL OF THIS.   100% correct! No question about it!
> 
> Here's the problem.... what started it?   Yes, once the bubble got going, all that stuff you mentioned is going to happen.
> 
> WHAT WAS THE CAUSE?
> 
> That's where my issue comes in.   Because if you say the cause was "greed", then you have to believe in black magic.   Human nature hasn't changed in 6,000 years.
> 
> If "greed" was the cause, why didn't the sub-prime bubble start in the 1980s?  Why not 1990?   Why not 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96?   Why not any of those years?    Why didn't it wait until 1999?  Or 2000?  Or 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06?
> 
> Again, you can't tell me it was interest rates, because interest rates were lower in 1993, than in 1997.   Why didn't it start in 1993?    Besides, is one quarter of a point, that different?    7.8% is good, but 7.6% is bad?   Not a logical argument.
> 
> So we're still left with the question.... why 1997?    Did aliens come and zap all the bankers with greed guns?
> 
> Still not a logical argument.   Something fundamental in the mortgage industry had to change, and until you can provide something.... anything... to support your position, my bet still remains on that deal with Freddie Mac, guaranteeing sub-prime loans, with an implied AAA rating.
> 
> If you have something else to suggest, by all means.  Post your evidence.  I'll consider it.
Click to expand...


Housing goes up and down for all sorts of reasons as your own graph shows and in 1997 the economy was growing. That doesn't change the fact that this particular bubble resulted in home prices to keep increasing when the economy was tanking. 

I see no point in further discussing the impact interest rates have on home prices because it is not a controversial point and I can only state the obvious so many times. 1997 through 2001 is not the anomaly, 2002 through the crash is. 

You didn't address my point about making money, you just pretended to. My point wasn't about greed but the idea that everything is the decision of government even though it is private parties making all the money. You seem oblivious to the fact that private individuals made horribly bad financial decisions and having really bad information was a big part of that. 

If CRA is to blame are you suggesting that there wasn't bad information? People know that CRA loans are more risky so why would they not only make risky CRA loans but other risky sub-prime loans and reduce their mortgage requirements independent of the CRA guidelines?


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity that neither party is interested in breaking up monopolies or oligarchies, or performing any of their constitutionally assigned duties.   Both parties would rather focus on redistributing our income and acting as morality police than doing their job.
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible for me to imagine how we change this dynamic by continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican for our congressional representatives; there are established third-party alternatives already appearing on many US ballots...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I encourage you and all your friends to vote for the Communist Party candidate.
Click to expand...

Communists are  merely one among many options.
You can readily find a Nazi or two to vote for.

Politics1 - Director of U.S. Political Parties


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys, I'm open to the idea.   By all means provide some evidence, or any evidence to support the idea that the rating agencies just randomly started giving sub-prime mortgages, a AAA rating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sub-prime mortgages don't have a AAA rating by definition. Care to clarify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are making *MY* point.   There was no way that a sub-prime loan could get a AAA rating.... until Freddie Mac made it happen.    When the government of the US, says through it's mortgage lending arm called Freddie Mac, that these loans have an "implied AAA rating", that the only way a sub-prime loan could end up being given a AAA rating.
> 
> What's why until 1997, there were no sub-prime mortgage backed securities.   That's why before 1997, sub-prime mortgages were a niche market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the growth in sub-prime loans before that 1997 Freddie Mac deal..... looks flat..... because it is flat.... because sub-prime was a risky niche market.
> 
> What happened after 1997 and the Freddie Mac deal?   Massive spike in sub-prime loans.
Click to expand...


Freddie Mac is not a ratings agency. Freddie Mac did believe the AAA rating incorrectly. So did the ratings agencies and all the other financial institutions. 

There is no doubt that Freddie Mac made the same mistake as the ratings agencies and the financial institutions. I have said this multiple times already.

Placing blame at the feet of MBS is a far cry from placing the blame at the feet of mortgages to poor people per the rules of the CRA. There was a lot of sub prime mortgages besides ones created because of the CRA that screwed up the MBS market. There was also a lot of low doc loans that fed the MBS crisis. There was also a lot of incorrect ratings of mortgages that went into those MBS. 

The lesson of the crisis is that there is a lot of blame to go around including blame at the feet of Freddie Mac and MBS in general. In the end though the people making the money are also responsible. That is why they are making the money.


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> Sorry, but I have lots of people in my community who work(ed) as mortgage brokers and bankers; the standards were never lowered.
> I know people who WOULDN'T override the standards due to religious reasons.
> Some of them fell on hard times.
> 
> It's amazing how people can pull up the most archaic documents from SOMEWHERE in this great Internet age but still can't manage to find ONE civil published document top prove the standards were lowered.



Well perhaps your 'friends' really didn't know of any drop in standards.   Does that mean no one else did?

I assume the "archaic documents" refers to the one I posted.   I'm not sure how 'archaic' it is, since it came from the very year the housing bubble started, and the very year that sub-prime loans were taking off.

Further, I'm not sure what your issue is.  Are you suggesting it didn't happen?     Because if it did happen.... and it did.... then clearly that is in fact direct evidence that lending standards were being lowered, since none of those loans qualified to be securitized by Freddie Mac, under the prime rate standard.

But if that's nothing enough, there are dozens of other examples.

Obama, and ACORN, sued CitiGroup to make sub-prime loans.

Andrew Cuomo working for the Clinton administration, sued banks to make bad loans.   And he admitted it on video!

[ame=http://youtu.be/x3Kgc-Du6UE]Andrew Cuomo, Obama, and Socialist Democrats Caused US Economic Crisis - YouTube[/ame]

He openly says these are people who would not qualify for mortgages otherwise, and at 3:00 in, he says these mortgages will have a higher default rate.

So clearly lend standards were being lowered.

Another source would be the book:
"The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure" by John A. Allison, who actually worked at BB&T bank, when Federal regulators in the late 90s, showed up and demanded they lower their lending standards, and he records the whole thing in the book.

There is tons of evidence direct real life evidence that lending standards were in fact lowered, regardless of us not searching through government archives for some memo somewhere.    I'll take reality based examples over a memo any day.


----------



## Indeependent

Androw said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I have lots of people in my community who work(ed) as mortgage brokers and bankers; the standards were never lowered.
> I know people who WOULDN'T override the standards due to religious reasons.
> Some of them fell on hard times.
> 
> It's amazing how people can pull up the most archaic documents from SOMEWHERE in this great Internet age but still can't manage to find ONE civil published document top prove the standards were lowered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well perhaps your 'friends' really didn't know of any drop in standards.   Does that mean no one else did?
> 
> I assume the "archaic documents" refers to the one I posted.   I'm not sure how 'archaic' it is, since it came from the very year the housing bubble started, and the very year that sub-prime loans were taking off.
> 
> Further, I'm not sure what your issue is.  Are you suggesting it didn't happen?     Because if it did happen.... and it did.... then clearly that is in fact direct evidence that lending standards were being lowered, since none of those loans qualified to be securitized by Freddie Mac, under the prime rate standard.
> 
> But if that's nothing enough, there are dozens of other examples.
> 
> Obama, and ACORN, sued CitiGroup to make sub-prime loans.
> 
> Andrew Cuomo working for the Clinton administration, sued banks to make bad loans.   And he admitted it on video!
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/x3Kgc-Du6UE]Andrew Cuomo, Obama, and Socialist Democrats Caused US Economic Crisis - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> He openly says these are people who would not qualify for mortgages otherwise, and at 3:00 in, he says these mortgages will have a higher default rate.
> 
> So clearly lend standards were being lowered.
> 
> Another source would be the book:
> "The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure" by John A. Allison, who actually worked at BB&T bank, when Federal regulators in the late 90s, showed up and demanded they lower their lending standards, and he records the whole thing in the book.
> 
> There is tons of evidence direct real life evidence that lending standards were in fact lowered, regardless of us not searching through government archives for some memo somewhere.    I'll take reality based examples over a memo any day.
Click to expand...


They were using automated systems that denied the mortgages that were eventually approved by bypassing the LAWS...Get it?
Of course not!


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your idiocy is awesome!
> 
> *"Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."*
> 
> Where is California, or Illinois, going to get the money to start the bank?
> Why put the taxpayer on the hook for crony loans?
> Even if you somehow started out only making sane, conservative loans, political pressure would soon result in loans to green, that means money-losing, projects.
> 
> 
> 
> "As large as California's liabilities are, *they are exceeded by its assets, which are sufficient to capitalize a bank rivaling any in the world. *
> 
> "That's the idea behind Assembly Bill 750, introduced by Assemblyman Ben Hueso of San Diego, which would establish a blue ribbon task force to consider the viability of creating the California Investment Trust, a state bank receiving deposits of state funds.
> 
> "Instead of relying on Wall Street banks for credit -- or allowing Wall Street banks to enjoy the benefits of lending its capital -- California may decide to create its own, publicly-owned bank.
> 
> "On May 2, AB 750 moved out of the Banking and Finance Committee with only one nay vote and is now on its way to the Appropriations Committee. Three unions submitted their support for the bill -- the California Nurses Association, the California Firefighters and the California Labor Council.
> 
> "The state bank idea also got a nod from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in his speech at the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento the previous day.
> 
> "California joins eleven other states that have introduced bills to form state-owned banks or to study their feasibility.
> 
> "Eight of these bills were introduced just since January, including in Oregon, Washington State, Massachusetts, Arizona, Maryland, New Mexico, Maine and California. *Illinois*, Virginia, Hawaii and Louisiana introduced similar bills in 2010. For links, dates and text, see here."
> 
> *Can't police your pols?
> Move to Jersey.*
> 
> Ellen Brown: What a Public Bank Could Mean for California
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> "As large as California's liabilities are, they are exceeded by its assets, which are sufficient to capitalize a bank rivaling any in the world.*
> 
> Which assets should they use to "capitalize" this bank?
> 
> *"That's the idea behind Assembly Bill 750, introduced by Assemblyman Ben Hueso of San Diego, which would establish a blue ribbon task force to consider the viability of creating the California Investment Trust, a state bank receiving deposits of state funds.*
> 
> State funds? If they take in $104 billion and spend $106 billion, where is this extra money they can lend out coming from?
> 
> *"Instead of relying on Wall Street banks for credit -- or allowing Wall Street banks to enjoy the benefits of lending its capital -- California may decide to create its own, publicly-owned bank.*
> 
> Yes, more money for politicians to buy favors with!
> 
> *"The state bank idea also got a nod from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in his speech at the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento the previous day.*
> 
> If Robby is for it, it's clearly a bad idea.
> 
> *Ellen Brown*
> 
> Silly old hack.
Click to expand...

*So says the anonymous internet corporate troll*

"In North Dakota (population 647,000), the Bank of North Dakota has $2.7 billion in deposits, or $4000 per capita. The majority of these deposits are drawn from the state's own revenues. The bank has nearly the same sum ($2.6 billion) in outstanding loans.

"California has 37 million people. 

"If the California Investment Trust (CIT) performed like the BND, it might amass $148 billion in deposits. 

"With $12 billion in capital, this $148 billion could generate $133 billion in credit for the state (subtracting 10%, or 14.8 billion, to satisfy reserve requirements).

"There are various ways the state could come up with the capital, but one possibility that would not require new taxes or debt would be to simply draw on the treasurer's existing pooled money investment account, which currently contains $65 billion in accumulated revenues dispersed to a variety of funds. 

"This money is already invested; a portion could just be shifted to the CIT. 

"Since it would be an investment in equity rather than an expenditure, it would not cost the state money. 

"Rather, it would make money for the state. 

"In recent years, the Bank of North Dakota has had a return on equity of 25-26%. 

"Compare the 25-30% lost in the two years following the 2008 banking crisis by CalPERS, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which invested its money on Wall Street.

Ellen Brown: What a Public Bank Could Mean for California


----------



## georgephillip

thereisnospoon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such hate. I did, go back and read it. There are links that you can click on and the take you to the website. Only fools believe in spending your way into prosperity. I don't have a link for that, normal people know it.
> 
> 
> I'll even post a picture since you have problems with words.
> 
> taxfoundation.org/blog/reagan-showed-it-can-be-done-lower-top-rate-28-percent-and-raise-more-revenue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only ignorant trolls missed how the US spent its way to prosperity between 1941-45.
> Command Economy maybe?
> Why do you have problems with the words TOTAL REVENUES for the 1980s, which, of course, includes Corporate Ronnie's spike in FICA taxes which essentially shifted the tax burden from the richest individuals to actual workers. I suppose those ethically challenged enough to conflate tax hikes for the majority and tax cuts for the minority might be retarded enough to actually believe TOTAL REVENUE increases in the 80s came from tax cuts.
> 
> Effect of the Reagan, Kennedy, and Bush Tax Cuts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prosperity? Are you kidding? But for the US entry into WW II, the Great Depression would have lasted past the 1950's where it ended, and well into the 60's.
> Yes, WW II put a lot of people to work, but it also left the US with crushing debt. And with the post war baby boom, also in desperate need to spend even more to cover the needs of all those soldiers coming home to no jobs. Remember, we no longer needed aircraft, tanks and other materiel for the military. It was peace time. "Rosie the Riveter" lost her job and went back to being a house wife.
> Look, you are a true believer in socialism. That's that.
> If you find socialism more desirable, I am sure you can choose a more suitable country in which to live and head there. Preferably NOW.
Click to expand...

*Rosie helped end the Great Depression before WWII began:*

"The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression in the decade preceding World War II. The timing of the Great Depression varied across nations, but in most countries it started in 1930 and lasted until the late 1930s or middle 1940s.[1] 

"It was the longest, deepest, and most widespread depression of the 20th century.[2]"

Great Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*I'm not a true believer in anything except that capitalism has outlived its usefulness to 90% of the population in this country; if you have a problem with that, polish your Mandarin and move to China.*


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep presenting incorrect facts and I keep correcting them. F&F are not ratings agencies. I am in no way denying that F&F thought that the MBS were AAA when they were not.
> 
> The practice was to create AAA rated MBS by mixing different types of loans together. They(Financial Institutions, F&F, and ratings agencies) used a formula(85:15 ratio) to justify this rating. In addition the ratings of the underlying mortgages was incorrect. The regulation of the creation of these mortgages and the creation of these MBS decreased during this time as well.
> 
> There were a lot of problems that contributed to the incorrect ratings of both the mortgages and the MBS but the biggest one was the fact that they were not taking into account the bubble that was created by the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates. This failure only lead to the bubble growing bigger as capital flowed to these MBS.
> 
> During this time there was a growth in sub-prime loans other than CRA loans in large part due to the fact that the financial institutions were making billions off of the market and were chasing the profit levels they had at the start of the bubble.
> 
> These financial institutions make a lot of money off of these MBS so I have to wonder if you live in a world where they are not responsible for making decisions then why are they making money in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, back to interest rates.   The housing price bubble started in 1997.   The interest rate in 1997 was 7.6%.   Is that really too low?  Because the interest rate in 1993, was 7.3%, and the bubble didn't start for another 4 years.
> Primary Mortgage Market Survey Archives - 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgages - Freddie Mac
> 
> Again, if you have real evidence to support your claims, by all means post it.  I'll be more than interested to see your evidence, because I'm not seeing that in the data.   I used to believe your view on this, but I can't justify that position anymore.
> 
> *Now to the "financial institutions make a lot of money" argument.*
> 
> I'm not denying any of that.    Yes, once a bubble starts, people start jumping on the speculation.   People were buying homes, and selling them a month later for $100K more.     Banks were making crazy loans, knowing that if the guy defaulted, they would get a house back that was worth more than the original loan.
> 
> I agree with ALL OF THIS.   100% correct! No question about it!
> 
> Here's the problem.... what started it?   Yes, once the bubble got going, all that stuff you mentioned is going to happen.
> 
> WHAT WAS THE CAUSE?
> 
> That's where my issue comes in.   Because if you say the cause was "greed", then you have to believe in black magic.   Human nature hasn't changed in 6,000 years.
> 
> If "greed" was the cause, why didn't the sub-prime bubble start in the 1980s?  Why not 1990?   Why not 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96?   Why not any of those years?    Why didn't it wait until 1999?  Or 2000?  Or 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06?
> 
> Again, you can't tell me it was interest rates, because interest rates were lower in 1993, than in 1997.   Why didn't it start in 1993?    Besides, is one quarter of a point, that different?    7.8% is good, but 7.6% is bad?   Not a logical argument.
> 
> So we're still left with the question.... why 1997?    Did aliens come and zap all the bankers with greed guns?
> 
> Still not a logical argument.   Something fundamental in the mortgage industry had to change, and until you can provide something.... anything... to support your position, my bet still remains on that deal with Freddie Mac, guaranteeing sub-prime loans, with an implied AAA rating.
> 
> If you have something else to suggest, by all means.  Post your evidence.  I'll consider it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Housing goes up and down for all sorts of reasons as your own graph shows and in 1997 the economy was growing. That doesn't change the fact that this particular bubble resulted in home prices to keep increasing when the economy was tanking.
> 
> I see no point in further discussing the impact interest rates have on home prices because it is not a controversial point and I can only state the obvious so many times. 1997 through 2001 is not the anomaly, 2002 through the crash is.
> 
> You didn't address my point about making money, you just pretended to. My point wasn't about greed but the idea that everything is the decision of government even though it is private parties making all the money. You seem oblivious to the fact that private individuals made horribly bad financial decisions and having really bad information was a big part of that.
> 
> If CRA is to blame are you suggesting that there wasn't bad information? People know that CRA loans are more risky so why would they not only make risky CRA loans but other risky sub-prime loans and reduce their mortgage requirements independent of the CRA guidelines?
Click to expand...


First, again housing prices drastically increased after 1997.   Before 1997, there was no housing price bubble, even with a growing good economy.

Further, the housing prices continued a steep climb from 1997 all the way to 2002, BEFORE the interest rates dropped below 7%.






If the anomaly was 2002 to the crash.... why did the housing price bubble start 5 years before that?    You can claim to "state the obvious so many times", but until what you claim is obvious, actually matches up with the data, I'm going to have a problem. I don't go by "someone said this is obvious".  I go by the facts.   When what you say matches the facts, then I'll consider it.

*If you have an explanation why the bubble started before the interest rates fell too low, let me hear it.  I'll consider your perspective.*

Now as to the 'bad information'.....

Yes, but *WHY* was there bad information?   Was there bad information in 1996 and before?   Nope.    1997?  Yes.     What changed?    Government gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating, through Freddie Mac, securitizing sub-prime loans.

The market followed.

Should the market have followed?   We of course know they should not have.    But the fact is, the biggest influence on the market is the Government.

Between Freddie Mac giving sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating, and the government suing banks to make bad loans....  Why would you think they wouldn't?


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I have lots of people in my community who work(ed) as mortgage brokers and bankers; the standards were never lowered.
> I know people who WOULDN'T override the standards due to religious reasons.
> Some of them fell on hard times.
> 
> It's amazing how people can pull up the most archaic documents from SOMEWHERE in this great Internet age but still can't manage to find ONE civil published document top prove the standards were lowered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well perhaps your 'friends' really didn't know of any drop in standards.   Does that mean no one else did?
> 
> I assume the "archaic documents" refers to the one I posted.   I'm not sure how 'archaic' it is, since it came from the very year the housing bubble started, and the very year that sub-prime loans were taking off.
> 
> Further, I'm not sure what your issue is.  Are you suggesting it didn't happen?     Because if it did happen.... and it did.... then clearly that is in fact direct evidence that lending standards were being lowered, since none of those loans qualified to be securitized by Freddie Mac, under the prime rate standard.
> 
> But if that's nothing enough, there are dozens of other examples.
> 
> Obama, and ACORN, sued CitiGroup to make sub-prime loans.
> 
> Andrew Cuomo working for the Clinton administration, sued banks to make bad loans.   And he admitted it on video!
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/x3Kgc-Du6UE]Andrew Cuomo, Obama, and Socialist Democrats Caused US Economic Crisis - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> He openly says these are people who would not qualify for mortgages otherwise, and at 3:00 in, he says these mortgages will have a higher default rate.
> 
> So clearly lend standards were being lowered.
> 
> Another source would be the book:
> "The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure" by John A. Allison, who actually worked at BB&T bank, when Federal regulators in the late 90s, showed up and demanded they lower their lending standards, and he records the whole thing in the book.
> 
> There is tons of evidence direct real life evidence that lending standards were in fact lowered, regardless of us not searching through government archives for some memo somewhere.    I'll take reality based examples over a memo any day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were using automated systems that denied the mortgages that were eventually approved by bypassing the LAWS...Get it?
> Of course not!
Click to expand...


Does that change anything I said?   Does that change that Government was suing banks to make those loans?   Does that change the Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans securitization?    Does that change the fact regulators showed up at BB&T demanding they lower their standards?

Of course not!


----------



## georgephillip

RKMBrown said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity that neither party is interested in breaking up monopolies or oligarchies, or performing any of their constitutionally assigned duties.   Both parties would rather focus on redistributing our income and acting as morality police than doing their job.
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible for me to imagine how we change this dynamic by continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican for our congressional representatives; there are established third-party alternatives already appearing on many US ballots...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't happen with this voting system.  The system must be changed to one in which you get to vote for the candidates in the order of your preference.  The current system is designed to force you to pick from two opposing bad choices that each thrive by selling the idea that voting for anyone but them is a vote for the worst choice.
Click to expand...

Prior to the arrival of the internet, you were exactly right.
If your local ballot offers third party congressional candidates along with the "choice" between Democrat OR Republican, you and millions of other voters can literally FLUSH the House in a single news cycle starting next November.

The technology exists to make such a FLUSH possible, and we're proving it with our dialogue on the subject right now.

All that's lacking is the will.


----------



## Indeependent

Androw said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well perhaps your 'friends' really didn't know of any drop in standards.   Does that mean no one else did?
> 
> I assume the "archaic documents" refers to the one I posted.   I'm not sure how 'archaic' it is, since it came from the very year the housing bubble started, and the very year that sub-prime loans were taking off.
> 
> Further, I'm not sure what your issue is.  Are you suggesting it didn't happen?     Because if it did happen.... and it did.... then clearly that is in fact direct evidence that lending standards were being lowered, since none of those loans qualified to be securitized by Freddie Mac, under the prime rate standard.
> 
> But if that's nothing enough, there are dozens of other examples.
> 
> Obama, and ACORN, sued CitiGroup to make sub-prime loans.
> 
> Andrew Cuomo working for the Clinton administration, sued banks to make bad loans.   And he admitted it on video!
> 
> Andrew Cuomo, Obama, and Socialist Democrats Caused US Economic Crisis - YouTube
> 
> He openly says these are people who would not qualify for mortgages otherwise, and at 3:00 in, he says these mortgages will have a higher default rate.
> 
> So clearly lend standards were being lowered.
> 
> Another source would be the book:
> "The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure" by John A. Allison, who actually worked at BB&T bank, when Federal regulators in the late 90s, showed up and demanded they lower their lending standards, and he records the whole thing in the book.
> 
> There is tons of evidence direct real life evidence that lending standards were in fact lowered, regardless of us not searching through government archives for some memo somewhere.    I'll take reality based examples over a memo any day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were using automated systems that denied the mortgages that were eventually approved by bypassing the LAWS...Get it?
> Of course not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that change anything I said?   Does that change that Government was suing banks to make those loans?   Does that change the Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans securitization?    Does that change the fact regulators showed up at BB&T demanding they lower their standards?
> 
> Of course not!
Click to expand...


Blue Lining...
The Government was suing banks over the issue of Blue Lining, NOT handing out Loans of 600K to bus drivers making 35K/year.
Please do not hyperbolize.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, back to interest rates.   The housing price bubble started in 1997.   The interest rate in 1997 was 7.6%.   Is that really too low?  Because the interest rate in 1993, was 7.3%, and the bubble didn't start for another 4 years.
> Primary Mortgage Market Survey Archives - 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgages - Freddie Mac
> 
> Again, if you have real evidence to support your claims, by all means post it.  I'll be more than interested to see your evidence, because I'm not seeing that in the data.   I used to believe your view on this, but I can't justify that position anymore.
> 
> *Now to the "financial institutions make a lot of money" argument.*
> 
> I'm not denying any of that.    Yes, once a bubble starts, people start jumping on the speculation.   People were buying homes, and selling them a month later for $100K more.     Banks were making crazy loans, knowing that if the guy defaulted, they would get a house back that was worth more than the original loan.
> 
> I agree with ALL OF THIS.   100% correct! No question about it!
> 
> Here's the problem.... what started it?   Yes, once the bubble got going, all that stuff you mentioned is going to happen.
> 
> WHAT WAS THE CAUSE?
> 
> That's where my issue comes in.   Because if you say the cause was "greed", then you have to believe in black magic.   Human nature hasn't changed in 6,000 years.
> 
> If "greed" was the cause, why didn't the sub-prime bubble start in the 1980s?  Why not 1990?   Why not 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96?   Why not any of those years?    Why didn't it wait until 1999?  Or 2000?  Or 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06?
> 
> Again, you can't tell me it was interest rates, because interest rates were lower in 1993, than in 1997.   Why didn't it start in 1993?    Besides, is one quarter of a point, that different?    7.8% is good, but 7.6% is bad?   Not a logical argument.
> 
> So we're still left with the question.... why 1997?    Did aliens come and zap all the bankers with greed guns?
> 
> Still not a logical argument.   Something fundamental in the mortgage industry had to change, and until you can provide something.... anything... to support your position, my bet still remains on that deal with Freddie Mac, guaranteeing sub-prime loans, with an implied AAA rating.
> 
> If you have something else to suggest, by all means.  Post your evidence.  I'll consider it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Housing goes up and down for all sorts of reasons as your own graph shows and in 1997 the economy was growing. That doesn't change the fact that this particular bubble resulted in home prices to keep increasing when the economy was tanking.
> 
> I see no point in further discussing the impact interest rates have on home prices because it is not a controversial point and I can only state the obvious so many times. 1997 through 2001 is not the anomaly, 2002 through the crash is.
> 
> You didn't address my point about making money, you just pretended to. My point wasn't about greed but the idea that everything is the decision of government even though it is private parties making all the money. You seem oblivious to the fact that private individuals made horribly bad financial decisions and having really bad information was a big part of that.
> 
> If CRA is to blame are you suggesting that there wasn't bad information? People know that CRA loans are more risky so why would they not only make risky CRA loans but other risky sub-prime loans and reduce their mortgage requirements independent of the CRA guidelines?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, again housing prices drastically increased after 1997.   Before 1997, there was no housing price bubble, even with a growing good economy.
> 
> Further, the housing prices continued a steep climb from 1997 all the way to 2002, BEFORE the interest rates dropped below 7%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the anomaly was 2002 to the crash.... why did the housing price bubble start 5 years before that?    You can claim to "state the obvious so many times", but until what you claim is obvious, actually matches up with the data, I'm going to have a problem. I don't go by "someone said this is obvious".  I go by the facts.   When what you say matches the facts, then I'll consider it.
> 
> *If you have an explanation why the bubble started before the interest rates fell too low, let me hear it.  I'll consider your perspective.*
> 
> Now as to the 'bad information'.....
> 
> Yes, but *WHY* was there bad information?   Was there bad information in 1996 and before?   Nope.    1997?  Yes.     What changed?    Government gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating, through Freddie Mac, securitizing sub-prime loans.
> 
> The market followed.
> 
> Should the market have followed?   We of course know they should not have.    But the fact is, the biggest influence on the market is the Government.
> 
> Between Freddie Mac giving sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating, and the government suing banks to make bad loans....  Why would you think they wouldn't?
Click to expand...


This isn't rocket science. Your graph clearly demonstrates the presence of sharp increases in prices in the 70's and the 80's. There isn't anything surprising based on your graph that a boom happened in 1997. What is surprising is that it kept going instead of stopping when the economy stopped growing around 2001. Right where one would expect the increase to have stopped and right about when interest rates started to go low.

There was bad information because EVERYONE thought those MBS were AAA. Companies make their own decisions. It is like you think they let Freddie Mac make their decisions for them and then take the profit but don't hold any responsibility for failure. 

The fact is that the economy could have handled the CRA mortgages perfectly fine. Nothing you have said even comes close to demonstrating those loans had anything to do with the crisis. Nor have you said anything that has disputed what I have said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.
> 
> 
> Did the CRA Lead to Risky Lending? | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> Mortgage Brokers and Bankers had automated systems which denied loans; they then had to whip out PAPER to bypass the standards.
> 
> So once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
Click to expand...


*We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks*

Is English your second language?


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.
> 
> 
> Did the CRA Lead to Risky Lending? | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> Mortgage Brokers and Bankers had automated systems which denied loans; they then had to whip out PAPER to bypass the standards.
> 
> So once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks*
> 
> Is English your second language?
Click to expand...


An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.

You've got to be kidding.


----------



## Contumacious

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> Mortgage Brokers and Bankers had automated systems which denied loans; they then had to whip out PAPER to bypass the standards.
> 
> So once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks*
> 
> Is English your second language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
> You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.
> 
> You've got to be kidding.
Click to expand...


Yo retard

tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment  of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occurred.

.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct in pointing out the lending rate as a significant reason for the bubble.  You are wrong to pretend the CRA was not also a significant reason for the very same bubble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CRA loans were a tiny percentage of the defaulting loans. The loans did not perform any worse than anticipated and had no appreciable impact on the crash. If you think you are right show your math IMO.
> 
> It is well documented that the ratings agencies rated the MBS incorrectly. Once the truth came out things went bad fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such designation as a "CRA loan."  Every subprime loan is a CRA loan.  Banks had to lower their criteria for all loans because of CRA.  You don't actually think they had some specially earmarked loans that were designated for black people with bad credit histories, do you?  The use of the term "CRA Loans" indicates only that you're a lying propagandist.   It has no connection with the facts.
Click to expand...

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"CPA Joseph Fried wrote that there is a paucity of CRA loan performance data, based on a response by only 34 of 500 banks surveyed.[105] Nevertheless, estimates have been attempted. 

"Edward Pinto, former Chief Credit Officer of Fannie Mae (198789) and Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, estimated that, at June 30, 2008, there were $1.56 trillion of outstanding CRA loans (or the equivalent). Of this amount, about $940 billion (about 6.7 million loans) was, according to Pinto, subprime.[106]

"Economist Paul Krugman notes the subprime boom 'was overwhelmingly driven' by loan originators who were not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.[107] 

"One study, by a legal firm which counsels financial services entities on Community Reinvestment Act compliance, found that CRA-covered institutions were less likely to make subprime loans (only 20-25% of all subprime loans), and when they did the interest rates were lower. 

"The banks were half as likely to resell the loans to other parties."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "As large as California's liabilities are, *they are exceeded by its assets, which are sufficient to capitalize a bank rivaling any in the world. *
> 
> "That's the idea behind Assembly Bill 750, introduced by Assemblyman Ben Hueso of San Diego, which would establish a blue ribbon task force to consider the viability of creating the California Investment Trust, a state bank receiving deposits of state funds.
> 
> "Instead of relying on Wall Street banks for credit -- or allowing Wall Street banks to enjoy the benefits of lending its capital -- California may decide to create its own, publicly-owned bank.
> 
> "On May 2, AB 750 moved out of the Banking and Finance Committee with only one nay vote and is now on its way to the Appropriations Committee. Three unions submitted their support for the bill -- the California Nurses Association, the California Firefighters and the California Labor Council.
> 
> "The state bank idea also got a nod from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in his speech at the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento the previous day.
> 
> "California joins eleven other states that have introduced bills to form state-owned banks or to study their feasibility.
> 
> "Eight of these bills were introduced just since January, including in Oregon, Washington State, Massachusetts, Arizona, Maryland, New Mexico, Maine and California. *Illinois*, Virginia, Hawaii and Louisiana introduced similar bills in 2010. For links, dates and text, see here."
> 
> *Can't police your pols?
> Move to Jersey.*
> 
> Ellen Brown: What a Public Bank Could Mean for California
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "As large as California's liabilities are, they are exceeded by its assets, which are sufficient to capitalize a bank rivaling any in the world.*
> 
> Which assets should they use to "capitalize" this bank?
> 
> *"That's the idea behind Assembly Bill 750, introduced by Assemblyman Ben Hueso of San Diego, which would establish a blue ribbon task force to consider the viability of creating the California Investment Trust, a state bank receiving deposits of state funds.*
> 
> State funds? If they take in $104 billion and spend $106 billion, where is this extra money they can lend out coming from?
> 
> *"Instead of relying on Wall Street banks for credit -- or allowing Wall Street banks to enjoy the benefits of lending its capital -- California may decide to create its own, publicly-owned bank.*
> 
> Yes, more money for politicians to buy favors with!
> 
> *"The state bank idea also got a nod from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in his speech at the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento the previous day.*
> 
> If Robby is for it, it's clearly a bad idea.
> 
> *Ellen Brown*
> 
> Silly old hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *So says the anonymous internet corporate troll*
> 
> "In North Dakota (population 647,000), the Bank of North Dakota has $2.7 billion in deposits, or $4000 per capita. The majority of these deposits are drawn from the state's own revenues. The bank has nearly the same sum ($2.6 billion) in outstanding loans.
> 
> "California has 37 million people.
> 
> "If the California Investment Trust (CIT) performed like the BND, it might amass $148 billion in deposits.
> 
> "With $12 billion in capital, this $148 billion could generate $133 billion in credit for the state (subtracting 10%, or 14.8 billion, to satisfy reserve requirements).
> 
> "There are various ways the state could come up with the capital, but one possibility that would not require new taxes or debt would be to simply draw on the treasurer's existing pooled money investment account, which currently contains $65 billion in accumulated revenues dispersed to a variety of funds.
> 
> "This money is already invested; a portion could just be shifted to the CIT.
> 
> "Since it would be an investment in equity rather than an expenditure, it would not cost the state money.
> 
> "Rather, it would make money for the state.
> 
> "In recent years, the Bank of North Dakota has had a return on equity of 25-26%.
> 
> "Compare the 25-30% lost in the two years following the 2008 banking crisis by CalPERS, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which invested its money on Wall Street.
> 
> Ellen Brown: What a Public Bank Could Mean for California
Click to expand...


*"With $12 billion in capital, *

California has hundreds of billions in debt.
Hundreds of billions in unfunded liabilities.
Where are they going to get $12 billion in capital?

*"If the California Investment Trust (CIT) performed like the BND, it might amass $148 billion in deposits. *

That is an awesome idea! They can lend out their deposits to political cronies.
What could go wrong?

*"There are various ways the state could come up with the capital, but one possibility that would not require new taxes or debt would be to simply draw on the treasurer's existing pooled money investment account, which currently contains $65 billion in accumulated revenues dispersed to a variety of funds.*

Even better! They can put money already pledged for schools and infrastructure into a political bank.

*"Since it would be an investment in equity rather than an expenditure, it would not cost the state money. *

Since banks that make idiotic loans never lose money.

*"Rather, it would make money for the state. *

Stop it, you're killing me!

*"In recent years, the Bank of North Dakota has had a return on equity of 25-26%. *

They obviously don't make California type idiotic loans.

Thanks for the laughs. Keep it up.


----------



## Indeependent

Contumacious said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks*
> 
> Is English your second language?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
> You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.
> 
> You've got to be kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo retard
> 
> tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment  of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occurred.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yo retard...

Tell me when in our nations history did we off-shore thousands of factories, invite 3 million business visas to replace US citizens and have our White House administration look the other way when everyone making less than 50K/year was being handed a mortgage for 600K?

Prior to the retard GW, it never happened.

And your hero, Rush, was LAUGHING about what a GENIUS GW was!

Once again, please link to the legislation.
But you CAN'T...It DOESN'T exist.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> Mortgage Brokers and Bankers had automated systems which denied loans; they then had to whip out PAPER to bypass the standards.
> 
> So once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks*
> 
> Is English your second language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
> You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.
> 
> You've got to be kidding.
Click to expand...


Riskier lending. Why?
How is that possible? 
Because they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes.


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks*
> 
> Is English your second language?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
> You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.
> 
> You've got to be kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riskier lending. Why?
> How is that possible?
> Because they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes.
Click to expand...


Fees, Commissions, Raises, that better position at the competition.

As you quite ambiguously post...
"they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes"
Who is "they"?
Be precise and don't be stupid.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Public banks? Awesome!
> Just what Illinois needs, another way for our crooked politicians to reward their friends.
> 
> 
> 
> *Illinois should go Red*
> 
> "But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America.
> 
> "Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota?
> 
> "Why haven't the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?
> 
> "Because it works.
> 
> "In 1919, the Non-Partisan League, a vibrant populist organization, won a majority in the legislature and voted the bank into existence.
> 
> "The goal was to free North Dakota farmers from impoverishing debt dependence on the big banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York.
> 
> "More than 90 years later, this state-owned bank is thriving as it helps the state's community banks, businesses, consumers and students obtain loans at reasonable rates.
> 
> "It also delivers a handsome profit to its owners -- the 700,000 residents of North Dakota.
> 
> "In 2011, the BND provided more than $70 million to the state's coffers.
> 
> "Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."
> 
> Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota? | Alternet
> 
> *Awesome, right?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interest rates on loans in North Dakota are not any better than the average.
> 
> My completely free-market, non-state run bank, has offered me excellent rates for years.
> 
> As for providing $70 Million to the state is really great and wonderful.....  *IF* your goal is to enrich politicians and their political supporters.
> 
> I have no interest in enriching politicians, and political supporters.
> 
> When you say "$70 Million to the State", what I hear is "$70 Million sucked away from growth and the economy, and blown on scummy politicians and their fat cat supporters".
> 
> This is not a plus.  It's a negative.
Click to expand...

*Are Wall Street banks a plus or a negative in your state?*

"Each time we pay our state and local taxes -- and all manner of fees -- the state deposits those revenues in a bank. 

"If you're in any state but North Dakota, nearly all of these deposits end up in Wall Street's too-big to-fail banks, because those banks are the only entities large enough to handle the load. 

"The vast majority of the nation's 7,000 community banks are too small to provide the array of cash management services that state and local governments require. 

"We're talking big bucks; at least $1 trillion of our local tax dollars find their way to Wall Street banks, according to Marc Armstrong, executive director of the Public Banking Institute.

"So, not only are we, as taxpayers, on the hook for too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks, but we also end up giving our tax dollars to these same banks each and every time we pay a sales tax or property tax or buy a fishing license. 

"In North Dakota, however, all that public revenue runs through its public state bank, which in turn reinvests in the state's small businesses and public infrastructure via partnerships with 80 small community banks."

Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota? | Alternet


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Marco Rubio, government did not cause the housing crisis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, I wonder who wrote the article?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MIKE KONCZAL*
> 
> A Fellow with the *Roosevelt Institute,* Konczal works on financial reform, unemployment, inequality, and a* progressive vision of the economy.*
> 
> *Roosevelt Institution*
> Carrying forward the legacy and values of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> So we have a fucking socialist who works at an institute which celebrates the socialist proclivities of Franklin Del-anus  Roosevelt.
> 
> Massive conflict of interests.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

*What's your choice for a government policy that likely caused the Great Recession?*

"The government policy that likely made an impact were deregulatory actions.

"In 2000, Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated the derivatives market, in a lame duck session as a rider to an 11,000 page omnibus appropriation bill. 

"A banking capital 'recourse rule' in 2001 allowed the ratings agencies and private bank risk modelers to decide what banks should hold against risk. 

"In 2003 the OCC preempted and overruled Georgias new anti-predatory lending laws. 

"Alan Greenspan refused to enforce regulations on, or even investigate the wrongdoing of, the new subprime market during the 2000s. 

"The 2005 bankruptcy reforms in BAPCPA, widely viewed as friendly if not written by the financial industry, codified the market practice of letting derivatives go to the front of the line in bankruptcy, helping create the conditions for shadow banking runs."

*See if you can dispute the messenger's content instead of his politics.*

No, Marco Rubio, government did not cause the housing crisis


----------



## Bombur

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> CRA loans were a tiny percentage of the defaulting loans. The loans did not perform any worse than anticipated and had no appreciable impact on the crash. If you think you are right show your math IMO.
> 
> It is well documented that the ratings agencies rated the MBS incorrectly. Once the truth came out things went bad fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such designation as a "CRA loan."  Every subprime loan is a CRA loan.  Banks had to lower their criteria for all loans because of CRA.  You don't actually think they had some specially earmarked loans that were designated for black people with bad credit histories, do you?  The use of the term "CRA Loans" indicates only that you're a lying propagandist.   It has no connection with the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "CPA Joseph Fried wrote that there is a paucity of CRA loan performance data, based on a response by only 34 of 500 banks surveyed.[105] Nevertheless, estimates have been attempted.
> 
> "Edward Pinto, former Chief Credit Officer of Fannie Mae (198789) and Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, estimated that, at June 30, 2008, there were $1.56 trillion of outstanding CRA loans (or the equivalent). Of this amount, about $940 billion (about 6.7 million loans) was, according to Pinto, subprime.[106]
> 
> "Economist Paul Krugman notes the subprime boom 'was overwhelmingly driven' by loan originators who were not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.[107]
> 
> "One study, by a legal firm which counsels financial services entities on Community Reinvestment Act compliance, found that CRA-covered institutions were less likely to make subprime loans (only 20-25% of all subprime loans), and when they did the interest rates were lower.
> 
> "The banks were half as likely to resell the loans to other parties."
Click to expand...


When I was talking about CRA loans I was talking about those loans that the act required banks to make. The idea that all the sub prime loans were forced upon financial institutions is spectacularly stupid. The context of my comments was with regards to the supposition that the banks were being forced by government with regards to these sub-prime loans. 

I have no problem with clarifying intent but if anyone was actually trying to argue that all sub-prime loans are the fault of the CRA I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.


----------



## georgephillip

IlarMeilyr said:


> OP GeorgiePorgie's REAL problem with Capitalism and "income inequality" is that capitalism yields a MARKEDLY higher base level for the poor (notwithstanding that they don't have income "equality" with the rich) than socialism can produce.


*Capitalism delivers the "bads" to the vast majority of US workers.*

"In the US, Roosevelt got capitalists to accept the new social welfare institutions by carefully NOT taxing their wealth (either corporate or personal) and limiting tax increases on their incomes. 

"Roosevelt got workers to accept the bailouts of capitalists by NOT taxing workers to pay for those bailouts. 

"Of course, financing very costly government interventions without taxing corporations, the rich, or the workers enough to pay for them meant that the government had to borrow what it did not raise in taxes. 

"The federal budget had to run big deficits that rapidly increased the national debt."

In Economic Crisis, Capitalism Delivers the Bads


----------



## georgephillip

Indofred said:


> Capitalism produces inequality because some people are better than others.
> Some people are lazy whilst others work hard.
> Some people are bright but some are stupid.
> Some fuck about in school but others do every homework.
> 
> The bright and hard working tend to get paid more or run business.
> The rest are toilet cleaners or whatever.
> 
> Live with it.


Which explains perfectly the toilets that Dubya manicured on his way to the Oval Office.
Maybe the American Dream has migrated to Indonesia?


----------



## gnarlylove

Iceweasel said:


> What a bunch of mindless drivel. The irony is that you misrepresent and demonize capitalism while polishing up socialism, WHILE you pretend to be above the fray.



My mindless drivel was elucidating Americans use of the mass media as their main and only source for news. Moreover I argued it narrows parameters of what is acceptable and what is not: it necessitates the triumph of capitalism at every turn and masks overt flaws. Of course you don't think there are flaws or they are dismissable. I get it, you don't live in the part of the social strata that makes you regret having needs and being human. In which case I'll assume your parameters match those of American media. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I am above reproach or socialism is but with attitudes precisely like yours, we will always trample good human beings under foot because we don't give two shits about them. This is not the society for liberty and justice for all. You and your ilk are the vast majority of people who have a stake in the success of capitalism. Very few people step outside this mainstream to see if its working for people other than themselves--that's what mainstream is--egos the size of states. Captialism is fueled by selfish pursuits. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it's an observational fact.



Iceweasel said:


> You honestly don't live in the real world. You have never driven around America and seen the homes, cars, boats and lifestyles.



I guess on every single post I need put a disclaimer that capitalism has benefited billions and billions of brats like yourself who assume they know everything about a person from one single post. Get your head out of your ass.

I read elsewhere you noted the existence of hate and how you distanced yourself from it. HA! Read your own post! I see you forget to scrutinize your own language because it's obvious you think poor humans are to be treated like dogs with no rights to food, housing and love. I hope you don't complain there's a "entitlement problem." Why? If you treat people like dogs, how can you expect their efforts and achievements to match those of the upper middle class or even middle class people? Treating people like shit will result in shit: not allowing humans to sleep indoors or forcing them to cram into homeless shelters where drugs and disease are rampant--which you wouldn't know because you've never had to stay in those places. Or taking handouts from food pantries which have skyrocketed all over America because more people are in need. Never had to stand in those long lines huh? Never had to eat old meat from a can that you are thankful to have?

Your attitudes are selfishness and a total lack of heart. It OK because everyone you know is this way, except towards one another. Among your own ilk you are friendly, but poor people and opposition brings out the worst in you, or best, I'm not sure. I don't care if you give to charity, if you treat them like shit you are not being charitable. Charity involves a spirit of compassion and empathy.



Iceweasel said:


> Workers do have the right to own production IF they buy the goddamn company.



The right and the ability are two separate things. Although it's not entirely the case, most capitalists owners are not about the hand over control to their drivel workforce. It would be a major shift in the balance of power wouldn't it? Money isn't the only issue at play here. See the work of Gar Alperovitz regarding worker owned industry in northern Ohio. It details what you seem to lack in understanding regarding this topic.



Iceweasel said:


> You do not have the right to a house, food or sex. It isn't in the Constitution.


If it's a matter of the Constitution, it says ALL AMERICANS are given the inalienable right to pursue their life liberty and happiness. Do you think this excludes the need for housing and food? Do you think people can pursue liberty without food? Without support? Give me a break.

Do you live in a gated community? I know the answer: Yes. And if not, what the hell is wrong with you? Can't you work harder and be born with a father that had more inheritance to give? Tsk tsk...you should have done better in the happenstance department. Oh wait, no one gets to decide where their born? Hmmm....

To you ALL AMERICANS' inalienable right include you and your immediate family and fuck the rest of the world. It excludes people disproportionately of color because my homeless compatriots tend to be racial minorities and to you they must be low-life *******. Way to be on the cutting edge! I'm sure they roundly agree with you, too bad they can't express that on this highly honorable and credible message board.

To think inalienable rights for all Americans mean only those who earn above poverty wages...what a new spin on the Constitution. 

Again, I know capitalism has done great things. It has also turned our democracy into a plutocracy. All American individuals are covered in the Constitution except those who were born into the wrong class. And give me a break on success stories. These are not the norm and will never be.
Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet


----------



## RKMBrown

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, back to interest rates.   The housing price bubble started in 1997.   The interest rate in 1997 was 7.6%.   Is that really too low?  Because the interest rate in 1993, was 7.3%, and the bubble didn't start for another 4 years.
> Primary Mortgage Market Survey Archives - 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgages - Freddie Mac
> 
> Again, if you have real evidence to support your claims, by all means post it.  I'll be more than interested to see your evidence, because I'm not seeing that in the data.   I used to believe your view on this, but I can't justify that position anymore.
> 
> *Now to the "financial institutions make a lot of money" argument.*
> 
> I'm not denying any of that.    Yes, once a bubble starts, people start jumping on the speculation.   People were buying homes, and selling them a month later for $100K more.     Banks were making crazy loans, knowing that if the guy defaulted, they would get a house back that was worth more than the original loan.
> 
> I agree with ALL OF THIS.   100% correct! No question about it!
> 
> Here's the problem.... what started it?   Yes, once the bubble got going, all that stuff you mentioned is going to happen.
> 
> WHAT WAS THE CAUSE?
> 
> That's where my issue comes in.   Because if you say the cause was "greed", then you have to believe in black magic.   Human nature hasn't changed in 6,000 years.
> 
> If "greed" was the cause, why didn't the sub-prime bubble start in the 1980s?  Why not 1990?   Why not 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96?   Why not any of those years?    Why didn't it wait until 1999?  Or 2000?  Or 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06?
> 
> Again, you can't tell me it was interest rates, because interest rates were lower in 1993, than in 1997.   Why didn't it start in 1993?    Besides, is one quarter of a point, that different?    7.8% is good, but 7.6% is bad?   Not a logical argument.
> 
> So we're still left with the question.... why 1997?    Did aliens come and zap all the bankers with greed guns?
> 
> Still not a logical argument.   Something fundamental in the mortgage industry had to change, and until you can provide something.... anything... to support your position, my bet still remains on that deal with Freddie Mac, guaranteeing sub-prime loans, with an implied AAA rating.
> 
> If you have something else to suggest, by all means.  Post your evidence.  I'll consider it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Housing goes up and down for all sorts of reasons as your own graph shows and in 1997 the economy was growing. That doesn't change the fact that this particular bubble resulted in home prices to keep increasing when the economy was tanking.
> 
> I see no point in further discussing the impact interest rates have on home prices because it is not a controversial point and I can only state the obvious so many times. 1997 through 2001 is not the anomaly, 2002 through the crash is.
> 
> You didn't address my point about making money, you just pretended to. My point wasn't about greed but the idea that everything is the decision of government even though it is private parties making all the money. You seem oblivious to the fact that private individuals made horribly bad financial decisions and having really bad information was a big part of that.
> 
> If CRA is to blame are you suggesting that there wasn't bad information? People know that CRA loans are more risky so why would they not only make risky CRA loans but other risky sub-prime loans and reduce their mortgage requirements independent of the CRA guidelines?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, again housing prices drastically increased after 1997.   Before 1997, there was no housing price bubble, even with a growing good economy.
> 
> Further, the housing prices continued a steep climb from 1997 all the way to 2002, BEFORE the interest rates dropped below 7%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the anomaly was 2002 to the crash.... why did the housing price bubble start 5 years before that?    You can claim to "state the obvious so many times", but until what you claim is obvious, actually matches up with the data, I'm going to have a problem. I don't go by "someone said this is obvious".  I go by the facts.   When what you say matches the facts, then I'll consider it.
> 
> *If you have an explanation why the bubble started before the interest rates fell too low, let me hear it.  I'll consider your perspective.*
> 
> Now as to the 'bad information'.....
> 
> Yes, but *WHY* was there bad information?   Was there bad information in 1996 and before?   Nope.    1997?  Yes.     What changed?    Government gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating, through Freddie Mac, securitizing sub-prime loans.
> 
> The market followed.
> 
> Should the market have followed?   We of course know they should not have.    But the fact is, the biggest influence on the market is the Government.
> 
> Between Freddie Mac giving sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating, and the government suing banks to make bad loans....  Why would you think they wouldn't?
Click to expand...


To be fair that bubble also coincided with the dot com boom... so there were actually two bubbles pushing the price of homes up, dot com millionaires and taxpayer secured sub-prime loans.


----------



## Indeependent

RKMBrown said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Housing goes up and down for all sorts of reasons as your own graph shows and in 1997 the economy was growing. That doesn't change the fact that this particular bubble resulted in home prices to keep increasing when the economy was tanking.
> 
> I see no point in further discussing the impact interest rates have on home prices because it is not a controversial point and I can only state the obvious so many times. 1997 through 2001 is not the anomaly, 2002 through the crash is.
> 
> You didn't address my point about making money, you just pretended to. My point wasn't about greed but the idea that everything is the decision of government even though it is private parties making all the money. You seem oblivious to the fact that private individuals made horribly bad financial decisions and having really bad information was a big part of that.
> 
> If CRA is to blame are you suggesting that there wasn't bad information? People know that CRA loans are more risky so why would they not only make risky CRA loans but other risky sub-prime loans and reduce their mortgage requirements independent of the CRA guidelines?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, again housing prices drastically increased after 1997.   Before 1997, there was no housing price bubble, even with a growing good economy.
> 
> Further, the housing prices continued a steep climb from 1997 all the way to 2002, BEFORE the interest rates dropped below 7%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the anomaly was 2002 to the crash.... why did the housing price bubble start 5 years before that?    You can claim to "state the obvious so many times", but until what you claim is obvious, actually matches up with the data, I'm going to have a problem. I don't go by "someone said this is obvious".  I go by the facts.   When what you say matches the facts, then I'll consider it.
> 
> *If you have an explanation why the bubble started before the interest rates fell too low, let me hear it.  I'll consider your perspective.*
> 
> Now as to the 'bad information'.....
> 
> Yes, but *WHY* was there bad information?   Was there bad information in 1996 and before?   Nope.    1997?  Yes.     What changed?    Government gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating, through Freddie Mac, securitizing sub-prime loans.
> 
> The market followed.
> 
> Should the market have followed?   We of course know they should not have.    But the fact is, the biggest influence on the market is the Government.
> 
> Between Freddie Mac giving sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating, and the government suing banks to make bad loans....  Why would you think they wouldn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair that bubble also coincided with the dot com boom... so there were actually two bubbles pushing the price of homes up, dot com millionaires and taxpayer secured sub-prime loans.
Click to expand...


Not at all.
The US economy cooled off drastically around late 2000 and GW's first term was defined by an economy in the dumps.
The Housing Bubble was a distinct occurrence after GW realized his presidency wasn't going to be remarkable for the US.
That's coming from a NYC/LI perspective.


----------



## RKMBrown

Indeependent said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, again housing prices drastically increased after 1997.   Before 1997, there was no housing price bubble, even with a growing good economy.
> 
> Further, the housing prices continued a steep climb from 1997 all the way to 2002, BEFORE the interest rates dropped below 7%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the anomaly was 2002 to the crash.... why did the housing price bubble start 5 years before that?    You can claim to "state the obvious so many times", but until what you claim is obvious, actually matches up with the data, I'm going to have a problem. I don't go by "someone said this is obvious".  I go by the facts.   When what you say matches the facts, then I'll consider it.
> 
> *If you have an explanation why the bubble started before the interest rates fell too low, let me hear it.  I'll consider your perspective.*
> 
> Now as to the 'bad information'.....
> 
> Yes, but *WHY* was there bad information?   Was there bad information in 1996 and before?   Nope.    1997?  Yes.     What changed?    Government gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating, through Freddie Mac, securitizing sub-prime loans.
> 
> The market followed.
> 
> Should the market have followed?   We of course know they should not have.    But the fact is, the biggest influence on the market is the Government.
> 
> Between Freddie Mac giving sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating, and the government suing banks to make bad loans....  Why would you think they wouldn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair that bubble also coincided with the dot com boom... so there were actually two bubbles pushing the price of homes up, dot com millionaires and taxpayer secured sub-prime loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> The US economy cooled off drastically around late 2000 and GW's first term was defined by an economy in the dumps.
> The Housing Bubble was a distinct occurrence after GW realized his presidency wasn't going to be remarkable for the US.
> That's coming from a NYC/LI perspective.
Click to expand...


Get your glasses checked we are talking about the bubble starting in 1997 not late 2000


----------



## Indeependent

You know, you're right.
My mistake.


----------



## RKMBrown

Indeependent said:


> You know, you're right.
> My mistake.



Times were really good back in 1997-99... now in hindsight of course it was just a bubble, but boy did we think we were smart back then   The conversion from production economy to tech economy was complete.  Then we sold it leaving everyone to wonder what's next...  Bush's answer?  Wars in the ME and a police state. Obama's answer?  more wars more police state and lots of freebies funded by borrowing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
> You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.
> 
> You've got to be kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riskier lending. Why?
> How is that possible?
> Because they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fees, Commissions, Raises, that better position at the competition.
> 
> As you quite ambiguously post...
> "they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes"
> Who is "they"?
> Be precise and don't be stupid.
Click to expand...


The banks lowered standards.
You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.


----------



## Mr. H.

Capitalism guarantees nothing. 

And that's the beauty of it. 

Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riskier lending. Why?
> How is that possible?
> Because they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fees, Commissions, Raises, that better position at the competition.
> 
> As you quite ambiguously post...
> "they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes"
> Who is "they"?
> Be precise and don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The banks lowered standards.
> You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.
Click to expand...


They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining (I will leave it to you to look it up).
They weren't legislated to collect an unfathomable amount in Fees, Commissions and repossessions.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> We all should have the right to quality food and shelter.



Where in the hell is _that_ written?!?

Also, I would assume then that you agree you should labor for 10 to 12 hours per day to provide me with that "quality food and shelter" I'm entitled to while I relax on my hammock reading the musings of Karl Marx? No lying either. I want the honest answer here.


----------



## P@triot

Contumacious said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks*
> 
> Is English your second language?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
> You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.
> 
> You've got to be kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo retard
> 
> tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment  of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occurred.
Click to expand...


Answer: *NEVER*


----------



## Indeependent

Rottweiler said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
> You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.
> 
> You've got to be kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo retard
> 
> tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment  of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer: *NEVER*
Click to expand...


You are a fall guy for a Republican president who spent money like a Liberal.


----------



## P@triot

Indeependent said:


> Yo retard...
> 
> Tell me when in our nations history did we off-shore thousands of factories, invite 3 million business visas to replace US citizens and have our White House administration look the other way when everyone making less than 50K/year was being handed a mortgage for 600K?
> 
> Prior to the retard GW, it never happened.
> 
> And your hero, Rush, was LAUGHING about what a GENIUS GW was!



Man, this is so absurd, I don't even know where to begin here. Deep breath and.....go!

First of all, since when is it the responsibility of the White House to monitor mortgages? I've seen some stupid fuck'n posts on USMB before, but this is one for the ages. 

Second, in you're infinite left-wing stupidity, did you ever realize the mind-numbing contradictions of your failed ideology? If a person goes to the bank making $50k a year and is turned for a $600k mortgage, you people have a fuck'n aneurysm that "the average man can't get a loan and is locked out of the inner circle". And God forbid if that person is black!!! Christ Almighty will the thunder roar and the earth shake if a black person is turned down for the loan! And you'll find a Republican president to blame for that.

But......if that irresponsible person is granted that loan and the irresponsible person fails to pay it back, well then the banks were "predatory" and "taking advantage" of that person. And then you'll find a a Republican president to blame for _that_. Do see you how insanely fuck'n stupid you sound now? Whether they get the loan or they don't get the loan, either way you cry like a little itty-bitty fucking bitch and then randomly find the name of a Republican president to blame it on.

But wait - there's more! Third, and most importantly out of all of this, you're too fuck'n stupid to even realize that _you_ and your fellow Dumbocrats are to blame for all of the "off-shoring". You demonize the wealthy. You punish success. You raise taxes on business. You implement crushing regulations. You make it very clear that you hate the business owner, their business, and the jobs that result from both. And then you stand there scratching your head trying to figure out why businesses are fleeing the U.S.? Really? This is literally as fuck'n stupid as a Nazi scratching their head trying to figure out why all of the Jews are fleeing from Auschwitz.

Look, I realize you are a serious _dick_. But for 10 seconds can you stop being such a _dick_ and answer one serious question honestly? If it cost $60 million per year to move operations overseas and you could actually save $40 million per year to keep your business in the U.S., do you think *anyone* would *ever* move their business overseas? No, really - would they?

With as much vile and contempt that you assholes could muster, you have told corporate America to go fuck themselves. And so they said "ok - I'll take my ball over to that playground over there where I'm actually wanted and where I'm treated nicely". Until you realize that whoever makes doing business the best deal for business will get all of the businesses - and the subsequent jobs that go with it - you continue the "off-shoring" that you libtard's created. But sadly, Dumbocrats are just too damn dumb and brainwashed by their failed ideology to ever figure it out.


----------



## P@triot

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo retard
> 
> tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment  of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: *NEVER*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fall guy for a Republican president who spent money like a Liberal.
Click to expand...


Really? I give GWB a very low grade as president and I have always correctly identified him as the big government, spend recklessly liberal that he is.

Would you like to try again junior?


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a bunch of mindless drivel. The irony is that you misrepresent and demonize capitalism while polishing up socialism, WHILE you pretend to be above the fray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mindless drivel was elucidating Americans use of the mass media as their main and only source for news. Moreover I argued it narrows parameters of what is acceptable and what is not: it necessitates the triumph of capitalism at every turn and masks overt flaws. Of course you don't think there are flaws or they are dismissable. I get it, you don't live in the part of the social strata that makes you regret having needs and being human. In which case I'll assume your parameters match those of American media. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I am above reproach or socialism is but with attitudes precisely like yours, we will always trample good human beings under foot because we don't give two shits about them. This is not the society for liberty and justice for all. You and your ilk are the vast majority of people who have a stake in the success of capitalism. Very few people step outside this mainstream to see if its working for people other than themselves--that's what mainstream is--egos the size of states. Captialism is fueled by selfish pursuits. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it's an observational fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You honestly don't live in the real world. You have never driven around America and seen the homes, cars, boats and lifestyles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess on every single post I need put a disclaimer that capitalism has benefited billions and billions of brats like yourself who assume they know everything about a person from one single post. Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> I read elsewhere you noted the existence of hate and how you distanced yourself from it. HA! Read your own post! I see you forget to scrutinize your own language because it's obvious you think poor humans are to be treated like dogs with no rights to food, housing and love. I hope you don't complain there's a "entitlement problem." Why? If you treat people like dogs, how can you expect their efforts and achievements to match those of the upper middle class or even middle class people? Treating people like shit will result in shit: not allowing humans to sleep indoors or forcing them to cram into homeless shelters where drugs and disease are rampant--which you wouldn't know because you've never had to stay in those places. Or taking handouts from food pantries which have skyrocketed all over America because more people are in need. Never had to stand in those long lines huh? Never had to eat old meat from a can that you are thankful to have?
> 
> Your attitudes are selfishness and a total lack of heart. It OK because everyone you know is this way, except towards one another. Among your own ilk you are friendly, but poor people and opposition brings out the worst in you, or best, I'm not sure. I don't care if you give to charity, if you treat them like shit you are not being charitable. Charity involves a spirit of compassion and empathy.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Workers do have the right to own production IF they buy the goddamn company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right and the ability are two separate things. Although it's not entirely the case, most capitalists owners are not about the hand over control to their drivel workforce. It would be a major shift in the balance of power wouldn't it? Money isn't the only issue at play here. See the work of Gar Alperovitz regarding worker owned industry in northern Ohio. It details what you seem to lack in understanding regarding this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have the right to a house, food or sex. It isn't in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's a matter of the Constitution, it says ALL AMERICANS are given the inalienable right to pursue their life liberty and happiness. Do you think this excludes the need for housing and food? Do you think people can pursue liberty without food? Without support? Give me a break.
> 
> Do you live in a gated community? I know the answer: Yes. And if not, what the hell is wrong with you? Can't you work harder and be born with a father that had more inheritance to give? Tsk tsk...you should have done better in the happenstance department. Oh wait, no one gets to decide where their born? Hmmm....
> 
> To you ALL AMERICANS' inalienable right include you and your immediate family and fuck the rest of the world. It excludes people disproportionately of color because my homeless compatriots tend to be racial minorities and to you they must be low-life *******. Way to be on the cutting edge! I'm sure they roundly agree with you, too bad they can't express that on this highly honorable and credible message board.
> 
> To think inalienable rights for all Americans mean only those who earn above poverty wages...what a new spin on the Constitution.
> 
> Again, I know capitalism has done great things. It has also turned our democracy into a plutocracy. All American individuals are covered in the Constitution except those who were born into the wrong class. And give me a break on success stories. These are not the norm and will never be.
> Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet
Click to expand...


This is why it's so important to understand what the term "inalienable right" actually means. It's not the same thing as "need". The Constitution doesn't guarantee us that our needs will be met, and it doesn't assign government the role of providing them.


----------



## Indeependent

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo retard...
> 
> Tell me when in our nations history did we off-shore thousands of factories, invite 3 million business visas to replace US citizens and have our White House administration look the other way when everyone making less than 50K/year was being handed a mortgage for 600K?
> 
> Prior to the retard GW, it never happened.
> 
> And your hero, Rush, was LAUGHING about what a GENIUS GW was!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, this is so absurd, I don't even know where to begin here. Deep breath and.....go!
> 
> First of all, since when is it the responsibility of the White House to monitor mortgages? I've seen some stupid fuck'n posts on USMB before, but this is one for the ages.
> 
> Second, in you're infinite left-wing stupidity, did you ever realize the mind-numbing contradictions of your failed ideology? If a person goes to the bank making $50k a year and is turned for a $600k mortgage, you people have a fuck'n aneurysm that "the average man can't get a loan and is locked out of the inner circle". And God forbid if that person is black!!! Christ Almighty will the thunder roar and the earth shake if a black person is turned down for the loan! And you'll find a Republican president to blame for that.
> 
> But......if that irresponsible person is granted that loan and the irresponsible person fails to pay it back, well then the banks were "predatory" and "taking advantage" of that person. And then you'll find a a Republican president to blame for _that_. Do see you how insanely fuck'n stupid you sound now? Whether they get the loan or they don't get the loan, either way you cry like a little itty-bitty fucking bitch and then randomly find the name of a Republican president to blame it on.
> 
> But wait - there's more! Third, and most importantly out of all of this, you're too fuck'n stupid to even realize that _you_ and your fellow Dumbocrats are to blame for all of the "off-shoring". You demonize the wealthy. You punish success. You raise taxes on business. You implement crushing regulations. You make it very clear that you hate the business owner, their business, and the jobs that result from both. And then you stand there scratching your head trying to figure out why businesses are fleeing the U.S.? Really? This is literally as fuck'n stupid as a Nazi scratching their head trying to figure out why all of the Jews are fleeing from Auschwitz.
> 
> Look, I realize you are a serious _dick_. But for 10 seconds can you stop being such a _dick_ and answer one serious question honestly? If it cost $60 million per year to move operations overseas and you could actually save $40 million per year to keep your business in the U.S., do you think *anyone* would *ever* move their business overseas? No, really - would they?
> 
> With as much vile and contempt that you assholes could muster, you have told corporate America to go fuck themselves. And so they said "ok - I'll take my ball over to that playground over there where I'm actually wanted and where I'm treated nicely". Until you realize that whoever makes doing business the best deal for business will get all of the businesses - and the subsequent jobs that go with it - you continue the "off-shoring" that you libtard's created. But sadly, Dumbocrats are just too damn dumb and brainwashed by their failed ideology to ever figure it out.
Click to expand...


Banks are regulated.
The software denied the loan, so the paper was whipped out of the draw.
Based on Sarbanes/Oxley, signed into law by GW post dot com crash, the transaction was ILLEGAL.

In your language..."Got it, retard?"
Of course not!
No surprise.

You are stating that until post 9/11 all US businesses were unable to exist because of onerous wages, taxation and regulations.
So until post 9/11, Wall Street and all major corporations that existed in the US for DECADES either were an ILLUSION, running at a SEVERE LOSS (in which case, why didn't they simply go out of business) or SUDDENLY were being manned by the most incompetent CEOs in history.
And, and who but those very same corporations could muster the money to eliminate those pesky little factors.
But no, CEOs and Directors want Cheap, 24/7 and no benefits.
So sit back and watch your country crumble along with the EMERGING ASIAN MARKET that ISN'T EMERGING because their pay can't buy the products.
MORON!

You are so stupid and disingenuous it's amazing.

You're starting to make Liberals seem like they make sense.
But go ahead; in this country you're in the severe minority of Right Wing Ideologues.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fees, Commissions, Raises, that better position at the competition.
> 
> As you quite ambiguously post...
> "they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes"
> Who is "they"?
> Be precise and don't be stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The banks lowered standards.
> You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining (I will leave it to you to look it up).
> They weren't legislated to collect an unfathomable amount in Fees, Commissions and repossessions.
Click to expand...


*They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining *

Do you mean Red Lining? LOL!


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The banks lowered standards.
> You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining (I will leave it to you to look it up).
> They weren't legislated to collect an unfathomable amount in Fees, Commissions and repossessions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining *
> 
> Do you mean Red Lining? LOL!
Click to expand...


Yep!  Red Lining.  I don't know why "blue" got stuck in my head.
Must be this pile of Blu-Ray discs I have on my desk.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire argument is a red herring.
> 
> I said my argument rather clearly IMO. You are reducing the entire nation to two people you are hating on. Which you are btw. Your entire argument is an emotional argument against imaginary people who you think made bad decisions.
> 
> It is intellectually vapid and offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your post is what someone with a weak argument says.   "you hate" is not an argument.   My examples are of the reality in the economy, that some people make choices that effect their long term income.
> 
> Your argument is "you hate, therefore what you see in real life economy, doesn't matter, and is not relevant.".
> 
> Mindlessly mocking arguments, because you can not actually deny them, is simply another way of saying you have no argument.
> 
> If you want to repeat your non-argument over and over, I'll point out your non-argument over and over.  Please continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is like you are trying to be stupid. You are using made up anecdotal evidence to describe an entire nation and demonize the entire middle class as it relates to other nations.
> 
> You have yet to come close to addressing any of my arguments. You made up some information a couple times and then made some blatantly illogical arguments.
Click to expand...


Because you have no argument that I have seen.   "You hate" is not an argument.  That's what ignorant people say, when they have a weak argument.

Nor did I "demonize" anyone.  Again, yet another argument ignorant people make, when they have no argument.   "you demonize", is another way of saying "I have no argument".

What exactly, in your post was even remotely worth trying to counter?   You have to make a valid argument first, then I'll counter it.    You have to make a valid point first, before I have something to counter.


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were using automated systems that denied the mortgages that were eventually approved by bypassing the LAWS...Get it?
> Of course not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that change anything I said?   Does that change that Government was suing banks to make those loans?   Does that change the Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans securitization?    Does that change the fact regulators showed up at BB&T demanding they lower their standards?
> 
> Of course not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blue Lining...
> The Government was suing banks over the issue of Blue Lining, NOT handing out Loans of 600K to bus drivers making 35K/year.
> Please do not hyperbolize.
Click to expand...


You mean redlining, not blue lining.  Never heard of blue lining.
Did you not listen to the video?

[ame=http://youtu.be/gpj4gcdm_JQ]HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]

In the very first minute of the video, he makes it very clear about claims of institutionalize discrimination, that involved your credit history not being good enough to qualify for a loan.

That's not 'redlining'.  That's flat out, you don't qualify for prime rate mortgages, and we're calling that discrimination.     That is the definition of sub-prime.

And back to 'redlining'.   I am still assuming that is what you were referring to.

The idea that redlining is "racists" or something, is just garbage.  I've looked for evidence of that for a decade now.  There is no solid evidence of anything 'racist' about redlining.

But why does redlining exist?

We need to grasp all neighborhoods, go through cycles.   All do.  All areas are either growing or declining.   Redlining serves to not give loans in areas that are for whatever reason high risk.

For example, say you had a small town, built around a military base.  Then you read that the administration is considering closing the base.   You would redline the town, because you are not going to make a loan for a business, or a mortgage, in a town that next year the base could close, prices drop, businesses close, and end up losing tons of money on loans gone bad.

It's not a matter of race.   All the people in the town could be purple.   The fact is, the town is now high risk, because of some reason, and you don't want to make loans, even to credit worthy borrowers, because you could still lose your money.

That's why all redlining exists.     If you have a neighborhood, where crime has suddenly increased drastically.   Home prices tend to fall.  You don't want to make a loan, and then lose your money.    If section 8 housing moves into the area.   If the local manufacturing plant is closing.  If the city announced plans to build a highway through the middle of that area.

All of these things can drastically harm the housing market price.   Therefore all can drastically increase the risk of making loans there.

Bankers know this.  That's why they created redlining.

And when the government forced banks to not adhere to sound business practice, you end up with a crash.   That's how that works.


----------



## georgephillip

"In 2012, the top 5 percent of earners were responsible for 38 percent of domestic consumption, up from 28 percent in 1995, the researchers found.

"Even more striking, the current recovery has been driven almost entirely by the upper crust, according to Mr. Fazzari and Mr. Cynamon. Since 2009, the year the recession ended, inflation-adjusted spending by this top echelon has risen 17 percent, compared with just 1 percent among the bottom 95 percent."

*Those who doubt the US middle class is steadily eroding should ask the business world*

"In response to the upward shift in spending, PricewaterhouseCoopers clients like big stores and restaurants are chasing richer customers with a wider offering of high-end goods and services, or focusing on rock-bottom prices to attract the expanding ranks of penny-pinching consumers.

'As a retailer or restaurant chain, if youre not at the really high level or the low level, thats a tough place to be,' Mr. Maxwell said. '*You dont want to be stuck in the middle*.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/business/the-middle-class-is-steadily-eroding-just-ask-the-business-world.html?_r=1


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riskier lending. Why?
> How is that possible?
> Because they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fees, Commissions, Raises, that better position at the competition.
> 
> As you quite ambiguously post...
> "they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes"
> Who is "they"?
> Be precise and don't be stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The banks lowered standards.
> You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.
Click to expand...

Which banks "lowered standards?"
How large were their MBS fees?
Who got unfairly rich?


----------



## georgephillip

Mr. H. said:


> Capitalism guarantees nothing.
> 
> And that's the beauty of it.
> 
> Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.


Capitalism guarantees consolidation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation which is beautiful only to butt fucked slaves.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your post is what someone with a weak argument says.   "you hate" is not an argument.   My examples are of the reality in the economy, that some people make choices that effect their long term income.
> 
> Your argument is "you hate, therefore what you see in real life economy, doesn't matter, and is not relevant.".
> 
> Mindlessly mocking arguments, because you can not actually deny them, is simply another way of saying you have no argument.
> 
> If you want to repeat your non-argument over and over, I'll point out your non-argument over and over.  Please continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is like you are trying to be stupid. You are using made up anecdotal evidence to describe an entire nation and demonize the entire middle class as it relates to other nations.
> 
> You have yet to come close to addressing any of my arguments. You made up some information a couple times and then made some blatantly illogical arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you have no argument that I have seen.   "You hate" is not an argument.  That's what ignorant people say, when they have a weak argument.
> 
> Nor did I "demonize" anyone.  Again, yet another argument ignorant people make, when they have no argument.   "you demonize", is another way of saying "I have no argument".
> 
> What exactly, in your post was even remotely worth trying to counter?   You have to make a valid argument first, then I'll counter it.    You have to make a valid point first, before I have something to counter.
Click to expand...


Information was presented to you that compared nations to one another. Your response was to make up two stories about a social worker and a burger flipper and blamed these imaginary people and their poor choices. 

This argument has no logical or intellectual merit. It is anecdotal, it is an appeal to emotion (hate), it is a demonstration of ignorance (equating the middle class of the US to these two professions), and it completely misses the point of the graph. There really isn't enough bad things I could say about your argument. It has less than no intellectual merit and it doesn't only demonstrate a significant lack of intelligence but a rather open hostility towards your fellow Americans.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining (I will leave it to you to look it up).
> They weren't legislated to collect an unfathomable amount in Fees, Commissions and repossessions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They were only legislated to eliminate Blue Lining *
> 
> Do you mean Red Lining? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep!  Red Lining.  I don't know why "blue" got stuck in my head.
> Must be this pile of Blu-Ray discs I have on my desk.
Click to expand...


Accusations of "red lining" were just a left-wing propaganda scam used to justify forcing banks to lower the credit standards for black applicants.  I distinctly recall debating the issue with some left-wing forum apparatchiks over in the CompuServe Political debate forum.  This propaganda campaign was used to justify passing the CRA.

It was all bullshit from the get-go, and it caused the collapse of our mortgage industry.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism guarantees nothing.
> 
> And that's the beauty of it.
> 
> Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism guarantees consolidation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation which is beautiful only to butt fucked slaves.
Click to expand...


It does no such thing.  That's nothing but commie propaganda.  This "inequality" meme is similar to the global warming meme and the "red lining" meme.  These are all propaganda campaigns designed to justify more socialism.  They have no basis in fact.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fees, Commissions, Raises, that better position at the competition.
> 
> As you quite ambiguously post...
> "they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes"
> Who is "they"?
> Be precise and don't be stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The banks lowered standards.
> You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which banks "lowered standards?"
> How large were their MBS fees?
> Who got unfairly rich?
Click to expand...


They all lowered their standards.  There was no such thing as a "no doc" mortgage until the CRA was enforced.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The banks lowered standards.
> You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.
> 
> 
> 
> Which banks "lowered standards?"
> How large were their MBS fees?
> Who got unfairly rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They all lowered their standards.  There was no such thing as a "no doc" mortgage until the CRA was enforced.
Click to expand...


No-doc mortgages were not being made to be in compliance with the CRA. They were being made because those creating the MBS were trying to make money and lowered their standards independent of CRA requirements.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> "In 2012, the top 5 percent of earners were responsible for 38 percent of domestic consumption, up from 28 percent in 1995, the researchers found.]



How could they possibly measure what someone consumed?




georgephillip said:


> ""Even more striking, the current recovery has been driven almost entirely by the upper crust, according to Mr. Fazzari and Mr. Cynamon. Since 2009, the year the recession ended, inflation-adjusted spending by this top echelon has risen 17 percent, compared with just 1 percent among the bottom 95 percent.".



Again, how would they know what a given individual spends?  Do they have access to his checking account records and his credit card bills?



georgephillip said:


> *Those who doubt the US middle class is steadily eroding should ask the business world*
> 
> "In response to the upward shift in spending, PricewaterhouseCoopers clients like big stores and restaurants are chasing richer customers with a wider offering of high-end goods and services, or focusing on rock-bottom prices to attract the expanding ranks of penny-pinching consumers.
> 
> 'As a retailer or restaurant chain, if youre not at the really high level or the low level, thats a tough place to be,' Mr. Maxwell said. '*You dont want to be stuck in the middle*.'
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/business/the-middle-class-is-steadily-eroding-just-ask-the-business-world.html?_r=1



Well that's really scientific.  

So far you've got zip, nada, nothing.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which banks "lowered standards?"
> How large were their MBS fees?
> Who got unfairly rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all lowered their standards.  There was no such thing as a "no doc" mortgage until the CRA was enforced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No-doc mortgages were not being made to be in compliance with the CRA. They were being made because those creating the MBS were trying to make money and lowered their standards independent of CRA requirements.
Click to expand...


The only reason they could lower their standards is the fact the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were willing to purchase a large number of such mortgages.  The lenders passed the problem loans onto the government.  They took zero risk.  They also began offering zero down mortgages, which meant the borrower was risking virtually nothing.  If you can't put together the scratch to make a 10% down payment on a mortgage, then the odds aren't good that you're going to be able to make the payments when the going gets tough.  Yet, Fannie and Freddie purchased many such loans on the secondary market.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fees, Commissions, Raises, that better position at the competition.
> 
> As you quite ambiguously post...
> "they lowered standards to get poor folks into homes"
> Who is "they"?
> Be precise and don't be stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The banks lowered standards.
> You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which banks "lowered standards?"
> How large were their MBS fees?
> Who got unfairly rich?
Click to expand...


*Which banks "lowered standards?"*

The ones that were lending to more poor risks than before.

*Who got unfairly rich?*

The Dem crooks running Fannie and Freddie.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They all lowered their standards.  There was no such thing as a "no doc" mortgage until the CRA was enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No-doc mortgages were not being made to be in compliance with the CRA. They were being made because those creating the MBS were trying to make money and lowered their standards independent of CRA requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason they could lower their standards is the fact the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were willing to purchase a large number of such mortgages.  The lenders passed the problem loans onto the government.  They took zero risk.  They also began offering zero down mortgages, which meant the borrower was risking virtually nothing.  If you can't put together the scratch to make a 10% down payment on a mortgage, then the odds aren't good that you're going to be able to make the payments when the going gets tough.  Yet, Fannie and Freddie purchased many such loans on the secondary market.
Click to expand...


A lot of financial institutions did. 

I have pointed out that F&F were wrong multiple times but it is important to understand that their guilt is also shared by other financial institutions and the ratings agencies.

The mortgages themselves were improperly rated before they were even packaged into MBS. Regulations for the sub-prime loans decreased as the financial institutions no longer considered them a burden they needed to carry in order to be CRA compliant but a way to turn a profit. The attempt to make a profit off of the sub-prime loans was a decision made by the private institutions and when that failed they lost money as the market intended.


----------



## Contumacious

Indeependent said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
> You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.
> 
> You've got to be kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo retard
> 
> tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment  of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occurr.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo retard...
> 
> Tell me when in our nations history did we off-shore thousands of factories, invite 3 million business visas to replace US citizens and have our White House administration look the other way when everyone making less than 50K/year was being handed a mortgage for 600K?
> 
> Prior to the retard GW, it never happened.
> 
> And your hero, Rush, was LAUGHING about what a GENIUS GW was!
> 
> Once again, please link to the legislation.
> But you CAN'T...It DOESN'T exist.
Click to expand...


*Again, retards

tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occur.*


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer: *NEVER*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fall guy for a Republican president who spent money like a Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? I give GWB a very low grade as president and I have always correctly identified him as the big government, spend recklessly liberal that he is.
> 
> Would you like to try again junior?
Click to expand...


Eggzactly. I don't know a single conservative that supported the spending sprees.  I know some RINOs like that protectionist guy that are really just communists that say they are conservative to undermine the opposition party.  Bush was a socialist in TX and ended up being a socialist in DC.  Better president than Obama, but then Obama's the biggest piece of shit to ever occupy the office.


----------



## RKMBrown

Contumacious said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo retard
> 
> tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment  of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occurr.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo retard...
> 
> Tell me when in our nations history did we off-shore thousands of factories, invite 3 million business visas to replace US citizens and have our White House administration look the other way when everyone making less than 50K/year was being handed a mortgage for 600K?
> 
> Prior to the retard GW, it never happened.
> 
> And your hero, Rush, was LAUGHING about what a GENIUS GW was!
> 
> Once again, please link to the legislation.
> But you CAN'T...It DOESN'T exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Again, retards
> 
> tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occur.*
Click to expand...



To be fair, it would seem we have a housing bubble or some other major correction about once every generation.






http://www.businessinsider.com/the-economic-crash-repeated-every-generation-1800-2012-1


----------



## RKMBrown

The biggest problem that arises in a crash, is the parties in charge of our government taking actions to ensure their constituents benefit from the crash at the expense of the opposing constituents.


----------



## Contumacious

RKMBrown said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo retard...
> 
> Tell me when in our nations history did we off-shore thousands of factories, invite 3 million business visas to replace US citizens and have our White House administration look the other way when everyone making less than 50K/year was being handed a mortgage for 600K?
> 
> Prior to the retard GW, it never happened.
> 
> And your hero, Rush, was LAUGHING about what a GENIUS GW was!
> 
> Once again, please link to the legislation.
> But you CAN'T...It DOESN'T exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Again, retards
> 
> tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occur.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, it would seem we have a housing bubble or some other major correction about once every generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Complete History Of US Real Estate Bubbles Since 1800 - Business Insider
Click to expand...


We are talking about the *Subprime Mortgage Meltdown* NOT real state bubbles.

BTW , even your article states that the *FEDERAL GOVERNMENT* was involved in those transactions.

.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

Contumacious said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Again, retards
> 
> tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occur.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, it would seem we have a housing bubble or some other major correction about once every generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Complete History Of US Real Estate Bubbles Since 1800 - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking about the *Subprime Mortgage Meltdown* NOT real state bubbles.
> 
> BTW , even your article states that the *FEDERAL GOVERNMENT* was involved in those transactions.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Your question was when in history have events like these occurred.  I answered the question with it happens once in nearly every generation.  In response you say sub-prime real-estate loans have nothing to do with real-estate bubbles.  Huh?  You lost me cowboy.

Yes, the feds are involved in all real-estate transactions.


----------



## Contumacious

RKMBrown said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, it would seem we have a housing bubble or some other major correction about once every generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Complete History Of US Real Estate Bubbles Since 1800 - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about the *Subprime Mortgage Meltdown* NOT real state bubbles.
> 
> BTW , even your article states that the *FEDERAL GOVERNMENT* was involved in those transactions.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your question was when in history have events like these occurred.  I answered the question with it happens once in nearly every generation.  In response you say sub-prime real-estate loans have nothing to do with real-estate bubbles.  Huh?  You lost me cowboy.
> 
> Yes, the feds are involved in all real-estate transactions.
Click to expand...


Well. let me clarify , when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures occur?

The 1935 market crashed was also the result of the progressive created Federal Reserve Board. It flooded the market place with paper money and easy credit. The nation went belly up, it had to off the gold standard.

When were bankers forced to create  a "subprime" housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) ?


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> This isn't rocket science. Your graph clearly demonstrates the presence of sharp increases in prices in the 70's and the 80's. There isn't anything surprising based on your graph that a boom happened in 1997. What is surprising is that it kept going instead of stopping when the economy stopped growing around 2001. Right where one would expect the increase to have stopped and right about when interest rates started to go low.
> 
> There was bad information because EVERYONE thought those MBS were AAA. Companies make their own decisions. It is like you think they let Freddie Mac make their decisions for them and then take the profit but don't hold any responsibility for failure.
> 
> The fact is that the economy could have handled the CRA mortgages perfectly fine. Nothing you have said even comes close to demonstrating those loans had anything to do with the crisis. Nor have you said anything that has disputed what I have said.



Now you are being willfully ignorant.  






*We're going to camp out right here*, until you either admit that the data clearly shows the housing price bubble started in 1997, or you will admit you are choosing to be ignorant, and refusing to look at the facts.

Make your choice.    Which is it?   Does the data clearly show that housing prices were fairly stable from 1992 until 1997, at which point housing prices drastically increased year over year until 2006?

Or are you choosing to be ignorant, and refuse to look at the data?

Answer now, so I'll know whether or not to put you on my ignore list.  I'll debate with anyone who will honestly and with Integrity debates the facts.   But I have no time whatsoever for:






Make your choice.   There are more than enough decent adults on this forum that I can talk to, without having to deal with the people like the picture above.   I'll just ignore you, and you cease to exist for the rest of my life.   Up to you.  Grow up, or grow ignorant.


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> Mortgage Brokers and Bankers had automated systems which denied loans; they then had to whip out PAPER to bypass the standards.
> 
> So once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks*
> 
> Is English your second language?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
> You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.
> 
> You've got to be kidding.
Click to expand...


No, we are stating that legislation pushed bad loans, and people used the system government setup, to their advantage.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't rocket science. Your graph clearly demonstrates the presence of sharp increases in prices in the 70's and the 80's. There isn't anything surprising based on your graph that a boom happened in 1997. What is surprising is that it kept going instead of stopping when the economy stopped growing around 2001. Right where one would expect the increase to have stopped and right about when interest rates started to go low.
> 
> There was bad information because EVERYONE thought those MBS were AAA. Companies make their own decisions. It is like you think they let Freddie Mac make their decisions for them and then take the profit but don't hold any responsibility for failure.
> 
> The fact is that the economy could have handled the CRA mortgages perfectly fine. Nothing you have said even comes close to demonstrating those loans had anything to do with the crisis. Nor have you said anything that has disputed what I have said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are being willfully ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We're going to camp out right here*, until you either admit that the data clearly shows the housing price bubble started in 1997, or you will admit you are choosing to be ignorant, and refusing to look at the facts.
> 
> Make your choice.    Which is it?   Does the data clearly show that housing prices were fairly stable from 1992 until 1997, at which point housing prices drastically increased year over year until 2006?
> 
> Or are you choosing to be ignorant, and refuse to look at the data?
> 
> Answer now, so I'll know whether or not to put you on my ignore list.  I'll debate with anyone who will honestly and with Integrity debates the facts.   But I have no time whatsoever for:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make your choice.   There are more than enough decent adults on this forum that I can talk to, without having to deal with the people like the picture above.   I'll just ignore you, and you cease to exist for the rest of my life.   Up to you.  Grow up, or grow ignorant.
Click to expand...


I looked at the data. I explained myself to you. You chose to ignore that. I will explain myself again.

There are a lot of reasons why the prices will go up in 1997 including a growing economy. This FACT is demonstrated in YOUR OWN GRAPH. In fact your graph rather clearly demonstrates that price spikes are not unusual. What it does show is that it is unusual that the spike did not stop. So I looked at reality with the question in mind and by golly there are rather clear reasons why it did not stop. There are also rather clear reasons why it kept rising so high and then crashed.

See in the real world when presented with data people don't assume an answer and match data to an answer. Your analysis is about as intellectual as creationism.


----------



## Iceweasel

gnarlylove said:


> My mindless drivel was elucidating Americans use of the mass media as their main and only source for news.


I agree with that but don't recall that being your thesis. Maybe it was worded in a way that went by me. 


> Moreover I argued it narrows parameters of what is acceptable and what is not: it necessitates the triumph of capitalism at every turn and masks overt flaws. Of course you don't think there are flaws or they are dismissable. I get it, you don't live in the part of the social strata that makes you regret having needs and being human.


Now that's more like what I remember. First, you know nothing about me or what I have endured and worked for. Second, you assume "flaws" in capitalism are a byproduct of capitalism. Capitalism is not synonomous with "let's turn this pristine mountain lake into a bubbling cesspool of toxic waste so we can make a buck'.

I know of no one that wants to dismiss government's role or function in the marketplace. There are things only government can do. Capitalism isn't innocent or corrupt by nature. The flaw is human not ideological. Of course we need some oversight because there are people that would wreck the environment to make a buck.

The argument crops up when government gets too involved and stifles business. Over taxation and over regulation do not help business and thereby economies.


> In which case I'll assume your parameters match those of American media. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I am above reproach or socialism is but with attitudes precisely like yours, we will always trample good human beings under foot because we don't give two shits about them. This is not the society for liberty and justice for all. You and your ilk are the vast majority of people who have a stake in the success of capitalism. Very few people step outside this mainstream to see if its working for people other than themselves--that's what mainstream is--egos the size of states. Captialism is fueled by selfish pursuits. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it's an observational fact.


LOL. You are a nut. Capitalism made this country great and malcontents like you offer insults, lies, slander and false hope. There's nothing selfish about working hard and making money. People that make money spend money so some other greedy guy gets to sell his goods. And so forth. It works and is proven.

Killing incentive works too. It spreads misery around. The type your "ilk" apparently thrive on. 


> I guess on every single post I need put a disclaimer that capitalism has benefited billions and billions of brats like yourself who assume they know everything about a person from one single post. Get your head out of your ass.


Irony. Look it up.


> I read elsewhere you noted the existence of hate and how you distanced yourself from it. HA! Read your own post! I see you forget to scrutinize your own language because it's obvious you think poor humans are to be treated like dogs with no rights to food, housing and love. I hope you don't complain there's a "entitlement problem." Why? If you treat people like dogs,


I gotta hop in right there. I don't know what you're babbling about but I treat my dogs pretty damned good. They are dependant though. I feed and house them. So it's YOU who would treat people like dogs. Back to your rant...


> how can you expect their efforts and achievements to match those of the upper middle class or even middle class people? Treating people like shit will result in shit: not allowing humans to sleep indoors or forcing them to cram into homeless shelters where drugs and disease are rampant--which you wouldn't know because you've never had to stay in those places. Or taking handouts from food pantries which have skyrocketed all over America because more people are in need. Never had to stand in those long lines huh? Never had to eat old meat from a can that you are thankful to have?


Sounds like you don't like Obamanomics either. Unfortunately America needs to relearn history, we are in Jummy Carter II mode. 


> Your attitudes are selfishness and a total lack of heart. It OK because everyone you know is this way, except towards one another. Among your own ilk you are friendly, but poor people and opposition brings out the worst in you, or best, I'm not sure. I don't care if you give to charity, if you treat them like shit you are not being charitable. Charity involves a spirit of compassion and empathy.


So I'm selfish, greedy treat my own kind good and you don't care if I gave to charity? You're insane. And I'll bet I've given much more than you. You sound more like a taker. Entitled, arrogant, demanding, bigoted, etc.



Iceweasel said:


> Workers do have the right to own production IF they buy the goddamn company.





> The right and the ability are two separate things. Although it's not entirely the case, most capitalists owners are not about the hand over control to their drivel workforce. It would be a major shift in the balance of power wouldn't it? Money isn't the only issue at play here. See the work of Gar Alperovitz regarding worker owned industry in northern Ohio. It details what you seem to lack in understanding regarding this topic.


What I do understand is that you would not start a business only to hand it over. You're a sponge. Sponges absorb. They don't create, take chances, persevere through all odds, fight competition, government and slackers marching around their property demanding that the keys be turned over.



Iceweasel said:


> You do not have the right to a house, food or sex. It isn't in the Constitution.





> If it's a matter of the Constitution, it says ALL AMERICANS are given the inalienable right to pursue their life liberty and happiness. Do you think this excludes the need for housing and food? Do you think people can pursue liberty without food? Without support? Give me a break.


You apparently do not understand what persue means. The right to persue is not the right to a favorable outcome.


> Do you live in a gated community? I know the answer: Yes. And if not, what the hell is wrong with you? Can't you work harder and be born with a father that had more inheritance to give? Tsk tsk...you should have done better in the happenstance department. Oh wait, no one gets to decide where their born? Hmmm....


Wait a second. The peasants are pounding on the drawbridge.

I'm back. Boiling oil solved the problem.


> To you ALL AMERICANS' inalienable right include you and your immediate family and fuck the rest of the world. It excludes people disproportionately of color because my homeless compatriots tend to be racial minorities and to you they must be low-life *******. Way to be on the cutting edge! I'm sure they roundly agree with you, too bad they can't express that on this highly honorable and credible message board.


Jeeze, last I checked we had a black president. How did he slip through the cracks?


> To think inalienable rights for all Americans mean only those who earn above poverty wages...what a new spin on the Constitution.
> 
> Again, I know capitalism has done great things. It has also turned our democracy into a plutocracy. All American individuals are covered in the Constitution except those who were born into the wrong class. And give me a break on success stories. These are not the norm and will never be.
> Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet


Noam Chomsky? Mystery solved.


----------



## P@triot

Indeependent said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo retard...
> 
> Tell me when in our nations history did we off-shore thousands of factories, invite 3 million business visas to replace US citizens and have our White House administration look the other way when everyone making less than 50K/year was being handed a mortgage for 600K?
> 
> Prior to the retard GW, it never happened.
> 
> And your hero, Rush, was LAUGHING about what a GENIUS GW was!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, this is so absurd, I don't even know where to begin here. Deep breath and.....go!
> 
> First of all, since when is it the responsibility of the White House to monitor mortgages? I've seen some stupid fuck'n posts on USMB before, but this is one for the ages.
> 
> Second, in you're infinite left-wing stupidity, did you ever realize the mind-numbing contradictions of your failed ideology? If a person goes to the bank making $50k a year and is turned for a $600k mortgage, you people have a fuck'n aneurysm that "the average man can't get a loan and is locked out of the inner circle". And God forbid if that person is black!!! Christ Almighty will the thunder roar and the earth shake if a black person is turned down for the loan! And you'll find a Republican president to blame for that.
> 
> But......if that irresponsible person is granted that loan and the irresponsible person fails to pay it back, well then the banks were "predatory" and "taking advantage" of that person. And then you'll find a a Republican president to blame for _that_. Do see you how insanely fuck'n stupid you sound now? Whether they get the loan or they don't get the loan, either way you cry like a little itty-bitty fucking bitch and then randomly find the name of a Republican president to blame it on.
> 
> But wait - there's more! Third, and most importantly out of all of this, you're too fuck'n stupid to even realize that _you_ and your fellow Dumbocrats are to blame for all of the "off-shoring". You demonize the wealthy. You punish success. You raise taxes on business. You implement crushing regulations. You make it very clear that you hate the business owner, their business, and the jobs that result from both. And then you stand there scratching your head trying to figure out why businesses are fleeing the U.S.? Really? This is literally as fuck'n stupid as a Nazi scratching their head trying to figure out why all of the Jews are fleeing from Auschwitz.
> 
> Look, I realize you are a serious _dick_. But for 10 seconds can you stop being such a _dick_ and answer one serious question honestly? If it cost $60 million per year to move operations overseas and you could actually save $40 million per year to keep your business in the U.S., do you think *anyone* would *ever* move their business overseas? No, really - would they?
> 
> With as much vile and contempt that you assholes could muster, you have told corporate America to go fuck themselves. And so they said "ok - I'll take my ball over to that playground over there where I'm actually wanted and where I'm treated nicely". Until you realize that whoever makes doing business the best deal for business will get all of the businesses - and the subsequent jobs that go with it - you continue the "off-shoring" that you libtard's created. But sadly, Dumbocrats are just too damn dumb and brainwashed by their failed ideology to ever figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banks are regulated.
> The software denied the loan, so the paper was whipped out of the draw.
> Based on Sarbanes/Oxley, signed into law by GW post dot com crash, the transaction was ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...


Are you drunk, stoned, are just plain stupid? All of the above? You don't even make coherent sentences. The "paper was whipped out of the draw"? Were you trying to say drawer? If so, are you really this fuck'n stupid? Banks were not "regulated" during this period as to what loans they could make (they were regulated on what loans they could deny). Sarbanes/Oxley wasn't even for banks you fuck'n moron - it was for ALL corporations due to the "cook the books" scandals to increase the cost of stocks. You're so fuck'n clueless and you literally make shit up as you go. What is wrong with you that you'll make stuff up rather than just admit you were wrong? Is your ego that fragile junior? Did not making your high school football team effect you this profoundly?

Furthermore - you didn't answer _any_ of the questions. Is this because you realize how fuck'n stupid you look when you have to answer? If a person is turned down for the loan, you cry like a little itty-bitty baby bitch that the "average" person is denied access to a good life by the "inner circle". If the person is given the loan, once again you cry like a little itty-bitty baby bitch that the banks were "predatory" by giving irresponsible asshole liberals like _you_ the loans that you asked for / demanded. So which is it, _dick_? The fact is, a person went into a bank asking for a loan. They signed legal documents promising to pay it back. If they didn't, they are fuck dirt-bag asshats like you. You're inability to budget your own finances properly like an adult is not the problem of the American people or their government.



Indeependent said:


> You are stating that until post 9/11 all US businesses were unable to exist because of onerous wages, taxation and regulations. So until post 9/11, Wall Street and all major corporations that existed in the US for DECADES either were an ILLUSION, running at a SEVERE LOSS (in which case, why didn't they simply go out of business) or SUDDENLY were being manned by the most incompetent CEOs in history.



Once again - queen ignorant here is making incoherent statements. Where did I ever mention 9/11, _stupid_? The FACT is - more outsourcing occurred under Bill Clinton than any other president in U.S. history! Ooops! Looks like someone just got exposed for being ignorant (_again_).

Clintonomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Indeependent said:


> And, and who but those very same corporations could muster the money to eliminate those pesky little factors. But no, CEOs and Directors want Cheap, 24/7 and no benefits.



Gasp! You mean captains of industry don't want high taxes, costly regulations, and expensive payrolls? 

Are you serious?!?! They want to keep costs down? Gasp! Noooooo! Fuck'n moron. It's no wonder you're a socialist. You're clearly too dumb and too lazy to ever have run a small business. Hell, you can't even grasp the basics of business, much less actually run one.

And you still haven't answered a very clear, concise question. Would any business move their operations overseas if it were cheaper to keep their operations here? Come on stupid - try it just once. Guess if you don't know the answer.



Indeependent said:


> So sit back and watch your country crumble along with the EMERGING ASIAN MARKET that ISN'T EMERGING because their pay can't buy the products.
> MORON!



My country is crumbling because greedy, lazy Dumbocrats like you want to use the same failed communist policies here that were used to collapse the former U.S.S.R., Cuba, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Greece, Spain, England, France, etc.



Indeependent said:


> You are so stupid and disingenuous it's amazing.



I'm "disingenuous"? Bwhahahahahah! I've been consistent, honest, and dead-on in our entire exchange. Meanwhile, you have no response for your repulsive contradiction of demanding that people get loans, then you're crying like a bitch when they actually get them. You have no response for a simple question - would _any_ business move their operations out of the U.S. if it were cheaper to keep their business in the U.S.? Oh - and lets not forget how you just make shit up (which is really humiliating because you're showing yourself to not only be completely ignorant of the topic at hand, but also a liar). Sarbanes/Oxley was not for banking regulation. It was to curb the trend of corporations "cooking the books" to increase the price of the stock for all of their executives and shareholders. And further still, even if it had been a banking regulation, the fucking White House does not monitor stuff like that. It would be the justice department which would bring charges you fuck'n moron.

You have non idea how your own government operates, much less how basic economics or basic business operates. You're just an asshat partisan hack desperate to blame anything on Bush.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't rocket science. Your graph clearly demonstrates the presence of sharp increases in prices in the 70's and the 80's. There isn't anything surprising based on your graph that a boom happened in 1997. What is surprising is that it kept going instead of stopping when the economy stopped growing around 2001. Right where one would expect the increase to have stopped and right about when interest rates started to go low.
> 
> There was bad information because EVERYONE thought those MBS were AAA. Companies make their own decisions. It is like you think they let Freddie Mac make their decisions for them and then take the profit but don't hold any responsibility for failure.
> 
> The fact is that the economy could have handled the CRA mortgages perfectly fine. Nothing you have said even comes close to demonstrating those loans had anything to do with the crisis. Nor have you said anything that has disputed what I have said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are being willfully ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We're going to camp out right here*, until you either admit that the data clearly shows the housing price bubble started in 1997, or you will admit you are choosing to be ignorant, and refusing to look at the facts.
> 
> Make your choice.    Which is it?   Does the data clearly show that housing prices were fairly stable from 1992 until 1997, at which point housing prices drastically increased year over year until 2006?
> 
> Or are you choosing to be ignorant, and refuse to look at the data?
> 
> Answer now, so I'll know whether or not to put you on my ignore list.  I'll debate with anyone who will honestly and with Integrity debates the facts.   But I have no time whatsoever for:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make your choice.   There are more than enough decent adults on this forum that I can talk to, without having to deal with the people like the picture above.   I'll just ignore you, and you cease to exist for the rest of my life.   Up to you.  Grow up, or grow ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I looked at the data. I explained myself to you. You chose to ignore that. I will explain myself again.
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why the prices will go up in 1997 including a growing economy. This FACT is demonstrated in YOUR OWN GRAPH. In fact your graph rather clearly demonstrates that price spikes are not unusual. What it does show is that it is unusual that the spike did not stop. So I looked at reality with the question in mind and by golly there are rather clear reasons why it did not stop. There are also rather clear reasons why it kept rising so high and then crashed.
> 
> See in the real world when presented with data people don't assume an answer and match data to an answer. Your analysis is about as intellectual as creationism.
Click to expand...


IOW people jump off cliffs all the time, and liberals assume the government's job is to make sure we have bungee cords on ... not to cut the cord as we are on the way down.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "CPA Joseph Fried wrote that there is a paucity of CRA loan performance data, based on a response by only 34 of 500 banks surveyed.[105] Nevertheless, estimates have been attempted.
> 
> "Edward Pinto, former Chief Credit Officer of Fannie Mae (198789) and Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, estimated that, at June 30, 2008, there were $1.56 trillion of outstanding CRA loans (or the equivalent). Of this amount, about $940 billion (about 6.7 million loans) was, according to Pinto, subprime.[106]
> 
> "Economist Paul Krugman notes the subprime boom 'was overwhelmingly driven' by loan originators who were not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.[107]
> 
> "One study, by a legal firm which counsels financial services entities on Community Reinvestment Act compliance, found that CRA-covered institutions were less likely to make subprime loans (only 20-25% of all subprime loans), and when they did the interest rates were lower.
> 
> "The banks were half as likely to resell the loans to other parties."



That is in fact true.    All of that is true.

The prior poster which claimed that "all CRA loans are sub-prime" is not actually true.

Not all CRA were sub-prime.   Some were loans given to specific communities.   A community that normally had some reason that banks were not giving loans too.

So say for example you have a house in  South Linden, Columbus, OH.   South Linden, is one of the worst areas of Columbus Ohio.    High crime, poor schools, very few jobs, very poor condition homes.

So some guy decides he wants to buy a house there, and needs a mortgage.   The bank may refuse to make a mortgage for this area, because with the community in such bad condition, even if the borrower, builds up his own house, the condition of the neighborhood will keep the value of the home low.

The crime may drive the borrower out, and without many people wanting a house in that neighborhood, he will likely not be able to sell it, resulting in default, and the bank loses money.

Now if the Bank decided to make the loan anyway, to meet CRA requirements, that loan would not be sub-prime, but would not have been made without the CRA.

But that doesn't mean those loans were good loans.  Many still went bad.  Forcing banks to make loans in known high-risk areas, is just as dangerous as making them give loans to high risk borrowers.

That's why CRA portfolios were all money losing, regardless of the ratio of sub-prime.

Also, the fact that CRA loans were half as likely to sell, really doesn't mean much.   The whole purpose of making the CRA loans was to show regulators, and community activist groups that they were following the CRA, by having CRA loans on their books.    Many banks made loans, knowing they would likely lose money, because it kept them from getting sued by the government.

Regardless, CRA loans were nearly all bad.   The bottom line is, banks know more than government, what loans are safe, and which are not safe.   Any attempt to force banks to change their standards, is inherently going to be more risky.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't rocket science. Your graph clearly demonstrates the presence of sharp increases in prices in the 70's and the 80's. There isn't anything surprising based on your graph that a boom happened in 1997. What is surprising is that it kept going instead of stopping when the economy stopped growing around 2001. Right where one would expect the increase to have stopped and right about when interest rates started to go low.
> 
> There was bad information because EVERYONE thought those MBS were AAA. Companies make their own decisions. It is like you think they let Freddie Mac make their decisions for them and then take the profit but don't hold any responsibility for failure.
> 
> The fact is that the economy could have handled the CRA mortgages perfectly fine. Nothing you have said even comes close to demonstrating those loans had anything to do with the crisis. Nor have you said anything that has disputed what I have said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are being willfully ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We're going to camp out right here*, until you either admit that the data clearly shows the housing price bubble started in 1997, or you will admit you are choosing to be ignorant, and refusing to look at the facts.
> 
> Make your choice.    Which is it?   Does the data clearly show that housing prices were fairly stable from 1992 until 1997, at which point housing prices drastically increased year over year until 2006?
> 
> Or are you choosing to be ignorant, and refuse to look at the data?
> 
> Answer now, so I'll know whether or not to put you on my ignore list.  I'll debate with anyone who will honestly and with Integrity debates the facts.   But I have no time whatsoever for:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make your choice.   There are more than enough decent adults on this forum that I can talk to, without having to deal with the people like the picture above.   I'll just ignore you, and you cease to exist for the rest of my life.   Up to you.  Grow up, or grow ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I looked at the data. I explained myself to you. You chose to ignore that. I will explain myself again.
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why the prices will go up in 1997 including a growing economy. This FACT is demonstrated in YOUR OWN GRAPH. In fact your graph rather clearly demonstrates that price spikes are not unusual. What it does show is that it is unusual that the spike did not stop. So I looked at reality with the question in mind and by golly there are rather clear reasons why it did not stop. There are also rather clear reasons why it kept rising so high and then crashed.
> 
> See in the real world when presented with data people don't assume an answer and match data to an answer. Your analysis is about as intellectual as creationism.
Click to expand...


Last time...........  yes, or no.... did the housing price bubble that burst in 2007, start in 1997.  Look at the graph.    Yes or no.

I want a yes or no, answer.  If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't be talking about a subject you are too ignorant to comment on.   Answer the question.

Yes or no.   The housing price bubble that burst in 2007, started in 1997.


----------



## RKMBrown

Contumacious said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about the *Subprime Mortgage Meltdown* NOT real state bubbles.
> 
> BTW , even your article states that the *FEDERAL GOVERNMENT* was involved in those transactions.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question was when in history have events like these occurred.  I answered the question with it happens once in nearly every generation.  In response you say sub-prime real-estate loans have nothing to do with real-estate bubbles.  Huh?  You lost me cowboy.
> 
> Yes, the feds are involved in all real-estate transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well. let me clarify , when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures occur?
> 
> The 1935 market crashed was also the result of the progressive created Federal Reserve Board. It flooded the market place with paper money and easy credit. The nation went belly up, it had to off the gold standard.
> 
> When were bankers forced to create  a "subprime" housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) ?
Click to expand...


Like I said, every generation has a supper bubble that collapsed, wherein the bubble was caused, primarily, by government manipulation of one of the primary markets.  Here is a decent treatise on the subject:

Law Enforcement and the History of Financial Market Manipulation - Jerry W. Markham - Google Books


----------



## RKMBrown

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are being willfully ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We're going to camp out right here*, until you either admit that the data clearly shows the housing price bubble started in 1997, or you will admit you are choosing to be ignorant, and refusing to look at the facts.
> 
> Make your choice.    Which is it?   Does the data clearly show that housing prices were fairly stable from 1992 until 1997, at which point housing prices drastically increased year over year until 2006?
> 
> Or are you choosing to be ignorant, and refuse to look at the data?
> 
> Answer now, so I'll know whether or not to put you on my ignore list.  I'll debate with anyone who will honestly and with Integrity debates the facts.   But I have no time whatsoever for:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make your choice.   There are more than enough decent adults on this forum that I can talk to, without having to deal with the people like the picture above.   I'll just ignore you, and you cease to exist for the rest of my life.   Up to you.  Grow up, or grow ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I looked at the data. I explained myself to you. You chose to ignore that. I will explain myself again.
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why the prices will go up in 1997 including a growing economy. This FACT is demonstrated in YOUR OWN GRAPH. In fact your graph rather clearly demonstrates that price spikes are not unusual. What it does show is that it is unusual that the spike did not stop. So I looked at reality with the question in mind and by golly there are rather clear reasons why it did not stop. There are also rather clear reasons why it kept rising so high and then crashed.
> 
> See in the real world when presented with data people don't assume an answer and match data to an answer. Your analysis is about as intellectual as creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time...........  yes, or no.... did the housing price bubble that burst in 2007, start in 1997.  Look at the graph.    Yes or no.
> 
> I want a yes or no, answer.  If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't be talking about a subject you are too ignorant to comment on.   Answer the question.
> 
> Yes or no.   The housing price bubble that burst in 2007, started in 1997.
Click to expand...


Dude, he said yes.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> This is why it's so important to understand what the term "inalienable right" actually means. It's not the same thing as "need". The Constitution doesn't guarantee us that our needs will be met, and it doesn't assign government the role of providing them.



I think you forgot to finish you sentence. Inalienable right is an assurance to each citizen they will be born with the ability to choose life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Unfortunately America is not 100% this way. Gated communities, suburbs, North Side of cities etc. are were these rights are inalienable.

When you are born into a situation where you can't get the food you need, this stunts development in kids (1 in 7 kids in America today experience hunger insecurity--not knowing where their next meal is coming from.) Furthermore, we can't put 100% blame on parents who happened to have good jobs who were laid off etc.

I'm not saying people will always choose what's best for themselves or the economy. I'm not saying that everyone must be provided anything they want or need. I'm saying we fail to give the widespread opportunity to pursue liberty and happiness. drug addicts often choose that life because there are no options for them.

Your rights and how you are treated depends on what family you were born into, not what country you live in. Just because a person was born in the good olde USA doesn't mean you automatically can pursue you happiness. often survival is the first and only consideration of many of my fellow sojourners.they aren't pursuing liberty because they can't since there are so few opportunities for so many people.


----------



## Andylusion

RKMBrown said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked at the data. I explained myself to you. You chose to ignore that. I will explain myself again.
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why the prices will go up in 1997 including a growing economy. This FACT is demonstrated in YOUR OWN GRAPH. In fact your graph rather clearly demonstrates that price spikes are not unusual. What it does show is that it is unusual that the spike did not stop. So I looked at reality with the question in mind and by golly there are rather clear reasons why it did not stop. There are also rather clear reasons why it kept rising so high and then crashed.
> 
> See in the real world when presented with data people don't assume an answer and match data to an answer. Your analysis is about as intellectual as creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time...........  yes, or no.... did the housing price bubble that burst in 2007, start in 1997.  Look at the graph.    Yes or no.
> 
> I want a yes or no, answer.  If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't be talking about a subject you are too ignorant to comment on.   Answer the question.
> 
> Yes or no.   The housing price bubble that burst in 2007, started in 1997.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, he said yes.
Click to expand...


Yes, but he's trying to deny that it was because of anything that started in 1997, which if you look at the graph, prices were stable from 1992 to 1997.

Which indicates that it wasn't some random spike somewhere.

He won't just admit that hey "the housing price bubble started in 1997, and therefore, something likely caused it".

It wasn't a gradual increase from economic growth.    It wasn't because of interest rates.

A market caused spike, would have happened over time.   This was a complete reversal of prices, from a slow stead decline over 5 years, to a drastic increase.

This guy doesn't want to admit to anything, and seems to be making up qualifiers for his answers.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are being willfully ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We're going to camp out right here*, until you either admit that the data clearly shows the housing price bubble started in 1997, or you will admit you are choosing to be ignorant, and refusing to look at the facts.
> 
> Make your choice.    Which is it?   Does the data clearly show that housing prices were fairly stable from 1992 until 1997, at which point housing prices drastically increased year over year until 2006?
> 
> Or are you choosing to be ignorant, and refuse to look at the data?
> 
> Answer now, so I'll know whether or not to put you on my ignore list.  I'll debate with anyone who will honestly and with Integrity debates the facts.   But I have no time whatsoever for:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make your choice.   There are more than enough decent adults on this forum that I can talk to, without having to deal with the people like the picture above.   I'll just ignore you, and you cease to exist for the rest of my life.   Up to you.  Grow up, or grow ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I looked at the data. I explained myself to you. You chose to ignore that. I will explain myself again.
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why the prices will go up in 1997 including a growing economy. This FACT is demonstrated in YOUR OWN GRAPH. In fact your graph rather clearly demonstrates that price spikes are not unusual. What it does show is that it is unusual that the spike did not stop. So I looked at reality with the question in mind and by golly there are rather clear reasons why it did not stop. There are also rather clear reasons why it kept rising so high and then crashed.
> 
> See in the real world when presented with data people don't assume an answer and match data to an answer. Your analysis is about as intellectual as creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time...........  yes, or no.... did the housing price bubble that burst in 2007, start in 1997.  Look at the graph.    Yes or no.
> 
> I want a yes or no, answer.  If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't be talking about a subject you are too ignorant to comment on.   Answer the question.
> 
> Yes or no.   The housing price bubble that burst in 2007, started in 1997.
Click to expand...


It is like you want me to think you are a clown.

I have explained what I thought about the price increases in 1997 like 3 times now and you don't know if I know the prices increased in 1997.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time...........  yes, or no.... did the housing price bubble that burst in 2007, start in 1997.  Look at the graph.    Yes or no.
> 
> I want a yes or no, answer.  If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't be talking about a subject you are too ignorant to comment on.   Answer the question.
> 
> Yes or no.   The housing price bubble that burst in 2007, started in 1997.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, he said yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but he's trying to deny that it was because of anything that started in 1997, which if you look at the graph, prices were stable from 1992 to 1997.
> 
> Which indicates that it wasn't some random spike somewhere.
> 
> He won't just admit that hey "the housing price bubble started in 1997, and therefore, something likely caused it".
> 
> It wasn't a gradual increase from economic growth.    It wasn't because of interest rates.
> 
> A market caused spike, would have happened over time.   This was a complete reversal of prices, from a slow stead decline over 5 years, to a drastic increase.
> 
> This guy doesn't want to admit to anything, and seems to be making up qualifiers for his answers.
Click to expand...




Just because prices started to increase in prices in 97 that doesn't mean something didn't happen in 98 or 99 or 00 or 01 or 02 or 03 etc that kept the prices increasing. YOUR OWN GRAPH shows that price increases are not uncommon. 

Bah whatever this is the 4th time I have explained this to you.


----------



## RKMBrown

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why it's so important to understand what the term "inalienable right" actually means. It's not the same thing as "need". The Constitution doesn't guarantee us that our needs will be met, and it doesn't assign government the role of providing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you forgot to finish you sentence. Inalienable right is an assurance to each citizen they will be born with the ability to choose life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> Unfortunately America is not 100% this way. Gated communities, suburbs, North Side of cities etc. are were these rights are inalienable.
> 
> When you are born into a situation where you can't get the food you need, this stunts development in kids (1 in 7 kids in America today experience hunger insecurity--not knowing where their next meal is coming from.) Furthermore, we can't put 100% blame on parents who happened to have good jobs who were laid off etc.
> 
> I'm not saying people will always choose what's best for themselves or the economy. I'm not saying that everyone must be provided anything they want or need. I'm saying we fail to give the widespread opportunity to pursue liberty and happiness. drug addicts often choose that life because there are no options for them.
> 
> Your rights and how you are treated depends on what family you were born into, not what country you live in. Just because a person was born in the good olde USA doesn't mean you automatically can pursue you happiness. often survival is the first and only consideration of many of my fellow sojourners.they aren't pursuing liberty because they can't since there are so few opportunities for so many people.
Click to expand...


While you are correct that life is great for many in this country and shitty for others, you are incorrect in saying there are few opportunities for so many people. That's just not true.  People can make their own heaven or hell on this Earth.  There is no law forcing you to live with a den of thieves, you are free to move about the country to find and make your opportunities.


----------



## Contumacious

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why it's so important to understand what the term "inalienable right" actually means. It's not the same thing as "need". The Constitution doesn't guarantee us that our needs will be met, and it doesn't assign government the role of providing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you forgot to finish you sentence.* Inalienable right is an assurance to each citizen they will be born with the ability to choose life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


HUH?  WTF?

HOW can anyone be assured of anything?


It would be nice if parents ---BEFORE SCREWING -- made sure that they can afford to feed and clothe their progeny.

But the welfare state tells parents not to worry about it - according to welfare state purveyors - that is the taxpayers and producers' concern.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

Androw said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time...........  yes, or no.... did the housing price bubble that burst in 2007, start in 1997.  Look at the graph.    Yes or no.
> 
> I want a yes or no, answer.  If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't be talking about a subject you are too ignorant to comment on.   Answer the question.
> 
> Yes or no.   The housing price bubble that burst in 2007, started in 1997.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, he said yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but he's trying to deny that it was because of anything that started in 1997, which if you look at the graph, prices were stable from 1992 to 1997.
> 
> Which indicates that it wasn't some random spike somewhere.
> 
> He won't just admit that hey "the housing price bubble started in 1997, and therefore, something likely caused it".
> 
> It wasn't a gradual increase from economic growth.    It wasn't because of interest rates.
> 
> A market caused spike, would have happened over time.   This was a complete reversal of prices, from a slow stead decline over 5 years, to a drastic increase.
> 
> This guy doesn't want to admit to anything, and seems to be making up qualifiers for his answers.
Click to expand...


Nah your just wanting him to say your right.  His point is that prices always go up and down, which is correct.  As I mentioned earlier the dot com boom also increased price pressure at the same time.  His point is merely that one of the important aspects of the bubble wasn't CRA.  Which is correct.  CRA was just one of the many failures going on.  He can correct me if he wants to, but I believe his real point is ... stop scapegoating the poor folk, they were not the sole reason for the crash.


----------



## RKMBrown

Contumacious said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why it's so important to understand what the term "inalienable right" actually means. It's not the same thing as "need". The Constitution doesn't guarantee us that our needs will be met, and it doesn't assign government the role of providing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you forgot to finish you sentence.* Inalienable right is an assurance to each citizen they will be born with the ability to choose life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUH?  WTF?
> 
> HOW can anyone be assured of anything?
> 
> 
> It would be nice if parents ---BEFORE SCREWING -- made sure that they can afford to feed and clothe their progeny.
> 
> But the welfare state tells parents not to worry about it - according to welfare state purveyors - that is the taxpayers and producers' concern.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ability to choose how you live was assured by the Constitution back when it was written. Surely, since the Constitution was changed to take life and liberty away from us, with due process, that is no longer the case, not since the civil war amendments.


----------



## gnarlylove

Iceweasel said:


> I repeat mantras.. Everyone who says something I disagree with is bigoted.



Exactly, I'm bigotted. I'm the refuse to budge.

WoW. You are so convincing.! It comes down to you maintaining your core worldview that supports your daily actions. I know you are a decent person supporting a family or whatever but when it comes to thinking outside your window, you prefer to stay inside. You won't admit we live in a plutocracy, not a democracy. You won't admit a lack of opportunity is the problem for those on entitlements.

You dismiss anything that even remotely questions your capitalist worldivew. You are the archetypal cog capitalists hope to create. Someone who fights for the working class to remain underfoot and for the rich to get richer. Maintain the status quo because America needs a strong working class to support the extravagance of the rich and upper class folks. Someone who promotes the message of the country when it fits and to deny its countrymen.

This isn't a problem of me being bigoted or retarded or insane. I don't think your bigoted or insane but I know you have no tolerance for those who disagree with you. That you've rarely if ever engaged in introspection leading to self-doubt. You repeat the same horse shit I hear on the TV. Don't bother replying, I could paste it from above because you won't say anything new. I hear it from everyone all day long. Maybe I can rephrase it so it helps you understand your position.

"You're an idiot. Having read Chomsky you are brainwashed. You are a leech sucking from my hard labor. I won't admit increased worker productivity due to mechanization and availability of jobs has anything to do with poverty but I will admit they are a bunch of schmucks who are less of a human than me who refuse to work and can't earn their way. I am so good and wholesome because I donate more money than you. You may serve in soup kitchens weekly and actually co-exist with homeless and poor people but I'm a better person/more responsible than you because I pay their entitlement programs and donate."


----------



## gnarlylove

RKMBrown said:


> There is no law forcing you to live with a den of thieves, you are free to move about the country to find and make your opportunities.



Laws are not the only means of getting people to obey. Having never grown up in poverty one will not know that the opportunity to choose to leave the neighborhood or stay is not there. 

Peer pressure, social pressure, going where the money is (crime) can constrict one's innate ability to choose liberty. Indeed, they can leads to bad decisions and it's often because people are ill informed. Our education system panders to wealth just like opportunities to work do. Though more service jobs exist than ever, they are often shameful and are dead end. 

There is so much that can be said here but if you are unwilling to recognize the disparity in this country is not just income, it runs all the way down into the psyche. I know because I grew up in it and have been homeless. If you haven't lived that way you simply have no genuine idea what really means and what the causes are. You hear others who've never been homeless talk about it but that's as good as the info gets. It's an entirely different world to be in poverty, it's plain and simple and no one is willing to try that because poverty is not inviting.

59% of Americans will experience poverty for a year or more. If you haven't then you aren't part of the majority of people. You may want to recalibrate your understanding to account for the breadth of this problem. It's a human problem stemming from bad policy and greed. There is a war going on against the poor and working class. The 2 minute video explains this with rigor.
War on the Poor


----------



## gnarlylove

if a right is alienable, it can be taken away.

if a right is inalienable, it is suppose to not be able to be taken away under any circumstance.

if you read closely you would see i carefully worded it to be accurate: people may not choose liberty, but if they want to they should be able to. unfortunately this is simply not the case since people are stuck in pursuing survival daily instead of liberty and happiness. i know. i was there for quite some time.


----------



## RKMBrown

gnarlylove said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law forcing you to live with a den of thieves, you are free to move about the country to find and make your opportunities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are not the only means of getting people to obey. Having never grown up in poverty one will not know that the opportunity to choose to leave the neighborhood or stay is not there.
> 
> Peer pressure, social pressure, going where the money is (crime) can constrict one's innate ability to choose liberty. Indeed, they can leads to bad decisions and it's often because people are ill informed. Our education system panders to wealth just like opportunities to work do. Though more service jobs exist than ever, they are often shameful and are dead end.
> 
> There is so much that can be said here but if you are unwilling to recognize the disparity in this country is not just income, it runs all the way down into the psyche. I know because I grew up in it and have been homeless. If you haven't lived that way you simply have no genuine idea what really means and what the causes are. You hear others who've never been homeless talk about it but that's as good as the info gets. It's an entirely different world to be in poverty, it's plain and simple and no one is willing to try that because poverty is not inviting.
> 
> 59% of Americans will experience poverty for a year or more. If you haven't then you aren't part of the majority of people. You may want to recalibrate your understanding to account for the breadth of this problem. It's a human problem stemming from bad policy and greed. There is a war going on against the poor and working class. The 2 minute video explains this with rigor.
> War on the Poor
Click to expand...


Please explain how the "man" stopped you from becoming more than you were.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> Please explain how the "man" stopped you from becoming more than you were.



He gave my job to Chico...


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked at the data. I explained myself to you. You chose to ignore that. I will explain myself again.
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why the prices will go up in 1997 including a growing economy. This FACT is demonstrated in YOUR OWN GRAPH. In fact your graph rather clearly demonstrates that price spikes are not unusual. What it does show is that it is unusual that the spike did not stop. So I looked at reality with the question in mind and by golly there are rather clear reasons why it did not stop. There are also rather clear reasons why it kept rising so high and then crashed.
> 
> See in the real world when presented with data people don't assume an answer and match data to an answer. Your analysis is about as intellectual as creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time...........  yes, or no.... did the housing price bubble that burst in 2007, start in 1997.  Look at the graph.    Yes or no.
> 
> I want a yes or no, answer.  If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't be talking about a subject you are too ignorant to comment on.   Answer the question.
> 
> Yes or no.   The housing price bubble that burst in 2007, started in 1997.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is like you want me to think you are a clown.
> 
> I have explained what I thought about the price increases in 1997 like 3 times now and you don't know if I know the prices increased in 1997.
Click to expand...


I owe an apology.  I thought you had repeated the idea that it didn't start in 1997.  My mistake.   I jumped too quick in my reply.

Now I can move on from that point.

Saying that a price spike is not unusual, doesn't mean anything.  Nor does it change anything that I have said.

The price spikes in the 1970s were the result of high inflation, which drove up prices.  Drastic devaluing of the currency through high inflation, typically results in people investing in property.   That increase in people investing in property as a hedge against inflation, naturally results in a price increase.  If you look, the housing price bubble started in 1976, right after inflation peaked in 1975 at 12%.

In the 1980s, the cause was a sudden lowering of interest rates, and a high GDP growth rate.  The boom started right at 1984, when the growth rate hit nearly 10%, and the interest rates were cut in half from their 1970s high.

Both of these have clear policy causes.

If you look at the broad spectrum of the graph, house prices have been relatively stable from the late 1940s, until 1997, with only those two exceptions of the 1970s inflation, and the 1980s interest rate cut and high GDP.

What happened in 1997?   None of these.   There was no huge inflation.  There was no spike in interest rates, or sudden drop in interest rates.   There was no boom in the economy, which was fairly steady at 4% to 5%.

There is no explanation, and yet the housing market made a drastic increase in prices.

You have not given any satisfactory explanation to why that happened.  I suggest I did.    Freddie Mac, validating Sub-prime Mortgage Backed Securities, with a AAA rating, in 1997, would explain why there was suddenly a drastic increase in sub-prime loans, and that would explain why prices dramatically increased, because lowering the lending standards, by securitizing sub-prime loans, increased the number of people who qualified to get a mortgage.   Increased Demand, static supply... price goes up.

Again, unlike the prior two booms, you can't blame it on interest rates going up or down, because they didn't in the late 1990s.    You can't blame it on inflation driving investment, because there was little inflation.   You can't blame it on a booming economy, because there was no booming economy.

There is no logical, identifiable reason for this price bubble, other than what I have outlined.

So again, here is your opportunity to give your own reason.  What do you think caused the price bubble in 1997?

Interesting side note, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, was pushed by liberals as a solution to so-called mortgage discrimination, and passed in 1975.   Odd that directly after the very first attempt at mortgage affirmative action, that there was a bubble.   However, I can find no evidence linking the bubble to this act.   It was more likely the high inflation rate.    It is an interesting coincidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how the "man" stopped you from becoming more than you were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He gave my job to Chico...
Click to expand...


You didn't have to shoot him though.........


----------



## kaz

Toddsterpatriot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how the "man" stopped you from becoming more than you were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He gave my job to Chico...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't have to shoot him though.........
Click to expand...


How'd you kn...   I mean, it was suicide.  I mean self defense.  No, wait, suicide, that's what I'm going with.  Final answer....


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law forcing you to live with a den of thieves, you are free to move about the country to find and make your opportunities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are not the only means of getting people to obey. Having never grown up in poverty one will not know that the opportunity to choose to leave the neighborhood or stay is not there.
> 
> Peer pressure, social pressure, going where the money is (crime) can constrict one's innate ability to choose liberty. Indeed, they can leads to bad decisions and it's often because people are ill informed. Our education system panders to wealth just like opportunities to work do. Though more service jobs exist than ever, they are often shameful and are dead end.
> 
> There is so much that can be said here but if you are unwilling to recognize the disparity in this country is not just income, it runs all the way down into the psyche. I know because I grew up in it and have been homeless. If you haven't lived that way you simply have no genuine idea what really means and what the causes are. You hear others who've never been homeless talk about it but that's as good as the info gets. It's an entirely different world to be in poverty, it's plain and simple and no one is willing to try that because poverty is not inviting.
> 
> 59% of Americans will experience poverty for a year or more. If you haven't then you aren't part of the majority of people. You may want to recalibrate your understanding to account for the breadth of this problem. It's a human problem stemming from bad policy and greed. There is a war going on against the poor and working class. The 2 minute video explains this with rigor.
> War on the Poor
Click to expand...

*Their War on the Poor*

"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.

Only 113,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in January, on top of a paltry 75,000 in December.

"We need a new WPA to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure, a higher minimum wage, strong unions, investments in education, and extended unemployment benefits for those who still can't find a job. 

"When 95% of the economic gains go to the top 1%, the middle class and poor don't have the purchasing power to keep it going."


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Just because prices started to increase in prices in 97 that doesn't mean something didn't happen in 98 or 99 or 00 or 01 or 02 or 03 etc that kept the prices increasing. YOUR OWN GRAPH shows that price increases are not uncommon.
> 
> Bah whatever this is the 4th time I have explained this to you.



In thinking about it, I'm not sure that a whooping TWO housing price bubbles in the past 50 years, makes it completely common.   Not sure you can really support that claim.   Between 1948, and 1997, which is 49 years, there have been a total of 8 years out of 49, which could be considered price bubbles.  And as I said, there were specific policy causes to those bubbles.

I'm not denying that bad policy may have kept the bubble going.   But the start is the key.  Not the end.   IF they had popped the bubble in 04, that would have done nothing to prevent what happened, it would have only happened 3 years earlier.   If they had popped it in 2000, it still would have popped, only 7 years earlier.

The key is to not have a bubble to begin with.   That's what needs to be avoided, and the way you do that, is by finding the cause of the original price bubble, and dealing with that.

If you eliminate every cause of the bubble continuing, and don't prevent the bubble from being created to begin with, you will still have a crash.

Focusing on "well x policy continued the bubble that was already created"... well fine....    what about not having a bubble to begin with?    Are you saying that economic crashes, and price bubble collapses, are perfectly good provided they are not dragged out another 3 years?

Well of course you don't believe that.  But then why focus on policies that continued the problem, instead of what caused the problem?  How about we deal that that?

See, because to me the "policy X continued it" is a red herring.

All of the policies that continued the bubble, were pushed for by politicians, because they believed that home ownership is inherently good.     All of those policies, stemmed from the original policy which started the whole chain reaction, back in 1997.

Because even if we eliminate specific policy X, and policy Y.... they will simply be replaced with other policies that do exactly the same thing because the same false assumption is driving policy "Home ownership is inherently good".

And we see this, even now.

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit - The Washington Post



> administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs  including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration  that insure home loans against default.



That's from April 2013.    Apparently having Freddie and Fannie back borrowers with weaker credit worked so well, that now they are sending the FHA to do it.

It's this exact type of policy that caused the price bubble to begin with.  Let's have Freddie Mac securitize sub-prime mortgages to unqualified buyers, because home ownership is inherently good for everyone.

But it's not.   We just found that out.   Until you deal with what CAUSED the price bubble, what CONTINUED it won't matter.    Once the bubble is created, there will always be a crash.


----------



## gnarlylove

RKMBrown said:


> Please explain how the "man" stopped you from becoming more than you were.



Go to a soup kitchen and ask them. Ask them how their life has been. Ask them what they've tried to do but failed. Heck I know you're too lazy as an American so go  buy a book on the topic. I know as a consumer first you like to buy things rather than do things, it excites your dopamine. "The Working Poor: Invisible in America" is an good book. There are many other sociological accounts but you need to hear the first hand stories.You've got the time to ask the same questions over and over but not watch that two minute video I posted on why its so hard to get out of poverty or to choose liberty.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law forcing you to live with a den of thieves, you are free to move about the country to find and make your opportunities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are not the only means of getting people to obey. Having never grown up in poverty one will not know that the opportunity to choose to leave the neighborhood or stay is not there.
> 
> Peer pressure, social pressure, going where the money is (crime) can constrict one's innate ability to choose liberty. Indeed, they can leads to bad decisions and it's often because people are ill informed. Our education system panders to wealth just like opportunities to work do. Though more service jobs exist than ever, they are often shameful and are dead end.
> 
> There is so much that can be said here but if you are unwilling to recognize the disparity in this country is not just income, it runs all the way down into the psyche. I know because I grew up in it and have been homeless. If you haven't lived that way you simply have no genuine idea what really means and what the causes are. You hear others who've never been homeless talk about it but that's as good as the info gets. It's an entirely different world to be in poverty, it's plain and simple and no one is willing to try that because poverty is not inviting.
> 
> 59% of Americans will experience poverty for a year or more. If you haven't then you aren't part of the majority of people. You may want to recalibrate your understanding to account for the breadth of this problem. It's a human problem stemming from bad policy and greed. There is a war going on against the poor and working class. The 2 minute video explains this with rigor.
> War on the Poor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Their War on the Poor*
> 
> "Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
> 
> Only 113,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in January, on top of a paltry 75,000 in December.
> 
> "We need a new WPA to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure, a higher minimum wage, strong unions, investments in education, and extended unemployment benefits for those who still can't find a job.
> 
> "When 95% of the economic gains go to the top 1%, the middle class and poor don't have the purchasing power to keep it going."
Click to expand...


I just don't see that in my world.   Do you know a bunch of people who are earning less and less every year?   I am not.   Nor do I know anyone who is.

That magical "them" and "those people" who are earning less, where are they?   Nearly everyone I know is doing better now, than ever before in their life.   Just as they were 5 years ago, and 10 years ago.   Back in 2001, I knew a guy who just got hired on as $8/hr parts get at an auto parts store.  He's now store manager of his own store, earning six figures plus a profit sharing bonus at the end of the year.

Now no doubt there must be some who are.  For sure, there's always someone somewhere, but you really think over the broad economy that everyone is earning less?

I kind of doubt that, and certainly the evidence doesn't support it.  At least not the evidence you gave.   You cited "household incomes".

That's not the same as individual incomes.

Take for example, a married couple with an 18 year old.   The 18 year old is working minimum wage at Wendy's.  The wife works part time $30K job.  The husband a $70K job.

Now say they divorce, which is very common, right?

The 18 year old, moves out, and goes to college, and gets promoted to manager, and is now earning $20K.

The Wife divorced, now works full time, earning $35K.

The husband without a family throws himself in his work, gets over time, and now makes $80K.

Before you had one household, earning $115K, and now you divided it into three households, making $20K, $35K, and $80K.

Now arrange that into any statistics, and find the median, the median is going to fall, while the incomes of each individual has actually gone up.

You have to remember something.... prior to the 1970s, kids stayed at home until they finished college.  It was rare for them to move out.    And married couples rarely ever divorced.   They still had a belief system of "we're in it for life, whether we like it or not", instead of the more modern "the only one who matters is me, and if I'm not happy, I'm gone" belief system.

The claims that wages are falling, are very suspect and ambiguous.  Not nearly as concrete as statistic manipulators claim.  (not you.  You are just citing what someone else came up with)

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain

Now of course, you can find some useful information from statistics, but you need to be careful, and investigate them carefully.


----------



## RKMBrown

gnarlylove said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how the "man" stopped you from becoming more than you were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to a soup kitchen and ask them. Ask them how their life has been. Ask them what they've tried to do but failed. Heck I know you're too lazy as an American so go  buy a book on the topic. I know as a consumer first you like to buy things rather than do things, it excites your dopamine. "The Working Poor: Invisible in America" is an good book. There are many other sociological accounts but you need to hear the first hand stories.You've got the time to ask the same questions over and over but not watch that two minute video I posted on why its so hard to get out of poverty or to choose liberty.
Click to expand...


Huh? What? Sorry I was busy earning a living.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> I just don't see that in my world.   Do you know a bunch of people who are earning less and less every year?   I am not.   Nor do I know anyone who is



That is called a bunch of things but groupthink covers it. This is the phenomena where you isolate yourself and insulate yourself from something, in this case poverty. Why do you think there have been literal programs to kick homeless out of a city? It scares people with money. People won't shop near dirty people. We keep people with money happy and free of doubt about how policy is treating the rest of Americans.

My area is mostly poverty along the Ohio River of dead industry. It's like this for hundreds of miles: Appalachian poverty. The forgotten land. My county is not big but with 30,000 ppl the median income is $29,000. 
Yep, and counties surrounding me are doing worse! Why? Rust belt. No jobs. it's all walmart or fast food service jobs. Just because your community is doing fine, and each one you travel to is doing fine, is not representative of America. It's a fallacy of hasty generalization.

Even if you've been to 100 communities, there are tens of thousands of communities across America. Your sample size is probably smaller than 100 and has extreme bias since you don't need to be a sociologist to know social classes tend to hang out with each other. People of wealth like David Koch tends to not hang around people like yourself and you don't hang around poor people. It's the way our society (in India the poorest are called untouchables and they "caste" them from society). This has been set up so we don't see how bad it is. Its fucking awful I can assure you having lived homeless in 5 cities out West.

That's why we do statistical analysis to get accurate readings (unbiased) of national _averages etc_. So you can call 1500 Americans and given the right parameters, you can generalize within 3 percentage points of error. Some samples need 3000 but rarely do they need to go higher since we have a firm grasp on statistics and how to apply our data. There are tons of sociological databases if you had access through a university or company.

You Mark Twain quote has been referred to by me before and I've always liked it. But you need to be careful what you apply it to because sociologists (of which I am one) know how to achieve low margins of error and sufficiently larges unbiased samples. The one about 59% of American's will be in poverty for a year or more is a + or - 2%. You need to read it to get an idea:
Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why it's so important to understand what the term "inalienable right" actually means. It's not the same thing as "need". The Constitution doesn't guarantee us that our needs will be met, and it doesn't assign government the role of providing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you forgot to finish you sentence. Inalienable right is an assurance to each citizen they will be born with the ability to choose life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, that's not what an inalienable right is. That's not a slam, hardly anyone gets this and it's the source of a lot of unnecessary confusion. An inalienable right is an inherent freedom, a byproduct of volition. No one has to do anything for you to have your inalienable rights. They just have to avoid interfering with you. 

When the Constitution tasks government with protecting our inalienable rights, it's not saying the state is responsible for empowering us to exercise our rights. It's just supposed to keep others from interfering with our efforts to do so.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how the "man" stopped you from becoming more than you were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to a soup kitchen and ask them. Ask them how their life has been. Ask them what they've tried to do but failed. Heck I know you're too lazy as an American so go  buy a book on the topic. I know as a consumer first you like to buy things rather than do things, it excites your dopamine. "The Working Poor: Invisible in America" is an good book. There are many other sociological accounts but you need to hear the first hand stories.You've got the time to ask the same questions over and over but not watch that two minute video I posted on why its so hard to get out of poverty or to choose liberty.
Click to expand...


You didn't explain jack.  As always, you spouted a bunch of pinko propaganda.  When I want to read pinko propaganda, then perhaps I'll pickup a book written by a pinko sociologist on the government payroll.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why it's so important to understand what the term "inalienable right" actually means. It's not the same thing as "need". The Constitution doesn't guarantee us that our needs will be met, and it doesn't assign government the role of providing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you forgot to finish you sentence. Inalienable right is an assurance to each citizen they will be born with the ability to choose life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> Unfortunately America is not 100% this way. Gated communities, suburbs, North Side of cities etc. are were these rights are inalienable.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  It's simply in inherent property of human nature that requires society not to interfere in the individual's pursuit of his own ends.  When written into a constitution it requires government to avoid interfering in your life.  It place no obligation on society to provide you with anything.



gnarlylove said:


> When you are born into a situation where you can't get the food you need, this stunts development in kids (1 in 7 kids in America today experience hunger insecurity--not knowing where their next meal is coming from.) Furthermore, we can't put 100% blame on parents who happened to have good jobs who were laid off etc.



That may be the case, and it may be sad, but it doesn't constitute a violation of their rights.



gnarlylove said:


> I'm not saying people will always choose what's best for themselves or the economy. I'm not saying that everyone must be provided anything they want or need. I'm saying we fail to give the widespread opportunity to pursue liberty and happiness. drug addicts often choose that life because there are no options for them.



Yes, you are saying that everyone must be provided with something, namely the things you claim they can't be free if they lack.



gnarlylove said:


> Your rights and how you are treated depends on what family you were born into, not what country you live in. Just because a person was born in the good olde USA doesn't mean you automatically can pursue you happiness. often survival is the first and only consideration of many of my fellow sojourners.they aren't pursuing liberty because they can't since there are so few opportunities for so many people.



Nope.  Your rights do not depend on the circumstances of your birth.  Rights have nothing to do with your material circumstances.   Rights have nothing to do with having "opportunities."  Although opportunities tend to multiply in countries that respect individual rights.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time...........  yes, or no.... did the housing price bubble that burst in 2007, start in 1997.  Look at the graph.    Yes or no.
> 
> I want a yes or no, answer.  If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't be talking about a subject you are too ignorant to comment on.   Answer the question.
> 
> Yes or no.   The housing price bubble that burst in 2007, started in 1997.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is like you want me to think you are a clown.
> 
> I have explained what I thought about the price increases in 1997 like 3 times now and you don't know if I know the prices increased in 1997.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I owe an apology.  I thought you had repeated the idea that it didn't start in 1997.  My mistake.   I jumped too quick in my reply.
> 
> Now I can move on from that point.
> 
> Saying that a price spike is not unusual, doesn't mean anything.  Nor does it change anything that I have said.
> 
> The price spikes in the 1970s were the result of high inflation, which drove up prices.  Drastic devaluing of the currency through high inflation, typically results in people investing in property.   That increase in people investing in property as a hedge against inflation, naturally results in a price increase.  If you look, the housing price bubble started in 1976, right after inflation peaked in 1975 at 12%.
> 
> In the 1980s, the cause was a sudden lowering of interest rates, and a high GDP growth rate.  The boom started right at 1984, when the growth rate hit nearly 10%, and the interest rates were cut in half from their 1970s high.
> 
> Both of these have clear policy causes.
> 
> If you look at the broad spectrum of the graph, house prices have been relatively stable from the late 1940s, until 1997, with only those two exceptions of the 1970s inflation, and the 1980s interest rate cut and high GDP.
> 
> What happened in 1997?   None of these.   There was no huge inflation.  There was no spike in interest rates, or sudden drop in interest rates.   There was no boom in the economy, which was fairly steady at 4% to 5%.
> 
> There is no explanation, and yet the housing market made a drastic increase in prices.
> 
> You have not given any satisfactory explanation to why that happened.  I suggest I did.    Freddie Mac, validating Sub-prime Mortgage Backed Securities, with a AAA rating, in 1997, would explain why there was suddenly a drastic increase in sub-prime loans, and that would explain why prices dramatically increased, because lowering the lending standards, by securitizing sub-prime loans, increased the number of people who qualified to get a mortgage.   Increased Demand, static supply... price goes up.
> 
> Again, unlike the prior two booms, you can't blame it on interest rates going up or down, because they didn't in the late 1990s.    You can't blame it on inflation driving investment, because there was little inflation.   You can't blame it on a booming economy, because there was no booming economy.
> 
> There is no logical, identifiable reason for this price bubble, other than what I have outlined.
> 
> So again, here is your opportunity to give your own reason.  What do you think caused the price bubble in 1997?
> 
> Interesting side note, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, was pushed by liberals as a solution to so-called mortgage discrimination, and passed in 1975.   Odd that directly after the very first attempt at mortgage affirmative action, that there was a bubble.   However, I can find no evidence linking the bubble to this act.   It was more likely the high inflation rate.    It is an interesting coincidence.
Click to expand...


Like I said before there are many reasons why the prices would have started to increase in 1997. If I was only given two choices, lower standards on loans or the rise of MBS that hid those sub-prime loans I would go with the MBS. That said there were other nations seeing a rise in home prices and it is very hard to know exactly why there was a boom in 1997. 

There is no doubt that MBS played a massive part in the boom and bust as I have already talked about. No one is denying this as far as I am aware and the single biggest problem with the MBS is the hidden risk. A risk that increases drastically in a bubble and hides poor behavior by those creating the mortgages in the first place.

A lot of people at these financial institutions and ratings agencies get paid a lot of money to know the risk on an investment. Decision makers are paid a lot of money to know and make the right decision for their companies. The idea that a government agency is at fault for hiding risk from them is absolutely ridiculous. I don't care if F&F rated them AAA(which they have no authority to do), there is no way a private company would outsource the health of their own company to a government agency's analysis. The system doesn't work that way and you keep suggesting that it does which is absurd.

While I am uncertain about 1997 I am certain that the drop in interest rates played a big part in the crisis as did the proliferation of sub-prime loans that were not mandated by the government. 

You can blame the government for failing to regulate and failing to enforce regulations. You can blame F&F for not understanding the risk of the MBS. You can blame government for repealing Glass-Steagall. You can blame the The Commodities Futures Modernization Act. You can blame interest rates. You can blame anyone who ever thought markets could regulate themselves. Blame is everywhere but very little of it actually rests at the feet of some poor people getting a sub-prime loan. That is what this issue is ultimately about, not blaming government generally or capitalism or whatever. There is enough blame for everyone except the people who actually need these laws. The economy doesn't come crashing down because some poor people got a mortgage.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law forcing you to live with a den of thieves, you are free to move about the country to find and make your opportunities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are not the only means of getting people to obey. Having never grown up in poverty one will not know that the opportunity to choose to leave the neighborhood or stay is not there.
> 
> Peer pressure, social pressure, going where the money is (crime) can constrict one's innate ability to choose liberty. Indeed, they can leads to bad decisions and it's often because people are ill informed. Our education system panders to wealth just like opportunities to work do. Though more service jobs exist than ever, they are often shameful and are dead end.
> 
> There is so much that can be said here but if you are unwilling to recognize the disparity in this country is not just income, it runs all the way down into the psyche. I know because I grew up in it and have been homeless. If you haven't lived that way you simply have no genuine idea what really means and what the causes are. You hear others who've never been homeless talk about it but that's as good as the info gets. It's an entirely different world to be in poverty, it's plain and simple and no one is willing to try that because poverty is not inviting.
> 
> 59% of Americans will experience poverty for a year or more. If you haven't then you aren't part of the majority of people. You may want to recalibrate your understanding to account for the breadth of this problem. It's a human problem stemming from bad policy and greed. There is a war going on against the poor and working class. The 2 minute video explains this with rigor.
> War on the Poor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Their War on the Poor*
> 
> "Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
> 
> Only 113,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in January, on top of a paltry 75,000 in December.
> 
> "We need a new WPA to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure, a higher minimum wage, strong unions, investments in education, and extended unemployment benefits for those who still can't find a job.
> 
> "When 95% of the economic gains go to the top 1%, the middle class and poor don't have the purchasing power to keep it going."
Click to expand...


*"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.*

Obama and Obamacare, killing jobs, shrinking incomes, all across America.


----------



## Bombur

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are not the only means of getting people to obey. Having never grown up in poverty one will not know that the opportunity to choose to leave the neighborhood or stay is not there.
> 
> Peer pressure, social pressure, going where the money is (crime) can constrict one's innate ability to choose liberty. Indeed, they can leads to bad decisions and it's often because people are ill informed. Our education system panders to wealth just like opportunities to work do. Though more service jobs exist than ever, they are often shameful and are dead end.
> 
> There is so much that can be said here but if you are unwilling to recognize the disparity in this country is not just income, it runs all the way down into the psyche. I know because I grew up in it and have been homeless. If you haven't lived that way you simply have no genuine idea what really means and what the causes are. You hear others who've never been homeless talk about it but that's as good as the info gets. It's an entirely different world to be in poverty, it's plain and simple and no one is willing to try that because poverty is not inviting.
> 
> 59% of Americans will experience poverty for a year or more. If you haven't then you aren't part of the majority of people. You may want to recalibrate your understanding to account for the breadth of this problem. It's a human problem stemming from bad policy and greed. There is a war going on against the poor and working class. The 2 minute video explains this with rigor.
> War on the Poor
> 
> 
> 
> *Their War on the Poor*
> 
> "Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
> 
> Only 113,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in January, on top of a paltry 75,000 in December.
> 
> "We need a new WPA to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure, a higher minimum wage, strong unions, investments in education, and extended unemployment benefits for those who still can't find a job.
> 
> "When 95% of the economic gains go to the top 1%, the middle class and poor don't have the purchasing power to keep it going."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.*
> 
> Obama and Obamacare, killing jobs, shrinking incomes, all across America.
Click to expand...


Another example of the superhuman powers of the private sector markets. They can predict legislation decades in advance!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Their War on the Poor*
> 
> "Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
> 
> Only 113,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in January, on top of a paltry 75,000 in December.
> 
> "We need a new WPA to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure, a higher minimum wage, strong unions, investments in education, and extended unemployment benefits for those who still can't find a job.
> 
> "When 95% of the economic gains go to the top 1%, the middle class and poor don't have the purchasing power to keep it going."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.*
> 
> Obama and Obamacare, killing jobs, shrinking incomes, all across America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another example of the superhuman powers of the private sector markets. They can predict legislation decades in advance!
Click to expand...


The situation today has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of markets or your poor reading skills.
Obamacare and the loss of jobs it caused didn't have to be predicted decades ago to hurt us today.


----------



## Bombur

I apologize for assuming you had any connection to reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bombur said:


> I apologize for assuming you had any connection to reality.



When you can explain the connection your post had with reality, let me know.


----------



## TemplarKormac

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*


----------



## francoHFW

Voodoo wrecked and IS WRECKING the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008- while the rich have quadrupled their wealth...

Memorize the facts, hater dupes:

1. WORKERS past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor&#8217;s share of income (1992 = 100%):1950 = 101%1960 = 105%1970 = 105%1980 = 105% &#8211; Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.Share of National Income going to Top 10%:1950 = 35%1960 = 34%1970 = 34%1980 = 34% &#8211; Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50% TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% &#8211; Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.1950 = 6.0%1960 = 7.0%1970 = 8.5%1980 = 10.0% &#8211; Reagan1982 = 11.2% &#8211; Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

4. Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50% &#8211; Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95%A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%and the bottom 80%:1980 = 10%2003 = 56%A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.The Probabilityy of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:1945 = 12%1958 = 6%1990 = 3%2000 = 2%A 10% Decrease.

Links:1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)2 &#8211; Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&LastYear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 6, 20135/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insiderhttp://factleft.com/2011/03/28/the-demise-of-the-american-middle-class-in-numbers/


----------



## francoHFW

Obamacare will help people who don't want to work just to have health care cut back, quit, and retire, opening up jobs for the UE. THAT'S ACTUAL FREEDOM, hater dupes lol...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

francoHFW said:


> Obamacare will help people who don't want to work just to have health care cut back, quit, and retire, opening up jobs for the UE. THAT'S ACTUAL FREEDOM, hater dupes lol...



Obamacare will also help people who want to work get cut back to part time.

Thanks for fucking up the economy, even more.


----------



## francoHFW

Link- From someone not the usual lying Pub a-holes please...


----------



## American_Jihad

*Inequality Myopia*

There's more to it than Democrats care to know.​
By Ron Ross  2.6.14
SmallerLarger

...

At least in their rhetoric, Democrats have made equality their number one priority. It has become more an obsession than a policy objective. Mother Jones contributor Kevin Drum writes, The heart and soul of liberalism is economic egalitarianism. According to Jon N. Hall, For progressives, equality is an end in itself, and a higher value than freedom, happiness, or prosperity.

Furthermore, liberals have a one-dimensional vision of equality. Virtually the only kind of inequality they ever address is income inequality. The human experience, however, is multi-faceted.

If it were possible to create conditions that would result in equal incomes for all Americans, there would still be wide differences in intelligence, athletic ability, health, ambition, and beauty, just to name a few. If we all had equal incomes, we would not all magically feel equal. Equality of incomes does not equal equality, and equality does not equal fairness.

For liberals it is an article of faith that income inequality is increasing in America. They cite statistics indicating as much. Nevertheless, those statistics are themselves over-simplifications. Such statistics usually hide at least as much as they reveal. Economist Walter Williams observes that Most of whats said about income inequality is stupid or, at best, ill-informed.

...

Exaggerating and over-emphasizing negative news while ignoring positive news is not a harmless endeavor. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation just released The 2014 Gates Annual Letter. They title it 3 Myths That Block Progress for the Poor. Here is how they summarize their letter:

_By almost any measure, the world is better than it has ever been. People are living longer, healthier lives. Many nations that were aid recipients are now self-sufficient. You might think that such striking progress would be widely celebrated, but in fact, Melinda and are I are struck by how many people think the world is getting worse. The belief that the world cant solve extreme poverty and disease isnt just mistaken. It is harmful. Thats why in this years letter we take apart some of the myths that slow down the work. The next time you hear these myths, we hope you will do the same._

Thats excellent advice. I wonder, however, if the Gates have asked themselves why there are so many people who think the world is getting worse? Its in large part because creating the myth serves the purposes of liberal politicians.

...

In a number of speeches President Obama has referred to millionaires and billionaires, with contempt and resentment practically dripping from those words. The resentment toward the one percent is driven primarily by envy rather than actually wanting to do something for the poor. Envy is not a sound foundation for public policy. The left apparently is bothered more by the existence of rich people than by the existence of poor people. They subscribe to the absurd belief that wealth causes poverty.

...

When it comes to addressing the issue, Democrat policies increase the amount of inequality rather than reduce it. Inequality is a problem liberals would rather hype than solve.

Inequality Myopia | The American Spectator


----------



## gnarlylove

Saying Obamacare is the main problem distracts from the fact the top 1% is siphoning off most of the profits generated by capitalism. It's a way to instill division when the real issues are happening behind closed doors and right under our noses. The media has successfully hijacked our understanding of what's high priority and what isn't.

I can agree Obamacare is not the best piece of legislation but having become a beneficiary and can finally get my rotting teeth checked, Naturally Obamacare has its downside and a small upside as do most things. To isolate focus on negativity, "anger points" (see Karl Rove 2004) and "the other side" (see concept of Othering) keeps us divided so the rich can maintain their power. Public relations campaigns are exactly propaganda but this word has taken a negative connotation and is not used. This is destroying America from within. Keeping the middle class and working class divided against itself on wedge issues that don't mean a whole lot to economy or the average citizen trying to make a living.

Goethe said, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Indeed, the American public is intentionally divided against itself by billions of dollars spent to misinform the voters and cause them to make irrational decisions (e.g. go into unpayable debt) which is the opposite of a truly free market. In a free market people make decisions rationally. The depth of consumerism based on whims and irrational behaviors is enormous. Until we correctly prioritize our platforms, we will never overcome the master/slave dialectic that's been in place for quite some time. If you don't think it's a master/slave then how do you explain 85 individuals owning as much as 3.5 billion people globally? That is unthinkable and yet concrete.


----------



## American_Jihad

gnarlylove said:


> I can agree Obamacare is not the best piece of legislation but having become a beneficiary and can finally get my rotting teeth *checked*, Naturally Obamacare has its downside and a small upside as do most things.



Let us know how that dental plan worked out for you...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Saying Obamacare is the main problem distracts from the fact the top 1% is siphoning off most of the profits generated by capitalism. It's a way to instill division when the real issues are happening behind closed doors and right under our noses. The media has successfully hijacked our understanding of what's high priority and what isn't.
> 
> I can agree Obamacare is not the best piece of legislation but having become a beneficiary and can finally get my rotting teeth checked, Naturally Obamacare has its downside and a small upside as do most things. To isolate focus on negativity, "anger points" (see Karl Rove 2004) and "the other side" (see concept of Othering) keeps us divided so the rich can maintain their power. Public relations campaigns are exactly propaganda but this word has taken a negative connotation and is not used. This is destroying America from within. Keeping the middle class and working class divided against itself on wedge issues that don't mean a whole lot to economy or the average citizen trying to make a living.
> 
> Goethe said, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
> 
> Indeed, the American public is intentionally divided against itself by billions of dollars spent to misinform the voters and cause them to make irrational decisions (e.g. go into unpayable debt) which is the opposite of a truly free market. In a free market people make decisions rationally. The depth of consumerism based on whims and irrational behaviors is enormous. Until we correctly prioritize our platforms, we will never overcome the master/slave dialectic that's been in place for quite some time. If you don't think it's a master/slave then how do you explain 85 individuals owning as much as 3.5 billion people globally? That is unthinkable and yet concrete.



*If you don't think it's a master/slave then how do you explain 85 individuals owning as much as 3.5 billion people globally? *

It's called productivity and freedom.


----------



## Bombur

American_Jihad said:


> *Inequality Myopia*
> 
> There's more to it than Democrats care to know.​
> By Ron Ross  2.6.14
> SmallerLarger
> 
> ...
> 
> At least in their rhetoric, Democrats have made equality their number one priority. It has become more an obsession than a policy objective. Mother Jones contributor Kevin Drum writes, The heart and soul of liberalism is economic egalitarianism. According to Jon N. Hall, For progressives, equality is an end in itself, and a higher value than freedom, happiness, or prosperity.
> 
> Furthermore, liberals have a one-dimensional vision of equality. Virtually the only kind of inequality they ever address is income inequality. The human experience, however, is multi-faceted.
> 
> If it were possible to create conditions that would result in equal incomes for all Americans, there would still be wide differences in intelligence, athletic ability, health, ambition, and beauty, just to name a few. If we all had equal incomes, we would not all magically feel equal. Equality of incomes does not equal equality, and equality does not equal fairness.
> 
> For liberals it is an article of faith that income inequality is increasing in America. They cite statistics indicating as much. Nevertheless, those statistics are themselves over-simplifications. Such statistics usually hide at least as much as they reveal. Economist Walter Williams observes that Most of whats said about income inequality is stupid or, at best, ill-informed.
> 
> ...
> 
> Exaggerating and over-emphasizing negative news while ignoring positive news is not a harmless endeavor. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation just released The 2014 Gates Annual Letter. They title it 3 Myths That Block Progress for the Poor. Here is how they summarize their letter:
> 
> _By almost any measure, the world is better than it has ever been. People are living longer, healthier lives. Many nations that were aid recipients are now self-sufficient. You might think that such striking progress would be widely celebrated, but in fact, Melinda and are I are struck by how many people think the world is getting worse. The belief that the world cant solve extreme poverty and disease isnt just mistaken. It is harmful. Thats why in this years letter we take apart some of the myths that slow down the work. The next time you hear these myths, we hope you will do the same._
> 
> Thats excellent advice. I wonder, however, if the Gates have asked themselves why there are so many people who think the world is getting worse? Its in large part because creating the myth serves the purposes of liberal politicians.
> 
> ...
> 
> In a number of speeches President Obama has referred to millionaires and billionaires, with contempt and resentment practically dripping from those words. The resentment toward the one percent is driven primarily by envy rather than actually wanting to do something for the poor. Envy is not a sound foundation for public policy. The left apparently is bothered more by the existence of rich people than by the existence of poor people. They subscribe to the absurd belief that wealth causes poverty.
> 
> ...
> 
> When it comes to addressing the issue, Democrat policies increase the amount of inequality rather than reduce it. Inequality is a problem liberals would rather hype than solve.
> 
> Inequality Myopia | The American Spectator



Technological progress doesn't mean income inequality doesn't matter. There was massive increases in technological progress leading up to the early 1900's but the depressed working classes in Italy, Germany, and Russia were still used to help set up dictators and push nations towards war in large part because of income inequality. 

These days nations protect themselves from such eventualities and some people in the US consider it to be socialism when in reality it is a desperate attempt to prevent real socialism from taking over. 

The end goal is not equality but market economies that don't concentrate the income gains into just one class of people. 

Income inequality isn't just a problem that exists in a bubble. It is something that is caused by other problems. Namely a weak labor market that doesn't just lead to income inequality but unemployment and inefficiency and slower growth in demand. This growth in demand becomes very important as we look at our current economic problems because it is rather clear at this point that US consumption has helped support global economic production increases for decades but it has been artificially propped up by debt and trade imbalances. Eventually this tactic would stop working and the entire world is starting to face the consequences. Demand has to grow with Production increases. This is a very hard fact that supply-siders don't seem to get.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is like you want me to think you are a clown.
> 
> I have explained what I thought about the price increases in 1997 like 3 times now and you don't know if I know the prices increased in 1997.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I owe an apology.  I thought you had repeated the idea that it didn't start in 1997.  My mistake.   I jumped too quick in my reply.
> 
> Now I can move on from that point.
> 
> Saying that a price spike is not unusual, doesn't mean anything.  Nor does it change anything that I have said.
> 
> The price spikes in the 1970s were the result of high inflation, which drove up prices.  Drastic devaluing of the currency through high inflation, typically results in people investing in property.   That increase in people investing in property as a hedge against inflation, naturally results in a price increase.  If you look, the housing price bubble started in 1976, right after inflation peaked in 1975 at 12%.
> 
> In the 1980s, the cause was a sudden lowering of interest rates, and a high GDP growth rate.  The boom started right at 1984, when the growth rate hit nearly 10%, and the interest rates were cut in half from their 1970s high.
> 
> Both of these have clear policy causes.
> 
> If you look at the broad spectrum of the graph, house prices have been relatively stable from the late 1940s, until 1997, with only those two exceptions of the 1970s inflation, and the 1980s interest rate cut and high GDP.
> 
> What happened in 1997?   None of these.   There was no huge inflation.  There was no spike in interest rates, or sudden drop in interest rates.   There was no boom in the economy, which was fairly steady at 4% to 5%.
> 
> There is no explanation, and yet the housing market made a drastic increase in prices.
> 
> You have not given any satisfactory explanation to why that happened.  I suggest I did.    Freddie Mac, validating Sub-prime Mortgage Backed Securities, with a AAA rating, in 1997, would explain why there was suddenly a drastic increase in sub-prime loans, and that would explain why prices dramatically increased, because lowering the lending standards, by securitizing sub-prime loans, increased the number of people who qualified to get a mortgage.   Increased Demand, static supply... price goes up.
> 
> Again, unlike the prior two booms, you can't blame it on interest rates going up or down, because they didn't in the late 1990s.    You can't blame it on inflation driving investment, because there was little inflation.   You can't blame it on a booming economy, because there was no booming economy.
> 
> There is no logical, identifiable reason for this price bubble, other than what I have outlined.
> 
> So again, here is your opportunity to give your own reason.  What do you think caused the price bubble in 1997?
> 
> Interesting side note, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, was pushed by liberals as a solution to so-called mortgage discrimination, and passed in 1975.   Odd that directly after the very first attempt at mortgage affirmative action, that there was a bubble.   However, I can find no evidence linking the bubble to this act.   It was more likely the high inflation rate.    It is an interesting coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said before there are many reasons why the prices would have started to increase in 1997. If I was only given two choices, lower standards on loans or the rise of MBS that hid those sub-prime loans I would go with the MBS. That said there were other nations seeing a rise in home prices and it is very hard to know exactly why there was a boom in 1997.
> 
> There is no doubt that MBS played a massive part in the boom and bust as I have already talked about. No one is denying this as far as I am aware and the single biggest problem with the MBS is the hidden risk. A risk that increases drastically in a bubble and hides poor behavior by those creating the mortgages in the first place.
> 
> A lot of people at these financial institutions and ratings agencies get paid a lot of money to know the risk on an investment. Decision makers are paid a lot of money to know and make the right decision for their companies. The idea that a government agency is at fault for hiding risk from them is absolutely ridiculous. I don't care if F&F rated them AAA(which they have no authority to do), there is no way a private company would outsource the health of their own company to a government agency's analysis. The system doesn't work that way and you keep suggesting that it does which is absurd.
> 
> While I am uncertain about 1997 I am certain that the drop in interest rates played a big part in the crisis as did the proliferation of sub-prime loans that were not mandated by the government.
> 
> You can blame the government for failing to regulate and failing to enforce regulations. You can blame F&F for not understanding the risk of the MBS. You can blame government for repealing Glass-Steagall. You can blame the The Commodities Futures Modernization Act. You can blame interest rates. You can blame anyone who ever thought markets could regulate themselves. Blame is everywhere but very little of it actually rests at the feet of some poor people getting a sub-prime loan. That is what this issue is ultimately about, not blaming government generally or capitalism or whatever. There is enough blame for everyone except the people who actually need these laws. The economy doesn't come crashing down because some poor people got a mortgage.
Click to expand...


But see, we know the "many reasons" for the 1970s and 1980s bubbles.

The 'many reasons' that happened in those bubbles, didn't exist in the 1997 bubble.

You mention lowering mortgage standards, and Mortgage Backed Securities.

Here's the key to both of those.   They were both results of the government.    Who created Mortgage Backed Securities?

Government created MBS.

Ginnie Mae guaranteed the first mortgage pass-through security of an approved lender in 1968. In 1971, Freddie Mac issued its first mortgage pass-through, called a participation certificate, composed primarily of private mortgages. In 1981, Fannie Mae issued its first mortgage pass-through, called a mortgage-backed security. In 1983, Freddie Mac issued the first collateralized mortgage obligation.

The first mortgage security, the first MBS, the first collateralized debt (mortgage) obligation (CDOs).   All of them were created by the government.

Further, if it was merely MBSs that caused the problem, then why didn't it start in 1968?  Or 71?   Or 81?  Or 83?     Mortgage securities have existed for nearly 30 years, before it caused a price bubble of 1997.

Can you explain why after so many years, suddenly MBSs ruined the entire market?

I can...   Before 1997, you couldn't make, or securitize an MBS with sub-prime loans.   Freddie Mac changed that by inking a deal in 1997, to bundle sub-prime loans into MBSs, and that drastically altered the entire fundamentals of the market, and led to all the other problems.

In other words, the lowered mortgage standards is what caused the problem.  Not MBSs, or the problem would have happened for 30 years prior, or even today.  MBSs are still the primary mode of mortgages today.   Nothing has changed in that regard, so we should expect the same problems all over again.

*A lot of people at these financial institutions and ratings agencies get paid a lot of money to know the risk on an investment.*

Yes, but the government was suing them.   Listen, if *I* myself, am working at a bank, and they are paying me to minimize risk, and the government comes and says "You either make these bad loans, or we're suing you, and you'll lose your $200K job, and you'll get creamed in the press for 'mortgage decrimination' and your reputation will be ruined for life", chances are I'm going to rate them how the government says to.

Here's the kicker.... YOU WOULD TOO.     If you have a job making $200K, and the government says make bad loans or lose your $200K job... you'll make the bad loans.    Most people would.    Why should you lose your life, for the sake of a government edict?

*I don't care if F&F rated them AAA(which they have no authority to do), there is no way a private company would outsource the health of their own company to a government agency's analysis.*

They don't have the authority?   F&F is backed by the Federal Government.    There is no higher authority in this country.   Have you not read the history of Freddie and Fannie?   The whole point of these institutions is to directly influence the mortgage market on behalf of the government, and you think private companies are not influenced by them, when that is their whole entire purpose for existing??

Of course they are influenced by F&F.   They all are.   Now you can say they shouldn't.... yeah I agree.    But they are... cause F&F are the biggest players in the entire economy, and they are backed by the highest authority in the entire country.

Sorry, but that is a weak, very weak argument.

*While I am uncertain about 1997 I am certain that the drop in interest rates played a big part in the crisis as did the proliferation of sub-prime loans that were not mandated by the government. *

Right, but again, just like your previous statement....  the mortgage market is influenced by the biggest players, which are F&F, who have the backing of the Federal Government.

If I can find the congressional testimony, I'll post it where a CEO of a bank, openly said the whole reason they started bundling sub-prime loans in their MBSs, was because Freddie Mac started doing it.

If Freddie Mac, or Fannie Mae, or both, are doing X, and they are backed by the Federal Government, then obviously X is safe.

Now you can claim that private banks should not have assumed X was safe, just because the government did it, but the fact is, that is what people assumed.    You can't say 'sub-prime loan from Bear Stearns is safe' and 'sub-prime loan from Bank X is not safe'..... why would you assume that?

Again, once Freddie Mac gave their seal of approval on Sub-prime loans, the rest of the market followed.  You can say they should not have, but that is denying the entire purpose of Freddie and Fannie, which is to influence the market, with the authority of the Federal Government.  That's the whole reason they exist.

*You can blame the government for failing to regulate and failing to enforce regulations. You can blame F&F for not understanding the risk of the MBS. You can blame government for repealing Glass-Steagall. You can blame the The Commodities Futures Modernization Act. You can blame interest rates. You can blame anyone who ever thought markets could regulate themselves. Blame is everywhere but very little of it actually rests at the feet of some poor people getting a sub-prime loan.*

I don't think they 'failed to regulate'.   It was actually those regulations that pushed bad loans, that the banks were following.     When the government is suing banks to make bad loans, all claims that "they failed to regulate" are mute.    Did you really expect the regulators to come and fine banks for making bad loans that the Clinton Administration just sued them to make?   Think about that.... the regulators go and levy fines on banks for making loans the Clinton administration, just sued them to make.... is that going to happen?  No.  They were supporting the regulations of the administration, to push sub-prime loans.

Further, Glass Steagall had NOTHING to do with the crash.   NOTHING, as in NOT ONE THING to do with it.    First, the supposed repeal happened in 99, and clearly the bubble and sub-prime boom, started in 1997.

Second, most of the banks that failed, would have not been affected either way by Glass Steagall.

Third, most of the rest of the world, has never had Glass Steagall regulations, and the problem didn't originate in Europe, nor did it happen in the last 50 years they didn't have GSA regulations. 

There is zero evidence that Glass Steagall, had any effect either way, on the sub-prime melt down.

True or False... IF no unworthy borrowers has borrowed any sub-prime loans, there would not have been a crash.

If True, explain how they can't possibly be partly to blame?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are not the only means of getting people to obey. Having never grown up in poverty one will not know that the opportunity to choose to leave the neighborhood or stay is not there.
> 
> Peer pressure, social pressure, going where the money is (crime) can constrict one's innate ability to choose liberty. Indeed, they can leads to bad decisions and it's often because people are ill informed. Our education system panders to wealth just like opportunities to work do. Though more service jobs exist than ever, they are often shameful and are dead end.
> 
> There is so much that can be said here but if you are unwilling to recognize the disparity in this country is not just income, it runs all the way down into the psyche. I know because I grew up in it and have been homeless. If you haven't lived that way you simply have no genuine idea what really means and what the causes are. You hear others who've never been homeless talk about it but that's as good as the info gets. It's an entirely different world to be in poverty, it's plain and simple and no one is willing to try that because poverty is not inviting.
> 
> 59% of Americans will experience poverty for a year or more. If you haven't then you aren't part of the majority of people. You may want to recalibrate your understanding to account for the breadth of this problem. It's a human problem stemming from bad policy and greed. There is a war going on against the poor and working class. The 2 minute video explains this with rigor.
> War on the Poor
> 
> 
> 
> *Their War on the Poor*
> 
> "Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
> 
> Only 113,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in January, on top of a paltry 75,000 in December.
> 
> "We need a new WPA to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure, a higher minimum wage, strong unions, investments in education, and extended unemployment benefits for those who still can't find a job.
> 
> "When 95% of the economic gains go to the top 1%, the middle class and poor don't have the purchasing power to keep it going."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.*
> 
> Obama and Obamacare, killing jobs, shrinking incomes, all across America.
Click to expand...

*Obama is no different from the rich bitches that have come before him:*

"In 2007, $407,056 was the average income of households at the lower boundary of Americas 
top one percent; and the average income at the divide between the 99.9 percent and the top 
one-tenth of one percent was $2,065,541.

&#61623; "In 2007, all 'very rich' households in the top one-tenth of one percent earned nearly $4.5 
million on average; and the 'rich' households in the rest of the top one percent averaged just 
over one million dollars. By 2010, the very rich households averaged $4.9 million in income, 
and the rich households were still earning just over one million per year (a tad more than in 
2007). 
&#61623; "To offer some perspective on these income levels: over the 2007-10 period, the least affluent 
90% of U.S. households made $30,000 a year on average; those between the 90th and 95th 
percentiles averaged $130,000 a year; and households between from the 95th through the 98th 
percentiles took in an average of $210,000 a year."

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_basic_facts_hicks_on_the_very_rich.pdf


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Their War on the Poor*
> 
> "Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.
> 
> Only 113,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in January, on top of a paltry 75,000 in December.
> 
> "We need a new WPA to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure, a higher minimum wage, strong unions, investments in education, and extended unemployment benefits for those who still can't find a job.
> 
> "When 95% of the economic gains go to the top 1%, the middle class and poor don't have the purchasing power to keep it going."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Most Americans are on a downward escalator. Median household pay is dropping, adjusted for inflation. A smaller share of working-age Americans are in jobs than at any time in the last three decades.*
> 
> Obama and Obamacare, killing jobs, shrinking incomes, all across America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Obama is no different from the rich bitches that have come before him:*
> 
> "In 2007, $407,056 was the average income of households at the lower boundary of Americas
> top one percent; and the average income at the divide between the 99.9 percent and the top
> one-tenth of one percent was $2,065,541.
> 
> &#61623; "In 2007, all 'very rich' households in the top one-tenth of one percent earned nearly $4.5
> million on average; and the 'rich' households in the rest of the top one percent averaged just
> over one million dollars. By 2010, the very rich households averaged $4.9 million in income,
> and the rich households were still earning just over one million per year (a tad more than in
> 2007).
> &#61623; "To offer some perspective on these income levels: over the 2007-10 period, the least affluent
> 90% of U.S. households made $30,000 a year on average; those between the 90th and 95th
> percentiles averaged $130,000 a year; and households between from the 95th through the 98th
> percentiles took in an average of $210,000 a year."
> 
> http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_basic_facts_hicks_on_the_very_rich.pdf
Click to expand...


*Obama is no different from the rich bitches that have come before him:*

He is a lot less qualified than the previous rich bitches.

Hell, he makes Bush look good by comparison.


----------



## Bombur

There were housing bubbles in other nations in 97 too. There are a lot of reasons why there can be a bubble starting in 97 but a lot of things happened between 97 and the crash that caused this historic bubble besides what was going on in 97. 

There is no doubt that F&F played a part in the MBS problem. The thing is the market is not set up to depend on them to make all the decisions. The market is not set up to allow a government institution to be a ratings agency or manage the risk portfolios of these financial institutions. 

The risk that was taken on by these institutions was in no way limited to what the government was mandating. I have said this multiple times and it is important. The demand for sub-prime mortgages far outstripped the requirements of the government. The claim that these institutions failed because of risk that was forced upon them is simply false.

Secondly the institutions lowered their standards far below what the CRA asked for. In fact one of the major faults you can place at the feet of government is the failure to regulate the markets both in terms of loan standards and balance sheet requirements.

If you don't understand that private institutions are in charge of their own financial security then I don't know what to tell you. There were plenty of banks that met CRA guidelines and didn't crash. The ones that crashed generally tried to maximize their profits by betting on the AAA rating of MBS.

You are overstating the backing of F&F by the Federal government which was a mistake many investors made. They equated F&F to the federal government beyond what the law actually establishes. The bailout of F&F went beyond what the Federal government was legally required to do. 

The whole reason F&F exists isn't to make financial decisions for the entire market. Those decisions to go above and beyond the federal requirements were their own. F&F was not regulated enough either btw.

Glass Steagall mattered because it played a major part in the amount of capital flowing into the bubble and the assets that were put at risk. Glass Steagall is important when talking about the size of the bubble and the need for a bailout.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> There were housing bubbles in other nations in 97 too. There are a lot of reasons why there can be a bubble starting in 97 but a lot of things happened between 97 and the crash that caused this historic bubble besides what was going on in 97.
> 
> There is no doubt that F&F played a part in the MBS problem. The thing is the market is not set up to depend on them to make all the decisions. The market is not set up to allow a government institution to be a ratings agency or manage the risk portfolios of these financial institutions.
> 
> The risk that was taken on by these institutions was in no way limited to what the government was mandating. I have said this multiple times and it is important. The demand for sub-prime mortgages far outstripped the requirements of the government. The claim that these institutions failed because of risk that was forced upon them is simply false.
> 
> Secondly the institutions lowered their standards far below what the CRA asked for. In fact one of the major faults you can place at the feet of government is the failure to regulate the markets both in terms of loan standards and balance sheet requirements.
> 
> If you don't understand that private institutions are in charge of their own financial security then I don't know what to tell you. There were plenty of banks that met CRA guidelines and didn't crash. The ones that crashed generally tried to maximize their profits by betting on the AAA rating of MBS.
> 
> You are overstating the backing of F&F by the Federal government which was a mistake many investors made. They equated F&F to the federal government beyond what the law actually establishes. The bailout of F&F went beyond what the Federal government was legally required to do.
> 
> The whole reason F&F exists isn't to make financial decisions for the entire market. Those decisions to go above and beyond the federal requirements were their own. F&F was not regulated enough either btw.
> 
> Glass Steagall mattered because it played a major part in the amount of capital flowing into the bubble and the assets that were put at risk. Glass Steagall is important when talking about the size of the bubble and the need for a bailout.



The CRA did force them to lower the standards, it appears you admit that.  Then, however, you appear to believe that they provided more sub-prime loans than the government mandated, thus going beyond what the law established.  

Ok, please tell the class what criteria they should have used to deny people sub-prime loans that the government was mandating they provide.  Color of skin maybe?  Was this CRA thing just supposed to reparations for blacks?  What am I missing?


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> *Secondly the institutions lowered their standards far below what the CRA asked for.* In fact one of the major faults you can place at the feet of government is the failure to regulate the markets both in terms of loan standards and balance sheet requirements.
> 
> If you don't understand that private institutions are in charge of their own financial security then I don't know what to tell you. T*here were plenty of banks that met CRA guidelines and didn't crash.* The ones that crashed generally tried to maximize their profits by betting on the AAA rating of MBS.
> t.





.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were housing bubbles in other nations in 97 too. There are a lot of reasons why there can be a bubble starting in 97 but a lot of things happened between 97 and the crash that caused this historic bubble besides what was going on in 97.
> 
> There is no doubt that F&F played a part in the MBS problem. The thing is the market is not set up to depend on them to make all the decisions. The market is not set up to allow a government institution to be a ratings agency or manage the risk portfolios of these financial institutions.
> 
> The risk that was taken on by these institutions was in no way limited to what the government was mandating. I have said this multiple times and it is important. The demand for sub-prime mortgages far outstripped the requirements of the government. The claim that these institutions failed because of risk that was forced upon them is simply false.
> 
> Secondly the institutions lowered their standards far below what the CRA asked for. In fact one of the major faults you can place at the feet of government is the failure to regulate the markets both in terms of loan standards and balance sheet requirements.
> 
> If you don't understand that private institutions are in charge of their own financial security then I don't know what to tell you. There were plenty of banks that met CRA guidelines and didn't crash. The ones that crashed generally tried to maximize their profits by betting on the AAA rating of MBS.
> 
> You are overstating the backing of F&F by the Federal government which was a mistake many investors made. They equated F&F to the federal government beyond what the law actually establishes. The bailout of F&F went beyond what the Federal government was legally required to do.
> 
> The whole reason F&F exists isn't to make financial decisions for the entire market. Those decisions to go above and beyond the federal requirements were their own. F&F was not regulated enough either btw.
> 
> Glass Steagall mattered because it played a major part in the amount of capital flowing into the bubble and the assets that were put at risk. Glass Steagall is important when talking about the size of the bubble and the need for a bailout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CRA did force them to lower the standards, it appears you admit that.  Then, however, you appear to believe that they provided more sub-prime loans than the government mandated, thus going beyond what the law established.
> 
> Ok, please tell the class what criteria they should have used to deny people sub-prime loans that the government was mandating they provide.  Color of skin maybe?  Was this CRA thing just supposed to reparations for blacks?  What am I missing?
Click to expand...


No criteria is needed for them to deny people sub-prime loans beyond what the government has mandated by definition.


----------



## 1776

oh wait.....was GEORGE W BUSH in the White House in 1997????



Bombur said:


> There were housing bubbles in other nations in 97 too. There are a lot of reasons why there can be a bubble starting in 97 but a lot of things happened between 97 and the crash that caused this historic bubble besides what was going on in 97.
> 
> There is no doubt that F&F played a part in the MBS problem. The thing is the market is not set up to depend on them to make all the decisions. The market is not set up to allow a government institution to be a ratings agency or manage the risk portfolios of these financial institutions.
> 
> The risk that was taken on by these institutions was in no way limited to what the government was mandating. I have said this multiple times and it is important. The demand for sub-prime mortgages far outstripped the requirements of the government. The claim that these institutions failed because of risk that was forced upon them is simply false.
> 
> Secondly the institutions lowered their standards far below what the CRA asked for. In fact one of the major faults you can place at the feet of government is the failure to regulate the markets both in terms of loan standards and balance sheet requirements.
> 
> If you don't understand that private institutions are in charge of their own financial security then I don't know what to tell you. There were plenty of banks that met CRA guidelines and didn't crash. The ones that crashed generally tried to maximize their profits by betting on the AAA rating of MBS.
> 
> You are overstating the backing of F&F by the Federal government which was a mistake many investors made. They equated F&F to the federal government beyond what the law actually establishes. The bailout of F&F went beyond what the Federal government was legally required to do.
> 
> The whole reason F&F exists isn't to make financial decisions for the entire market. Those decisions to go above and beyond the federal requirements were their own. F&F was not regulated enough either btw.
> 
> Glass Steagall mattered because it played a major part in the amount of capital flowing into the bubble and the assets that were put at risk. Glass Steagall is important when talking about the size of the bubble and the need for a bailout.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were housing bubbles in other nations in 97 too. There are a lot of reasons why there can be a bubble starting in 97 but a lot of things happened between 97 and the crash that caused this historic bubble besides what was going on in 97.
> 
> There is no doubt that F&F played a part in the MBS problem. The thing is the market is not set up to depend on them to make all the decisions. The market is not set up to allow a government institution to be a ratings agency or manage the risk portfolios of these financial institutions.
> 
> The risk that was taken on by these institutions was in no way limited to what the government was mandating. I have said this multiple times and it is important. The demand for sub-prime mortgages far outstripped the requirements of the government. The claim that these institutions failed because of risk that was forced upon them is simply false.
> 
> Secondly the institutions lowered their standards far below what the CRA asked for. In fact one of the major faults you can place at the feet of government is the failure to regulate the markets both in terms of loan standards and balance sheet requirements.
> 
> If you don't understand that private institutions are in charge of their own financial security then I don't know what to tell you. There were plenty of banks that met CRA guidelines and didn't crash. The ones that crashed generally tried to maximize their profits by betting on the AAA rating of MBS.
> 
> You are overstating the backing of F&F by the Federal government which was a mistake many investors made. They equated F&F to the federal government beyond what the law actually establishes. The bailout of F&F went beyond what the Federal government was legally required to do.
> 
> The whole reason F&F exists isn't to make financial decisions for the entire market. Those decisions to go above and beyond the federal requirements were their own. F&F was not regulated enough either btw.
> 
> Glass Steagall mattered because it played a major part in the amount of capital flowing into the bubble and the assets that were put at risk. Glass Steagall is important when talking about the size of the bubble and the need for a bailout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CRA did force them to lower the standards, it appears you admit that.  Then, however, you appear to believe that they provided more sub-prime loans than the government mandated, thus going beyond what the law established.
> 
> Ok, please tell the class what criteria they should have used to deny people sub-prime loans that the government was mandating they provide.  Color of skin maybe?  Was this CRA thing just supposed to reparations for blacks?  What am I missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No criteria is needed for them to deny people sub-prime loans beyond what the government has mandated by definition.
Click to expand...


You lost me.

Yes or no government mandated sub-prime loans be provided that were by definition under the standards of non-sub-prime loans.

Assuming you are capable of agreeing with that. And assuming you won't duck the question again.  I'll ask again.

Please tell the class what criteria they should have used to deny people sub-prime loans that the government was mandating they provide.

I'll make it easier for ya.

10k people that don't qualify for a regular loan, ask for sub-prime loans.  Government mandates 5k of those people be given sub-prime loans.  Please tell the class what criteria they should have used to deny 5k people sub-prime loans and give 5k other people sub-prime loans the government was mandating they provide.  Can't be based on risk factors like income, govco said so.  Can't deny based on minority groups, govco said so.  So please tell me what they could have used to deny Peter and allow Paul.  Random lottery?


----------



## 1776

The DOJ under Holder is again going after small local banks for not giving enough risky home loans to minorities....this is the 1990s all over again.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CRA did force them to lower the standards, it appears you admit that.  Then, however, you appear to believe that they provided more sub-prime loans than the government mandated, thus going beyond what the law established.
> 
> Ok, please tell the class what criteria they should have used to deny people sub-prime loans that the government was mandating they provide.  Color of skin maybe?  Was this CRA thing just supposed to reparations for blacks?  What am I missing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No criteria is needed for them to deny people sub-prime loans beyond what the government has mandated by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost me.
> 
> Yes or no government mandated sub-prime loans be provided that were by definition under the standards of non-sub-prime loans.
> 
> Assuming you are capable of agreeing with that. And assuming you won't duck the question again.  I'll ask again.
> 
> Please tell the class what criteria they should have used to deny people sub-prime loans that the government was mandating they provide.
Click to expand...


The government wasn't mandating that they provide them. This is the part you don't seem to get. The market all by itself started providing a lot of sub-prime loans that had nothing to do with the government regulations requiring them to offer loans to poor people. The regulations actually had little to nothing to do with the crash.

What did have a lot to do with the crash was MBS. Something that was used to help manage the risk of these sub-prime loans that were mandated. Eventually that worked well enough that the market started using MBS to push sub-prime loans to a degree that far exceeded the requirements of the CRA.

The Federal Reserve who was meant to help regulate this industry literally said that the market can regulate itself. History tells us it didn't.


----------



## Redfish

To the OP

NO, it doesn't.   Liberalism does.


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> No criteria is needed for them to deny people sub-prime loans beyond what the government has mandated by definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me.
> 
> Yes or no government mandated sub-prime loans be provided that were by definition under the standards of non-sub-prime loans.
> 
> Assuming you are capable of agreeing with that. And assuming you won't duck the question again.  I'll ask again.
> 
> Please tell the class what criteria they should have used to deny people sub-prime loans that the government was mandating they provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government wasn't mandating that they provide them.
Click to expand...


*BULLSHIT*




*"So-called "community groups" like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion.* The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group." This can cost banks great sums of money, and the "community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> The government wasn't mandating that they provide them. This is the part you don't seem to get. The market all by itself started providing a lot of sub-prime loans that had nothing to do with the government regulations requiring them to offer loans to poor people. The regulations actually had little to nothing to do with the crash.
> 
> What did have a lot to do with the crash was MBS. Something that was used to help manage the risk of these sub-prime loans that were mandated. Eventually that worked well enough that the market started using MBS to push sub-prime loans to a degree that far exceeded the requirements of the CRA.
> 
> The Federal Reserve who was meant to help regulate this industry literally said that the market can regulate itself. History tells us it didn't.



HUH?  The red highlighted stuff you typed is in 180 degree conflict with the blue stuff you typed.  The red stuff is completely wrong.  Your post is like watching a down hill mogul skier. 

It's congress's job to regulate not the fed.  That fat gay democrat, Barney Frank, was the one stopping congress from regulating the mess.


----------



## Bombur

Not all of the sub-prime loans were mandated by government. The government created regulations that forced banks to create sub-prime mortgages for poor people. When MBS became profitable there was a large market demand for sub-prime loans. Not all sub-prime loans are to poor people or those that the law was intended to help. Not all sub-prime loans were created under the regulations of the program either. 

There are a lot of regulations so I know it isn't clear when I am not differentiating between them. The Federal Reserve has regulatory authority over the balance sheets of financial institutions. That is different then the regulations concerning the creation of mortgages.


----------



## Bombur

Contumacious said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me.
> 
> Yes or no government mandated sub-prime loans be provided that were by definition under the standards of non-sub-prime loans.
> 
> Assuming you are capable of agreeing with that. And assuming you won't duck the question again.  I'll ask again.
> 
> Please tell the class what criteria they should have used to deny people sub-prime loans that the government was mandating they provide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government wasn't mandating that they provide them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"So-called "community groups" like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion.* The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group." This can cost banks great sums of money, and the "community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Your own quote even says "a certain amount of bad loans" as opposed to an infinite amount of bad loans. So the remaining question is where was the market during the bubble. Was it right around that mandated minimum or was it well above it?

Google is your friend.


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government wasn't mandating that they provide them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"So-called "community groups" like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion.* The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group." This can cost banks great sums of money, and the "community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own quote even says "a certain amount of bad loans" as opposed to an infinite amount of bad loans. So the remaining question is where was the market during the bubble. Was it right around that mandated minimum or was it well above it?
> 
> Google is your friend.
Click to expand...


"Banks have been placed in a *Catch 22 situation* by the CRA: I*f they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters,* which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters."

.


----------



## Bombur

Contumacious said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BULLSHIT*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"So-called "community groups" like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion.* The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group." This can cost banks great sums of money, and the "community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own quote even says "a certain amount of bad loans" as opposed to an infinite amount of bad loans. So the remaining question is where was the market during the bubble. Was it right around that mandated minimum or was it well above it?
> 
> Google is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Banks have been placed in a *Catch 22 situation* by the CRA: I*f they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters,* which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters."
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Smart move ignoring the issue before you.


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your own quote even says "a certain amount of bad loans" as opposed to an infinite amount of bad loans. So the remaining question is where was the market during the bubble. Was it right around that mandated minimum or was it well above it?
> 
> Google is your friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Banks have been placed in a *Catch 22 situation* by the CRA: I*f they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters,* which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters."
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smart move ignoring the issue before you.
Click to expand...


IRRELEVANT.

Banks are in the business of lending money for a profit.

If they believe that you are a bad risk they are not going to lend it.

They should NOT be coerced or compelled to make one one one single loan.

.


----------



## Bombur

Contumacious said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Banks have been placed in a *Catch 22 situation* by the CRA: I*f they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters,* which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters."
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smart move ignoring the issue before you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IRRELEVANT.
> 
> Banks are in the business of lending money for a profit.
> 
> If they believe that you are a bad risk they are not going to lend it.
> 
> They should NOT be coerced or compelled to make one one one single loan.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


They must have thought all of those sub-prime loans they made beyond the requirements of the government were going to make them a profit.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart move ignoring the issue before you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IRRELEVANT.
> 
> Banks are in the business of lending money for a profit.
> 
> If they believe that you are a bad risk they are not going to lend it.
> 
> They should NOT be coerced or compelled to make one one one single loan.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must have thought all of those sub-prime loans they made beyond the requirements of the government were going to make them a profit.
Click to expand...


What part of the fact that they did make both a short term profit for making the initial sale, and then a long term profit when we bailed them out with tax payer funds, went over your head?


----------



## Bombur

rkmbrown said:


> bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant.
> 
> Banks are in the business of lending money for a profit.
> 
> If they believe that you are a bad risk they are not going to lend it.
> 
> They should not be coerced or compelled to make one one one single loan.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they must have thought all of those sub-prime loans they made beyond the requirements of the government were going to make them a profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what part of the fact that they did make both a short term profit for making the initial sale, and then a long term profit when we bailed them out with tax payer funds, went over your head?
Click to expand...


wtf?


----------



## Contumacious

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart move ignoring the issue before you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IRRELEVANT.
> 
> Banks are in the business of lending money for a profit.
> 
> If they believe that you are a bad risk they are not going to lend it.
> 
> They should NOT be coerced or compelled to make one one one single loan.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must have thought all of those sub-prime loans they made beyond the requirements of the government were going to make them a profit.
Click to expand...


Shut the fuck up - that 's pure fiction.

.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart move ignoring the issue before you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IRRELEVANT.
> 
> Banks are in the business of lending money for a profit.
> 
> If they believe that you are a bad risk they are not going to lend it.
> 
> They should NOT be coerced or compelled to make one one one single loan.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must have thought all of those sub-prime loans they made beyond the requirements of the government were going to make them a profit.
Click to expand...


No they didn't.  They knew they were going to take it on the chin.  They were counting on the government bailing them out.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant.
> 
> Banks are in the business of lending money for a profit.
> 
> If they believe that you are a bad risk they are not going to lend it.
> 
> They should not be coerced or compelled to make one one one single loan.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they must have thought all of those sub-prime loans they made beyond the requirements of the government were going to make them a profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no they didn't.  They knew they were going to take it on the chin.  They were counting on the government bailing them out.
Click to expand...


roflmao


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> rkmbrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> they must have thought all of those sub-prime loans they made beyond the requirements of the government were going to make them a profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what part of the fact that they did make both a short term profit for making the initial sale, and then a long term profit when we bailed them out with tax payer funds, went over your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wtf?
Click to expand...


Your gonna have to provide more information than wtf, if you want a reasoned response.

Lenders make an initial profit on all loans in the form of fees.

When the US Government sends failing lenders bail out money, the lenders end up making even more profit.  Not only did we bail them out with cash we let them borrow money to buy up the failed properties at discount prices that they wanted to own, and we are paying the bad notes for CRA borrowers who don't have income, giving the failed lenders even more profit that they don't deserve, all money from the US Taxpayer.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> IRRELEVANT.
> 
> Banks are in the business of lending money for a profit.
> 
> If they believe that you are a bad risk they are not going to lend it.
> 
> They should NOT be coerced or compelled to make one one one single loan.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They must have thought all of those sub-prime loans they made beyond the requirements of the government were going to make them a profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't.  They knew they were going to take it on the chin.  They were counting on the government bailing them out.
Click to expand...


^ Nailed it.  My bet is that was the plan from the start.  Bankers (cartel) figured it was time to cash in on the dot com boom.  Run the rates to the floor, set up the market for a massive bubble, then buy it all up at discount prices with near zero interest rates and using tax dollars to boot. Barney Frank and his "committee" colluded.  Cartel cashed in by having congress puppets push the to big to fail advertising message. Like it was scripted.

Next step will be to run the rates back up, then sell us back our property at pre-crash prices that they bought with our tax dollars.  In stead of loosing trillions for the risks they took, the banks are making trillions and we are paying for it.


----------



## itfitzme

Contumacious said:


> IRRELEVANT.
> 
> Banks are in the business of lending money for a profit.
> 
> If they believe that you are a bad risk they are not going to lend it.
> 
> They should NOT be coerced or compelled to make one one one single loan.
> 
> .



Wrong in so many ways.



> a)The Congress finds that
> (1)*regulated financial institutions* are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;
> 
> (2)the convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit services; and
> 
> (3)regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.
> 
> (b)It is the purpose of this chapter to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to *encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions*



Your fundamental axioms or postulates are a) The government has no right to regulate bank, b) the free market would function properly without regulations and c) banks are required to make bad loans.

The reality of the economy is that money is a public good.  It is not a private good.  

In fact, the very founding of the US was driven by mercantile policy of England that continuously removed monies from the colonies and drove the economy to a standstill.  England also made it illegal for any of the colonies to create monies.

As well, the creation of monies is accomplished by extending credit.  Economic growth, even at a local level, is entirely dependent on an expanding local supply of monies.

If, in fact, a bank does not extend credit to the local community from which it gets deposits, it is effectively removing money from the local community instead of growing the local economy and money supply.  This is, in principle, in complete opposition to the motivations of the drafters of the Constitution.

The fact of the matter is that the free market, even credit markets, are not somehow magically stable.  It can and will kill the economy far more rapidly than it grows.  Money has no purpose except as a means of accounting in an economy.  It is, by it's very nature,  the most public of all objects.  

The fact that a bank is taking deposits from the local community clearly means the local community is sound and that there are local individuals to whom good loans may be made.

CRA does not require financial institutions to make bad loans.  

And, CRA applies to FDIC banks, banks that have accepted the FDIC and to banks that are part of the Federal Reserve system.   It applies to regulated banks.  There are many financial institutions to which it does not apply.

At the very least, as an insurance company, the FDIC and gov't has every right, by free market principles, to require insured banks.  And, as the Federal Reserve has every reason why they should monitor and regulate banks that do business with them.



OCC: Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Questions and Answers

12 CFR 228.11 - Authority, purposes, and scope. | LII / Legal Information Institute

FRB: Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Bombur

This discussion went from talking about lending poor people money to buy a home to high crimes and conspiracies to steal billions from the American people. 

I really have no interest in the latter but if anyone else wants to talk about the former I am all for it.


----------



## Contumacious

itfitzme said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> IRRELEVANT.
> 
> Banks are in the business of lending money for a profit.
> 
> If they believe that you are a bad risk they are not going to lend it.
> 
> They should NOT be coerced or compelled to make one one one single loan.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong in so many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a)The Congress finds that
> (1)*regulated financial institutions* are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;
> 
> (2)the convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit services; and
> 
> (3)regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.
> 
> (b)It is the purpose of this chapter to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to *encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fundamental axioms or postulates are a) The government has no right to regulate bank, b) the free market would function properly without regulations and c) banks are required to make bad loans.
> 
> The reality of the economy is that money is a public good.  It is not a private good.
> 
> In fact, the very founding of the US was driven by mercantile policy of England that continuously removed monies from the colonies and drove the economy to a standstill.  England also made it illegal for any of the colonies to create monies.
> 
> As well, the creation of monies is accomplished by extending credit.  Economic growth, even at a local level, is entirely dependent on an expanding local supply of monies.
> 
> If, in fact, a bank does not extend credit to the local community from which it gets deposits, it is effectively removing money from the local community instead of growing the local economy and money supply.  This is, in principle, in complete opposition to the motivations of the drafters of the Constitution.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the free market, even credit markets, are not somehow magically stable.  It can and will kill the economy far more rapidly than it grows.  Money has no purpose except as a means of accounting in an economy.  It is, by it's very nature,  the most public of all objects.
> 
> The fact that a bank is taking deposits from the local community clearly means the local community is sound and that there are local individuals to whom good loans may be made.
> 
> CRA does not require financial institutions to make bad loans.
> 
> And, CRA applies to FDIC banks, banks that have accepted the FDIC and to banks that are part of the Federal Reserve system.   It applies to regulated banks.  There are many financial institutions to which it does not apply.
> 
> At the very least, as an insurance company, the FDIC and gov't has every right, by free market principles, to require insured banks.  And, as the Federal Reserve has every reason why they should monitor and regulate banks that do business with them.
> 
> 
> 
> OCC: Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Questions and Answers
> 
> 12 CFR 228.11 - Authority, purposes, and scope. | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> FRB: Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
> 
> Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Wrong is so many ways

The Congress finds that 

1-The poor vote early and often

2-there are more poor people that there are bankers

3-if a congresscritter gets the majority of the vote they get elected to office which provides them power

4-t is perfectly alright to stick to  rich white bankers

.


----------



## Londoner

Contumacious said:


> Wrong is so many ways
> 
> The Congress finds that&#8212;
> 
> 1-The poor vote early and often
> 
> 2-there are more poor people that there are bankers
> 
> 3-if a congresscritter gets the majority of the vote they get elected to office which provides them power
> 
> 4-t is perfectly alright to stick to  rich white bankers



Mortgages became the new gold rush. They were used to create the largest Wall Street ponzi scheme ever (securities, swaps, derivatives). It's one thing for the government to help poor people buy homes, but its quite another for private firms like AIG to places a trillion dollars in bets on those transactions. The Wall Street meltdown that sank the economy happened because our great financial innovators _freely chose_ to create a profit cow out of garbage. At the end of the day, they're responsible for the bets they make. If they didn't have 100% certainty in the nature of those mortgages, than they should not have purchased and re-sold them. They created a fucking conveyor belt that turned those mortgages into fools gold to be sold all over the globe. They got rich as the bubble grew; then they hedged (profited off) the meltdown. At that the end of the day, the poor homeowner got foreclosed on, but AIG and its investors were made whole by the corporate Welfare State. 

Bankers get the most welfare of all. They get virtually free money at under 1%, then they loan it out for a king's ransom. If shit goes wrong, they get bailed out by Uncle Sucker, then they foreclose on the poor homeowner so they have more homes to sell to the next round of idiots.

If you want to see how to put the non-credit-worthy into homes, watch this. (We know you won't). Here you see how Bush gets rid of all the lending regulations that prevented poor people from buying homes. Why'd he do it? The economy was dead. After 20 years of debt-fueled consumption, the American consumer was tapped out. The only way to pump money into the economy was by tapping into the non-credit worthy, which Bush lays out carefully below. The strategy was brilliant. Once they got all the poor morons into homes on sub-primes, ol' Alan Greenspan raised the interest rates to flush the idiots out . . . so now the banks had a fresh round of competitively priced homes for the next round. But this was more than simply a mortgage or housing phenomena. When people are buying homes, they flock to stores en masse to furnish those homes - this increased spending is vital to economic growth. And then there's the uptick in home/condo construction, which also increases consumption. And then there's all the consumption that occurs as people's home values go up. People feel richer, so they spend more - and they borrow more against the home. Housing has often been used to fuel economic growth, but Bush turned into a criminal art form . . . and now we're paying the price.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8]Home Ownership and President Bush - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Contumacious

Londoner said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong is so many ways
> 
> The Congress finds that
> 
> 1-The poor vote early and often
> 
> 2-there are more poor people that there are bankers
> 
> 3-if a congresscritter gets the majority of the vote they get elected to office which provides them power
> 
> 4-t is perfectly alright to stick to  rich white bankers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortgages became the new gold rush. They were used to create the largest Wall Street ponzi scheme ever (securities, swaps, derivatives). It's one thing for the government to help poor people buy homes, but its quite another for private firms like AIG to places a trillion dollars in bets on those transactions. ]
Click to expand...


WHY are they different things? 

You forced Mr Lender to lend to a deadbeat?

How does the banker make a buck in the transaction?

.


----------



## Londoner

Contumacious said:


> WHY are they different things?
> 
> You forced Mr Lender to lend to a deadbeat?
> 
> How does the banker make a buck in the transaction?
> 
> .



Fair point.

I'm not talking about the loans themselves, but who bought the loans and what they did with them _free of Government intervention._

Nobody forced _private_ Wall Street firms to build a trillion dollar profit industry from a corruptly managed mortgage industry. At the end of the day, those Wall Street firms did not properly evaluate those mortgages. If AIG lacked crucial information about the deadbeat's ability to service the corrupt government mortgage, than they should have stayed away. However, they did the opposite. Wall Street _wanted_ those mortgages because they were able to turn them into gold. This is why so many non-government mortgage companies got in the game (-I'm talking about the 65% of the mortgages sold to deadbeats _not because of government_, but because they could sell those mortgages to Wall Street without assuming any liability if the loan became non-performing.  Meaning: deregulation, by protecting the loan's originator from liability if the deadbeat failed to service the loan, removed the entire mortgage industry's incentive to loan exclusively to credit-worthy borrowers). 

Things like the CRA worked fine for decades until crucial regulations were removed by Clinton and Bush, who both caved to Wall Street pressure ("donations"). Anyway, it sounds like your news sources haven't talked much about Bear, Lehman, and AIG - the companies that very directly fueled the mortgage explosion but had nothing to do with the government loans you're talking about. Had the problem been just about government-influenced loans to deadbeats, it would have been containable. But Wall Street got involved, which created a fee based incentive system that pulled in the entire mortgage industry, which meant that over 50% of the loans made to deadbeats had nothing to do with government. At the end of the day, Wall Street should not have purchased those mortgages if they didn't have certainty about the people who received those loans.


----------



## Contumacious

Londoner said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY are they different things?
> 
> You forced Mr Lender to lend to a deadbeat?
> 
> How does the banker make a buck in the transaction?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point.
> 
> I'm not talking about the loans themselves, but who bought the loans and what they did with them _free of Government intervention._
> 
> Nobody forced _private_ Wall Street firms to build a trillion dollar profit industry from a corruptly managed mortgage industry. At the end of the day, those Wall Street firms did not properly evaluate those mortgages. If AIG lacked crucial information about the deadbeat's ability to service the corrupt government mortgage, than they should have stayed away. .
Click to expand...


Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally?

ACORN wouldn't have accused them of discriminating against the brothers?

"Over the past thirty years or so, *ACORN *has been a major player in what can be described as a legalized extortion racket administered by the Federal Reserve and the Comptroller of the Currency, among other federal government agencies. The racket started with Jimmy Carters 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which empowered "community groups" like ACORN to effectively extort billions (yes, billions with a "b") of dollars from banks. Much of the money is then used for ACORNs political activities, which involve the mass registration of Democratic Party voters; supporting left-wing political candidates at all levels of government; organizing rallies, protests, and lobbying efforts for various planks of its "Peoples Platform," which is essentially the same as the Socialist Party Platform of 1922".

.


----------



## kaz

Londoner said:


> They were used to create the largest Wall Street ponzi scheme ever (securities, swaps, derivatives)



Those aren't "ponzi" schemes.  If you want to slam Wall Street because you trust government, that's up to you.  But at least use words that make sense.


----------



## Londoner

Contumacious said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY are they different things?
> 
> You forced Mr Lender to lend to a deadbeat?
> 
> How does the banker make a buck in the transaction?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point.
> 
> I'm not talking about the loans themselves, but who bought the loans and what they did with them _free of Government intervention._
> 
> Nobody forced _private_ Wall Street firms to build a trillion dollar profit industry from a corruptly managed mortgage industry. At the end of the day, those Wall Street firms did not properly evaluate those mortgages. If AIG lacked crucial information about the deadbeat's ability to service the corrupt government mortgage, than they should have stayed away. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally?
> 
> ACORN wouldn't have accused them of discriminating against the brothers?
> 
> "Over the past thirty years or so, *ACORN *has been a major player in what can be described as a legalized extortion racket administered by the Federal Reserve and the Comptroller of the Currency, among other federal government agencies. The racket started with Jimmy Carter&#8217;s 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which empowered "community groups" like ACORN to effectively extort billions (yes, billions with a "b") of dollars from banks. Much of the money is then used for ACORN&#8217;s political activities, which involve the mass registration of Democratic Party voters; supporting left-wing political candidates at all levels of government; organizing rallies, protests, and lobbying efforts for various planks of its "People&#8217;s Platform," which is essentially the same as the Socialist Party Platform of 1922".
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about the lenders, nor am I talking about Fannie and Freddie.

I'm talking about the private Wall Street firms who purchased those loans when there was no pressure from government or ACORN to do so. You're not separating the Mortgage Lenders from the Wall Street institutions who freely bought those mortgages and converted them into securities.


----------



## gnarlylove

Londoner said:


> At the end of the day, they're responsible for the bets they make.



This is how we think society operates. When people make poor decisions they deserve to bear the burden. Indeed, who else could do better at bearing this burden than people making a million to 20M a year?--not to mention their millions in bonuses! The answer is few.

However, we know those who bet against themselves are not generally acting responsible. In this case it involved deceiving millions of folks in order to turn higher profits. 4 million homes were foreclosed on leaving many families homeless and this precise event meant the bankers won. If the families managed to pay the loans the bankers also won. Yet the money the bank "earned" mostly went to the board of directors and eventually gave Jamie Diamon a quaint 5 million dollar raise--roundly earned!




Londoner said:


> At that the end of the day, the poor homeowner got foreclosed on, but AIG and its investors were made whole by the corporate Welfare State.



Exactly. FOX news and Conservative media machines make it seem like poor people are entitled pricks while NEVER MENTIONING how bankers and social elite are above reproach, above laws. They can't go to jail even if they steal from millions of Americans by fraudulent loans they know were not affordable. When underwriters were questioning supervisors about fraudulent applications early on they were told to make it so that they could qualify--reducing basic standards. In other words, forget the fraud and let's commit our own fraud. This came down from above, it was not a decision underwriters who approved the loans made.
This is contrary to getting what you deserve, a sentiment widely expressed by staunch capitalists/conservatives who say the poor have earned their spot at the bottom. Why not the banker?

I guess the reason bankers earned so much is they have earned a spot as gods in our civilization. Normal laws of earning and capitalism seem to pass them by and we are OK with it. Fine capitalists who we aspire to be even! Whether they fuck over tax payers by billions upon billions (7.7 trillion) they are Job Creators. Somehow they take from us WAY MORE than they give and somehow they are infallible. Protect the interests of millionaires and convince the public of the same by convincing them the alternative--caring for those in poverty--is a scam. This is contrary to what you deserve, a sentiment widely expressed by staunch capitalists/conservatives who say the poor have earned their spot at the bottom. Why not the banker? Because they've earned enough money that they only deserve more money, even if they fuck over a significant portion of Americans in one way or another.

HA! WHAT A FUCKING CIRCUS! 



Londoner said:


> If you want to see how to put the non-credit-worthy into homes, watch this. (We know you won't).
> Home Ownership and President Bush - YouTube


Well said, of course they won't! It would mean stepping outside their own perception of reality. Of course they don't need to look at other perspectives because they already know their's is the right one even if it is secretly working against their own interests. That's how billions of dollars spent annually on Public Relations (ie propaganda) ends up dumbing Americans so they perceive a simple enemy: the poor and entitlement folks. The common goal is to extinguish all opposition. 

That's not humanity. That's not our national interest. National interest involved the interests of all of those in the nation, not just whomever you wish. That's warfare on ourselves and we're waging it! FOX* and *all the leftwing sources are out to incapacitate our understanding. Pit us against ourselves and the reckless 1% wins the day as we scream at one another.


----------



## Londoner

kaz said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were used to create the largest Wall Street ponzi scheme ever (securities, swaps, derivatives)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't "ponzi" schemes.  If you want to slam Wall Street because you trust government, that's up to you.  But at least use words that make sense.
Click to expand...


Are you fucking kidding me? 

_A Ponzi scheme is a form of pyramid scheme in which new investors must continually be sucked in at the bottom to support the investors at the top. In this case, new borrowers must continually be sucked in to support the creditors at the top.

*When the banks ran out of creditworthy borrowers, they had to turn to uncreditworthy &#8220;subprime&#8221; borrowers; and to avoid losses from default, they moved these risky mortgages off their books by bundling them into &#8220;securities&#8221; and selling them to investors. To induce investors to buy, these securities were then &#8220;insured&#8221; with credit default swaps. But the housing bubble itself was another Ponzi scheme, and eventually there were no more borrowers to be sucked in at the bottom who could afford the ever-inflating home prices. When the subprime borrowers quit paying, the investors quit buying mortgage-backed securities. The banks were then left holding their own suspect paper; and without triple-A ratings, there is little chance that buyers for this &#8220;junk&#8221; will be found. The crisis is not, however, in the economy itself, which is fundamentally sound &#8211; or would be with a proper credit system to oil the wheels of production. The crisis is in the banking system, which can no longer cover up the shell game it has played for three centuries with other people&#8217;s money*._ - http://www.globalresearch.ca/credit...meltdown-and-derivative-disaster-du-jour/8634


----------



## kaz

Londoner said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were used to create the largest Wall Street ponzi scheme ever (securities, swaps, derivatives)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't "ponzi" schemes.  If you want to slam Wall Street because you trust government, that's up to you.  But at least use words that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> _A Ponzi scheme is a form of pyramid scheme in which new investors must continually be sucked in at the bottom to support the investors at the top. In this case, new borrowers must continually be sucked in to support the creditors at the top.
> 
> *When the banks ran out of creditworthy borrowers, they had to turn to uncreditworthy &#8220;subprime&#8221; borrowers; and to avoid losses from default, they moved these risky mortgages off their books by bundling them into &#8220;securities&#8221; and selling them to investors. To induce investors to buy, these securities were then &#8220;insured&#8221; with credit default swaps. But the housing bubble itself was another Ponzi scheme, and eventually there were no more borrowers to be sucked in at the bottom who could afford the ever-inflating home prices. When the subprime borrowers quit paying, the investors quit buying mortgage-backed securities. The banks were then left holding their own suspect paper; and without triple-A ratings, there is little chance that buyers for this &#8220;junk&#8221; will be found. The crisis is not, however, in the economy itself, which is fundamentally sound &#8211; or would be with a proper credit system to oil the wheels of production. The crisis is in the banking system, which can no longer cover up the shell game it has played for three centuries with other people&#8217;s money*._ - Credit Default Swaps: Evolving Financial Meltdown and Derivative Disaster Du Jour | Global Research
Click to expand...


What you wrote in red as their motivation is preposterous.  Banks made sub-prime loans because the Clinton administration decided it was the "American Dream" to own a home and they threatened to Spanish inquisition them if they didn't do it.  W continued that policy.  And the Fed pumped them with virtually interest free cash to fund it.

Basically you just contorted their motivation to make it sound like a "ponzi scheme."  But that they were doing it to avoid losses from default is preposterous and unsupportable.  The housing bubble is what happens when lawyers force business to do their bidding, and the finger pointing afterwards is what happens when lawyers screw the pooch and it doesn't work.


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> Banks made sub-prime loans because the Clinton administration decided it was the "American Dream" to own a home and they threatened to Spanish inquisition them if they didn't do it.  W continued that policy.  And the Fed pumped them with virtually interest free cash to fund it.



So the banks bend to the will of the government? Yeah I guess that's how you might view it but bankers make far more money than any government official. They pay to get legislation they write up adopted. They donate to campaigns of favored politicians. Those politicians are not looking out for you. They are looking out for those who helped them get elected.

Who lost in this scheme anyway? The way you make it sound the Banks loose. Do you think the banks are doing poorly because they almost drove global market off a cliff? Nope. They are doing better than ever. 91 billion in bonuses just over 2 months ago

So who suffered? Those who cannot afford homes experience the biggest loss. It's good you can spin this to be a failing of the government. Blaming the government is easy, especially when the government fucks up every time. And with such narrow interests represented, it's no wonder we typically see pathetic governing.


----------



## Londoner

kaz said:


> The housing bubble is what happens when lawyers force business to do their bidding, and the finger pointing afterwards is what happens when lawyers screw the pooch and it doesn't work.





Bear, Lehman and AIG bought those mortgages, turned them into securities, then insured them, then sold them all over the globe.

The global money that poured into these mortgage back securities was unreal. The pension funds that bought these securities en mass were not motivated by putting poor people in houses. They were motivated by the returns that these securities promised, and the Wall Street firms were motivated by the profits made from selling these securities. They couldn't create mortgages fast enough to satisfy the global thirst for the returns these products promised. Why are you denying the amount of money they made from these products?

What explains the behavior of those firms who purchased the bad loans, made billions in profits converting them into securities, but were not operating under a government mandate? We're not talking about Fannie/Freddie here. Meaning: the FOX News version of events leaves too much of the story unexplained. It under-reports the incentives Wall Street gave to mortgage originators. 

Why are you still not separating the lenders from the private Wall Street firms who turned those loans into fool's gold. AIG was under no compunction from the US Government. They participated in the securities and derivatives business because they were making massive profits in the beginning, as housing values were rising. They could have easily passed on those mortgages, but the money was too good. This is why everybody got in the game. Decades of neoliberal tax policy had left tons of surplus wealth on top, all of it looking for sound, safe investments. This is why so much money poured into these products. A gold rush mentality formed around these mortgage backed securities, and Wall Street firms couldn't sell them fast enough. You're trying to make the whole story about the bank that was forced to lend money to the poor black family, but you refuse to talk about the banks that participated independently of government mandate, or the entire Wall Street securities and derivatives industry created outside of government mandate. Look who got rich off this scheme, and then look who got foreclosed on . . . and you will understand who benefited from this criminally inflated and very predatory asset bubble.

Stop blaming Clinton for the bubble that burst on Bush's watch. Are you now saying we can't blame Bush for a crisis that happened on his watch, after he had been in office 8 years, 6 of which had GOP control of House and Senate. Listen to what Bush says below, especially about engaging Fannie & Freddie far more than Clinton ever dreamed. Listen to his words. This was part of Bush's ownership society. Thatcher tried the same thing. The theory is that if you give people a large taxable asset, they will have real skin in the game and be more likely to vote Republican. But the real upside for Bush was that the housing bubble created massive spending across different sectors and helped fuel an economy terribly weakened by 20 years of consumer debt, 20 years of losing middle class manufacturing jobs to China ... along with the bursting of the tech bubble and 9/11. Housing and Mortgage back securities became the only games in town; they promised (wrongly, but they did promise) solid, dependable returns. Greenspan lowered rates to the point of chasing money into these products. It was an orgy of profit built atop money that was fraudulently loaned into a dead economy on the backs of morons. 

All you need to do is listen to Bush's words below. He wanted all Americans to buy homes, and borrow money against their homes so they could spend on main street and save the economy from long standing recessionary pressures. It looks like they were trying every trick in the book to stimulate the economy. If you want to blame government, check out the regulations surrounding Leverage. Government was asleep at the switch and over-trusted these firms to protect their investors. It allowed Wall Street to make huge profits selling insurance products that they didn't have the capital to cover. And when everything blew up, they skated with a bailout, leaving the consumers of houses and securities to wallow in the fraudulent aftermath of a ponzi scheme. But the larger picture is what matters. At the end of the day, the Bush administration, by not cooling the bubble when it became apparent that home values had become dangerously inflated, bankrupted a generation of homeowners and set in motion job losses that this country has not seen for over 70 years, and we now have over a decade of de-leveraging ahead of us as the overhang of consumer debt is reduced. But nothing is Bush's fault. Everything that happened on Bush's watch from 9/11 to the 2008 meltdown is Clinton's fault. And you blame Obama for not taking accountability? Your side invented blaming the previous president. Listen to Bush's words and stop soft-peddling his role. He didn't continue a previous policy. He put it on steroids and declared wild west lending and borrowing to an extent this nation has never seen. Own it for once. Take the accountability of what happened on your president's watch  . . . for once just take accountability.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8]Home Ownership and President Bush - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY are they different things?
> 
> You forced Mr Lender to lend to a deadbeat?
> 
> How does the banker make a buck in the transaction?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point.
> 
> I'm not talking about the loans themselves, but who bought the loans and what they did with them _free of Government intervention._
> 
> Nobody forced _private_ Wall Street firms to build a trillion dollar profit industry from a corruptly managed mortgage industry. At the end of the day, those Wall Street firms did not properly evaluate those mortgages. If AIG lacked crucial information about the deadbeat's ability to service the corrupt government mortgage, than they should have stayed away. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally?
> 
> ACORN wouldn't have accused them of discriminating against the brothers?
> 
> "Over the past thirty years or so, *ACORN *has been a major player in what can be described as a legalized extortion racket administered by the Federal Reserve and the Comptroller of the Currency, among other federal government agencies. The racket started with Jimmy Carters 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which empowered "community groups" like ACORN to effectively extort billions (yes, billions with a "b") of dollars from banks. Much of the money is then used for ACORNs political activities, which involve the mass registration of Democratic Party voters; supporting left-wing political candidates at all levels of government; organizing rallies, protests, and lobbying efforts for various planks of its "Peoples Platform," which is essentially the same as the Socialist Party Platform of 1922".
> 
> .
Click to expand...

"Let's clarify the causes of current circumstances. Ask yourself the following questions about the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act and/or the role of Fannie & Freddie:

 Did the 1977 legislation, or any other legislation since, require banks to not verify income or payment history of mortgage applicants?

 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. How was this caused by either CRA or GSEs ?

 What about 'No Money Down' Mortgages (0% down payments) ? Were they required by the CRA? Fannie? Freddie?

 Explain the shift in Loan to value from 80% to 120%: What was it in the Act that changed this traditional lending requirement?

 Did any Federal legislation require real estate agents and mortgage writers to use the same corrupt appraisers again and again? How did they manage to always come in at exactly the purchase price, no matter what? Did the CRA require banks to develop automated underwriting (AU) systems that emphasized speed rather than accuracy in order to process the greatest number of mortgage apps as quickly as possible?

 How exactly did legislation force Moody's, S&Ps and Fitch to rate junk paper as Triple AAA?

 What about piggy back loans? Were banks required by Congress to lend the first mortgage and do a HELOC for the down payment -- at the same time?

 Internal bank memos showed employees how to cheat the system to get poor mortgages prospects approved that shouldn't have been: Titled How to Get an 'Iffy' loan approved at JPM Chase. (Was circulating that memo also a FNM/FRE/CRA requirement?)"

The Big Picture

*Do you see how the richest 1% of citizens use the power of government to enhance private fraud and then blame the same government when their crimes become too glaring to hide?*


----------



## Andylusion

francoHFW said:


> Voodoo wrecked and IS WRECKING the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008- while the rich have quadrupled their wealth...



I am making more this year, than ever before in my life.   My mutual fund investments, made 23% increase last year.


> 1. WORKERS past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labors share of income (1992 = 100%):1950 = 101%1960 = 105%1970 = 105%1980 = 105%  Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 13% drop since 1980
> 
> 2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.Share of National Income going to Top 10%:1950 = 35%1960 = 34%1970 = 34%1980 = 34%  Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50% TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50%  Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% An increase of 16% since Reagan.
> 
> 5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%and the bottom 80%:1980 = 10%2003 = 56%A 5.6 times increase.



When I read this and it says "share of" and "gap between", my question always is "So what? Why should I care?"

Last year I made $20K.   The year before I made $12K (very bad year for me).    This year I'm making $25K.

If the richest 1% were making $100K, what difference would that make to me?  If the richest were making $200K, what difference does that make?   If they made $200 Million, what difference does it make to me?  If they made $200 Billion, what difference does that make to me?

The answer to all of those is.... nothing.    If Warren Buffet get's kicked out of Berkshire Hathaway, and ends up working as a WalMart Greeter, for minimum wage, what difference does that make to me?

Nothing.    My life will not be impacted, whether the rich end up making trillions more, or trillions less.     Them doing worse, will not result in me doing better.   Nor does them doing better, result in me doing worse.

So as far as I can tell, the absolute only reason that people would care, or need to know what "share of the income" they are getting, or what "gap in income" there is, is if they are motivated by greed and envy of those doing better than themselves.

I have numerous friends in high school, that today make as much money in one year, as it takes me to earn in 10 years.   It never occurred to me, that I should care about the gap in our income, or what larger share in the wealth they have.

In fact, I want EVERYONE to do better.   That includes those wealthy people from my high school years.   When they do better, I'm ecstatic.     Why should anyone want someone else to do worse?



> 3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.1950 = 6.0%1960 = 7.0%1970 = 8.5%1980 = 10.0%  Reagan1982 = 11.2%  Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
> 
> 4. Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50%  Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95%A 45% increase after 1980.



Due to a cultural shift, not because of some economic factor.   Many people don't realize that in the early 1970, and before, it was considered "evil" to have debt.  Not just 'bad', but actually EVIL to have debt.  Even Paul Krugman commented on this in his article

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=0

And there are many today, who have worked very hard to say that debt is good, and indeed the culture believes this.   And it's not just consumer debt either.   I've had people tell me that it's impossible to run a business without debt, never mind the fact thousands of well know companies have operated debt free since their creation, nevertheless people deny it.

Yet I myself am living debt free.  I have not earned more than $20K in a single year, for the last 15 years.   Yet I have no debt.  Owe no one anywhere anything.

The reason consumer debt as gone up, is because in the late 1960s, and early 1970s, we ditched our moral values, which included debt is bad.  We embraced the "get whatever you want, when you want it, on credit".   As a result, the debt increased, and savings fell.   Has nothing to do with economics.   Has to do with people refusing to live within their means.  That's all there is too it.



> 6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.The Probabilityy of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:1945 = 12%1958 = 6%1990 = 3%2000 = 2%A 10% Decrease.



But is that by choice, or by economic policy?

Tell that to Robertson, who was a drunk guy working at a bar, and started whittling duck callers on his back pouch.     I guess he missed the memo.

I just heard the story a married couple who came from Vietnam.  They came here as students, and went to the University of Alabama, both got degrees in engineering.   Both now make $120 each, for a household income of $240K a year..... from Vietnam....  learned English on the fly.... 

You tell them the American Dream is gone.  Tell Robertson the dream is gone.   Tell Nick Woodman, who created GoPro, that the American Dream is gone.   He started off selling shell necklaces, to gain some money, and started working on his camera.

See, the problem isn't that the America Dream is gone.   That's not the issue.   The issue is that we have normalized stupidity.

You want to be broke for life?   Just divorce your wife and find a new one every few years.   I've met a dozen people right now, that lost nearly everything they built up, because they wanted to sleep around, or because "the ol grey mare just ain't what she used to be", and all that crap.

Or here's another one.  We have moronically told our kids they can do anything they want.    Then our kids go get a decree in Art History, or Music Therapy, and end up working at Burger King.

Have you ever wondered why Asians routinely out perform White Americans?    It's because they get degrees in the hard sciences, instead of a Drama major, and end up making $26K.     The two people from Vietnam, didn't come here and get a degree in Music, and then complain their $26K wage proves the American Dream is dead.  They got an engineering degree, with a $120K wage, and said it's alive.

And lastly, what about all those people who simply refuse to advance themselves?     When I was in high school, working at Wendy's, we had a lady show up who said openly she only intended to work until she qualified for welfare again, and even gave us the date.  Sure enough, on that date she stopped showing up for work.

Is that because the American Dream is dead, or because she made a choice?    75% of all McDonald's Franchise owners, started off making minimum wage, and worked their way up.    Clearly, you can advance, even from the minimum wage.

But it requires you to make that choice.   Choosing to stay poor, is not a result of bad economic policies.... or maybe it is, in that we pay people to not work.   But it most certainly is not because we prevent people from advancing.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Technological progress doesn't mean income inequality doesn't matter. There was massive increases in technological progress leading up to the early 1900's but the depressed working classes in Italy, Germany, and Russia were still used to help set up dictators and push nations towards war in large part because of income inequality.
> 
> These days nations protect themselves from such eventualities and some people in the US consider it to be socialism when in reality it is a desperate attempt to prevent real socialism from taking over.
> 
> The end goal is not equality but market economies that don't concentrate the income gains into just one class of people.
> 
> Income inequality isn't just a problem that exists in a bubble. It is something that is caused by other problems. Namely a weak labor market that doesn't just lead to income inequality but unemployment and inefficiency and slower growth in demand. This growth in demand becomes very important as we look at our current economic problems because it is rather clear at this point that US consumption has helped support global economic production increases for decades but it has been artificially propped up by debt and trade imbalances. Eventually this tactic would stop working and the entire world is starting to face the consequences. Demand has to grow with Production increases. This is a very hard fact that supply-siders don't seem to get.



Inequality has in fact pushed some nations to war.   But that doesn't mean that inequality is bad, only that greed and envy of others who have more, is bad.

Further, it is impossible to have a system of 'freedom' in which wealth is not concentrated.

If you use your freedom to blow your money, you'll end up poor, no matter what your income is.

If I use my freedom to save my money, and invest my money, I'll end up rich, no matter what my income is.

You realize that just saving $100 a month, in a mutual fund, from 20 to retirement, will result in you being a millionaire, or close to it?

It goes back to the Pinball people, verses the Beer Pong people.

This is based on Warren Buffets history.   When Buffet was in high school, he was working a paper route, and saved up money to buy a Pinball machine, which he placed in a local business.    He invested his money into making more money.

Now what do most people do?   I can't speak for everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do buy a keg of beer, and go to someone's home whose parents were away, and have a party, and play beer pong all night.   They would consume all their money, and have a party.

Now, there is nothing wrong with what either of what these two groups did.   There's nothing wrong with investing your money and buying a PinBall machine, or buying kegs of beer, and playing beer pong.

But the fact is, Buffet is not one of the worlds most wealthy men, because of some economic system, or government policy, or "class-system", or anything else.   Buffet is wealthy and has concentrated wealth, because he was wise and invested his earnings, into making more earnings.

The reason that most people are poor, is because they spend every dollar they have, and consume their income.  Now again, there's nothing wrong with that.

But there is something wrong with making choices, and then complaining that other people have "concentrated wealth", because they invested instead of spent, and you spent instead of invested.

When an individual makes a choice that makes them poor, it's not another persons fault for not doing the same.  That's just greed and envy again.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw, your stock increases offer nothing to half the country that doesn't play that game. It's odd how about 59% of Americans will experience poverty and that coincides with the stock ownership.

So as people like yourself and make money, it takes away money from those at the bottom. That's why it matters that the top 1% earn so much more. There is a limited amount of money in the system at one time and since 40% of the _global_ wealth is owned by the top 1%, that leaves a lot less for the rest to share doesn't it? Not in your world since you have capital to back up your capital investments. What about the average household whose debt is exceeding their annual income now? I guess these people are to be written off in your equation and ignored "since they clearly haven't shown the earning power."

This American Dream is propaganda and advertisement for the US. While a few can break through the bonds of poverty, what tends to happen for those in poverty is they stay there. Not because a lack of motivation (poverty sucks!!!) but because a sheer lack of opportunity and quality education.

Read here about what American's think of the American Dream now-a-days. It ain't what it use to be...


			
				MetLife said:
			
		

> The survey, MetLife&#8217;s 5th annual, uncovers emerging trends that show Americans are
> less concerned with material issues, and that life&#8217;s traditional markers of
> success &#8212; getting married, buying a house, having a family, building wealth &#8212; do not
> matter as much today. Rather, achieving a sense of personal fulfillment is more
> important toward realizing the American Dream than accumulating material wealth.



This tells the story that Americans have forsaken the idea of personal wealth (car, house family ownership) and is being traded in for a more feasible alternative: accepting what you have and aiming to not be a pay check away from poverty/couch surfing.

The economic policy are so evidently stacked against the poor its just dim-wittedness to miss it. War on the Poor is real and is happening. To deny it is to protect yourself in your isolated bubble of your well-to-do affluent friends. Such snobbery is easy to come by when poverty is a concept and not a reality for yourself.


----------



## gnarlylove

I also wanted to challenge your notion of Absolute Truth is Real.

Truth is a function of language. And language is a product of humanity. That isn't to say truth isn't useful but it can also lead to harm when you fight for Truth (capital T Truth) over someone's own life or right to pursue liberty. Then you value a made up thing over a concrete thing. You are committing the fallacy of reification.

Richard Rorty offers a succinct defense of this claim on pg 5:
Truth cannot be out there&#8212;cannot exist independently of the human mind&#8212;because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.

I don't expect you to agree, but given how I've been mentally damaged by thinking the Truth is out there is worth sharing. It's a tool used to get you to do things in the name of Truth. I always say capital T Truth is just "recommendation on steroids." Once you move beyond Truth you can start realizing we are animals in need. That all we have is each other and there is no Truth going to rescue us. We die and that's it. So either help others attain liberation or pursue your selfish interest. Your choice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Androw, your stock increases offer nothing to half the country that doesn't play that game. It's odd how about 59% of Americans will experience poverty and that coincides with the stock ownership.
> 
> So as people like yourself and make money, it takes away money from those at the bottom. That's why it matters that the top 1% earn so much more. There is a limited amount of money in the system at one time and since 40% of the _global_ wealth is owned by the top 1%, that leaves a lot less for the rest to share doesn't it? Not in your world since you have capital to back up your capital investments. What about the average household whose debt is exceeding their annual income now? I guess these people are to be written off in your equation and ignored "since they clearly haven't shown the earning power."
> 
> This American Dream is propaganda and advertisement for the US. While a few can break through the bonds of poverty, what tends to happen for those in poverty is they stay there. Not because a lack of motivation (poverty sucks!!!) but because a sheer lack of opportunity and quality education.
> 
> Read here about what American's think of the American Dream now-a-days. It ain't what it use to be...
> 
> 
> 
> MetLife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The survey, MetLifes 5th annual, uncovers emerging trends that show Americans are
> less concerned with material issues, and that lifes traditional markers of
> success  getting married, buying a house, having a family, building wealth  do not
> matter as much today. Rather, achieving a sense of personal fulfillment is more
> important toward realizing the American Dream than accumulating material wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This tells the story that Americans have forsaken the idea of personal wealth (car, house family ownership) and is being traded in for a more feasible alternative: accepting what you have and aiming to not be a pay check away from poverty/couch surfing.
> 
> The economic policy are so evidently stacked against the poor its just dim-wittedness to miss it. War on the Poor is real and is happening. To deny it is to protect yourself in your isolated bubble of your well-to-do affluent friends. Such snobbery is easy to come by when poverty is a concept and not a reality for yourself.
Click to expand...


*So as people like yourself and make money, it takes away money from those at the bottom. *

How? Show all your work.


----------



## gnarlylove

Todders, you simply don't read what is written--a typical strategy of yours. You are commonly unable to make basic connections. This is not a criticism, it is an observation.

There is a limited amount of money in the system at one time and since 40% of the global wealth is owned by the top 1%, that leaves a lot less for the rest to share doesn't it?

Take 100%. That represents the whole money supply (not credit ). if 40% is owned by the top 1% how much does that leave the 99%? 60% to divvy up among the rest of the population (99%). If you need to see the math done you take 100-40=60.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> There were housing bubbles in other nations in 97 too. There are a lot of reasons why there can be a bubble starting in 97 but a lot of things happened between 97 and the crash that caused this historic bubble besides what was going on in 97.
> 
> There is no doubt that F&F played a part in the MBS problem. The thing is the market is not set up to depend on them to make all the decisions. The market is not set up to allow a government institution to be a ratings agency or manage the risk portfolios of these financial institutions.
> 
> The risk that was taken on by these institutions was in no way limited to what the government was mandating. I have said this multiple times and it is important. The demand for sub-prime mortgages far outstripped the requirements of the government. The claim that these institutions failed because of risk that was forced upon them is simply false.
> 
> Secondly the institutions lowered their standards far below what the CRA asked for. In fact one of the major faults you can place at the feet of government is the failure to regulate the markets both in terms of loan standards and balance sheet requirements.
> 
> If you don't understand that private institutions are in charge of their own financial security then I don't know what to tell you. There were plenty of banks that met CRA guidelines and didn't crash. The ones that crashed generally tried to maximize their profits by betting on the AAA rating of MBS.
> 
> You are overstating the backing of F&F by the Federal government which was a mistake many investors made. They equated F&F to the federal government beyond what the law actually establishes. The bailout of F&F went beyond what the Federal government was legally required to do.
> 
> The whole reason F&F exists isn't to make financial decisions for the entire market. Those decisions to go above and beyond the federal requirements were their own. F&F was not regulated enough either btw.
> 
> Glass Steagall mattered because it played a major part in the amount of capital flowing into the bubble and the assets that were put at risk. Glass Steagall is important when talking about the size of the bubble and the need for a bailout.



*Name these reasons*.   Saying 'there could be', doesn't mean anything.   If there was some other reason, name the reason.   I'm open to this theory, but you have to provide something more than an ambiguous "something somewhere might have done it".

*As for other countries*, yes, and if you wish to look at individual policies of those countries, and analysis the cause of those bubbles, fine.   A few countries did have bubbles that started in the late 90s, early 2000s.   Whether they started exactly in 1997, as our did, I don't know, but that wouldn't make any difference to the cause of our bubble, anymore than it would make a different to the cause of their bubble.

*Doesn't matter how the market is setup*, or not.   Those institutions, by virtue of the fact they are the largest players in the market, and by virtue of the fact they have the backing of the Federal Government, do influence the market, whether "the market is setup" to be influenced or not.

Let me give you a clear cut example.    Name the rating agencies.  Can you name them?   Standards & Poor (S&P), Moody's, and Fitch.   Right?   You ask most people what the rating agencies are, you'll get these three.   S&P, Moody's and Fitch.

But those are not the only rating agencies.   There are actually dozens of rating agencies.     And there were dozens of rating agencies before.   It was the "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization", issued by the Government, which forced out competition.    Even though many rating agencies were perfectly fine in giving out their ratings, since they didn't have the government seal of approval, they lost out to the big three.

But the NRSRO seal, was only required for government purchases of government bonds and securities.   Had nothing to do with private markets.   Yet the private markets followed suit.

In fact, consider this.   Before the NRSRO was passed in the 1970s, all rating agencies were running on the buyer pays model, where the buyer of the security, paid to have it rated.     But after the government seal of approval, and the demand moved towards getting securities rated by the government approved rating agencies, and because of that the big three moved towards an issuer pays model.

Before, the issuer of the securities never paid to have their securities rated, because it was the customer who determined whose rating they wanted to use, and thus they paid to have it rated by who they wanted.

But since the government gave their seal of approval, the agencies knew they were in demand.    They started charging the issuer of the securities, knowing they had no choice but to pay, or their securities wouldn't be bought, without a government approved rating agency giving the rating, even private buyers wouldn't buy their securities.

None of that was intended.   Nor is there any law, requiring the private market to follow the public.    Yet the market follows government... and always has, and always will.    It's simply the nature of the beast.

Same with Fannie and Freddie.  Doesn't matter that there's no requirement to follow Freddie and Fannie.  They have the influence, and backing of the government, and the private market does follow them.  Period.

*As far as banks that met CRA guidelines, and didn't crash.... who?*

Because can I name several that met those guidelines perfectly, and crashed really hard.    CountryWide, was following CRA guides perfectly, as far as I can tell.   Bear Stearns was an avid follower of the CRA.    Wachovia, was completely in line with the government, from everything I read on the matter.


    Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the GSE programs. 

    When necessaryin cases where applicants have no established credit history, for exampleCountrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the GSEs.​
This report was issued in 2000 by the Fannie Mae Foundation.   It is widely cited and vetted.  There are numerous books that detail how Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, supported exactly this.   Countrywide, is a clear cut example of a bank following the government influence, and following the CRA to the letter.

*Glass Steagall has absolutely nothing to do with capital flows, or the size of the bubble*.   Not one single provision of Glass Steagall relates to that, nor was there any repeal of a provision that relates to that.   Completely wrong.

I can't even figure out what provision you would even think applies to capital flows, or the bubble.   I'd love to hear your claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Todders, you simply don't read what is written--a typical strategy of yours. You are commonly unable to make basic connections. This is not a criticism, it is an observation.
> 
> There is a limited amount of money in the system at one time and since 40% of the global wealth is owned by the top 1%, that leaves a lot less for the rest to share doesn't it?
> 
> Take 100%. That represents the whole money supply (not credit ). if 40% is owned by the top 1% how much does that leave the 99%? 60% to divvy up among the rest of the population (99%). If you need to see the math done you take 100-40=60.



*There is a limited amount of money in the system at one time *

You know money is only a small part of wealth, right?
No, obviously your simple economic understanding doesn't reach that far.

Just prove your claim about mean rich people making money in the market somehow leaving less money for the poor folks.

Show all your work. Omit your feelings.


----------



## gnarlylove

no matter your gauge it is finite. as long as wealth is finite it is limited. why is this such a hard concept to understand? you are unwilling to accept anything I say so what's the point? i even offered the perspective in terms of global wealth, not just money. you just refuse to read/understand what you don't want to. its like you drag your heels as your being carried out of the store by mommy.

It's called the Distribution of Wealth.


> A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth. Moreover, another study found that the richest 2% own more than half of global household assets.



btw, economics is a narrow and terribly biased system. Too bad we operate our ethics and politics on it. it calls oceans and rainforests externalities. it places no value on the biosphere--THE ONE AND ONLY SOURCE OF LIFE and true affluence. as if the biosphere is not essential to the creation of civilization or to the existence of our institutions. current economics is a lens to perceive the world as 20th century greed has made complex. although it uses math economics itself is a way of looking at the world. it does not offer a definitive understanding of our world and humanity and should not be the only lens we use to arrive at morals/how to treat one another.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Not all of the sub-prime loans were mandated by government. The government created regulations that forced banks to create sub-prime mortgages for poor people. When MBS became profitable there was a large market demand for sub-prime loans. Not all sub-prime loans are to poor people or those that the law was intended to help. Not all sub-prime loans were created under the regulations of the program either.
> 
> There are a lot of regulations so I know it isn't clear when I am not differentiating between them. The Federal Reserve has regulatory authority over the balance sheets of financial institutions. That is different then the regulations concerning the creation of mortgages.



This is a little wacky.

Most of what you say is true.... but irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if the sub-prime loans were directly under the mandates of the CRA or not.

The mandates themselves, lowered the lending standards.  Once that is done, it effects the entire market, not just the specific CRA market.

The reason why, is because there is no "CRA Market".

Government, through Freddie and Fannie, created Mortgage Backed Securities.

MBSs are mortgage bundles.    When someone buys an MBS, they don't get a "CRA MBS"  or a "Traditional MBS".    They have no direct idea of what specific mortgages make up that bundle.

What that means is, to the MBS buyers and investors, they have no idea if that specific loan in there is a loan from a CRA Sub-prime loan, or a Regular Sub-prime loan.

Once it was established that Sub-prime loans are good, because government signed their name to it, through Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae securitizing it....   buyers have no way to distinguish one sub-prime from another.

*Further, what RKMBrown said is dead on right, and a completely valid point.*

You are telling us, that banks should have made sub-prime loans that fell under the CRA, and should not have made sub-prime loans that did not fall under the CRA.

How would you propose doing that?   Think about that.....

Two guys walk into a bank.   Both have completely identical incomes, credit scores, credit history, and both do not qualify for a loan because of bad credit.

So person A qualifies for the Sub-prime loan, because... why?
Person B does not qualify for the sub-prime loan, because.... why?

The CRA does not distinguish between loans.   The CRA only requires that they be 'low and moderate income', and that they do not qualify for a prime rate mortgage.

No prime rate mortgage, is a "CRA Loan".  The whole point is to give loans to people who don't qualify.  If you can show me a prime rate CRA loan, I'd love to see it.

Now what does moderate income mean?    Well according to HUD, moderate income is $54,300 or less, for a family of 4.

That means roughly half the country qualifies for a CRA loan.

So what would you suggest the banks do to deny one person a loan, while accepting the other?


----------



## Andylusion

Londoner said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were used to create the largest Wall Street ponzi scheme ever (securities, swaps, derivatives)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't "ponzi" schemes.  If you want to slam Wall Street because you trust government, that's up to you.  But at least use words that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> _A Ponzi scheme is a form of pyramid scheme in which new investors must continually be sucked in at the bottom to support the investors at the top. In this case, new borrowers must continually be sucked in to support the creditors at the top.
> 
> *When the banks ran out of creditworthy borrowers, they had to turn to uncreditworthy subprime borrowers; and to avoid losses from default, they moved these risky mortgages off their books by bundling them into securities and selling them to investors. To induce investors to buy, these securities were then insured with credit default swaps. But the housing bubble itself was another Ponzi scheme, and eventually there were no more borrowers to be sucked in at the bottom who could afford the ever-inflating home prices. When the subprime borrowers quit paying, the investors quit buying mortgage-backed securities. The banks were then left holding their own suspect paper; and without triple-A ratings, there is little chance that buyers for this junk will be found. The crisis is not, however, in the economy itself, which is fundamentally sound  or would be with a proper credit system to oil the wheels of production. The crisis is in the banking system, which can no longer cover up the shell game it has played for three centuries with other peoples money*._ - Credit Default Swaps: Evolving Financial Meltdown and Derivative Disaster Du Jour | Global Research
Click to expand...


Then why didn't they turn to unworthy borrowers back in the 60s? 70s? 80s? 90s?

There were some nasty economic down turns back in those days, and surely the number of credit worthy borrowers would have fallen then.

Why did the number of credit worthy borrowers dry up in the late 90s?   Was the economy just so bad all during the 90s, and no one knew it?

But instead they turned to unworthy borrowers in the middle of one of the longest periods of stable peace time growth, with low inflation, and stable interest rates?    Really?

It's not a ponzi scheme, and your claim doesn't match up with the history.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw, your stock increases offer nothing to half the country that doesn't play that game.



Whose fault is that?   You don't take the risk, you don't win.   Welcome to how life works.



> So as people like yourself and make money, it takes away money from those at the bottom.



Oh bull crap.   How does me, investing my money, make other people poorer?   How does me not investing my money, make them richer?   Such garbage.



> That's why it matters that the top 1% earn so much more. There is a limited amount of money in the system at one time and since 40% of the _global_ wealth is owned by the top 1%, that leaves a lot less for the rest to share doesn't it?



No, it doesn't.   Wealth is not dollars.   Wealth is dynamic and changes.   Wealth can be consumed, or grown.   If you removed money from the people who invest, and gave it to the people who consume, wealth would be consumed, and the country would be poorer.




> Not in your world since you have capital to back up your capital investments. What about the average household whose debt is exceeding their annual income now? I guess these people are to be written off in your equation and ignored "since they clearly haven't shown the earning power."



Don't borrow.   Live within your means.  Pay off your debts.   That's exactly what I have done.   It was hard.   But I did it.   Do the same, you'll end up with similar results.



> Not because a lack of motivation (poverty sucks!!!) but because a sheer lack of opportunity and quality education.



And yet I know people right now, that spend their time living in poverty by choice.

And no, I refuse to accept the absolute BS argument that there is no quality education or opportunity.   There are MILLIONS of examples where people come here from other countries, with far less opportunities, and less education than born Americans have, and they succeed.

Simply not true.  Just garbage claim.   You are flat out wrong.   Sorry... wrong.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the sub-prime loans were mandated by government. The government created regulations that forced banks to create sub-prime mortgages for poor people. When MBS became profitable there was a large market demand for sub-prime loans. Not all sub-prime loans are to poor people or those that the law was intended to help. Not all sub-prime loans were created under the regulations of the program either.
> 
> There are a lot of regulations so I know it isn't clear when I am not differentiating between them. The Federal Reserve has regulatory authority over the balance sheets of financial institutions. That is different then the regulations concerning the creation of mortgages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a little wacky.
> 
> Most of what you say is true.... but irrelevant.
> 
> It doesn't matter if the sub-prime loans were directly under the mandates of the CRA or not.
> 
> The mandates themselves, lowered the lending standards.  Once that is done, it effects the entire market, not just the specific CRA market.
> 
> The reason why, is because there is no "CRA Market".
> 
> Government, through Freddie and Fannie, created Mortgage Backed Securities.
> 
> MBSs are mortgage bundles.    When someone buys an MBS, they don't get a "CRA MBS"  or a "Traditional MBS".    They have no direct idea of what specific mortgages make up that bundle.
> 
> What that means is, to the MBS buyers and investors, they have no idea if that specific loan in there is a loan from a CRA Sub-prime loan, or a Regular Sub-prime loan.
> 
> Once it was established that Sub-prime loans are good, because government signed their name to it, through Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae securitizing it....   buyers have no way to distinguish one sub-prime from another.
> 
> *Further, what RKMBrown said is dead on right, and a completely valid point.*
> 
> You are telling us, that banks should have made sub-prime loans that fell under the CRA, and should not have made sub-prime loans that did not fall under the CRA.
> 
> How would you propose doing that?   Think about that.....
> 
> Two guys walk into a bank.   Both have completely identical incomes, credit scores, credit history, and both do not qualify for a loan because of bad credit.
> 
> So person A qualifies for the Sub-prime loan, because... why?
> Person B does not qualify for the sub-prime loan, because.... why?
> 
> The CRA does not distinguish between loans.   The CRA only requires that they be 'low and moderate income', and that they do not qualify for a prime rate mortgage.
> 
> No prime rate mortgage, is a "CRA Loan".  The whole point is to give loans to people who don't qualify.  If you can show me a prime rate CRA loan, I'd love to see it.
> 
> Now what does moderate income mean?    Well according to HUD, moderate income is $54,300 or less, for a family of 4.
> 
> That means roughly half the country qualifies for a CRA loan.
> 
> So what would you suggest the banks do to deny one person a loan, while accepting the other?
Click to expand...


Of course it matters if they under the mandate or not. It completely negates any claim the institutions have that they were somehow forced to crash the market. They chose to take these risky loans.

I already said the MBS created a market that created demand for sub-prime loans. You are not contradicting anything I said by pointing that out again.

The CRA establishes minimum amounts of a certain type of loan. Once the bank meets the minimum they are covered under the guidelines of the law. The sub-prime loans that were made were not necessarily to poor people like the program was about. The rise of MBS impacted all markets and not just the market for mortgages to the poor. 

MBS used a formula that everyone relied on, not just F&F. This formula is what made it possible to turn subprime mortgages into AAA securities. The problem is that no one that was making decisions really understood it. 

The major distinction I am trying to make is that there is a huge difference between saying loans to poor people crashed the economy and saying that MBS that hid risk crashed the economy. F&F most definitely shares the blame for the MBS crash but they are not holding all the blame for that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> no matter your gauge it is finite. as long as wealth is finite it is limited. why is this such a hard concept to understand? you are unwilling to accept anything I say so what's the point? i even offered the perspective in terms of global wealth, not just money. you just refuse to read/understand what you don't want to. its like you drag your heels as your being carried out of the store by mommy.
> 
> It's called the Distribution of Wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth. Moreover, another study found that the richest 2% own more than half of global household assets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw, economics is a narrow and terribly biased system. Too bad we operate our ethics and politics on it. it calls oceans and rainforests externalities. it places no value on the biosphere--THE ONE AND ONLY SOURCE OF LIFE and true affluence. as if the biosphere is not essential to the creation of civilization or to the existence of our institutions. current economics is a lens to perceive the world as 20th century greed has made complex. although it uses math economics itself is a way of looking at the world. it does not offer a definitive understanding of our world and humanity and should not be the only lens we use to arrive at morals/how to treat one another.
Click to expand...


*you are unwilling to accept anything I say so what's the point?*

You're right, I reject your idiocy.

I await your explanation for how the rich's gains in the stock market come out of the pocket of the poor.

Try to answer, instead of whining and deflecting.


----------



## bripat9643

Londoner said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY are they different things?
> 
> You forced Mr Lender to lend to a deadbeat?
> 
> How does the banker make a buck in the transaction?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair point.
> 
> I'm not talking about the loans themselves, but who bought the loans and what they did with them _free of Government intervention._.
Click to expand...


It makes little difference, once the loans were made, what was done with the loans afterwards.  The loan shouldn't have been made in the first place, and they wouldn't have been made if government bureaucrats weren't pointing guns at bankers.



Londoner said:


> Nobody forced _private_ Wall Street firms to build a trillion dollar profit industry from a corruptly managed mortgage industry.



The government managed the mortgage industry.  So in a manner of speaking, you are correct.  It was corruptly managed, and that's the whole point.



Londoner said:


> At the end of the day, those Wall Street firms did not properly evaluate those mortgages. .



Fannie Mae and Freddie Max also didn't evaluate the mortgages property, and their fiduciary duty is much greater than any Wallstreet bank.  However, in the end, the bankers did evaluate the mortgages property.  They concluded that if the mortgages all went South that the government would bail them out, and they were correct.



Londoner said:


> If AIG lacked crucial information about the deadbeat's ability to service the corrupt government mortgage, than they should have stayed away. However, they did the opposite. Wall Street _wanted_ those mortgages because they were able to turn them into gold. This is why so many non-government mortgage companies got in the game (-I'm talking about the 65% of the mortgages sold to deadbeats _not because of government_, but because they could sell those mortgages to Wall Street without assuming any liability if the loan became non-performing.



Whose fault is that they wouldn't assume any liability?  Why, it's the government's fault, of course.  But you're trying to tell us that we should blame the Wallstreet bankers rather than the government.



Londoner said:


> Meaning: deregulation, by protecting the loan's originator from liability if the deadbeat failed to service the loan, removed the entire mortgage industry's incentive to loan exclusively to credit-worthy borrowers).



How would the originator be responsible for the deadbeat's failure to pay if they sold the mortgage?  The purchaser was privy to all information supplied by the applicant. 



Londoner said:


> [Things like the CRA worked fine for decades until crucial regulations were removed by Clinton and Bush, who both caved to Wall Street pressure ("donations"). ).



ROFL!  Bernie Madoff's "investments" worked fine for decades until a few of his customers wanted to cash out.  Everything is always fine until just before the collapse.




Londoner said:


> [Anyway, it sounds like your news sources haven't talked much about Bear, Lehman, and AIG - the companies that very directly fueled the mortgage explosion but had nothing to do with the government loans you're talking about. Had the problem been just about government-influenced loans to deadbeats, it would have been containable. But Wall Street got involved, which created a fee based incentive system that pulled in the entire mortgage industry, which meant that over 50% of the loans made to deadbeats had nothing to do with government. At the end of the day, Wall Street should not have purchased those mortgages if they didn't have certainty about the people who received those loans.



All the loans were "government influenced," numbnuts.  If Wall Street hadn't purchased the mortgages, then Barney Frank's dream of "affordable housing" would never have come to pass.


----------



## gnarlylove

I want to say I used money and wealth interchangeably when this is not true. By money I really meant wealth all along. But reading the same replies from different people over and over, we clearly start from different values. So we clash at am impasse and we are talking about the clash without ever mentioning where we start from, that is, our values.

Your values, as any good capitalist, center around yourself/nuclear family and as you go further away from yourself the values/affinity become less strong until the outer most circle from you, the homeless, are despised as dirt and are blamed for their own problems (whether you have any knowledge about this group or not).

My values start with compassion. This recognizes from the inner most circles I tread to the outter most I  value any as human first. Then particulars attributes (networking) takes a secondary place. So that I am not seeking gain first but connection. This viewpoint does not lend itself to capitalism and certain is anathema among Republicans, even though they consider themselves "The Family Party."

This exemplifies my point, from FOX
11/28/2013:
HARRIS FAULKNER: I'm down with the closing the stores on Thanksgiving.  It's enough already.  I'm serious.

GREGG JARRETT: Really?  Seriously?

HARRIS FAULKNER: Why are you surprised?

GREGG JARRETT: Free enterprise?

HARRIS FAULKNER: You know, look, people should be at home with their families.  That's just my little opinion.  I'm not the law in this.

GREGG JARRETT: OK.  I just was thinking of capitalism and free markets and letting people do what they want to do.

Until we can realize we are working from very different places, we won't even listen to each other. I try but am aghast at how little agreement goes on. This demonstrates the problem of the nation being unwilling to compromise or work together. I've heard the same mantras rehashed in one form or another and it's truly sickening because that's how successful the propaganda machine (mass media) really is. And you simply will never take a second to investigate the validity of your own points since you're so busy coming up with reasons why the other side is wrong.

You're just seeking competition: go play kickball instead of bringing the country down because no one wants to listen to each other.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> I want to say I used money and wealth interchangeably when this is not so. But we clearly start from different values.
> 
> Your values center around yourself and as you go further away from yourself the values/affinity become less strong until the outer most circle from you, the homeless, are despised as dirt and are blamed for their own problems (whether you have any knowledge about this group or not).
> 
> My values start with compassion. This recognizes from the inner most circles I tread to the outter most I  value any as human first. Then particulars attributes (networking) takes a secondary place. So that I am not seeking gain first but connection. This viewpoint does not lend itself to capitalism and certain is anathema among Republicans, even though they consider themselves "The Family Party."
> 
> This exemplifies my point, from FOX
> 11/28/2013:
> HARRIS FAULKNER: I'm down with the closing the stores on Thanksgiving.  It's enough already.  I'm serious.
> 
> GREGG JARRETT: Really?  Seriously?
> 
> HARRIS FAULKNER: Why are you surprised?
> 
> GREGG JARRETT: Free enterprise?
> 
> HARRIS FAULKNER: You know, look, people should be at home with their families.  That's just my little opinion.  I'm not the law in this.
> 
> GREGG JARRETT: OK.  I just was thinking of capitalism and free markets and letting people do what they want to do.
> 
> Until we can realize we are working from very different places, we won't even listen to each other. I try but am aghast at how little agreement goes on. This demonstrates the problem of the nation being unwilling to compromise or work together. I've heard the same mantras rehashed in one form or another and it's truly sickening because that's how successful the propaganda machine (mass media) really is. And you simply will never take a second to investigate the validity of your own points since you're so busy coming up with reasons why the other side is wrong.
> 
> You're just seeking competition: go play kickball instead of bringing the country down because no one wants to listen to each other.



Thanks for admitting your error.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were housing bubbles in other nations in 97 too. There are a lot of reasons why there can be a bubble starting in 97 but a lot of things happened between 97 and the crash that caused this historic bubble besides what was going on in 97.
> 
> There is no doubt that F&F played a part in the MBS problem. The thing is the market is not set up to depend on them to make all the decisions. The market is not set up to allow a government institution to be a ratings agency or manage the risk portfolios of these financial institutions.
> 
> The risk that was taken on by these institutions was in no way limited to what the government was mandating. I have said this multiple times and it is important. The demand for sub-prime mortgages far outstripped the requirements of the government. The claim that these institutions failed because of risk that was forced upon them is simply false.
> 
> Secondly the institutions lowered their standards far below what the CRA asked for. In fact one of the major faults you can place at the feet of government is the failure to regulate the markets both in terms of loan standards and balance sheet requirements.
> 
> If you don't understand that private institutions are in charge of their own financial security then I don't know what to tell you. There were plenty of banks that met CRA guidelines and didn't crash. The ones that crashed generally tried to maximize their profits by betting on the AAA rating of MBS.
> 
> You are overstating the backing of F&F by the Federal government which was a mistake many investors made. They equated F&F to the federal government beyond what the law actually establishes. The bailout of F&F went beyond what the Federal government was legally required to do.
> 
> The whole reason F&F exists isn't to make financial decisions for the entire market. Those decisions to go above and beyond the federal requirements were their own. F&F was not regulated enough either btw.
> 
> Glass Steagall mattered because it played a major part in the amount of capital flowing into the bubble and the assets that were put at risk. Glass Steagall is important when talking about the size of the bubble and the need for a bailout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Name these reasons*.   Saying 'there could be', doesn't mean anything.   If there was some other reason, name the reason.   I'm open to this theory, but you have to provide something more than an ambiguous "something somewhere might have done it".
> 
> *As for other countries*, yes, and if you wish to look at individual policies of those countries, and analysis the cause of those bubbles, fine.   A few countries did have bubbles that started in the late 90s, early 2000s.   Whether they started exactly in 1997, as our did, I don't know, but that wouldn't make any difference to the cause of our bubble, anymore than it would make a different to the cause of their bubble.
> 
> *Doesn't matter how the market is setup*, or not.   Those institutions, by virtue of the fact they are the largest players in the market, and by virtue of the fact they have the backing of the Federal Government, do influence the market, whether "the market is setup" to be influenced or not.
> 
> Let me give you a clear cut example.    Name the rating agencies.  Can you name them?   Standards & Poor (S&P), Moody's, and Fitch.   Right?   You ask most people what the rating agencies are, you'll get these three.   S&P, Moody's and Fitch.
> 
> But those are not the only rating agencies.   There are actually dozens of rating agencies.     And there were dozens of rating agencies before.   It was the "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization", issued by the Government, which forced out competition.    Even though many rating agencies were perfectly fine in giving out their ratings, since they didn't have the government seal of approval, they lost out to the big three.
> 
> But the NRSRO seal, was only required for government purchases of government bonds and securities.   Had nothing to do with private markets.   Yet the private markets followed suit.
> 
> In fact, consider this.   Before the NRSRO was passed in the 1970s, all rating agencies were running on the buyer pays model, where the buyer of the security, paid to have it rated.     But after the government seal of approval, and the demand moved towards getting securities rated by the government approved rating agencies, and because of that the big three moved towards an issuer pays model.
> 
> Before, the issuer of the securities never paid to have their securities rated, because it was the customer who determined whose rating they wanted to use, and thus they paid to have it rated by who they wanted.
> 
> But since the government gave their seal of approval, the agencies knew they were in demand.    They started charging the issuer of the securities, knowing they had no choice but to pay, or their securities wouldn't be bought, without a government approved rating agency giving the rating, even private buyers wouldn't buy their securities.
> 
> None of that was intended.   Nor is there any law, requiring the private market to follow the public.    Yet the market follows government... and always has, and always will.    It's simply the nature of the beast.
> 
> Same with Fannie and Freddie.  Doesn't matter that there's no requirement to follow Freddie and Fannie.  They have the influence, and backing of the government, and the private market does follow them.  Period.
> 
> *As far as banks that met CRA guidelines, and didn't crash.... who?*
> 
> Because can I name several that met those guidelines perfectly, and crashed really hard.    CountryWide, was following CRA guides perfectly, as far as I can tell.   Bear Stearns was an avid follower of the CRA.    Wachovia, was completely in line with the government, from everything I read on the matter.
> 
> 
> Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the GSE programs.
> 
> When necessaryin cases where applicants have no established credit history, for exampleCountrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the GSEs.​
> This report was issued in 2000 by the Fannie Mae Foundation.   It is widely cited and vetted.  There are numerous books that detail how Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, supported exactly this.   Countrywide, is a clear cut example of a bank following the government influence, and following the CRA to the letter.
> 
> *Glass Steagall has absolutely nothing to do with capital flows, or the size of the bubble*.   Not one single provision of Glass Steagall relates to that, nor was there any repeal of a provision that relates to that.   Completely wrong.
> 
> I can't even figure out what provision you would even think applies to capital flows, or the bubble.   I'd love to hear your claim.
Click to expand...


The point about 1997 is that you are just throwing out a reason and deciding something with no analysis other than "name something else" which really isn't all that meaningful. Actually other countries do matter because it suggests it was economic.

I am sorry but there is no comparison between the private industry following suit with ratings standards and the private industry and the ratings agencies not doing their job because of F&F. 

There were plenty of local banks and credit unions that did fine even with the large economic crash. In fact the banks that did the worst were ones who were mixed institutions, something now possible since Glass Steagall. 

Yes the combination of commercial banking and investment banking meant more capital flowing into the MBS market. It took a lot of capital flowing into the market for the bubble to grow so big. It also played a major part in the reason we bailed them out.


----------



## bayoubill

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



so... what...? state-imposed socialism is the cure...?


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of the sub-prime loans were mandated by government. The government created regulations that forced banks to create sub-prime mortgages for poor people. When MBS became profitable there was a large market demand for sub-prime loans. Not all sub-prime loans are to poor people or those that the law was intended to help. Not all sub-prime loans were created under the regulations of the program either.
> 
> There are a lot of regulations so I know it isn't clear when I am not differentiating between them. The Federal Reserve has regulatory authority over the balance sheets of financial institutions. That is different then the regulations concerning the creation of mortgages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a little wacky.
> 
> Most of what you say is true.... but irrelevant.
> 
> It doesn't matter if the sub-prime loans were directly under the mandates of the CRA or not.
> 
> The mandates themselves, lowered the lending standards.  Once that is done, it effects the entire market, not just the specific CRA market.
> 
> The reason why, is because there is no "CRA Market".
> 
> Government, through Freddie and Fannie, created Mortgage Backed Securities.
> 
> MBSs are mortgage bundles.    When someone buys an MBS, they don't get a "CRA MBS"  or a "Traditional MBS".    They have no direct idea of what specific mortgages make up that bundle.
> 
> What that means is, to the MBS buyers and investors, they have no idea if that specific loan in there is a loan from a CRA Sub-prime loan, or a Regular Sub-prime loan.
> 
> Once it was established that Sub-prime loans are good, because government signed their name to it, through Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae securitizing it....   buyers have no way to distinguish one sub-prime from another.
> 
> *Further, what RKMBrown said is dead on right, and a completely valid point.*
> 
> You are telling us, that banks should have made sub-prime loans that fell under the CRA, and should not have made sub-prime loans that did not fall under the CRA.
> 
> How would you propose doing that?   Think about that.....
> 
> Two guys walk into a bank.   Both have completely identical incomes, credit scores, credit history, and both do not qualify for a loan because of bad credit.
> 
> So person A qualifies for the Sub-prime loan, because... why?
> Person B does not qualify for the sub-prime loan, because.... why?
> 
> The CRA does not distinguish between loans.   The CRA only requires that they be 'low and moderate income', and that they do not qualify for a prime rate mortgage.
> 
> No prime rate mortgage, is a "CRA Loan".  The whole point is to give loans to people who don't qualify.  If you can show me a prime rate CRA loan, I'd love to see it.
> 
> Now what does moderate income mean?    Well according to HUD, moderate income is $54,300 or less, for a family of 4.
> 
> That means roughly half the country qualifies for a CRA loan.
> 
> So what would you suggest the banks do to deny one person a loan, while accepting the other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it matters if they under the mandate or not. It completely negates any claim the institutions have that they were somehow forced to crash the market. They chose to take these risky loans.
> 
> I already said the MBS created a market that created demand for sub-prime loans. You are not contradicting anything I said by pointing that out again.
> 
> The CRA establishes minimum amounts of a certain type of loan. Once the bank meets the minimum they are covered under the guidelines of the law. The sub-prime loans that were made were not necessarily to poor people like the program was about. The rise of MBS impacted all markets and not just the market for mortgages to the poor.
> 
> MBS used a formula that everyone relied on, not just F&F. This formula is what made it possible to turn subprime mortgages into AAA securities. The problem is that no one that was making decisions really understood it.
> 
> The major distinction I am trying to make is that there is a huge difference between saying loans to poor people crashed the economy and saying that MBS that hid risk crashed the economy. F&F most definitely shares the blame for the MBS crash but they are not holding all the blame for that.
Click to expand...


We already discussed whether or not MBS created a demand for sub-prime loans.  That is false.    MBS was created all they way back in the 1960s.    Sub-prime loans have existed since the early 1970s.

There were no sub-prime Mortgage backed Securities between the 1960s, and 1997.

That claim is false.

What created the demand for sub-prime mortgages was the CRA, which in 1997, Freddie Mac securitized sub-prime Mortgage Back Securities for the very first time since MBSs existed.

That action legitimized the sub-prime market to the rest of the market, regardless of CRA minimums.

And I still don't get your claim that 'loans to poor people' did, or didn't do anything.

Has nothing to do with "loans to poor people", has to do with loans to people who didn't qualify.    And that most certainly did cause the crash.  Banks that didn't engage in these kinds of loans, didn't fail.   Banks that did, did.

You simply have no basis to make such a strange claim, when the banks that directly worked with Freddie and Fannie to make CRA style loans, were some of the biggest failures of the crash, namely Bear Stearns, Wachovia, and CountryWide.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a little wacky.
> 
> Most of what you say is true.... but irrelevant.
> 
> It doesn't matter if the sub-prime loans were directly under the mandates of the CRA or not.
> 
> The mandates themselves, lowered the lending standards.  Once that is done, it effects the entire market, not just the specific CRA market.
> 
> The reason why, is because there is no "CRA Market".
> 
> Government, through Freddie and Fannie, created Mortgage Backed Securities.
> 
> MBSs are mortgage bundles.    When someone buys an MBS, they don't get a "CRA MBS"  or a "Traditional MBS".    They have no direct idea of what specific mortgages make up that bundle.
> 
> What that means is, to the MBS buyers and investors, they have no idea if that specific loan in there is a loan from a CRA Sub-prime loan, or a Regular Sub-prime loan.
> 
> Once it was established that Sub-prime loans are good, because government signed their name to it, through Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae securitizing it....   buyers have no way to distinguish one sub-prime from another.
> 
> *Further, what RKMBrown said is dead on right, and a completely valid point.*
> 
> You are telling us, that banks should have made sub-prime loans that fell under the CRA, and should not have made sub-prime loans that did not fall under the CRA.
> 
> How would you propose doing that?   Think about that.....
> 
> Two guys walk into a bank.   Both have completely identical incomes, credit scores, credit history, and both do not qualify for a loan because of bad credit.
> 
> So person A qualifies for the Sub-prime loan, because... why?
> Person B does not qualify for the sub-prime loan, because.... why?
> 
> The CRA does not distinguish between loans.   The CRA only requires that they be 'low and moderate income', and that they do not qualify for a prime rate mortgage.
> 
> No prime rate mortgage, is a "CRA Loan".  The whole point is to give loans to people who don't qualify.  If you can show me a prime rate CRA loan, I'd love to see it.
> 
> Now what does moderate income mean?    Well according to HUD, moderate income is $54,300 or less, for a family of 4.
> 
> That means roughly half the country qualifies for a CRA loan.
> 
> So what would you suggest the banks do to deny one person a loan, while accepting the other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it matters if they under the mandate or not. It completely negates any claim the institutions have that they were somehow forced to crash the market. They chose to take these risky loans.
> 
> I already said the MBS created a market that created demand for sub-prime loans. You are not contradicting anything I said by pointing that out again.
> 
> The CRA establishes minimum amounts of a certain type of loan. Once the bank meets the minimum they are covered under the guidelines of the law. The sub-prime loans that were made were not necessarily to poor people like the program was about. The rise of MBS impacted all markets and not just the market for mortgages to the poor.
> 
> MBS used a formula that everyone relied on, not just F&F. This formula is what made it possible to turn subprime mortgages into AAA securities. The problem is that no one that was making decisions really understood it.
> 
> The major distinction I am trying to make is that there is a huge difference between saying loans to poor people crashed the economy and saying that MBS that hid risk crashed the economy. F&F most definitely shares the blame for the MBS crash but they are not holding all the blame for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already discussed whether or not MBS created a demand for sub-prime loans.  That is false.    MBS was created all they way back in the 1960s.    Sub-prime loans have existed since the early 1970s.
> 
> There were no sub-prime Mortgage backed Securities between the 1960s, and 1997.
> 
> That claim is false.
> 
> What created the demand for sub-prime mortgages was the CRA, which in 1997, Freddie Mac securitized sub-prime Mortgage Back Securities for the very first time since MBSs existed.
> 
> That action legitimized the sub-prime market to the rest of the market, regardless of CRA minimums.
> 
> And I still don't get your claim that 'loans to poor people' did, or didn't do anything.
> 
> Has nothing to do with "loans to poor people", has to do with loans to people who didn't qualify.    And that most certainly did cause the crash.  Banks that didn't engage in these kinds of loans, didn't fail.   Banks that did, did.
> 
> You simply have no basis to make such a strange claim, when the banks that directly worked with Freddie and Fannie to make CRA style loans, were some of the biggest failures of the crash, namely Bear Stearns, Wachovia, and CountryWide.
Click to expand...


Yes the MBS created a market for sub-prime mortgages. A new formula was developed that allowed institutions to mix sub-prime mortgages with other mortgages to create a MBS. The way these MBS were created changed based on this formula. Everyone adopted this formula, not just F&F. 

Comparing the MBS of 1960's to the crash is like comparing apples to oranges. 

The CRA was set up to ensure a wide range of people were getting loans. That was the basis of the minimum standards. The extension of using sub-prime mortgages for loans that had nothing to do with the CRA minimum standards is a clear demonstration of the market acting on it's own.

You can blame F&F all you want. The claim that you are making which is demonstrably false is that everything else was just the market following along mindlessly so they are free of fault. 

As for the institutions that failed, I am not denying that they had sub-prime loans and that they met MINIMUM standards. What I have been saying since post one is that meeting those minimum standards wouldn't crash any of them. 

You keep pushing blame off of the market which is IMO hilarious. You do that and you basically say they are not making the very decisions they are being compensated to make. You put into question their entire existence and reduce their involvement to a bunch of lemmings. I assure you they don't consider themselves to be lemmings.


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banks made sub-prime loans because the Clinton administration decided it was the "American Dream" to own a home and they threatened to Spanish inquisition them if they didn't do it.  W continued that policy.  And the Fed pumped them with virtually interest free cash to fund it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the banks bend to the will of the government? Yeah I guess that's how you might view it but bankers make far more money than any government official.
Click to expand...


And the government officials have guns and banks don't



gnarlylove said:


> Who lost in this scheme anyway? The way you make it sound the Banks loose



Actually you pulled that out of your ass because it's what you want it to sound like. Everyone who was effected by the recession loses, and that is everyone.  Business owners, employes, producers, consumers lose.  And our kids lose because we're piling more debt.  Sure, the banks lose.  They are part of "everyone."

Liberals live in a dream world.  The problem is you make real laws based on your fantasies, and as your blame the victim approach shows now, you don't learn from your mistakes.  Ever.


----------



## kaz

Londoner said:


> All you need to do is listen to Bush's words below. He wanted all Americans to buy homes, and borrow money against their homes so they could spend on main street and save the economy from long standing recessionary pressures. It looks like they were trying every trick in the book to stimulate the economy. If you want to blame government, check out the regulations surrounding Leverage. Government was asleep at the switch and over-trusted these firms to protect their investors.



One of my favorite liberal tricks.

Obama continued W's policy in Iraq.  Who gets the blame?  W, it was his policy.

So do you consistently apply that policy?

W continued Clinton's policy above.  I keep saying he had the same policy BTW through this discussion, he did.  But no, Clinton drops out now and W owns it.

You just shallowly blame Republicans, you are never responsible for what you did.

Government was not expecting banks to not make irresposible loans with the free money, they threatened them with Congressional subpoenas if they didn't do it.  Everyone thought government would stand behind their own policy and back the mortgages and the mortgage securities, but it got too big for even them to do it and it collapsed.

Government drove this, but liberals want to endlessly blame free markets for government policy and say malignant government was "asleep at the switch" when the markets did what they forced them to do.

You're not going to stop repeating your lie, but I'm not going to stop calling you on it.  The housing bubble was completely and entirely on government.


----------



## kaz

Androw said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't "ponzi" schemes.  If you want to slam Wall Street because you trust government, that's up to you.  But at least use words that make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> _A Ponzi scheme is a form of pyramid scheme in which new investors must continually be sucked in at the bottom to support the investors at the top. In this case, new borrowers must continually be sucked in to support the creditors at the top.
> 
> *When the banks ran out of creditworthy borrowers, they had to turn to uncreditworthy &#8220;subprime&#8221; borrowers; and to avoid losses from default, they moved these risky mortgages off their books by bundling them into &#8220;securities&#8221; and selling them to investors. To induce investors to buy, these securities were then &#8220;insured&#8221; with credit default swaps. But the housing bubble itself was another Ponzi scheme, and eventually there were no more borrowers to be sucked in at the bottom who could afford the ever-inflating home prices. When the subprime borrowers quit paying, the investors quit buying mortgage-backed securities. The banks were then left holding their own suspect paper; and without triple-A ratings, there is little chance that buyers for this &#8220;junk&#8221; will be found. The crisis is not, however, in the economy itself, which is fundamentally sound &#8211; or would be with a proper credit system to oil the wheels of production. The crisis is in the banking system, which can no longer cover up the shell game it has played for three centuries with other people&#8217;s money*._ - Credit Default Swaps: Evolving Financial Meltdown and Derivative Disaster Du Jour | Global Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn't they turn to unworthy borrowers back in the 60s? 70s? 80s? 90s?
> 
> There were some nasty economic down turns back in those days, and surely the number of credit worthy borrowers would have fallen then.
> 
> Why did the number of credit worthy borrowers dry up in the late 90s?   Was the economy just so bad all during the 90s, and no one knew it?
> 
> But instead they turned to unworthy borrowers in the middle of one of the longest periods of stable peace time growth, with low inflation, and stable interest rates?    Really?
> 
> It's not a ponzi scheme, and your claim doesn't match up with the history.
Click to expand...


Yes, exactly.  Individual businesses screw up, and free markets fix that by crushing them.  But the left would have you believe that

1)  Clinton then W had policies of pressuring banks to make more sub-prime loans and funding them with endless virtually free cash.

2)  But they expected them to make all these sub-prime roles in a responsible way.

3)  Not one or two or even a few, but every bank followed that policy irresponsibly and failed.

4)  Gasp then when the economy slowed, sub-prime borrowers started failing to make their payments.  Who would have seen that coming?

So...

The free markets failed and the poor politicians had to bail them out.  Sob.  Sssurrrreeee, every bank made an independent decision at that point in time to loan to bad credit risks and fail.  All of them.

It wasn't that by following explicit government policy and using government money that they did what they were pressured to do.  Oh, no, you can't blame politicians for that.


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> And the government officials have guns and banks don't



Guns don't rule the world, wealth does, power does. Ain't no individual got more power and wealth than those bankers. If the US won't even prosecute them in a court of law what makes you think the logical step is requiring the military? These bankers don't require a military coup. Hearings and back door meetings work much better, and both parties prefer it this way since they are already delicately involved with the governance process.

You refuse to accept that you might be wrong. Come on, guns would never be drawn on our financial sector, the basis of the American economy!!!! Are you nuts? Guns aren't the be all end all for every group of people. Just people like yourselves who never engage in the part of the world where guns need not apply.



gnarlylove said:


> Who lost in this scheme anyway? The way you make it sound the Banks loose...
> 
> Those who cannot afford homes experience the biggest loss. It's good you can spin this...





kaz said:


> Actually you pulled that out of your ass because it's what you want it to sound like. Everyone...


"

Pardon me but you totally ignored the question. I was talking about those who lost the most. But I'm well aware you have no fucking integrity to agree on basic facts. Millions of families were put on the street because they couldn't afford to pay their fradulent mortgage.

So get your head out of your ass and don't spin the question. My point is clear: the bankers won whether the American public won or not. And yes, the bankers are doing exceptionally well for having essentially caused this recession.

Hell, you're saying everyone suffered and no duh! The dollar and economy was weakened. Panic rippled throughout but that's of course not the point at all though. I was noting how the bankers are doing great while we struggle through our anemic recovery, esp. those now without homes due to bad mortgages. Stop spinning all this so you can actually learn a valid point!

You don't have to always negate an opponent to be right. Sometimes you can just say nothing instead of make yourself appear like a spin-doctor who could never understand the basics of the world.



kaz said:


> Liberals live in a dream world. The problem is you make real laws based on your fantasies, and as your blame the victim approach shows now, you don't learn from your mistakes.


Your last few statements were just petty attempts to categorize humans in a way to control the debate and make yourself feel better. Too bad its completely made up except that maybe its really a projection of how *you* see reality (i.e. fantasy) and how you must constantly distort reality/what you read so you can manage your ignoble beliefs.

Blaming the victim?!?! Can you admit who the biggest victim was of the bubble? THOSE FAMILIES WHO LOST THEIR HOME AND HAD NO OTHER HOME!! Like you are as bad off as those folks lumping yourself in their with "everyone." HA! Maybe so but GO fuck a cactus IFF you refuse to admit you did not loose as much as those who had fraudulent mortgages. You also need to realize the banks won because they bet on their fraudulent mortgages would be paid *and* that they would not be paid; thus they won either way! 91 billion in recent bonuses shores up this observation!


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> You refuse to accept that you might be wrong.


You haven't presented a logical argument.  It's on you, not me until you do.



gnarlylove said:


> Come on, guns would never be drawn on our financial sector, the basis of the American economy!!!! Are you nuts? Guns aren't the be all end all for every group of people. Just people like yourselves who never engage in the part of the world where guns need not apply.



This is when I stopped reading.  Government passes laws, taxes and regulations, if you don't do what they say, they come to arrest you.  If you don't go, then they bring out the gun.  If there were no guns, no one would follow their oppressive laws.  That you don't even recognize the role of guns in that makes you a ninny with no grasp of the world.

I'll tell you what.  Don't pay your taxes this year, don't cooperate when they come to arrest you.  Then come back next year and tell me that the force of guns isn't behind what they do.


----------



## georgephillip

bayoubill said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so... what...? state-imposed socialism is the cure...?
Click to expand...

*Probably not if your definition of socialism implies even less democracy than we currently have in US workplaces.*

"A worker cooperative is a cooperative self-managed by its workers. 

"This control may be exercised in a number of ways. 

"A cooperative enterprise may mean a firm where every worker-owner participates in decision making in a democratic fashion, or it may refer to one in which managers and administration is elected by every worker-owner, and finally it can refer to a situation in which managers are considered, and treated as, workers of the firm. 

"In traditional forms of worker cooperative, all shares are held by the workforce with no outside or consumer owners, and each member has one voting share. 

"In practice, control by worker-owners may be exercised through individual, collective or majority ownership by the workforce, or the retention of individual, collective or majority voting rights (exercised on a one-member one-vote basis).[1] 

"A worker cooperative, therefore, has the characteristic that the majority of its workforce own shares, and the majority of shares are owned by the workforce.[2]"

Worker cooperative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the government officials have guns and banks don't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns don't rule the world, wealth does, power does. Ain't no individual got more power and wealth than those bankers. If the US won't even prosecute them in a court of law what makes you think the logical step is requiring the military? These bankers don't require a military coup. Hearings and back door meetings work much better, and both parties prefer it this way since they are already delicately involved with the governance process.
> 
> You refuse to accept that you might be wrong. Come on, guns would never be drawn on our financial sector, the basis of the American economy!!!! Are you nuts? Guns aren't the be all end all for every group of people. Just people like yourselves who never engage in the part of the world where guns need not apply.
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who lost in this scheme anyway? The way you make it sound the Banks loose...
> 
> Those who cannot afford homes experience the biggest loss. It's good you can spin this...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you pulled that out of your ass because it's what you want it to sound like. Everyone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "
> 
> Pardon me but you totally ignored the question. I was talking about those who lost the most. But I'm well aware you have no fucking integrity to agree on basic facts. Millions of families were put on the street because they couldn't afford to pay their fradulent mortgage.
> 
> So get your head out of your ass and don't spin the question. My point is clear: the bankers won whether the American public won or not. And yes, the bankers are doing exceptionally well for having essentially caused this recession.
> 
> Hell, you're saying everyone suffered and no duh! The dollar and economy was weakened. Panic rippled throughout but that's of course not the point at all though. I was noting how the bankers are doing great while we struggle through our anemic recovery, esp. those now without homes due to bad mortgages. Stop spinning all this so you can actually learn a valid point!
> 
> You don't have to always negate an opponent to be right. Sometimes you can just say nothing instead of make yourself appear like a spin-doctor who could never understand the basics of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals live in a dream world. The problem is you make real laws based on your fantasies, and as your blame the victim approach shows now, you don't learn from your mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your last few statements were just petty attempts to categorize humans in a way to control the debate and make yourself feel better. Too bad its completely made up except that maybe its really a projection of how *you* see reality (i.e. fantasy) and how you must constantly distort reality/what you read so you can manage your ignoble beliefs.
> 
> Blaming the victim?!?! Can you admit who the biggest victim was of the bubble? THOSE FAMILIES WHO LOST THEIR HOME AND HAD NO OTHER HOME!! Like you are as bad off as those folks lumping yourself in their with "everyone." HA! Maybe so but GO fuck a cactus IFF you refuse to admit you did not loose as much as those who had fraudulent mortgages. You also need to realize the banks won because they bet on their fraudulent mortgages would be paid *and* that they would not be paid; thus they won either way! 91 billion in recent bonuses shores up this observation!
Click to expand...


*Millions of families were put on the street because they couldn't afford to pay their fradulent mortgage.*

Fraudulent? Please explain further.


----------



## georgephillip

Rottweiler said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all should have the right to quality food and shelter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the hell is _that_ written?!?
> 
> Also, I would assume then that you agree you should labor for 10 to 12 hours per day to provide me with that "quality food and shelter" I'm entitled to while I relax on my hammock reading the musings of Karl Marx? No lying either. I want the honest answer here.
Click to expand...

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. The full text is published by the United Nations on its website."

*Can you wrap your mind around the possibility that your inherent rights to quality food, shelter, education, and more is available from the same sources FDR tapped for Social Security and Unemployment Insurance?*

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> This is when I stopped reading.


How convenient. It was the beginning of my post and it enables you to make intellectually dishonest statements like "You haven't made any logical argument." Your strategy is to tune out and name call. I presented how the banks have kept their profits soaring as Americans suffer but the biggest loss comes to those who were relying on a fraudulent mortgage. You just ignore this because it doesn't fit your narrow understanding. What a fucking desperate person to maintain their ignoble beliefs! Be sure to only watch mass media so you don't learn what's really going on.



kaz said:


> Government passes laws, taxes and regulations, if you don't do what they say, they come to arrest you.



You are right. This is how the IDEAL Government is suppose to operate. But IT DOESN"T OPERATE THIS WAY!

It's ONLY IF YOU ARE CAUGHT DO THEY ARREST YOU. Guns are to be drawn under limited circumstances. And so as long as you can hide your crimes (financial and white collar crimes are easily hidden buried deep in internal documents that are shredded and deleted)  you never have to worry about being arrested. Being arrested rarely means having a gun pulled on you! I know since I've been arrested over 30 times. Guns aren't used every time to enforce the law. You would only believe this if you watched COPS the TV show. O wait, you do? OK. Makes sense.

Even if you are arrested you have the option, if you are rich, to pay people to reduce or dismiss your crime entirely. Lawyers are means to an end and hardly are used to argue justice. They ONLY deal with cases that are brought before them and the rest of the injustice continues in America without any fair trial.



kaz said:


> f there were no guns, no one would follow their oppressive laws.


No one is holding a gun to your head but you drive 55mph. No one is hold a gun to your head and saying don't steal anything in this store but you don't steal anyway. The threat of being shot is not the reason people tend to obey laws. This is just a result of you black and white understanding of reality: might makes right.

Cultural and peer pressures do WAY more to herd the public into obeying than guns. This is a well known sociological fact. We obey mostly because it enables us to keep our job (not go to jail) and pay for our family instead of paying court fees etc.

You just have no concept of how powerful Wall St. is. These powerful men communicate with our gov't and let them know that, as STEVE BARTLETT says "If you want a strong economy, you have to have financial services companies that are safe and sound and able to lend and able to finance their&#8212; their customers. Now, if you want to have a recession, then go ahead and&#8212; and&#8212; and hammer the banks, and you know, make sure that they&#8217;re&#8212; that they fail because then you&#8217;ll have another recession."


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all should have the right to quality food and shelter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the hell is _that_ written?!?
> 
> Also, I would assume then that you agree you should labor for 10 to 12 hours per day to provide me with that "quality food and shelter" I'm entitled to while I relax on my hammock reading the musings of Karl Marx? No lying either. I want the honest answer here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. The full text is published by the United Nations on its website."
> 
> *Can you wrap your mind around the possibility that your inherent rights to quality food, shelter, education, and more is available from the same sources FDR tapped for Social Security and Unemployment Insurance?*
> 
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


In other words, you have no inherent right to quality food, shelter or education.  Theft does not give you a right to anything other than a jail cell.  The fact that FDR put one over on the American people proves nothing more than that he is a very skilled liar.  The United Nations and the UDHR have even less credibility and no legal force in this country.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the government officials have guns and banks don't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns don't rule the world, wealth does, power does. Ain't no individual got more power and wealth than those bankers. If the US won't even prosecute them in a court of law what makes you think the logical step is requiring the military? These bankers don't require a military coup. Hearings and back door meetings work much better, and both parties prefer it this way since they are already delicately involved with the governance process.
> 
> You refuse to accept that you might be wrong. Come on, guns would never be drawn on our financial sector, the basis of the American economy!!!! Are you nuts? Guns aren't the be all end all for every group of people. Just people like yourselves who never engage in the part of the world where guns need not apply.
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> Pardon me but you totally ignored the question. I was talking about those who lost the most. But I'm well aware you have no fucking integrity to agree on basic facts. Millions of families were put on the street because they couldn't afford to pay their fradulent mortgage.
> 
> So get your head out of your ass and don't spin the question. My point is clear: the bankers won whether the American public won or not. And yes, the bankers are doing exceptionally well for having essentially caused this recession.
> 
> Hell, you're saying everyone suffered and no duh! The dollar and economy was weakened. Panic rippled throughout but that's of course not the point at all though. I was noting how the bankers are doing great while we struggle through our anemic recovery, esp. those now without homes due to bad mortgages. Stop spinning all this so you can actually learn a valid point!
> 
> You don't have to always negate an opponent to be right. Sometimes you can just say nothing instead of make yourself appear like a spin-doctor who could never understand the basics of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals live in a dream world. The problem is you make real laws based on your fantasies, and as your blame the victim approach shows now, you don't learn from your mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your last few statements were just petty attempts to categorize humans in a way to control the debate and make yourself feel better. Too bad its completely made up except that maybe its really a projection of how *you* see reality (i.e. fantasy) and how you must constantly distort reality/what you read so you can manage your ignoble beliefs.
> 
> Blaming the victim?!?! Can you admit who the biggest victim was of the bubble? THOSE FAMILIES WHO LOST THEIR HOME AND HAD NO OTHER HOME!! Like you are as bad off as those folks lumping yourself in their with "everyone." HA! Maybe so but GO fuck a cactus IFF you refuse to admit you did not loose as much as those who had fraudulent mortgages. You also need to realize the banks won because they bet on their fraudulent mortgages would be paid *and* that they would not be paid; thus they won either way! 91 billion in recent bonuses shores up this observation!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Millions of families were put on the street because they couldn't afford to pay their fradulent mortgage.*
> 
> Fraudulent? Please explain further.
Click to expand...


They didn't own a home before they signed their mortgages, for which they put no money down, and they didn't own one after they defaulted.  While they were able to make the payments, and for a considerable period afterwards, they lived in a much better home than they could actually afford.

I don't see how they were harmed.  What did they lose?

The banks who gave them the mortgage, on the other hand, lost billions of dollars.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fraudulent? Please explain further.





			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Mortgage fraud is a crime in which the intent is to materially misrepresent or omit information on a mortgage loan application to obtain a loan or to obtain a larger loan than would have been obtained had the lender or borrower known the truth.


From Mortgage Fraud



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Suspicious Activity Reports pertaining to Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent between 1997 and 2005. Both borrowers seeking to obtain homes they could not otherwise afford, and industry insiders seeking monetary gain, were implicated.[94]


From Causes of the United States housing bubble

There are many layers of fraud happening here. The underwritters were people contracted by the banks to approve the recent inundation of new loans. Many of these underwritters went to their supervisors and pointed out fraud on these application saying these people simply cannot afford this home. Their supervisor said "Fraud" is the "F" word, don't use it. You underwritters are suppose to approve these loans whether they can afford it or not. If you don't believe me just listen to some underwritters:

Here is a brief interview of an underwritter contractor. 

"Close to 1.2 million borrowers, or about 30 percent of the more than 3.9 million households whose properties were foreclosed on by 11 leading financial institutions in 2009 and 2010, had to battle potentially wrongful efforts to seize their homes despite not having defaulted on their loans, being protected under a host of federal laws, or having been in good standing under bank-approved plans to either restructure their mortgages or temporarily delay required payments."
From Foreclosure Review Finds Potentially Widespread Errors

It isn't very hard to discover errors and fraudulent activity. But it is for you when you refuse to do any homework on your own. The mass media covers up stories that harms our understanding of capitalism, wealth, and the banking system. It relies on political attacks to incite anger in folks like you to take action. however, when you take action its against your fellow man, not against these banks and institutions that have crippled our economy.


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is when I stopped reading.
> 
> 
> 
> How convenient
Click to expand...

You disputed that government is forcing their will on us with guns, it was a pretty good reason to not take anything you said seriously.



gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> f there were no guns, no one would follow their oppressive laws.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is holding a gun to your head but you drive 55mph. No one is hold a gun to your head and saying don't steal anything in this store but you don't steal anyway. The threat of being shot is not the reason people tend to obey laws. This is just a result of you black and white understanding of reality: might makes right.
Click to expand...

My bad, I forgot that liberals are incapable of grasping cause and effect.

I drive "55" because if I don't I would get a ticket.  If I don't pay the ticket, they will come to arrest me.  If I don't go with them, they will pull out guns.

I don't steal because I'm honest, but if I were not, I know if I steal, they would call the cops. This time they would just pull out the gun in the first place.

Note every sequence ends in government guns.  As someone who's smarter than you, not bragging it's a low hurdle, I realize that not following government's laws ends up in government guns.  And yeah, if I don't capitulate at some point, I will get shot.  I recognize cause and effect, I don't need to actually see the gun.

Liberals really are seriously not smart.  You seriously don't get this?


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism guarantees nothing.
> 
> And that's the beauty of it.
> 
> Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism guarantees consolidation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation which is beautiful only to butt fucked slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does no such thing.  That's nothing but commie propaganda.  This "inequality" meme is similar to the global warming meme and the "red lining" meme.  These are all propaganda campaigns designed to justify more socialism.  They have no basis in fact.
Click to expand...

"A HOLC 1936 security map of Philadelphia showing redlining of lower income neighborhoods.[1] *Households and businesses in the red zones could not get mortgages or business loans.*






"Redlining is the practice of denying, or charging more for, services such as banking, insurance,[2] access to health care,[3] or even supermarkets,[4] or denying jobs to residents in particular, often racially determined,[5] areas. 

"The term 'redlining' was coined in the late 1960s by John McKnight, a sociologist and community activist.[6] 

"It refers to the practice of marking a red line on a map to delineate the area where banks would not invest; later the term was applied to discrimination against a particular group of people (usually by race or sex) irrespective of geography. 

"During the heyday of redlining, the areas most frequently discriminated against were black inner city neighborhoods. 

"For example, in Atlanta in the 1980s, a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles by investigative-reporter Bill Dedman showed that banks would often lend to lower-income whites but not to middle- or upper-income blacks."

*Economic inequality and red lining are just as real as the racist, conservative propaganda memes that created them, as you prove with nearly every post *

Redlining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## gnarlylove

If you think people who were put on the street due to mortgage fraud are better off than the multi-billion dollar banks than PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO MY MESSAGES.

Let me be clear, the banks losts millions but were bailed out and given millions. They should have never entered these deals in the first place if it were for the fact the brought the global economy to its knees and in order to save the value of the dollar and the system, US need to supply 7.7 trillion to various institutions around the world. TARP was merely a warm-up.

You are ignoring the fact the banks have fully recovered and have given themselves 91 billion in bonuses this past Christmas. All the banks are doing quite fine. But we can't say the same for the American families who are struggling to bounce back from the biggest recession since The Great Depression.


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> You just have no concept of how powerful Wall St. is. These powerful men communicate with our gov't and let them know that, as STEVE BARTLETT says "If you want a strong economy, you have to have financial services companies that are safe and sound and able to lend and able to finance their their customers. Now, if you want to have a recession, then go ahead and and and hammer the banks, and you know, make sure that theyre that they fail because then youll have another recession."



OK, think about the blatantly obvious.  Government is in bed with the big bankers.  They are, and I keep saying that if you are reading all my posts on this.  Government and big bankers are in an unholy alliance where the big bankers try to limit competition and politicians love power.

So if you really, truly recognized that, government regulates for the purpose of helping big bankers, then you would OPPOSE regulation.  The so called "deregulation" was not deregulation, it was crony capitalism to help the big bankers.  What we need is ACTUAL deregulation, where government gets out of the market and allows the small players to compete, just like happened with the airline industry when government ended the oligopoly of the big carriers who owned all the takeoff and landing slots.

Again, you are arguing that big finance controls government, and you want to make government MORE powerful.  Your argument is just a joke.  You don't believe that, you just want big government.


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> If you think people who were put on the street due to mortgage fraud are better off than the multi-billion dollar banks than PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO MY MESSAGES.


That's a strawman, no one is arguing that.  You pulled it out of your ass.



gnarlylove said:


> You are ignoring the fact the banks have fully recovered and have given themselves 91 billion in bonuses this past Christmas. All the banks are doing quite fine. But we can't say the same for the American families who are struggling to bounce back from the biggest recession since The Great Depression.



So let's have government stop screwing them.  As for Wall Street bonuses, if you don't pay your employees they won't work for you.  Maybe you'd like to see American businesses shut down, but that would make it worse for the man on the street you claim to care about, not better.


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz, your whole understanding of the world is based in fear. you drive and act responsibly because it enables you to continue making choices for yourself. by obeying laws you get to make other choices that lead to life liberty and happiness.

you do it not because of the fear of a gun shot, rather you do it because it makes sense! when you are caught acting irresponsible your ability to make choices are limited to a jail cell. being shot or threatened with being shot is NOT THE PRIME MOTIVATION for most people.

of course it is for you but your world is very different than anyone i know. and thank god. fear keeps people scared and repressed. fuck that! i want liberty and i'm willing to act certain ways in order to maintain a large chunk of my liberty. but if you read my signature you'll see that my aim is total liberty without regulation. the difference between us is you are a neo-libertarian and I am a classical libertarian (dating back to the enlightenment).


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> That's a strawman, no one is arguing that.  You pulled it out of your ass.


I was talking to todders with whom I've had a slight history and have noticed the patterns that lend itself to wasting my time. turns out i was wrong though, it was briapat or whatever who said:
"
I don't see how they were harmed. What did they lose?

The banks who gave them the mortgage, on the other hand, lost billions of dollars."
I was responding to this with major disgust as you recognized "no one is arguing it" because it sounds stupid. turns out it was being argued...

as for you i have not really been reading previous posts and apologize since you agree that banks and gov't is in bed.

regarding regulation though, it isn't black and white either.

when you regulate what someone can do, this can sometimes benefit the public good. do you agree? or do you think all instances of regulation results in harming the public good?


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> As for Wall Street bonuses, if you don't pay your employees they won't work for you..



it wasn't the bankers you see every day getting these bonuses. it was bonuses to the board of directors and the CEO. that is it! the the employees working on derivatives may have been tossed a bone but the overwhelming majority of bonuses did not go to employees.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In 2012, the top 5 percent of earners were responsible for 38 percent of domestic consumption, up from 28 percent in 1995, the researchers found.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could they possibly measure what someone consumed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> ""Even more striking, the current recovery has been driven almost entirely by the upper crust, according to Mr. Fazzari and Mr. Cynamon. Since 2009, the year the recession ended, inflation-adjusted spending by this top echelon has risen 17 percent, compared with just 1 percent among the bottom 95 percent.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, how would they know what a given individual spends?  Do they have access to his checking account records and his credit card bills?
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those who doubt the US middle class is steadily eroding should ask the business world*
> 
> "In response to the upward shift in spending, PricewaterhouseCoopers clients like big stores and restaurants are chasing richer customers with a wider offering of high-end goods and services, or focusing on rock-bottom prices to attract the expanding ranks of penny-pinching consumers.
> 
> 'As a retailer or restaurant chain, if youre not at the really high level or the low level, thats a tough place to be,' Mr. Maxwell said. '*You dont want to be stuck in the middle*.'
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/business/the-middle-class-is-steadily-eroding-just-ask-the-business-world.html?_r=1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's really scientific.
> 
> So far you've got zip, nada, nothing.
Click to expand...

*Even if that were true, it would still dwarf your contribution.*

"In Manhattan, the upscale clothing retailer Barneys will replace the bankrupt discounter Loehmanns, whose Chelsea store closes in a few weeks. 

"Across the country, Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants are struggling, while fine-dining chains like Capital Grille are thriving. 

"And at General Electric, the increase in demand for high-end dishwashers and refrigerators dwarfs sales growth of mass-market models.

"As politicians and pundits in Washington continue to spar over whether economic inequality is in fact deepening, *in corporate America there really is no debate at all*. 

"The post-recession reality is that the customer base for businesses that appeal to the middle class is shrinking as the top tier pulls even further away.

"'Those consumers who have capital like real estate and stocks and are in the top 20 percent are feeling pretty good,' said John G. Maxwell, head of the global retail and consumer practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/business/the-middle-class-is-steadily-eroding-just-ask-the-business-world.html?_r=2


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a strawman, no one is arguing that.  You pulled it out of your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking to todders with whom I've had a slight history and have noticed the patterns that lend itself to wasting my time. turns out i was wrong though, it was briapat or whatever who said:
> "
> I don't see how they were harmed. What did they lose?
> 
> The banks who gave them the mortgage, on the other hand, lost billions of dollars."
> I was responding to this with major disgust as you recognized "no one is arguing it" because it sounds stupid. turns out it was being argued...
> 
> as for you i have not really been reading previous posts and apologize since you agree that banks and gov't is in bed.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, we're good.



gnarlylove said:


> regarding regulation though, it isn't black and white either.
> 
> when you regulate what someone can do, this can sometimes benefit the public good. do you agree? or do you think all instances of regulation results in harming the public good?



I'm a libertarian, but one area I differ from many librarians is that I consider it a legitimate government role to require accurate disclosure by companies to consumers.  One of the most successful regulations ever (OK, short list) was the government approach to privacy policies.  The government said companies can have virtually any privacy policy they want, including virtually no privacy.  But they must have one and they must disclose it.  Then they only went after the companies that violated their own states policy.  I believe an informed consumer is a more empowered consumer, I don't get libertarians who oppose that.

However, Wall Street regulations are nothing like that.  They are simply geared towards crony capitalism where politicians and big bankers crush competition and dominate the market for their mutual benefit.  More regulation means more power for them, it has zero to do for the benefit of investors.  Recognizing that and believing the solution is MORE government is logically just whacked, and it'll result in more of same.


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Wall Street bonuses, if you don't pay your employees they won't work for you..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it wasn't the bankers you see every day getting these bonuses. it was bonuses to the board of directors and the CEO. that is it! the the employees working on derivatives may have been tossed a bone but the overwhelming majority of bonuses did not go to employees.
Click to expand...


It goes to all of them.  Again, I worked on Wall Street.  For most financial services employees, their bonus is most of their compensation.  They might have a salary of $30K a year and get a $300K bonus.  That's the way it works.  If they don't deliver, they get out obviously very quickly because bonuses are based on performance.  The attacks on Wall Street bonuses are just ridiculous sanctimony.  It's how it works.  The more bonuses, the better the firms are doing.  They don't pay people bonuses who aren't making money, that's how they drive them out quickly.  More bonuses are good, not bad.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The banks lowered standards.
> You know, the standards that previously, unfairly, stopped poor risks from getting loans.
> 
> 
> 
> Which banks "lowered standards?"
> How large were their MBS fees?
> Who got unfairly rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Which banks "lowered standards?"*
> 
> The ones that were lending to more poor risks than before.
> 
> *Who got unfairly rich?*
> 
> The Dem crooks running Fannie and Freddie.
Click to expand...

"Before he became President George W. Bushs Treasury secretary in 2006, Henry M. Paulson Jr. agreed to hold himself to a higher ethical standard than his predecessors. 

"He not only sold all his holdings in Goldman Sachs, the investment bank he had run, but also specifically said that he would avoid any substantive interaction with Goldman executives for his entire term unless he first obtained an ethics waiver from the government.

*"Henry Paulson at a House hearing last month questioning his relationship with the firm he led, Goldman Sachs. He spoke to its chief 24 times in six days.*

"But today, seven months after Mr. Paulson left office, questions are still being asked about his part in decisions last fall to prop up the teetering financial system with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, including aid that directly benefited his former firm. 

"Testifying on Capitol Hill last month, he was grilled about his relationship with Goldman."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/business/09paulson.html?_r=1&em


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "CPA Joseph Fried wrote that there is a paucity of CRA loan performance data, based on a response by only 34 of 500 banks surveyed.[105] Nevertheless, estimates have been attempted.
> 
> "Edward Pinto, former Chief Credit Officer of Fannie Mae (198789) and Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, estimated that, at June 30, 2008, there were $1.56 trillion of outstanding CRA loans (or the equivalent). Of this amount, about $940 billion (about 6.7 million loans) was, according to Pinto, subprime.[106]
> 
> "Economist Paul Krugman notes the subprime boom 'was overwhelmingly driven' by loan originators who were not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.[107]
> 
> "One study, by a legal firm which counsels financial services entities on Community Reinvestment Act compliance, found that CRA-covered institutions were less likely to make subprime loans (only 20-25% of all subprime loans), and when they did the interest rates were lower.
> 
> "The banks were half as likely to resell the loans to other parties."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is in fact true.    All of that is true.
> 
> The prior poster which claimed that "all CRA loans are sub-prime" is not actually true.
> 
> Not all CRA were sub-prime.   Some were loans given to specific communities.   A community that normally had some reason that banks were not giving loans too.
> 
> So say for example you have a house in  South Linden, Columbus, OH.   South Linden, is one of the worst areas of Columbus Ohio.    High crime, poor schools, very few jobs, very poor condition homes.
> 
> So some guy decides he wants to buy a house there, and needs a mortgage.   The bank may refuse to make a mortgage for this area, because with the community in such bad condition, even if the borrower, builds up his own house, the condition of the neighborhood will keep the value of the home low.
> 
> The crime may drive the borrower out, and without many people wanting a house in that neighborhood, he will likely not be able to sell it, resulting in default, and the bank loses money.
> 
> Now if the Bank decided to make the loan anyway, to meet CRA requirements, that loan would not be sub-prime, but would not have been made without the CRA.
> 
> But that doesn't mean those loans were good loans.  Many still went bad.  Forcing banks to make loans in known high-risk areas, is just as dangerous as making them give loans to high risk borrowers.
> 
> That's why CRA portfolios were all money losing, regardless of the ratio of sub-prime.
> 
> Also, the fact that CRA loans were half as likely to sell, really doesn't mean much.   The whole purpose of making the CRA loans was to show regulators, and community activist groups that they were following the CRA, by having CRA loans on their books.    Many banks made loans, knowing they would likely lose money, because it kept them from getting sued by the government.
> 
> Regardless, CRA loans were nearly all bad.   The bottom line is, banks know more than government, what loans are safe, and which are not safe.   Any attempt to force banks to change their standards, is inherently going to be more risky.
Click to expand...

Prove "CRA loans were nearly all bad."


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> I'm a libertarian, but one area I differ from many librarians is that I consider it a legitimate government role to require accurate disclosure by companies to consumers.  One of the most successful regulations ever (OK, short list) was the government approach to privacy policies.  The government said companies can have virtually any privacy policy they want, including virtually no privacy.  But they must have one and they must disclose it.  Then they only went after the companies that violated their own states policy.  I believe an informed consumer is a more empowered consumer, I don't get libertarians who oppose that.
> 
> However, Wall Street regulations are nothing like that.  They are simply geared towards crony capitalism where politicians and big bankers crush competition and dominate the market for their mutual benefit.  More regulation means more power for them, it has zero to do for the benefit of investors.  Recognizing that and believing the solution is MORE government is logically just whacked, and it'll result in more of same.



I had my fingers crossed when I called you a libertarian, wasn't sure. We agree on Wall St. regulation being all fucked up. Having worked for them you have a good idea how it operates on the inside. That's an invaluable source--knowing the mundane stuff that goes on as well as the big crash.

But what this comes down to is are we concerned with addressing policy today or are we trying to visualize how an ideal society would operate. That is, are we saying lets de-regulate them so it works smoother in today's world or are we talking about de-regulation in an idyllic libertarian world where the gov't does not exist (or is small and derives power only from the people).

Often these two are in conflict but they need not contradict. That's because we need to question if loosening regulation in the system as it currently stands, would be a good thing (instead of our ideal form of gov't since it doesn't exist--yet). Personally I am not well-versed in Wall St. regulation and don't know the technical answer.

But one thing we can be sure: certain bankers (not all) are seeking ever increasing dominion AND profit. The more autonomy we give them in our current culture of wealth, we give them a key to commit another financial arbitrage and more fraud. 

If we lived in a different culture were the public good was on a level playing field with their own private interests, we could deregulate and trust our decision to allow them to greater autonomy. But as it stands in our society, wealth breeds desire for more wealth and many bankers are uber wealthy. We may need to re-write the regulations from the ground up making them tighter, with less loopholes and risks. But less regulations appears to lead to similar scenarios we've seen. Indeed, not one CEO has been accused of breaking the law and we have Wall St lobbyists eroding the Dodd-Frank regulation to bare bones anyway. 

We are living in a circus. The Glass Stiegel was put in place for a reason and as long as we have our current dynamics in society, it would be a healthy to re-institute--though not easy--many "healthy" things are not the most appealing at first. However, this would likely never happen but its this strong, clear regulation that would prevent some problems we've had/have today/will have. Of course it's not ideal in the way we know it should be--more autonomy.

But humans act irrationally so often that we need limits on ourselves (or certain sectors). Until information can triumph over misinformation and propaganda, irrationality will abound. I don't see that happening anytime soon since advertisement, mass media, and Public Relations Campaigns (aka propaganda) are stronger than ever and in more places than ever (tattooed on ppl's forehead even!)

My view as a libertarian is expressed below in my signature.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Name these reasons*.   Saying 'there could be', doesn't mean anything.   If there was some other reason, name the reason.   I'm open to this theory, but you have to provide something more than an ambiguous "something somewhere might have done it".
> 
> *As for other countries*, yes, and if you wish to look at individual policies of those countries, and analysis the cause of those bubbles, fine.   A few countries did have bubbles that started in the late 90s, early 2000s.   Whether they started exactly in 1997, as our did, I don't know, but that wouldn't make any difference to the cause of our bubble, anymore than it would make a different to the cause of their bubble.
> 
> *Doesn't matter how the market is setup*, or not.   Those institutions, by virtue of the fact they are the largest players in the market, and by virtue of the fact they have the backing of the Federal Government, do influence the market, whether "the market is setup" to be influenced or not.
> 
> Let me give you a clear cut example.    Name the rating agencies.  Can you name them?   Standards & Poor (S&P), Moody's, and Fitch.   Right?   You ask most people what the rating agencies are, you'll get these three.   S&P, Moody's and Fitch.
> 
> But those are not the only rating agencies.   There are actually dozens of rating agencies.     And there were dozens of rating agencies before.   It was the "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization", issued by the Government, which forced out competition.    Even though many rating agencies were perfectly fine in giving out their ratings, since they didn't have the government seal of approval, they lost out to the big three.
> 
> But the NRSRO seal, was only required for government purchases of government bonds and securities.   Had nothing to do with private markets.   Yet the private markets followed suit.
> 
> In fact, consider this.   Before the NRSRO was passed in the 1970s, all rating agencies were running on the buyer pays model, where the buyer of the security, paid to have it rated.     But after the government seal of approval, and the demand moved towards getting securities rated by the government approved rating agencies, and because of that the big three moved towards an issuer pays model.
> 
> Before, the issuer of the securities never paid to have their securities rated, because it was the customer who determined whose rating they wanted to use, and thus they paid to have it rated by who they wanted.
> 
> But since the government gave their seal of approval, the agencies knew they were in demand.    They started charging the issuer of the securities, knowing they had no choice but to pay, or their securities wouldn't be bought, without a government approved rating agency giving the rating, even private buyers wouldn't buy their securities.
> 
> None of that was intended.   Nor is there any law, requiring the private market to follow the public.    Yet the market follows government... and always has, and always will.    It's simply the nature of the beast.
> 
> Same with Fannie and Freddie.  Doesn't matter that there's no requirement to follow Freddie and Fannie.  They have the influence, and backing of the government, and the private market does follow them.  Period.
> 
> *As far as banks that met CRA guidelines, and didn't crash.... who?*
> 
> Because can I name several that met those guidelines perfectly, and crashed really hard.    CountryWide, was following CRA guides perfectly, as far as I can tell.   Bear Stearns was an avid follower of the CRA.    Wachovia, was completely in line with the government, from everything I read on the matter.
> 
> 
> Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the GSE programs.
> 
> When necessaryin cases where applicants have no established credit history, for exampleCountrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the GSEs.​
> This report was issued in 2000 by the Fannie Mae Foundation.   It is widely cited and vetted.  There are numerous books that detail how Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, supported exactly this.   Countrywide, is a clear cut example of a bank following the government influence, and following the CRA to the letter.
> 
> *Glass Steagall has absolutely nothing to do with capital flows, or the size of the bubble*.   Not one single provision of Glass Steagall relates to that, nor was there any repeal of a provision that relates to that.   Completely wrong.
> 
> I can't even figure out what provision you would even think applies to capital flows, or the bubble.   I'd love to hear your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point about 1997 is that you are just throwing out a reason and deciding something with no analysis other than "name something else" which really isn't all that meaningful. Actually other countries do matter because it suggests it was economic.
> 
> I am sorry but there is no comparison between the private industry following suit with ratings standards and the private industry and the ratings agencies not doing their job because of F&F.
> 
> There were plenty of local banks and credit unions that did fine even with the large economic crash. In fact the banks that did the worst were ones who were mixed institutions, something now possible since Glass Steagall.
> 
> Yes the combination of commercial banking and investment banking meant more capital flowing into the MBS market. It took a lot of capital flowing into the market for the bubble to grow so big. It also played a major part in the reason we bailed them out.
Click to expand...


Round and round we go...

No, other countries don't matter, unless you can specifically point to empirical data that suggest they do.    It's ironic that you claim I'm just throwing out stuff, and yet you are throwing out "other countries" with absolutely nothing to support that their problems were in any way, related to ours.

Pointing out that Freddie Mac Securitized Sub-prime loans in 1997, is not just a random irrelevant factoid.   It represents the reversal of 50 years worth of standards on what qualified to be a secure loan to the investor market.    Pointing out that this act happen at the very exact moment that the sub-prime market shoots off, represents a reversal of at least 20 years of sub-prime being a niche market.     Pointing out that the price bubble started, at the very moment these two events happened, is not irrelevant, or inconsequential.   It is the logical steps of action verse reaction.

My opinion is based on the empirical data, that is widely known, and accepted.    Saying "other countries has something similar happen in a similar time span" is both vague and correlative, not causative.

*Further it seems like you have an extreme double standard.*    When talking about borrowers, you give them a complete and total free-pass for taking loans they had absolutely no ability to repay, and buying homes they had no ability to afford.  You do not require them to have any responsibility in the loans they got, and signed their names too.

Yet with the loan originators, you claim they should have complete responsibility to knowing the ability of the borrower to pay back.

Now that right there, is in itself illogical.  You expect that the person taking the loan, should have less self-knowledge of their own ability to repay, than some accountant in a cubicle somewhere?   What logic is that?

Yet the government told both the borrower, and the lender, that these loans were safe, by virtue of the fact gov had their arms, Freddie and Fannie, securitize those loans.

Why is it that when the banker is told to make these loans, and that they are safe because Fannie Freddie securitized them, or they'll get sued by the government, they are supposed to know better somehow.... yet when a borrower who has bad credit, low income, no down payment walks into a bank and asks for a loan, they are absolved from knowing better, and taking responsibility for taking a loan they can't afford?



> In fact the banks that did the worst were ones who were mixed institutions, something now possible since Glass Steagall.



Completely wrong....   I'm sorry, we're not going past this point either, until you admit the truth.
(GSA-  Glass Steagall Act)

Washington Mutual.    Savings and Loans.   Did not fall under GSA.
IndyMac.      Savings and Loans.  Did not fall under the GSA.
Bear Stearns.  Investment bank.    Did not fall under the GSA.
CountryWide.    Investment bank.   Did not fall under the GSA.
Merrill Lynch.   Investment bank.  Did not fall under the GSA.
AIG.    Insurance company.   Did not fall under the GSA.

In fact, if you just walk down the list of all the failures, very very few were Financial Holding Companies.    If you don't know... the GrammLeachBliley Act, did not just "allow banks to do whatever they want" or something.

GrammLeachBliley Act, allowed banks to apply to change their charter to a "Financial Holding Company".   By doing this, they could then operate Retail Banking (your local bank, open a savings account and such), Commercial Banking (loans and accounts of corporations and business), Investment Banking (buying securities like MBS and such), and Insurance Services.

But the key is, they had to change over their charter.   Most didn't.

Thus the vast majority of all the banks that failed during the crash, were not Financial Holding Companies, and if GLB Act had never existed, nothing would have changed with the vast majority of those failures.

The only big exception that I know of, would be Wachovia.

But other companies that WERE Financial Holding Companies, many of them weathered the storm better.  Wells Fargo was a FHC.   They did fine.  JPMorgan Chase, was a FHC, and they had no problems.

In fact, over all, Financial Holding Companies did better than their more limited competitors, naturally because of diversification.   If you have your entire business wrapped up exclusively in Mortgages, and the Mortgage market tanks, you are likely to go down.    If on the other hand, you have some insurance business, and some retail business, and investment business, and a fraction of your business is in Mortgages, and they tank, you or more likely to survive.

*Further!!*

The government actually used Financial Holding Companies, as their method for FIXING the crisis.

Hello?!?

Bank of America was not a FHC.   But the government asked them to buy out CountryWide..... which required them to become an FHC.
JP Morgan Chase, was asked to purchase Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.... which they would not have been able to do without being an FHC.
Wells Fargo was asked to buy Wachovia, and Century Bank....   which they would not have been able to do without being an FHC.

What part of this is not making sense?

Bottom line..... Glass Steagall, and the Gramm Leach Bliley, neither one had ANYTHING.... to do with the crash.   Nothing.  Period.    Sorry, you are wrong.  Flat out, wrong.


----------



## kaz

Thanks for the thoughtful post, I appreciate the effort.  Couple of comments.



gnarlylove said:


> That is, are we saying lets de-regulate them so it works smoother in today's world or are we talking about de-regulation in an idyllic libertarian world where the gov't does not exist (or is small and derives power only from the people)
> 
> Often these two are in conflict but they need not contradict. That's because we need to question if loosening regulation in the system as it currently stands, would be a good thing (instead of our ideal form of gov't since it doesn't exist--yet). Personally I am not well-versed in Wall St. regulation and don't know the technical answer.



Libertarianism isn't just based on the idea that we want limited government because we oppose rules, it's also based on the recognition that government regulates for government's interest.  It doesn't accomplish what it sets out to do.  Ever.  Why would you ever OK a plan you know won't accomplish it's mission?

Look at how every time there's a spending bill, everyone attaches their pork projects to it.  Look at how with Obamacare, we end up with people who have policies in force and have had them in force had them cancelled.  That happened to me until I got the one year reprieve on my policy.  Government regulates to control.  There is no exception.  Though granted we've only got a few thousand years to demonstrate that, maybe it was just a losing streak that will end any time now...

Fact:  Government is in bed with big financial services firms.
Fact:  "De" regulation has benefited those big financial services firms and harmed their competitors.

So:  We need government to create more rules?  You seriously believe that all of a sudden they will get it right?  Based on what?



gnarlylove said:


> But one thing we can be sure: certain bankers (not all) are seeking ever increasing dominion AND profit. The more autonomy we give them in our current culture of wealth, we give them a key to commit another financial arbitrage and more fraud



Fraud is illegal.  If they commit it, we should prosecute them.  I don't see the difference between that and any other business.  And no greater fraud is perpetrated on Americans than the ones you want to give more power to.  Government.  But this time, it'll fix it...

I don't think so.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Yes the MBS created a market for sub-prime mortgages. A new formula was developed that allowed institutions to mix sub-prime mortgages with other mortgages to create a MBS. The way these MBS were created changed based on this formula. Everyone adopted this formula, not just F&F.
> 
> Comparing the MBS of 1960's to the crash is like comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> The CRA was set up to ensure a wide range of people were getting loans. That was the basis of the minimum standards. The extension of using sub-prime mortgages for loans that had nothing to do with the CRA minimum standards is a clear demonstration of the market acting on it's own.
> 
> You can blame F&F all you want. The claim that you are making which is demonstrably false is that everything else was just the market following along mindlessly so they are free of fault.
> 
> As for the institutions that failed, I am not denying that they had sub-prime loans and that they met MINIMUM standards. What I have been saying since post one is that meeting those minimum standards wouldn't crash any of them.
> 
> You keep pushing blame off of the market which is IMO hilarious. You do that and you basically say they are not making the very decisions they are being compensated to make. You put into question their entire existence and reduce their involvement to a bunch of lemmings. I assure you they don't consider themselves to be lemmings.



No.  MBS have existed since the 1960s.  If MBS in and of themselves created sub-prime loans, then why didn't they not start bundling sub-prime loans into MBS until 1997?

You are wrong.  Sorry.

Yes, the formula was changed, so that Sub-prime loans could be bundled into MBSs.   F&F did that.  Yes, the rest of the market followed.   That's why F&F exists, is to influence the market, and they did.

*Comparing the MBS of 1960's to the crash is like comparing apples to oranges. *

No, it's not.   A Mortgage Backed Security, is simply a Collateralize Security.    It's a security with collateral.     The only difference between a CDO (Collateralized Debt Obligation), and an MBS, is that the collateral for the MBS is always a Mortgage.

And the difference between a 1960s MBS, and a 2010 MBS, is about 50 years and that Sub-prime mortgages were not qualified by Freddie and Fannie, to be securitized, whereas in 1997, they were.

Exactly the same.  Apples and Apples.

*The CRA was set up to ensure a wide range of people were getting loans. That was the basis of the minimum standards. The extension of using sub-prime mortgages for loans that had nothing to do with the CRA minimum standards is a clear demonstration of the market acting on it's own.*

What are you talking about?   What minimum standard are you referring to?    There is no "minimum standard" in sub-prime.  The prime rate standard, *IS* the standard.   Sub-prime is inherently below the standard.

There is no level below sub-prime.   There is no sub-sub-prime rate loans or something.

All of the sub-prime loans made for the CRA, were just.... sub-prime loans.   They were *ALL* bad.     There's no such thing as 'good sub-prime CRA loan'.



> You keep pushing blame off of the market which is IMO hilarious. You do that and you basically say they are not making the very decisions they are being compensated to make. You put into question their entire existence and reduce their involvement to a bunch of lemmings. I assure you they don't consider themselves to be lemmings



No, sorry, that is incorrect.

The difference between us, is not that you think banks made bad loans, and I think banks didn't.

The difference between us, is that you want to focus on the results.

I want to focus on the cause.

Focusing on what the banks did in response to bad policy, is a waste of time.

If you continue to push bad policy, and yet try and hammer the banks over and over, you will never solve anything.

As long as you provide banks with incentives to make bad loans, they are going to continue to do so.    As long as you offer to securitize sub-prime loans, and at the same time sue banks for not making sub-prime loans, banks are going to continue to make bad loans no matter how much you scream and wail, and b!tch and moan, and shake your fist, and spew hatred until you are blue in the face and nearly passed out.

Focusing on the results, instead of the cause, will never fix anything, but it will make you a bitter old man at some point.

I want to focus on the cause.   The cause of this problem, regardless of all the results you point out, and bankers did this, and investors did that, and so on and so fourth.... the cause... was a fundamental government belief that "home ownership is inherently good", and thus pushing policies to increase home ownership even to people who did not qualify for it.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, CRA loans were nearly all bad.   The bottom line is, banks know more than government, what loans are safe, and which are not safe.   Any attempt to force banks to change their standards, is inherently going to be more risky.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove "CRA loans were nearly all bad."
Click to expand...


This is one of those "Really?!?" points in the discussion.

First off.... the whole point of the CRA is to provide loans to people that would not qualify.

Why would people not qualify?   Because it's a bad loan.

Banks love to make loans, if they know they'll make a good return on it..... that's why they make loans.

If this is sounding like I'm saying the obvious, that's because I am.    Because the obvious is the answer to your question.

So the CRA pushes banks to make loans that they would otherwise deny, because it's not a safe loan.   Therefore.........  CRA loans are nearly all bad.   IF they were "good", they would be prime rate loans, and the borrower would never be denied, and the CRA would never need to exist.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Name these reasons*.   Saying 'there could be', doesn't mean anything.   If there was some other reason, name the reason.   I'm open to this theory, but you have to provide something more than an ambiguous "something somewhere might have done it".
> 
> *As for other countries*, yes, and if you wish to look at individual policies of those countries, and analysis the cause of those bubbles, fine.   A few countries did have bubbles that started in the late 90s, early 2000s.   Whether they started exactly in 1997, as our did, I don't know, but that wouldn't make any difference to the cause of our bubble, anymore than it would make a different to the cause of their bubble.
> 
> *Doesn't matter how the market is setup*, or not.   Those institutions, by virtue of the fact they are the largest players in the market, and by virtue of the fact they have the backing of the Federal Government, do influence the market, whether "the market is setup" to be influenced or not.
> 
> Let me give you a clear cut example.    Name the rating agencies.  Can you name them?   Standards & Poor (S&P), Moody's, and Fitch.   Right?   You ask most people what the rating agencies are, you'll get these three.   S&P, Moody's and Fitch.
> 
> But those are not the only rating agencies.   There are actually dozens of rating agencies.     And there were dozens of rating agencies before.   It was the "Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization", issued by the Government, which forced out competition.    Even though many rating agencies were perfectly fine in giving out their ratings, since they didn't have the government seal of approval, they lost out to the big three.
> 
> But the NRSRO seal, was only required for government purchases of government bonds and securities.   Had nothing to do with private markets.   Yet the private markets followed suit.
> 
> In fact, consider this.   Before the NRSRO was passed in the 1970s, all rating agencies were running on the buyer pays model, where the buyer of the security, paid to have it rated.     But after the government seal of approval, and the demand moved towards getting securities rated by the government approved rating agencies, and because of that the big three moved towards an issuer pays model.
> 
> Before, the issuer of the securities never paid to have their securities rated, because it was the customer who determined whose rating they wanted to use, and thus they paid to have it rated by who they wanted.
> 
> But since the government gave their seal of approval, the agencies knew they were in demand.    They started charging the issuer of the securities, knowing they had no choice but to pay, or their securities wouldn't be bought, without a government approved rating agency giving the rating, even private buyers wouldn't buy their securities.
> 
> None of that was intended.   Nor is there any law, requiring the private market to follow the public.    Yet the market follows government... and always has, and always will.    It's simply the nature of the beast.
> 
> Same with Fannie and Freddie.  Doesn't matter that there's no requirement to follow Freddie and Fannie.  They have the influence, and backing of the government, and the private market does follow them.  Period.
> 
> *As far as banks that met CRA guidelines, and didn't crash.... who?*
> 
> Because can I name several that met those guidelines perfectly, and crashed really hard.    CountryWide, was following CRA guides perfectly, as far as I can tell.   Bear Stearns was an avid follower of the CRA.    Wachovia, was completely in line with the government, from everything I read on the matter.
> 
> 
> Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the GSE programs.
> 
> When necessaryin cases where applicants have no established credit history, for exampleCountrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the GSEs.​
> This report was issued in 2000 by the Fannie Mae Foundation.   It is widely cited and vetted.  There are numerous books that detail how Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, supported exactly this.   Countrywide, is a clear cut example of a bank following the government influence, and following the CRA to the letter.
> 
> *Glass Steagall has absolutely nothing to do with capital flows, or the size of the bubble*.   Not one single provision of Glass Steagall relates to that, nor was there any repeal of a provision that relates to that.   Completely wrong.
> 
> I can't even figure out what provision you would even think applies to capital flows, or the bubble.   I'd love to hear your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point about 1997 is that you are just throwing out a reason and deciding something with no analysis other than "name something else" which really isn't all that meaningful. Actually other countries do matter because it suggests it was economic.
> 
> I am sorry but there is no comparison between the private industry following suit with ratings standards and the private industry and the ratings agencies not doing their job because of F&F.
> 
> There were plenty of local banks and credit unions that did fine even with the large economic crash. In fact the banks that did the worst were ones who were mixed institutions, something now possible since Glass Steagall.
> 
> Yes the combination of commercial banking and investment banking meant more capital flowing into the MBS market. It took a lot of capital flowing into the market for the bubble to grow so big. It also played a major part in the reason we bailed them out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Round and round we go...
> 
> No, other countries don't matter, unless you can specifically point to empirical data that suggest they do.    It's ironic that you claim I'm just throwing out stuff, and yet you are throwing out "other countries" with absolutely nothing to support that their problems were in any way, related to ours.
> 
> Pointing out that Freddie Mac Securitized Sub-prime loans in 1997, is not just a random irrelevant factoid.   It represents the reversal of 50 years worth of standards on what qualified to be a secure loan to the investor market.    Pointing out that this act happen at the very exact moment that the sub-prime market shoots off, represents a reversal of at least 20 years of sub-prime being a niche market.     Pointing out that the price bubble started, at the very moment these two events happened, is not irrelevant, or inconsequential.   It is the logical steps of action verse reaction.
> 
> My opinion is based on the empirical data, that is widely known, and accepted.    Saying "other countries has something similar happen in a similar time span" is both vague and correlative, not causative.
> 
> *Further it seems like you have an extreme double standard.*    When talking about borrowers, you give them a complete and total free-pass for taking loans they had absolutely no ability to repay, and buying homes they had no ability to afford.  You do not require them to have any responsibility in the loans they got, and signed their names too.
> 
> Yet with the loan originators, you claim they should have complete responsibility to knowing the ability of the borrower to pay back.
> 
> Now that right there, is in itself illogical.  You expect that the person taking the loan, should have less self-knowledge of their own ability to repay, than some accountant in a cubicle somewhere?   What logic is that?
> 
> Yet the government told both the borrower, and the lender, that these loans were safe, by virtue of the fact gov had their arms, Freddie and Fannie, securitize those loans.
> 
> Why is it that when the banker is told to make these loans, and that they are safe because Fannie Freddie securitized them, or they'll get sued by the government, they are supposed to know better somehow.... yet when a borrower who has bad credit, low income, no down payment walks into a bank and asks for a loan, they are absolved from knowing better, and taking responsibility for taking a loan they can't afford?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact the banks that did the worst were ones who were mixed institutions, something now possible since Glass Steagall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely wrong....   I'm sorry, we're not going past this point either, until you admit the truth.
> (GSA-  Glass Steagall Act)
> 
> Washington Mutual.    Savings and Loans.   Did not fall under GSA.
> IndyMac.      Savings and Loans.  Did not fall under the GSA.
> Bear Stearns.  Investment bank.    Did not fall under the GSA.
> CountryWide.    Investment bank.   Did not fall under the GSA.
> Merrill Lynch.   Investment bank.  Did not fall under the GSA.
> AIG.    Insurance company.   Did not fall under the GSA.
> 
> In fact, if you just walk down the list of all the failures, very very few were Financial Holding Companies.    If you don't know... the GrammLeachBliley Act, did not just "allow banks to do whatever they want" or something.
> 
> GrammLeachBliley Act, allowed banks to apply to change their charter to a "Financial Holding Company".   By doing this, they could then operate Retail Banking (your local bank, open a savings account and such), Commercial Banking (loans and accounts of corporations and business), Investment Banking (buying securities like MBS and such), and Insurance Services.
> 
> But the key is, they had to change over their charter.   Most didn't.
> 
> Thus the vast majority of all the banks that failed during the crash, were not Financial Holding Companies, and if GLB Act had never existed, nothing would have changed with the vast majority of those failures.
> 
> The only big exception that I know of, would be Wachovia.
> 
> But other companies that WERE Financial Holding Companies, many of them weathered the storm better.  Wells Fargo was a FHC.   They did fine.  JPMorgan Chase, was a FHC, and they had no problems.
> 
> In fact, over all, Financial Holding Companies did better than their more limited competitors, naturally because of diversification.   If you have your entire business wrapped up exclusively in Mortgages, and the Mortgage market tanks, you are likely to go down.    If on the other hand, you have some insurance business, and some retail business, and investment business, and a fraction of your business is in Mortgages, and they tank, you or more likely to survive.
> 
> *Further!!*
> 
> The government actually used Financial Holding Companies, as their method for FIXING the crisis.
> 
> Hello?!?
> 
> Bank of America was not a FHC.   But the government asked them to buy out CountryWide..... which required them to become an FHC.
> JP Morgan Chase, was asked to purchase Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.... which they would not have been able to do without being an FHC.
> Wells Fargo was asked to buy Wachovia, and Century Bank....   which they would not have been able to do without being an FHC.
> 
> What part of this is not making sense?
> 
> Bottom line..... Glass Steagall, and the Gramm Leach Bliley, neither one had ANYTHING.... to do with the crash.   Nothing.  Period.    Sorry, you are wrong.  Flat out, wrong.
Click to expand...


You seem convinced that CRA caused a bubble but your analysis amounts to looking at a graph and a date on legislation. I am sorry but I don't think that is exactly proof. I admit that I have no proven that the bubble in 97 was just about global economic trends but I didn't mean to act like I was.  

I am not saying that the borrowers are free of guilt. They just haven't been talked about until now. Seems pretty pointless to blame them as they are the ones that are getting foreclosed on and their "guilt" is rather established already.

You keep acting like F&F was mandating all of these loans which they were not. That is simply a falsehood.

You also seem set to ignore the fact that ratings agencies have a responsibility to rate both mortgages and MBS.

You also seem set to ignore the lowering of lending standards well beyond the lowered standards allowed under the CRA. 

You also seem set to ignore the fact that all of these companies are responsible for their own choices for better or worse.  How do you think this all went down? From what you said it is like these institutions made financial decisions by blindly trusting F&F. Do you think that passes as an excuse for the CEO's of these companies? Sorry I lost all your money, I know you pay me millions upon millions of dollars to make these decisions but I figured why think for myself when I can let F&F think for me. Yeah they used this new formula for packaging MBS but I didn't bother to check it out. I figure we should just take it on faith that F&F knows what it is doing. Sure we employee all these people who are supposed to know this stuff but lets ignore that too.

As for GSA, look at the companies that were bailed out. Look at how their willingness to take on risk changed. Investment firms were historically far more willing to take risks than commercial banks. But hey lets just assume that had nothing to do with it.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, CRA loans were nearly all bad.   The bottom line is, banks know more than government, what loans are safe, and which are not safe.   Any attempt to force banks to change their standards, is inherently going to be more risky.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove "CRA loans were nearly all bad."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one of those "Really?!?" points in the discussion.
> 
> First off.... the whole point of the CRA is to provide loans to people that would not qualify.
> 
> Why would people not qualify?   Because it's a bad loan.
> 
> Banks love to make loans, if they know they'll make a good return on it..... that's why they make loans.
> 
> If this is sounding like I'm saying the obvious, that's because I am.    Because the obvious is the answer to your question.
> 
> So the CRA pushes banks to make loans that they would otherwise deny, because it's not a safe loan.   Therefore.........  CRA loans are nearly all bad.   IF they were "good", they would be prime rate loans, and the borrower would never be denied, and the CRA would never need to exist.
Click to expand...

Really.
The whole point to CRA was to help people, who may have been good or bad credit risks, but lived in a geographic area where their local banks gladly took their deposits but refused to make loans for homes or businesses.
Put up some numbers proving most CRA loans were nearly all bad.
How do CRA foreclosures compare to other loans?
No more anecdotes.
No body cares.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fraudulent? Please explain further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortgage fraud is a crime in which the intent is to materially misrepresent or omit information on a mortgage loan application to obtain a loan or to obtain a larger loan than would have been obtained had the lender or borrower known the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From Mortgage Fraud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suspicious Activity Reports pertaining to Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent between 1997 and 2005. Both borrowers seeking to obtain homes they could not otherwise afford, and industry insiders seeking monetary gain, were implicated.[94]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From Causes of the United States housing bubble
> 
> There are many layers of fraud happening here. The underwritters were people contracted by the banks to approve the recent inundation of new loans. Many of these underwritters went to their supervisors and pointed out fraud on these application saying these people simply cannot afford this home. Their supervisor said "Fraud" is the "F" word, don't use it. You underwritters are suppose to approve these loans whether they can afford it or not. If you don't believe me just listen to some underwritters:
> 
> Here is a brief interview of an underwritter contractor.
> 
> "Close to 1.2 million borrowers, or about 30 percent of the more than 3.9 million households whose properties were foreclosed on by 11 leading financial institutions in 2009 and 2010, had to battle potentially wrongful efforts to seize their homes despite not having defaulted on their loans, being protected under a host of federal laws, or having been in good standing under bank-approved plans to either restructure their mortgages or temporarily delay required payments."
> From Foreclosure Review Finds Potentially Widespread Errors
> 
> It isn't very hard to discover errors and fraudulent activity. But it is for you when you refuse to do any homework on your own. The mass media covers up stories that harms our understanding of capitalism, wealth, and the banking system. It relies on political attacks to incite anger in folks like you to take action. however, when you take action its against your fellow man, not against these banks and institutions that have crippled our economy.
Click to expand...


*Mortgage fraud is a crime in which the intent is to materially misrepresent or omit information on a mortgage loan application to obtain a loan or to obtain a larger loan than would have been obtained had the lender or borrower known the truth.*

Yes, borrowers lied on their paperwork and couldn't pay back their loans.
Why aren't you attacking these Main Street liars?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> If you think people who were put on the street due to mortgage fraud are better off than the multi-billion dollar banks than PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO MY MESSAGES.
> 
> Let me be clear, the banks losts millions but were bailed out and given millions. They should have never entered these deals in the first place if it were for the fact the brought the global economy to its knees and in order to save the value of the dollar and the system, US need to supply 7.7 trillion to various institutions around the world. TARP was merely a warm-up.
> 
> You are ignoring the fact the banks have fully recovered and have given themselves 91 billion in bonuses this past Christmas. All the banks are doing quite fine. But we can't say the same for the American families who are struggling to bounce back from the biggest recession since The Great Depression.



*Let me be clear, the banks losts millions but were bailed out and given millions.*

Banks were given loans, loans they had to pay back.

*TARP was merely a warm-up.*

The Treasury made billions in profits from TARP loans to banks. 
You know where TARP lost billions? In mortgage modifications to Main Street borrowers.


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> Libertarianism isn't just based on the idea that we want limited government because we oppose rules, it's also based on the recognition that government regulates for government's interest.  It doesn't accomplish what it sets out to do.  Ever.  Why would you ever OK a plan you know won't accomplish it's mission?



Then I think we agree that Government makes mistakes. Where we disagree is that those "mistakes" are worse than the alternatives. Take EPAs regulation Clean Water Act. This is vital to maintaining standards of drinking water. We know there are instances when the gov't recants this Law so polluters can pollute (like pesticide run off and a current bill in WV to exempt polluters like Freedom's Industries from the Clean Water Act). Although it's not enforced like it should be, we certainly get some positive results. Indeed, most of us do.

Regulations tend to be put in place after a crisis of some kind has made it evident we need to protect against that or obviate that risk. Rarely do we have this type of foresight. In general, by de-regulating/unregulated sectors you offer more freedom for risks to be taken and mistakes to be made (as well as private gains). The problem with the derivatives market was it came from complete darkness, no transparency. Brooksly Born testified to this back almost a decade before the crisis erupted saying we need disclosure and transparency. Upon learning about these markets it might lead to potential call for regulation. Everyone resisted including Greenspan (who is a huge fan of de-regulation and regulated as little as he could for decades) and it blew up in his face. We are left in its wake. By listening to Brooksly we might have avoided that part of the crisis; its hard to say but it makes sense.

I admit the Gov't is very slow and poor at making clean swipes at ensuring the public interest. Although they usually flub up, what are the alternatives we are working with?Some are clearly worse than others and some certainly do have benefits. It's a matter of does it benefit the public and what are it's faults?--which change over time as lobbyists erode them or amend them. Do those faults outweigh the benefits we get? That would be a case by case basis which I don't think neither of us wish to enter. I think its naive to say the gov't does bad each time all the time but I don't think that's what your saying.

I also don't think we ought to regulate the hell out of everything to shore it up. But as it stands we benefit from many of the regulations in place. However, another set are in place due to lobbying in private interest, not the public good. So its all very wishy-washy and gray with often conflicts. Some sectors are better than others.

I think our main goal in moving forward should not be simply de-regulation. Rather it is to rid the influence of wealth in politics. This would shrink the government and especially deflate some egos. Some smart folks call for a "no incumbency rule" and I wonder if this might help solve the issues that come along with revolving door politics.

We are both acknowledging the gov't is poor at its job and corrupt but we see different ways out of the mess. We need gov't officials to serve the public interest first and foremost and consider themselves secondary if at all. This is what good Democracy looks like but is rarely achieved. We both know this.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why aren't you attacking these Main Street liars?



The fraudulent part was not typically from the borrower. They would list their honest income $30,000/year and list they work as a jaintor. How were they able to buy a half a million dollar home? Fraud. The applications weren't lied on, they were fraudulently approved.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Predatory mortgage servicing is abusive, unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent mortgage servicing practices of some mortgage servicers during the mortgage servicing process....
> 
> In mortgage securitization transactions, the mortgage servicer forwards the borrower's payment of principal and interest to the certificate holders (investors) of the special securitized trust that owns and holds the promissory notes secured by the mortgages and deeds of trust. The mortgage servicer, however, is allowed to retain late fees, BPO fees, inspection fees, and other fees charged or assessed to a borrower's account. In addition to the fee income, the servicer is allowed to retain the net liquidation proceeds of any foreclosure sale (net after foreclosure expenses and principal balance to investors). This provides an incentive to unscrupulous servicers who aggressively interpret mortgage documents to add additional fees[7] to a borrower's mortgage account. Many times, the additional fees added on create an event of default allowing the mortgage servicer to foreclose on the property. This practice is commonly referred to as manufacturing a default or manufactured default.



Where ever you get your information, you need to stop going there. They have made you completely stupid and target your fellow man as the enemy. I can assure you the enemy is not main street who is trying to earn a living and buy a house, its those fucks who make millions a year and millions more in undisclosed earnings.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't you attacking these Main Street liars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fraudulent part was not typically from the borrower. They would list their honest income $30,000/year and list they work as a jaintor. How were they able to buy a half a million dollar home? Fraud. The applications weren't lied on, they were fraudulently approved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Predatory mortgage servicing is abusive, unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent mortgage servicing practices of some mortgage servicers during the mortgage servicing process....
> 
> In mortgage securitization transactions, the mortgage servicer forwards the borrower's payment of principal and interest to the certificate holders (investors) of the special securitized trust that owns and holds the promissory notes secured by the mortgages and deeds of trust. The mortgage servicer, however, is allowed to retain late fees, BPO fees, inspection fees, and other fees charged or assessed to a borrower's account. In addition to the fee income, the servicer is allowed to retain the net liquidation proceeds of any foreclosure sale (net after foreclosure expenses and principal balance to investors). This provides an incentive to unscrupulous servicers who aggressively interpret mortgage documents to add additional fees[7] to a borrower's mortgage account. Many times, the additional fees added on create an event of default allowing the mortgage servicer to foreclose on the property. This practice is commonly referred to as manufacturing a default or manufactured default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where ever you get your information, you need to stop going there. They have made you completely stupid and target your fellow man as the enemy. I can assure you the enemy is not main street who is trying to earn a living and buy a house, its those fucks who make millions a year and millions more in undisclosed earnings.
Click to expand...


*The applications weren't lied on, they were fraudulently approved.*

Fraudulently approved? What does that even mean?
Are you saying poor people should have been denied a mortgage?
Community organizers disagree.

*target your fellow man as the enemy.*

I'm targeting your ignorance. 

Why are rich guys the enemy?


----------



## KGB

georgephillip said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


I would have thought the abstract failure of socialism & collectivism around the globe would be sufficient proof enough for the superior nature of the capitalist system...


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't you attacking these Main Street liars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fraudulent part was not typically from the borrower. They would list their honest income $30,000/year and list they work as a jaintor. How were they able to buy a half a million dollar home? Fraud. The applications weren't lied on, they were fraudulently approved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Predatory mortgage servicing is abusive, unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent mortgage servicing practices of some mortgage servicers during the mortgage servicing process....
> 
> In mortgage securitization transactions, the mortgage servicer forwards the borrower's payment of principal and interest to the certificate holders (investors) of the special securitized trust that owns and holds the promissory notes secured by the mortgages and deeds of trust. The mortgage servicer, however, is allowed to retain late fees, BPO fees, inspection fees, and other fees charged or assessed to a borrower's account. In addition to the fee income, the servicer is allowed to retain the net liquidation proceeds of any foreclosure sale (net after foreclosure expenses and principal balance to investors). This provides an incentive to unscrupulous servicers who aggressively interpret mortgage documents to add additional fees[7] to a borrower's mortgage account. Many times, the additional fees added on create an event of default allowing the mortgage servicer to foreclose on the property. This practice is commonly referred to as manufacturing a default or manufactured default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where ever you get your information, you need to stop going there. They have made you completely stupid and target your fellow man as the enemy. I can assure you the enemy is not main street who is trying to earn a living and buy a house, its those fucks who make millions a year and millions more in undisclosed earnings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The applications weren't lied on, they were fraudulently approved.*
> 
> Fraudulently approved? What does that even mean?
> Are you saying poor people should have been denied a mortgage?
> Community organizers disagree.
> 
> *target your fellow man as the enemy.*
> 
> I'm targeting your ignorance.
> 
> Why are rich guys the enemy?
Click to expand...


Most of those Loan Officers weren't making a lot of money until they and their local Bank Managers started bypassing the software and stamping APPROVED on pieces of PAPER.
The Underwriters  were instructed NOT TO DO THEIR JOB.

Don't believe me?
Take ANYONE with a 400 Credit Score to your local Auto Leasing shop and their credit will be bumped up immediately to allow the lease to be approved.
Happens all the time.

I had my Credit Score, back in 2006, bumped up almost 200 points, right in front of my face, in order to be approved for a Honda Pilot.


----------



## Indeependent

KGB said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would have thought the abstract failure of socialism & collectivism around the globe would be sufficient proof enough for the superior nature of the capitalist system...
Click to expand...


Unaccountable Capitalism?  That DOESN'T work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fraudulent part was not typically from the borrower. They would list their honest income $30,000/year and list they work as a jaintor. How were they able to buy a half a million dollar home? Fraud. The applications weren't lied on, they were fraudulently approved.
> 
> 
> 
> Where ever you get your information, you need to stop going there. They have made you completely stupid and target your fellow man as the enemy. I can assure you the enemy is not main street who is trying to earn a living and buy a house, its those fucks who make millions a year and millions more in undisclosed earnings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The applications weren't lied on, they were fraudulently approved.*
> 
> Fraudulently approved? What does that even mean?
> Are you saying poor people should have been denied a mortgage?
> Community organizers disagree.
> 
> *target your fellow man as the enemy.*
> 
> I'm targeting your ignorance.
> 
> Why are rich guys the enemy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of those Loan Officers weren't making a lot of money until they and their local Bank Managers started bypassing the software and stamping APPROVED on pieces of PAPER.
> The Underwriters  were instructed NOT TO DO THEIR JOB.
> 
> Don't believe me?
> Take ANYONE with a 400 Credit Score to your local Auto Leasing shop and their credit will be bumped up immediately to allow the lease to be approved.
> Happens all the time.
> 
> I had my Credit Score, back in 2006, bumped up almost 200 points, right in front of my face, in order to be approved for a Honda Pilot.
Click to expand...


That's awful! Letting poor people take out loans. Despicable!


----------



## gnarlylove

Indeependent said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have thought the abstract failure of socialism & collectivism around the globe would be sufficient proof enough for the superior nature of the capitalist system...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unaccountable Capitalism?  That DOESN'T work.
Click to expand...


What I want to know is what socialism and collectivism is he talking about? The best communism we saw was far from real communism--where alienation is completely removed (was this done? of course not!).

And current socialism is doled out by the State. Few industries are worker owned. Capitalism has penetrated since day one in those countries. The raw difference is "socialism" we see in Europe means the citizens are willing to take on higher tax burdens---that's the main and only difference...well that and they are much happier than Americans. Americans call any tax "socialism."  They call Obama socialist! Clearly socialism means anything you want it to except what it really means! A complete miscategorization.


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The applications weren't lied on, they were fraudulently approved.*
> 
> Fraudulently approved? What does that even mean?
> Are you saying poor people should have been denied a mortgage?
> Community organizers disagree.
> 
> *target your fellow man as the enemy.*
> 
> I'm targeting your ignorance.
> 
> Why are rich guys the enemy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those Loan Officers weren't making a lot of money until they and their local Bank Managers started bypassing the software and stamping APPROVED on pieces of PAPER.
> The Underwriters  were instructed NOT TO DO THEIR JOB.
> 
> Don't believe me?
> Take ANYONE with a 400 Credit Score to your local Auto Leasing shop and their credit will be bumped up immediately to allow the lease to be approved.
> Happens all the time.
> 
> I had my Credit Score, back in 2006, bumped up almost 200 points, right in front of my face, in order to be approved for a Honda Pilot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's awful! Letting poor people take out loans. Despicable!
Click to expand...


If they can't pay them back when they're applying, it IS despicable!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those Loan Officers weren't making a lot of money until they and their local Bank Managers started bypassing the software and stamping APPROVED on pieces of PAPER.
> The Underwriters  were instructed NOT TO DO THEIR JOB.
> 
> Don't believe me?
> Take ANYONE with a 400 Credit Score to your local Auto Leasing shop and their credit will be bumped up immediately to allow the lease to be approved.
> Happens all the time.
> 
> I had my Credit Score, back in 2006, bumped up almost 200 points, right in front of my face, in order to be approved for a Honda Pilot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's awful! Letting poor people take out loans. Despicable!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they can't pay them back when they're applying, it IS despicable!
Click to expand...


Just terrible. They ought to make a law dislosing how much monthly payments will be, to prevent people from borrowing more than they can repay.
For all the liberals with poor math skills.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't you attacking these Main Street liars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fraudulent part was not typically from the borrower. They would list their honest income $30,000/year and list they work as a jaintor. How were they able to buy a half a million dollar home? Fraud. The applications weren't lied on, they were fraudulently approved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wikipedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Predatory mortgage servicing is abusive, unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent mortgage servicing practices of some mortgage servicers during the mortgage servicing process....
> 
> In mortgage securitization transactions, the mortgage servicer forwards the borrower's payment of principal and interest to the certificate holders (investors) of the special securitized trust that owns and holds the promissory notes secured by the mortgages and deeds of trust. The mortgage servicer, however, is allowed to retain late fees, BPO fees, inspection fees, and other fees charged or assessed to a borrower's account. In addition to the fee income, the servicer is allowed to retain the net liquidation proceeds of any foreclosure sale (net after foreclosure expenses and principal balance to investors). This provides an incentive to unscrupulous servicers who aggressively interpret mortgage documents to add additional fees[7] to a borrower's mortgage account. Many times, the additional fees added on create an event of default allowing the mortgage servicer to foreclose on the property. This practice is commonly referred to as manufacturing a default or manufactured default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where ever you get your information, you need to stop going there. They have made you completely stupid and target your fellow man as the enemy. I can assure you the enemy is not main street who is trying to earn a living and buy a house, its those fucks who make millions a year and millions more in undisclosed earnings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The applications weren't lied on, they were fraudulently approved.*
> 
> Fraudulently approved? What does that even mean?
> Are you saying poor people should have been denied a mortgage?
> Community organizers disagree.
> 
> *target your fellow man as the enemy.*
> 
> I'm targeting your ignorance.
> 
> Why are rich guys the enemy?
Click to expand...


I thought these libturds claimed to love their fellow man.  Then why are the always pitting us against one another?  They pit the poor against the rich, blacks and Hispanics against whites, women against men.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's awful! Letting poor people take out loans. Despicable!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't pay them back when they're applying, it IS despicable!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just terrible. They ought to make a law dislosing how much monthly payments will be, to prevent people from borrowing more than they can repay.
> For all the liberals with poor math skills.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm .  .  .  .  . I think there already is such a law.  they also have to give you an accurate estimate of what the closing costs will be.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those Loan Officers weren't making a lot of money until they and their local Bank Managers started bypassing the software and stamping APPROVED on pieces of PAPER.
> The Underwriters  were instructed NOT TO DO THEIR JOB.
> 
> Don't believe me?
> Take ANYONE with a 400 Credit Score to your local Auto Leasing shop and their credit will be bumped up immediately to allow the lease to be approved.
> Happens all the time.
> 
> I had my Credit Score, back in 2006, bumped up almost 200 points, right in front of my face, in order to be approved for a Honda Pilot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's awful! Letting poor people take out loans. Despicable!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they can't pay them back when they're applying, it IS despicable!
Click to expand...


That's what the term "sub-prime" means.  It indicates the borrower has a high probability of default.  If lenders weren't allowed to make such loans, they would be in violation of the CRA.   Damned if they do.  Damned if they don't.  That's liberal legislation for ya.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they can't pay them back when they're applying, it IS despicable!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just terrible. They ought to make a law dislosing how much monthly payments will be, to prevent people from borrowing more than they can repay.
> For all the liberals with poor math skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm .  .  .  .  . I think there already is such a law.  they also have to give you an accurate estimate of what the closing costs will be.
Click to expand...


There is. I was leading the witness.


----------



## georgephillip

KGB said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would have thought the abstract failure of socialism & collectivism around the globe would be sufficient proof enough for the superior nature of the capitalist system...
Click to expand...

*I suppose that depends on what role you believe collectivism plays in modern corporations and how you define socialism:*

"Socialists argue that modern capitalism and private property, which is based on socialized production and joint-stock or corporate ownership structures, is a form of organic collectivism that sharply contrasts with the perception that capitalism is a system of free individuals exchanging commodities.[8] 

"Socialists sometimes argue that true individualism can only exist when individuals are free from coercive social structures to pursue their own interests, which can only be accomplished by common ownership of socialized, productive assets and free access to the means of life so that no individual has coercive power over other individuals.[9]

"George Orwell, a dedicated democratic socialist,[10] believed that collectivism resulted in the empowerment of a minority of individuals that led to further *oppression of the majority of the population in the name of some ideal such as freedom.*

"It cannot be said too often  at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough  that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of."

Collectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*For a few decades after the end of WWII, capitalism did a good job of providing the goods for a majority of Americans; that's no longer the case. World wide as of May 200 5 the three richest people controlled more assets than the combined GDP of the least productive 47 countries.

That's a level of abject failure by any standard.*

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality





			
				Truthout said:
			
		

> The complacent party line of the wealthy is that there is no alternative to the present unhealthy, divisive economic model. The advocates of market fundamentalism have sought to close down totally the intellectual space for enquiry and discourse. As Stiglitz says, if indeed there is no alternative, inequality and poverty will continue to increase, building intensely
> ...divided societies, [where] the rich will hunker in gated communities, almost completely separated from the poor, whose lives will be almost unfathomable to them, and vice versa.



This shutting down of public discourse and establishing capitalism as the only possible way forward is so widespread. I hear it from my some of my own friends and certainly family members. It's disheartening because this has the sole purpose of maintaining the status quo and here the majority of folks cramming capitalism down throats are the same folks who are doing OK in capitalism, they aren't even doing GREAT! It awful how viscous the propaganda has succeeded to convince these people who would never think about such issues unless it was crammed down their throat. This is warfare on humanity and we are obliging to wage it. Capitalism as practiced today will increase inequality till systemic risk comes around again.

This is bad governance, this is bad policy, this is bad ethics. Capitalism works for the few and its got the rest of us working for it. Humans should want a society that works for everyone, not the limited few and the middle class are thrown a couple bones to keep their rhetoric satisfactory.


----------



## Iceweasel

gnarlylove said:


> This shutting down of public discourse and establishing capitalism as the only possible way forward is so widespread. I hear it from my some of my own friends and certainly family members. It's disheartening because this has the sole purpose of maintaining the status quo and here the majority of folks cramming capitalism down throats are the same folks who are doing OK in capitalism, they aren't even doing GREAT! It awful how viscous the propaganda has succeeded to convince these people who would never think about such issues unless it was crammed down their throat. This is warfare on humanity and we are obliging to wage it. Capitalism as practiced today will increase inequality till systemic risk comes around again.
> 
> This is bad governance, this is bad policy, this is bad ethics. Capitalism works for the few and its got the rest of us working for it. Humans should want a society that works for everyone, not the limited few and the middle class are thrown a couple bones to keep their rhetoric satisfactory.


Capitalism is what made this country great. Remove head from rear, drive around and observe America's lifestyle and quit drinking the hate flavored socialist Kool-Aid.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have thought the abstract failure of socialism & collectivism around the globe would be sufficient proof enough for the superior nature of the capitalist system...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I suppose that depends on what role you believe collectivism plays in modern corporations and how you define socialism:*
Click to expand...


Is there more than one definition for socialism and crony capitalism?

.


----------



## gnarlylove

Capitalism is what made this country great. Remove head from rear, drive around and observe America's lifestyle and quit drinking the hate flavored socialist Kool-Aid.[/QUOTE]

We went over this and it's no surprise you keep repeating your tireless mantras--its all you know to do! It also means you never have to think again since you've got every belief and every argument on lock down! Congratulations for being omniscient! What I mean is congratulations on isolating yourself to such a narrow groupthink as to think you a monopoly the answers to the future.

I TOTALLY AGREE AMERICA HAS BECOME HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE SOCIETY. WE PRODUCE TONS OF SHIT! WE ARE VERY GOOD AT THIS! I AGREE WITH YOU!

However, with widening inequality, it will continue to entrap an ever increasing minority of people until we becomes the majority. As it stands 59% of Americans will face a year of poverty or more.

I know your views precisely coincide with what I was talking about: you believe the capitalist propaganda that capitalism is our ONLY FUTURE. That's only true if you refuse to think about alternatives--AND IM NOT talking about caricatures of socialism, communism etc.



			
				Truthout said:
			
		

> the current development model (development for whom?) which has accrued [growth] mostly to the wealthiest billion&#8221; people. Not only does inequality slow economic growth, but it results in health and social problems and generates political instability. Inequality is dysfunctional, and there is a grave need to place equity at the centre of the development agenda.
> A more just and humane model of development, based on equitable distribution of the world&#8217;s resources, is a viable alternative whose time has come.
> The idea of equitable distribution &#8211; of sharing the food and water, the resources knowledge, skills, ideas and technology of the world &#8211; as the guiding principle for development and economic life...



Continuing to ignore inequality which is to say to continue promoting capitalism AS IT OPERATES IN OUR WORLD TODAY will inevitably result in social and political insurrection. In seeing a majority of the world living in abject poverty while .01% of the the world's population own and control more (wealth, land, resources, money etc.) than the majority, we are seeing plutocratic capitalism working at its finest. Why would you support this Iceweasal when it harms your property values among other things? Because you are told to do it and you listen. Then you cry out how ideal capitalism is like you aren't listening to anything being said...


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The complacent party line of the wealthy is that there is no alternative to the present unhealthy, divisive economic model. The advocates of market fundamentalism have sought to close down totally the intellectual space for enquiry and discourse. As Stiglitz says, if indeed there is no alternative, inequality and poverty will continue to increase, building intensely
> ...divided societies, [where] the rich will hunker in gated communities, almost completely separated from the poor, whose lives will be almost unfathomable to them, and vice versa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shutting down of public discourse and establishing capitalism as the only possible way forward is so widespread. I hear it from my some of my own friends and certainly family members. It's disheartening because this has the sole purpose of maintaining the status quo and here the majority of folks cramming capitalism down throats are the same folks who are doing OK in capitalism, they aren't even doing GREAT! It awful how viscous the propaganda has succeeded to convince these people who would never think about such issues unless it was crammed down their throat. This is warfare on humanity and we are obliging to wage it. Capitalism as practiced today will increase inequality till systemic risk comes around again.
> 
> This is bad governance, this is bad policy, this is bad ethics. Capitalism works for the few and its got the rest of us working for it. Humans should want a society that works for everyone, not the limited few and the middle class are thrown a couple bones to keep their rhetoric satisfactory.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is inherently undemocratic, as it's practiced in the US.
Its cult of "free markets" that are entirely dependent on the US military to enforce a Washington (Wall Street) consensus on emerging market has more in common, from an ethical standpoint, with the Taliban than with Adam Smith.
US workers are required the leave any rights to democracy at the workplace door.
In other parts of the world like Germany, for example, labor unions have voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for.
Hence. when German capitalists wanted to outsource German jobs to China, they got their rich white butts kicked while US labor got the rust belt. It is almost discouraging how often conservatives bow low to their rich "job creators".


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have thought the abstract failure of socialism & collectivism around the globe would be sufficient proof enough for the superior nature of the capitalist system...
> 
> 
> 
> *I suppose that depends on what role you believe collectivism plays in modern corporations and how you define socialism:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there more than one definition for socialism and crony capitalism?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Maybe so.
When Lenin came to power in 1917 his success depended upon finding enough food to feed his starving population. According to some accounts, Wall Street provided the food in exchange for Lenin dissolving the worker Soviets which were supposed to control the economy.

Both sides got what they wanted.
Lenin created a powerful state-run economy which actually crushed the socialist model, and capitalists in the US created a version of "socialism" they could turn against domestic progressives who wanted to curtail corporate power during the decades between WWI and WWII.


----------



## bedowin62

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

"true" Socialism has never been tried; and that's why you meanies think it doesnt work!!!!


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I suppose that depends on what role you believe collectivism plays in modern corporations and how you define socialism:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there more than one definition for socialism and crony capitalism?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe so.
> When Lenin came to power in 1917 his success depended upon finding enough food to feed his starving population. According to some accounts, Wall Street provided the food in exchange for Lenin dissolving the worker Soviets which were supposed to control the economy.
Click to expand...


Lenin's people were starving because of Lenin's economic policies.  ALl he had to do to provide them with enough food is allow them to grow it and sell it without the government trying to control everything.  The "accounts" you've read are from communist propagandists who refuse to acknowledge their crimes.



georgephillip said:


> [Both sides got what they wanted.
> Lenin created a powerful state-run economy which actually crushed the socialist model, and capitalists in the US created a version of "socialism" they could turn against domestic progressives who wanted to curtail corporate power during the decades between WWI and WWII.



There is no "model" of socialism that isn't state run.  It's impossible to have voluntary socialism.   What happened in the USSR was horrifying for the simple reason that socialism is horrifying.


----------



## bripat9643

bedowin62 said:


> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
> 
> "true" Socialism has never been tried; and that's why you meanies think it doesnt work!!!!



How do you know when you have true socialism?  All the cars are powered by unicorn farts and every child is above average.


----------



## Truthmatters

dear idiot.

You are the one who said we should return to kings and queens Bri bri


----------



## Truthmatters

socialism can not work.

You think corruption is bad now?


try socialism.


well regulated capitalism combined with democracy is the only way


----------



## Truthmatters

stop the republican party from cheating in elections and everything will work out.

what we have right now is democracy being abused by the republican party


----------



## bripat9643

Truthmatters said:


> dear idiot.
> 
> You are the one who said we should return to kings and queens Bri bri



No, I only said that monarchy would be infinitely preferable to the rule by Obama and Harry Reid that we are all currently suffering under.  At a minimum, our taxes would be less than 20% of what we now pay.


----------



## bripat9643

Truthmatters said:


> socialism can not work.
> 
> You think corruption is bad now?
> 
> 
> try socialism.
> 
> 
> well regulated capitalism combined with democracy is the only way



By the time you and your Komrades are done regulating, the result will be indistinguishable from socialism.


----------



## Contumacious

Truthmatters said:


> stop the republican party from cheating in elections and everything will work out.
> 
> what we have right now is democracy being abused by the republican party



What we have right now is democracy being abused by the Demopublican Party.

.


----------



## gnarlylove

Contumacious said:


> What we have right now is democracy being abused by the Demopublican Party.



Agreed. We are under a tyranny since both parties represent the same narrow interests: global control among the elite. They say it's for our own good.


----------



## Contumacious

gnarlylove said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we have right now is democracy being abused by the Demopublican Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. We are under a tyranny since both parties represent the same narrow interests: global control among the elite. They say it's for our own good.
Click to expand...


Yes, indeed.


The elitists in BOTH PARTIES want to control the economy and mold society into what THEY think is ideal


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there more than one definition for socialism and crony capitalism?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe so.
> When Lenin came to power in 1917 his success depended upon finding enough food to feed his starving population. According to some accounts, Wall Street provided the food in exchange for Lenin dissolving the worker Soviets which were supposed to control the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lenin's people were starving because of Lenin's economic policies.  ALl he had to do to provide them with enough food is allow them to grow it and sell it without the government trying to control everything.  The "accounts" you've read are from communist propagandists who refuse to acknowledge their crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Both sides got what they wanted.
> Lenin created a powerful state-run economy which actually crushed the socialist model, and capitalists in the US created a version of "socialism" they could turn against domestic progressives who wanted to curtail corporate power during the decades between WWI and WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "model" of socialism that isn't state run.  It's impossible to have voluntary socialism.   What happened in the USSR was horrifying for the simple reason that socialism is horrifying.
Click to expand...

*Russians were starving in 1917 before Lenin took power.
If you think state control has anything to do with Socialism, here's a clue:*

"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. 

"One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. 

"In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.

"It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. 

"Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. 

"One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; *an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did),* and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. 

"The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism."

*BTW, before you make an utter idiot out of yourself again, Chomsky's an anarchist who correctly suspects all totalitarian structures, whether communist or capitalist.*

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I suppose that depends on what role you believe collectivism plays in modern corporations and how you define socialism:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there more than one definition for socialism and crony capitalism?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe so.
> When Lenin came to power in 1917 his success depended upon finding enough food to feed his starving population.
Click to expand...


HUH?

What the fuck was the difference between Lenin and Peter the Great?



> Lenin created a powerful state-run economy which actually crushed the socialist model,



Wut?

Read your statement and re-post.


----------



## gnarlylove

Command economies like we saw just after Czarist Russia don't work well without abundance in place. Additionally, Stalin was not aiming to treat everyone as equal, he was eager to develop military control and human life meant very little. In genuine communism life is to be valued equally.

Capitalism is best viewed as a bridge for developing abundance so a better world order can follow. Capitalism aims to maintain power among elite by convincing the herd that capitalism is good for everyone. Indeed, it is but upon reflection, capitalism overwhelmingly benefits a few elite and leaves the rest of the world, some 7 billion, to fight over a few bones. This is not freedom and this is not equality.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Capitalism aims to maintain power among elite by convincing the herd that capitalism is good for everyone.



Huh? Sorry, but that makes no sense. Capitalism has no aims. People do.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> Capitalism is inherently undemocratic, as it's practiced in the US.



Capitalism isn't meant to be democratic. Democracy is a principle that applies to government, where consensus decisions are often necessary.  Majority rule isn't necessary, nor, in my view, desirable, when it comes to our economic decisions.


----------



## gnarlylove

That's a semantic point. Indeed the proponents of capitalism are those who have aims. Sometimes those aims are at odds with themselves as evinced by the power Koch brothers infiltrating KY and WV folks who are poor yet support his policies to end welfare. More often than not those people rely on the welfare system themselves! These proponents are dividing us against ourselves so we cannot make rational decisions. I do not think capitalism as practiced today should be defended. If anything proponents of capitalism should spotlight the huge gap between real capitalism and today's capitalism. Even then we can all agree capitalism necessitates a large working class on which mass wealth concentration is created. Modern humans are still too greedy to be trusted to share fair amounts and so capitalism has many potential flaws even if practiced true to its principles.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> That's a semantic point. Indeed the proponents of capitalism are those who have aims. Sometimes those aims are ...



_Sometimes_, sure. But your wording is more than semantically inaccurate. By saying "capitalism aims to do x", you're implying that everyone who supports capitalism "aims to do x". And that's obviously untrue.

Personally, I share your view that current US economic policy is unjust and should be changed. But it's the restriction of economic freedom that is the source of that injustice, and you seem to be advocating for even more state interference in the economy.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we have right now is democracy being abused by the Demopublican Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. We are under a tyranny since both parties represent the same narrow interests: global control among the elite. They say it's for our own good.
Click to expand...


We are under the tyranny of a large herd of numskulls.  I refer you, of course, to the Democrat voter.


----------



## Dragonlady

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we have right now is democracy being abused by the Demopublican Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. We are under a tyranny since both parties represent the same narrow interests: global control among the elite. They say it's for our own good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are under the tyranny of a large herd of numskulls.  I refer you, of course, to the Democrat voter.
Click to expand...


Oh please!  The Republican Party offers nothing but more of the same failed economic policies that got the country into the mess that Obama inherited - tax cuts and runaway spending.


----------



## Contumacious

Dragonlady said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. We are under a tyranny since both parties represent the same narrow interests: global control among the elite. They say it's for our own good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are under the tyranny of a large herd of numskulls.  I refer you, of course, to the Democrat voter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Oh please!  The Republican Party offers nothing but more of the same failed economic policies* that got the country into the mess that Obama inherited - tax cuts and runaway spending.
Click to expand...


I agree. Specially, Now that they have merged with the democrats .

.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. We are under a tyranny since both parties represent the same narrow interests: global control among the elite. They say it's for our own good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are under the tyranny of a large herd of numskulls.  I refer you, of course, to the Democrat voter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please!  The Republican Party offers nothing but more of the same failed economic policies that got the country into the mess that Obama inherited - tax cuts and runaway spending.
Click to expand...


So the Democrats are the party that wants to cut spending?

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

See what I mean?  Numskulls.


----------



## gnarlylove

Bri you are convinced that the RHETORIC of the Republican Party holds the key but yet you see BEYOND the RHETORIC of the Democrats. NEWS FLASH: THEY ARE LYING EGO-MANIACS just like the DEMOCRATS. There's a lot more to policy than simply bringing down the deficiet. For example, the medical system is a main source of worry and spending, well, wake up and tell the citizens it saves them money to be healthier and eat less meat and we would be better for it. But no, its reduced to political slurry of "cut this" and "slash that" when that's not addressing the issue!!! It's just got-dang rhetoric to distract us that freedom comes with responsibility IN OUR PERSONAL LIVES. But alas, advertising tells us we need what we want all the time and there's no reason we shouldn't have it. FUCK THAT!

Why do you think we are in a stalmate? Because Rep. policies aren't allowed to be implemented? For god sakes the economy operates on Trickle Down principles which have failed all but the top 2%. Give me a break! Somehow you can see past the Democrat HOGWASH but refuse to see that you are wallowing in the same olde shite.

Until people like yourself recognize Republicans are equally bad as Democrats, we will continue to watch the train wreck that is Congress and the Political arena. We will continue to see 2% prosper as the 98% lag behind and suffer. If this is the government you want, slow and ineffective, then support those egotistical madmen who call themselves Republicans. But if you can acknowledge incessant RHETORIC is the death of good politics, then we just might start getting somewhere...


----------



## georgephillip

^^^Yet another good set of reasons for FLUSHING as many Republican AND Democrat incumbents from DC as possible next November. If your ballot offers third party candidates running for congress, consider choosing the one that comes the closest to mirroring your political/economic views and reject the false "choice" of Democrat OR Republican.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear idiot.
> 
> You are the one who said we should return to kings and queens Bri bri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only said that monarchy would be infinitely preferable to the rule by Obama and Harry Reid that we are all currently suffering under.  At a minimum, our taxes would be less than 20% of what we now pay.
Click to expand...

*So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?*

"Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."

Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear idiot.
> 
> You are the one who said we should return to kings and queens Bri bri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only said that monarchy would be infinitely preferable to the rule by Obama and Harry Reid that we are all currently suffering under.  At a minimum, our taxes would be less than 20% of what we now pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."
> 
> Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012
Click to expand...


Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes and gave $4 million to charity.

That bastard! Giving away over 43% of his income. Awful, just awful.


----------



## P@triot

Dragonlady said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. We are under a tyranny since both parties represent the same narrow interests: global control among the elite. They say it's for our own good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are under the tyranny of a large herd of numskulls.  I refer you, of course, to the Democrat voter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please!  The Republican Party offers nothing but more of the same failed economic policies that got the country into the mess that Obama inherited - tax cuts and runaway spending.
Click to expand...


The _only_ failed policies are the Dumbocrat policies which _you_ support... 

The greatest thing that happen to conservatism was complete Dumbocrat rule (both mayor and city council, plus powerful unions in the private sector) for over 60 years in Detroit. It ended the debate once and for all the Dumbocrat marxist policy ends with bankruptcy, poverty, misery, and collapse.

Of course, people not brainwashed by an ignorant ideology and capable of learning from history already figured this out over a century ago.


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear idiot.
> 
> You are the one who said we should return to kings and queens Bri bri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only said that monarchy would be infinitely preferable to the rule by Obama and Harry Reid that we are all currently suffering under.  At a minimum, our taxes would be less than 20% of what we now pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."
> 
> Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012
Click to expand...


Good for him! That is _outstanding_. Sadly, it's 4.1% more than than any of us should be paying.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Mitt Romney gave $4 million to charity.
> 
> That bastard! Giving away over 43% of his income. Awful, just awful.



That could mean many things, including PR stunt (in addition to mere charity). I don't think it's that though. What I hope it shows is that Romney is admitting that 13.4 million wasn't earned by him in full. Without our country's citizens and indeed the global economy he could never attain the success he has. So he is simply giving back to the community that helped him _generate_millions in profits, which is different than earning precisely 13.4M in profits. It is naive and brutish to think anyone "fully and completely" earns every penny. They depend on complex social nexus created and reified by everyone, not by a single individual. Egos kill.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is inherently undemocratic, as it's practiced in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism isn't meant to be democratic. Democracy is a principle that applies to government, where consensus decisions are often necessary.  Majority rule isn't necessary, nor, in my view, desirable, when it comes to our economic decisions.
Click to expand...

Would you agree with this: your freedom of enterprise denies my freedom of a job?
If you believe in democracy, how can you justify not instituting it in the place where we spend most of our adult lives?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only said that monarchy would be infinitely preferable to the rule by Obama and Harry Reid that we are all currently suffering under.  At a minimum, our taxes would be less than 20% of what we now pay.
> 
> 
> 
> *So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."
> 
> Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes and gave $4 million to charity.
> 
> That bastard! Giving away over 43% of his income. Awful, just awful.
Click to expand...

You're right.
It should've been 94%.
Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.


----------



## deltex1

Extraordinary effort................ guarantees inequality.
Studying math and science.......guarantees inequality.
Intense exercise......................guarantees inequality.
Hand/eye coordination..............guarantees inequality.
Large breasts..........................guarantees inequality.
Leadership development ..........guarantees inequality.
Personality development...........guarantees inequality.
Writing skill.............................guarantees inequality.
Anything you put effort into.......guarantees inequality.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> ^^^Yet another good set of reasons for FLUSHING as many Republican AND Democrat incumbents from DC as possible next November. If your ballot offers third party candidates running for congress, consider choosing the one that comes the closest to mirroring your political/economic views and reject the false "choice" of Democrat OR Republican.



Then you'll be voting for the Communist Party candidate?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear idiot.
> 
> You are the one who said we should return to kings and queens Bri bri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only said that monarchy would be infinitely preferable to the rule by Obama and Harry Reid that we are all currently suffering under.  At a minimum, our taxes would be less than 20% of what we now pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."
> 
> Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012
Click to expand...


What does Mitt Romney have to do with issue of whether monarchy is preferable to democracy?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."
> 
> Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes and gave $4 million to charity.
> 
> That bastard! Giving away over 43% of his income. Awful, just awful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right.
> It should've been 94%.
> Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.
Click to expand...


Why should it have been 94%?


----------



## gnarlylove

I think some people are confusing the challenge to capitalism as a challenge to division of labor, exchange of goods or other fundamental concepts. This is not our challenge, these are essential to a functioning society. However, evident within our current state of affairs, those at the top have been afforded exorbitant prosperity while much of the rest are between jobs, kept afloat by increasing credit or wait in lines for soup.

It doesn't take much thinking to realize the prosperity generated from human and mechanized labor was not earned by only the top 2%. It was wealth and prosperity generated by the majority of global citizens. Yet capitalism as practiced today ensures an imposed and unnecessary gap between those who enjoy full service luxury and those who serve those to that end. Unless we wish to worship demi-gods (ie. the uber-rich) we need to call out these internal flaws! Capitalism is diseased if we truly aim for a prosperous nation one ruled with democratic justice and liberty for all. Perhaps there is a better way to practice capitalism but as it stands the wealthy elite are shoring up their powers for the inevitable global challenge to the status quo. Let's join them so we can share more of the opportunities, prosperity and education! These are fundamental in moving forward in the 21st century.

here's a lil image to shake our understanding. of course it's exaggerated to make a point but as always, the truth lies somewhere in between...


----------



## IlarMeilyr

THOSE evil fucking "rich" people eat well while the less affluent have to scrape by.

That's the gist of the complaint.

But while the new lolberal talking point is making the rounds, I can't help but ask:

what exactly do these guys propose as the solution for this disparity?

Strip away all the excess verbiage (verbal camouflage, since they don't want to ever come right out and SAY it) and their agenda is revealed.  (This is why they don't care to address their 'solution" in clear terms.)

They want to -- they think they should be entitled to do it in fact -- and they WILL seek to confiscate from the evil rich bastards ever increasing amounts of their wealth.  It doesn't belong to them, you see.  They didn't earn that.  They didn't build that.  (Sound familiar?)

It isn't "really" the wealth of the rich greedy bastards.  No.  No no. It's stuff they somehow denied the other 99% from having.  So, whether it takes the form of outright confiscation or just the death of a million cuts (taxation without end), the 'solution" is some kind of TAKING.  It's a reclamation, you see.  It's not "taking from the rich."  It's taking BACK from the "rich" to redistribute to everybody ELSE.  

But enough of this analysis.  Let's have the spokespersons for this new liberal talking point meme step up to the podium and cut the malarkey.

The rich have more.  The less affluent (the poor, the 99%) have less.  There is an income inequality.  There is a wealth disparity.  Now, what is the proposed "lib" solution to this identified "problem?"

We await your eloquence.


----------



## gnarlylove

Your republican spin brings us back to square one. Regression is the name of the game.

No one is being accused of being evil. We are all trying to do well for ourselves and do what's right. So you can put the spin of confiscation, of commandeering, of taking but these are stumbling blocks to understanding what a healthy society looks like. You have no idea what I'm talking about when I say the 2% do you? Those who own 10 houses worldwide. 70 cars. 2 private jets etc etc

A healthy society can withstand external forces and internal strife. We should seek to better cooperate instead of disparage one another if we wish to live in a resilient society. But I know you know no other game than to agree with republicans and disagree with anything that is nonrepublican. We are trying your policies in economics and it's causing ever increasing strife as we speak. Maybe your idea of a society is one that worships the one true republican diety but if you expect to endure, this business of alienating people from the propserity in America is damaging to the strength of our nation.

At the level it has reached, this is not a matter of taking, its a matter of sharing what the working class helped create. We understand there will always be levels of difference where people deserve more than others. But what I'm talking about the top 2% you will never brush elbows with and who own the majority of the world's wealth. 85 individuals own the equivalent wealth of the poorest 3.5 billion people! That isn't a matter of earning, its a matter of not sharing. They fly across the world whenever they want and eat anything they desire without repercussion. This is not reality. The rest of us do not aim for such exorbitance; rather, we seek to simply stay sane and that's awfully hard to do when there is no work and what work there is pays less than what it takes to survive. It's a circus for the majority and with gullible folks like you we maintain this unshared prosperity. You stand to benefit from the sharing of the wealth you and I help generate but yet you fight to keep it stowed safely among the 2%. Geesh!


----------



## IlarMeilyr

gnarlylove said:


> Your republican spin brings us back to square one. Regression is the name of the game.



Horseshit as usual from you.  I am merely exposing your lolberal Democrap spin.  No wonder you are braying like the jackass you are.



gnarlylove said:


> No one is being accused of being evil.



You fucking liar.



gnarlylove said:


> We are all trying to do well for ourselves and do what's right. So you can put the spin of confiscation, of commandeering, of taking but these are stumbling blocks to understanding what a healthy society looks like. You have no idea what I'm talking about when I say the 2% do you? Those who own 10 houses worldwide. 70 cars. 2 private jets etc etc
> 
> * * * *



You are being AMAZINGLY VERBOSE (as I wisely predicted you would be) to EVADE the point.  Your trite notion of what  "healthy society" might look like is simply your utopian fantasy.  But even if it were substantive (it isn't) you are still studiously evading ANSWERING the question; what you suggest can properly be done to "correct" this disparity of wealth.

It is NOT (as you later babbled) a matter of "sharing."  YOU have no authority or ability -- and your over-seer government has no authority or ability in law or justice -- to compel me (or anyone else) to "share."  You might have the power to TAKE, but that is not the same thing.  You know it, too.  That's why you attempt to so feebly couch it in terms of "sharing."  Good grief.  You SUCK at this debate thing.  

*Let's assume* that the wealthy 1% (or 2% since you're changing that figure, now) choose not to voluntarily "share" their acquired wealth with you, with the government or with anybody or anything else.  *NOW, what is your proposed solution?
*
Try to lose your verbosity, too.  It is clearly your attempt to obfuscate and evade.  But go for the simple, honest declarative sentences anyway.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> I think some people are confusing the challenge to capitalism as a challenge to division of labor, exchange of goods or other fundamental concepts. This is not our challenge, these are essential to a functioning society. However, evident within our current state of affairs, those at the top have been afforded exorbitant prosperity while much of the rest are between jobs, kept afloat by increasing credit or wait in lines for soup.
> 
> It doesn't take much thinking to realize the prosperity generated from human and mechanized labor was not earned by only the top 2%. It was wealth and prosperity generated by the majority of global citizens. Yet capitalism as practiced today ensures an imposed and unnecessary gap between those who enjoy full service luxury and those who serve those to that end. Unless we wish to worship demi-gods (ie. the uber-rich) we need to call out these internal flaws! Capitalism is diseased if we truly aim for a prosperous nation one ruled with democratic justice and liberty for all. Perhaps there is a better way to practice capitalism but as it stands the wealthy elite are shoring up their powers for the inevitable global challenge to the status quo. Let's join them so we can share more of the opportunities, prosperity and education! These are fundamental in moving forward in the 21st century.
> 
> here's a lil image to shake our understanding. of course it's exaggerated to make a point but as always, the truth lies somewhere in between...



How are you mercilessly exploited?
Spell it out.


----------



## KNB

Record corporate profits coupled with high unemployment.

Trickle-down theory doesn't work.


----------



## bripat9643

KNB said:


> Record corporate profits coupled with high unemployment.
> 
> Trickle-down theory doesn't work.



There's no such thing as "trickle down theory."  That's just a liberal pejorative meaning "capitalism."    Any one who uses the term "trickle down" is simply admitting he hates capitalism.


----------



## Indeependent

KNB said:


> Record corporate profits coupled with high unemployment.
> 
> Trickle-down theory doesn't work.



It does.
The wealth trickles from the Directors.
Most to the CEO, the leading party of Communist China and just enough to the Investors.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KNB said:


> Record corporate profits coupled with high unemployment.
> 
> Trickle-down theory doesn't work.



Record government spending coupled with record government debt.

Big-government liberalism doesn't work.


----------



## Sunshine

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



GP, *life* guarantees inequality.  People are not born equal, not in physical, mental abilities nor in desires.  Life's not fair, and you can't make it fair.

If you and I were equal we would both get a piece of chocolate cake.  But the problem with that is I really don't like chocolate cake.  So, that approach may be equal, but it is not fair.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some people are confusing the challenge to capitalism as a challenge to division of labor, exchange of goods or other fundamental concepts. This is not our challenge, these are essential to a functioning society. However, evident within our current state of affairs, those at the top have been afforded exorbitant prosperity while much of the rest are between jobs, kept afloat by increasing credit or wait in lines for soup.
> 
> It doesn't take much thinking to realize the prosperity generated from human and mechanized labor was not earned by only the top 2%. It was wealth and prosperity generated by the majority of global citizens. Yet capitalism as practiced today ensures an imposed and unnecessary gap between those who enjoy full service luxury and those who serve those to that end. Unless we wish to worship demi-gods (ie. the uber-rich) we need to call out these internal flaws! Capitalism is diseased if we truly aim for a prosperous nation one ruled with democratic justice and liberty for all. Perhaps there is a better way to practice capitalism but as it stands the wealthy elite are shoring up their powers for the inevitable global challenge to the status quo. Let's join them so we can share more of the opportunities, prosperity and education! These are fundamental in moving forward in the 21st century.
> 
> here's a lil image to shake our understanding. of course it's exaggerated to make a point but as always, the truth lies somewhere in between...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you mercilessly exploited?
> Spell it out.
Click to expand...


According to gnarly, merciless exploitation  is simply not akin to "evil."

He's a transparently fraudulent young hack.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is inherently undemocratic, as it's practiced in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism isn't meant to be democratic. Democracy is a principle that applies to government, where consensus decisions are often necessary.  Majority rule isn't necessary, nor, in my view, desirable, when it comes to our economic decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you agree with this: your freedom of enterprise denies my freedom of a job?
Click to expand...


What does 'freedom of a job' mean?



> If you believe in democracy, how can you justify not instituting it in the place where we spend most of our adult lives?



The same way I can justify not instituting it for any of my personal decisions. It's none of the majority's business how I earn a living or how I spend my money.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> I think some people are confusing the challenge to capitalism as a challenge to division of labor, exchange of goods or other fundamental concepts. This is not our challenge, these are essential to a functioning society.



I'm certainly under no such delusions. As you say, unless we plan on giving up on civilization altogether, these functions must happen. The question is whether they'll happen via voluntary interaction, or state coercion. 

Again, if you're simply saying that there are people gaining unearned wealth through illicit means, I agree and I fully support any efforts to stop them. But that doesn't seem to be where you're headed.


----------



## editec

More _on/off, black/white_ thinking here, I see.

CAn you people ever get your tiny_ all or nothing_ heads around the possibility that that_ SOME is okay but TOO MUCH is bad?_

Apparently not.
_
Some _capital formation is a good thing and absolutely necessary to a healthy economy.

_Too much money in the supply side_ is NOT good for capitalism.

For capitalISTS massive wealth inequity might be good _for a while_,. perhaps, but for  capital_ISM?_

_Not so good._

Educate yourselves, citizens.

Your arguments for or against this wealth inequity situation are both ignorant and childish.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

editec said:


> More _on/off, black/white_ thinking here, I see.
> 
> CAn you people ever get your tiny_ all or nothing_ heads around the possibility that that_ SOME is okay but TOO MUCH is bad?_
> 
> Apparently not.
> _
> Some _capital formation is a good thing and absolutely necessary to a healthy economy.
> 
> _Too much money in the supply side_ is NOT good for capitalism.
> 
> For capitalISTS massive wealth inequity might be good _for a while_,. perhaps, but for  capital_ISM?_
> 
> _Not so good._
> 
> Educate yourselves, citizens.
> 
> Your arguments for or against this wealth inequity situation are both ignorant and childish.


*
CAn you people ever get your tiny all or nothing heads around the possibility that that SOME is okay but TOO MUCH is bad?*

You're right, there's just too much freedom going on. Democrats should limit that somehow.

*Some capital formation is a good thing and absolutely necessary to a healthy economy.

Too much money in the supply side is NOT good for capitalism.*

You think our problem is we have too much capital to invest?
Wow, never took an economics class, did you?

*Your arguments for or against this wealth inequity situation are both ignorant and childish.*

Yeah, but enough about liberals.


----------



## dblack

editec said:


> More _on/off, black/white_ thinking here, I see.
> 
> CAn you people ever get your tiny_ all or nothing_ heads around the possibility that that_ SOME is okay but TOO MUCH is bad?_
> 
> Apparently not.
> _
> Some _capital formation is a good thing and absolutely necessary to a healthy economy.
> 
> _Too much money in the supply side_ is NOT good for capitalism.
> 
> For capitalISTS massive wealth inequity might be good _for a while_,. perhaps, but for  capital_ISM?_
> 
> _Not so good._
> 
> Educate yourselves, citizens.
> 
> Your arguments for or against this wealth inequity situation are both ignorant and childish.



I'm not arguing for or against wealth inequity. I'm arguing for sane justice and basics concepts of free society. The idea that people should be prevented from being 'too wealthy' is about as rational as saying that they should be prevented from being too popular or too talented. 

Underlying this argument against 'inequality' is the presumption that those amassing large fortunes are doing something wrong, or that they're taking advantage of loopholes and imbalances in our legal structure. I'm actually in agreement that, often, this is the case. And when it is, we should make it our goal to correct the situation. 

But when free market capitalism is working free of coercion, the results are inevitably and accurately the 'will of the people'. Claiming that people shouldn't be allowed to acquire too much wealth is essentially saying that we, as a society, shouldn't be allowed to _give_ them too much wealth, which makes no sense to me, morally or otherwise.


----------



## History

Socialism guarantees Equal Sharing of misery

So I will take Capitalism any day


----------



## gnarlylove

The evil accusation subtracts from the substantive argument. No doubt exploitation goes on but its hard to say whose responsible directly since smart attorneys have insulated everyone. Just look at the big bankers walking free today. Any poor person would be in jail in a heart beat for millions of billions in fraud.

But you act like there needs to be detailed plans. This is simply another stumbling block. How did we create the society we live in today? Total foresight? HA!

This is the new policies and refreshing ideas we need in goverment and the private sector: unity and solidarity. Yet all you wish to do is cause strife on the same team, but you can't recognize you agree because you're too focused on bashing liberals and anything remotely close to non-Rep. ideas.

NO ONE CARES about the Dem v Rep when it comes to inequality.  Both sides support the same basic policies, only differing on WEDGE issues that distract goof balls like yourself. Its hackneyed and a waste of time. Our real solutions do not involve Dems or Reps in office nor the ones waiting in the wing for a chance at lavish campaign contributions. Most of our congress is millionaires. Public servants are not suppose to be among the richest in society...are they?

With common sense approach to narrowing income, education and opportunity inequality we can create a more productive society--it's a basic fact: the better off the workers are the more likely they will serve their job with gusto rather than regret and misery). There will always be trouble afoot in human society (so no absolutely perfect Utopia) but the question is can we solve problems that are a threat to us? Currently we could not and are not. I'd hope the outrageous utopian vision of genuine representation and ability to ACT on behalf of the people isn't too much for you. Perhaps you're too use to the slop n' vote portrayed by mass media as real Democracy to notice your voice means about as much as a Jack-O-Lantern. Whether Rep. or Dem we are electing the same corporate interests. Obama has accepted billions in corporate money and has appointed tons of CEOs like Mr. Immelt of GE to head important economic councils. What a joke! Such practices are standard of Republicans (and Democrats) and fly in the face of genuine representation.

I propose the following two measures as guiding principles for erecting a satisfactory government (not utopian) so we can create general satisfaction among us, the people (hint: it doesn't involve making cheap shit cheaper, it involves improving the quality of life and allowing citizens to genuinely participate in a democracy):

7 Principles of Good Governance

See Chuck Feeney. He has given most of his 6 Billion away.







For more on recently elected Socialist, see her site VoteSawant.org


----------



## gipper

One of the biggest reasons for income inequality is caused by the very same people who condemn it.

The government school system is likely the biggest culprit...as they fail to educate poor children generation after generation.  If you can't read or write effectively, you can't support yourself...something the Left knows well and is very good at exploiting for THEIR benefit.

But Progressives will fight to the death to keep the government school monopoly in place to protect their union teacher buddies and make sure those unions funnel lots of campaign cash into progressive political coffers. 

Sick...very sick.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> The evil accusation subtracts from the substantive argument. No doubt exploitation goes on but its hard to say whose responsible directly since smart attorneys have insulated everyone. Just look at the big bankers walking free today. Any poor person would be in jail in a heart beat for millions of billions in fraud.
> 
> But you act like there needs to be detailed plans. This is simply another stumbling block. How did we create the society we live in today? Total foresight? HA!
> 
> This is the new policies and refreshing ideas we need in goverment and the private sector: unity and solidarity. Yet all you wish to do is cause strife on the same team, but you can't recognize you agree because you're too focused on bashing liberals and anything remotely close to non-Rep. ideas.
> 
> NO ONE CARES about the Dem v Rep when it comes to inequality.  Both sides support the same basic policies, only differing on WEDGE issues that distract goof balls like yourself. Its hackneyed and a waste of time. Our real solutions do not involve in Dems or Reps that hold office nor the ones waiting in the wing for a chance at election victory. Most of our congress is millionaires. Public servants are not suppose to be among the richest in society...are they?
> 
> With common sense approach to narrowing income, education and opportunity inequality we can create a more productive society. There will always be trouble afoot but the question is can we solve problems that are a threat? Currently we could not and are not. I'd hope this outrageous utopian vision of actual representation isn't too much for you. Perhaps you're too use to the slop set before you on the mass media and accept it as HOW REALITY IS.
> 
> I propose the following two measures as guiding principles for erecting a satisfactory government (not utopian) so we can create general satisfaction among us, the people (hint: it doesn't involve making cheap shit cheaper, it involves improving the quality of life and allowing citizens to genuinely participate in a democracy):
> 
> 7 Principles of Good Governance
> 
> See Chuck Feeney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For more on recently elected Socialist, see here site VoteSawant.org



*Any poor person would be in jail in a heart beat for millions of billions in fraud.*

What fraud? Be specific.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> I'm arguing for sane justice and basics concepts of free society. The idea that people should be prevented from being 'too wealthy' is about as rational as saying that they should be prevented from being too popular or too talented.



You act like anyone who has succeeded has come to that on their own terms and thus deserve every penny. Let's put aside the corruption objection, which we know is a significant minority of business transactions (on Wall St.).

The development of a good human being depends on countless variables including their upbringing, education, nutrition, and most importantly a community (teachers, neighbors, doctors, artists, etc) that encourages personal growth and challenges bad ideas. Ever heard that it takes a community to a raise a child? Well, its true those children raised in strong communities tend to do well for themselves and often gives back to that community.

No body deserves to own 25 houses and 100 cars. That simply is not feasible living standards or sustainable for an enduring human race. Why do they get 80% lavish excess while ~60% of the populous gets poverty or few opportunities? Your logic seems to get in the way of your conception of a healthy society, one where few if any citizens are "diseased." Having 2%/20% of the population be extremely well off does not somehow "balance" hunger and a dearth of opportunity among the bottom 60% and growing. If we lived in a society where opportunity was spread more evenly across the board, we would likely see human productivity sky-rocket since millions would be able to work when they had no opportunity before.

I know cause I live with few opportunities. I don't know why you wish to prevent opportunities from existing for me when I am capable of being as productive as any rich billionaire, the only difference is I wouldn't be able to sell 3 companies and buy 2 and make a cool 800M.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm arguing for sane justice and basics concepts of free society. The idea that people should be prevented from being 'too wealthy' is about as rational as saying that they should be prevented from being too popular or too talented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You act like anyone who has succeeded has come to that on their own terms and thus deserve every penny.
Click to expand...


Hah.... ok. I have very little wealth actually. It would be wasted on me. I'm terrible at managing money, or overseeing large projects.

You're preoccupied with wealth as something people 'deserve', and I don't look at it that way. People don't 'deserve' wealth any more than they deserve intelligence, talent, or good health. In a free society, wealth is something we entrust to people who use it in ways we approve of.

It seems to me that what you are opposed to isn't so much illicitly gained wealth, but economic freedom. Otherwise, your efforts would be focused on identifying how some people are cheating and preventing it. Instead, you seem  committed to the idea that economic power should be distributed by the state, rather than by the voluntary choices of individuals.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

editec said:


> More _on/off, black/white_ thinking here, I see.
> 
> CAn you people ever get your tiny_ all or nothing_ heads around the possibility that that_ SOME is okay but TOO MUCH is bad?_
> 
> Apparently not.
> _
> Some _capital formation is a good thing and absolutely necessary to a healthy economy.
> 
> _Too much money in the supply side_ is NOT good for capitalism.
> 
> For capitalISTS massive wealth inequity might be good _for a while_,. perhaps, but for  capital_ISM?_
> 
> _Not so good._
> 
> Educate yourselves, citizens.
> 
> Your arguments for or against this wealth inequity situation are both ignorant and childish.



*Your* wailing, whining, grunting, inarticulate opposition to "income inequality" amounts to "NOT FAIRSIES!"

Unless you guys (at long last) are willing to state (in nice clear declarative straightforward sentences) precisely what it is you claim is the "solution" to the "problem," then all you say is of exactly no value at all.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

gnarlylove said:


> The evil accusation subtracts from the substantive argument. No doubt exploitation goes on but its hard to say whose responsible directly since smart attorneys have insulated everyone. Just look at the big bankers walking free today. Any poor person would be in jail in a heart beat for millions of billions in fraud.
> 
> But you act like there needs to be detailed plans. This is simply another stumbling block. How did we create the society we live in today? Total foresight? HA!
> 
> This is the new policies and refreshing ideas we need in goverment and the private sector: unity and solidarity. Yet all you wish to do is cause strife on the same team, but you can't recognize you agree because you're too focused on bashing liberals and anything remotely close to non-Rep. ideas.
> 
> NO ONE CARES about the Dem v Rep when it comes to inequality.  Both sides support the same basic policies, only differing on WEDGE issues that distract goof balls like yourself. Its hackneyed and a waste of time. Our real solutions do not involve Dems or Reps in office nor the ones waiting in the wing for a chance at lavish campaign contributions. Most of our congress is millionaires. Public servants are not suppose to be among the richest in society...are they?
> 
> With common sense approach to narrowing income, education and opportunity inequality we can create a more productive society--it's a basic fact: the better off the workers are the more likely they will serve their job with gusto rather than regret and misery). There will always be trouble afoot in human society (so no absolutely perfect Utopia) but the question is can we solve problems that are a threat to us? Currently we could not and are not. I'd hope the outrageous utopian vision of genuine representation and ability to ACT on behalf of the people isn't too much for you. Perhaps you're too use to the slop n' vote portrayed by mass media as real Democracy to notice your voice means about as much as a Jack-O-Lantern. Whether Rep. or Dem we are electing the same corporate interests. Obama has accepted billions in corporate money and has appointed tons of CEOs like Mr. Immelt of GE to head important economic councils. What a joke! Such practices are standard of Republicans (and Democrats) and fly in the face of genuine representation.
> 
> I propose the following two measures as guiding principles for erecting a satisfactory government (not utopian) so we can create general satisfaction among us, the people (hint: it doesn't involve making cheap shit cheaper, it involves improving the quality of life and allowing citizens to genuinely participate in a democracy):
> 
> 7 Principles of Good Governance
> 
> See Chuck Feeney. He has given most of his 6 Billion away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For more on recently elected Socialist, see her site VoteSawant.org



Kshama is evidently retarded.

Well, you did note that she is a "socialist" so i suppose it is redundant.


----------



## RKMBrown

KNB said:


> Record corporate profits coupled with high unemployment.
> 
> Trickle-down theory doesn't work.



Record profits?  ROFL link?


----------



## gnarlylove

I must have misread your post. Earning and deserving mean the same, I think. So my point is that no income is 100% earned, it is a culmination of a life and all those interactions that shaped it. Taxes make sense to address this but we know it has flaws as it is currently. We can do better.

You seem to think there should be no cap on individual prosperity. While I think people should be free to pursue there private aims (wealth accumulation, tons of sex, plethora of beatnik experience etc) as long as these personal projects doesn't harm others--the classic libertarian principle. Of course defining harm can be challenging but I think we know harm when we feel it ourselves so...

Richard Rorty elaborates on this magnificently. He advocates us to "drop the demand for a theory which unifies the public and private... [and] treat the demands of self-creation and of human solidarity as equally valid, yet forever incommensurable." Hence, he calls himself a liberal ironist and defines it thusly:



			
				Richard Rorty in "Contingency said:
			
		

> I borrow my definition of "liberal from Judith Skhlar, who says that liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing we do. I use "ironist" to name the sort of person who faces up to the contingency of his or her own most central beliefs and desires--someone sufficiently historicist and nominalist to have abandoned the idea that those central beliefs and desires refer back to something beyond the reach of time and chance. Liberal ironists are people who include among these ungroundable desires their own hope that suffering will be diminished, that the humiliation of human beings by other human beings may cease.



Basically all our beliefs come from our conditions. No belief is eternal or refers to beyond our conditions (though we may claim such). So any belief may or may not conflict with the public good. When it does we ought to investigate how essential our conditional belief is. The belief that cruelty is wrong is just another ungrounded conditional belief but iif we saw it in operation we would see the blossoming of humanity. I think our personal whims and projects make sense to set aside WHEN they conflict with harming another human being. Of course this should be decided case by case but this is a general rule of thumb.

Moreover, I think Americans would be benefit greatly from education in spirituality and ethics in addition to the normal school curriculum. I'm not saying teach biblical creation, I'm merely noting how spiritual perspectives enhance the rest of life. To ignore our fellow man as having to pick himself up by his bootstraps may be _economically_ sound but misses the mark as humans. We are far more than economics, our wealth or our ideas. Personally I am a Taoist (after having been a devout Christian, devout hedonist among other lifestyles) and a central teaching is the idea that humans cannot visibly see the ultimate truth (see verse 14 and 21 of the Tao Teh Ching). So people who claim they are right and others are wrong is based on flimsy conditionals, not some ultimate perception they have and we lack. However, Taoism also teaches one can harmonize with The Way (thru meditation etc.) and in so doing live a rich and peaceful life.

As for state control, my signature below addresses your accusation. However, we must work with what we've got, and what we've got is a lotta state control. So in order to work within the system, one must pass common sense legislation (and undo others) to close the gap of education and opportunity. Once a certain air of equality is reached, I think it might be appropriate to discuss alternatives to the state but few are willing to listen. As it stands private corps. dominate domestic affairs with the gov't coming in a close second. So while my aim is ultimately a free society governed solely by our own internal principles, we must use what is in place to affect change. This is not a contradiction since one may birth the other.


----------



## gnarlylove

Sawant is an economics professor. I won't accuse you of being retarded but now I get why you complained about my use of 12th grade HS words: it didn't fit the typical Democrat reply and so your reply template (Call Dems names and assert your Rep. dominance) was harder to fit. But you still did it! WAY TO GO!

It takes little thinking to realize her efforts to narrow the gap between those who have succeeded and those struggling to make are highly welcomed. She won her election and that demonstrates her policy is desirable. She defeated a 16 year incumbent and received 29% of the vote (~22,000 votes), an unprecedented margin of victory for a socialist in our two party system.

And believe it or not, Socialist is not defined as "Wrong" or "Satan's policy." But because you have refuse to use your brain and read what socialism is in textbooks, you maintain such ignoble beliefs that damage the integrity of debate.

You can only understand yourself in juxtaposition to your enemies. That's why the two party system works so well for you: you don't have to think, you can simply rely on the Us v Them dichotomy to define your core identity. You can just call your opponents names in a sweeping blanket statements and feel like you are 100% accurate and many low-grade thinkers salute you! You feel validated!

Turns out, reality is not black and white like you make it. Learning of Socialism is more than you can handle so you stick to stupid one-liners. You're fine to remain bigotted and glued to FOX news accepting everything you hear on TV (even when they say "Fair and Balanced"). Neither I nor the cops are going to arrest you for such patently false claims so you will NEVER change your attitudes. The only time you would change your attitudes is if someone held a gun to your head and I doubt it then. Otherwise, you stick to political beliefs you adopted at 14 from your parents and have hardly refined them as you've aged into your mid 40s.  You are one smart cookie! I wish life was as simple as you make it, but I stopped being so naive around 22.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Because the petty little know nothing gnarlyload has rejected Capitalism and has come to adore socialism, he thinks the entire matter is settled.  If you disagree with HIM, then by golly you must be ignorant.



gnarlyload is unlikely to appreciate how ironic his posts are in light of his own muddled thinking.


----------



## gnarlylove

I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.

I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.

Bertrand Russell observed, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." I am full of doubt about what works and what doesn't but I am sure that our current levels of human suffering are not essential to a functioning world and I stand by with my fellow man in solidarity, including you, to eradicate the unnecessary suffering in the world and leave the rest for individuals to manage.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.
> 
> I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.



I have no objection to socialism as an organizing principle. Community co-ops, communes, employee owned businesses, etc... can be attractive alternatives to private ownership for many ventures. What I have a problem with is coercing participation in such projects. To the extent that the socialist ideal can be pursued while still respecting individual liberty, I'm all for it.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.
> 
> I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no objection to socialism as an organizing principle. Community co-ops, communes, employee owned businesses, etc... can be attractive alternatives to private ownership for many ventures. What I have a problem with is coercing participation in such projects. To the extent that the socialist ideal can be pursued while still respecting individual liberty, I'm all for it.
Click to expand...

The problem with most socialist arrangements is they almost always degrade into a system where a small portion of the group does all the work for a larger portion of the group that just sit back and reap the all the benefits provided by the labor.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

gnarlylove said:


> I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.
> 
> I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.
> 
> Bertrand Russell observed, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." I am full of doubt about what works and what doesn't but I am sure that our current levels of human suffering are not essential to a functioning world and I stand by with my fellow man in solidarity, including you, to eradicate the unnecessary suffering in the world and leave the rest for individuals to manage.



No.  Try to pay attention.  I don't "conceptualize" in terms of "Republican" or anti-Republican.  Hell.  I used to be a Republican until I dumped them for being effectively no better in the long term than the damn liberal Democratics.

And I don't really care if you are a full fledged adoring Socialist, a weak capitalist with socialist inclinations or a fucking card carrying Communist Party loyalist.  

What I ASKED you, and what you persist in NOT addressing, isn't really all that difficult to answer.  So try ANSWERING it this time.

You harbor serious misgivings about wealth "disparity" (or income "disparity" which is  not the same thing).

Ok.  I don't care, but let's go with that.  

*The QUESTION is WHAT, be precise here, WHAT do you propose we DO about it?*


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.
> 
> I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no objection to socialism as an organizing principle. Community co-ops, communes, employee owned businesses, etc... can be attractive alternatives to private ownership for many ventures. What I have a problem with is coercing participation in such projects. To the extent that the socialist ideal can be pursued while still respecting individual liberty, I'm all for it.
Click to expand...


That's the problem with socialism.  It can't work without coercion.  The people doing all the work and carrying the load for all the deadbeats and parasites can't be allowed to leave when they get fed up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.
> 
> I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.
> 
> Bertrand Russell observed, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." I am full of doubt about what works and what doesn't but I am sure that our current levels of human suffering are not essential to a functioning world and I stand by with my fellow man in solidarity, including you, to eradicate the unnecessary suffering in the world and leave the rest for individuals to manage.



* What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. *

You're right, capitalism is a horrible failure, just look at Venezuela.
It does nothing but spread misery and suffering and has led to price controls, empty shelves and even toilet paper shortages. Capitalism must be ended!!!!

Oh, wait, it's socialism and government reductions in inequality in Venezuela that did these things.
No toilet paper, but at least things are fair.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw, your stock increases offer nothing to half the country that doesn't play that game. It's odd how about 59% of Americans will experience poverty and that coincides with the stock ownership.
> 
> So as people like yourself and make money, it takes away money from those at the bottom. That's why it matters that the top 1% earn so much more. There is a limited amount of money in the system at one time and since 40% of the _global_ wealth is owned by the top 1%, that leaves a lot less for the rest to share doesn't it? Not in your world since you have capital to back up your capital investments. What about the average household whose debt is exceeding their annual income now? I guess these people are to be written off in your equation and ignored "since they clearly haven't shown the earning power."
> 
> This American Dream is propaganda and advertisement for the US. While a few can break through the bonds of poverty, what tends to happen for those in poverty is they stay there. Not because a lack of motivation (poverty sucks!!!) but because a sheer lack of opportunity and quality education.
> 
> Read here about what American's think of the American Dream now-a-days. It ain't what it use to be...
> 
> 
> 
> MetLife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The survey, MetLifes 5th annual, uncovers emerging trends that show Americans are
> less concerned with material issues, and that lifes traditional markers of
> success  getting married, buying a house, having a family, building wealth  do not
> matter as much today. Rather, achieving a sense of personal fulfillment is more
> important toward realizing the American Dream than accumulating material wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This tells the story that Americans have forsaken the idea of personal wealth (car, house family ownership) and is being traded in for a more feasible alternative: accepting what you have and aiming to not be a pay check away from poverty/couch surfing.
> 
> The economic policy are so evidently stacked against the poor its just dim-wittedness to miss it. War on the Poor is real and is happening. To deny it is to protect yourself in your isolated bubble of your well-to-do affluent friends. Such snobbery is easy to come by when poverty is a concept and not a reality for yourself.
Click to expand...


It's not odd how that coincides.

People that do not own stock, generally don't because they blow all their money.   I had a roommate.   They were getting kicked out of their apartment, and I felt the need to offer them my spare bedroom, because I've been there.  I've had my face shoved in the dirt, and people kicking me while I'm down.

It's exactly because of that, that I wanted to learn how to live better.   Pay off all my debt.   Save money in the bank.   Invest money for a future.  Have an emergency fund.

So foolishly assumed this other person was in the same place.   That they would want to change their ways, so they could have a future.    Instead, not only did they not fix their ways, but living in my house as a roommate, they lived even more irresponsibly than ever before.   They were going out to eat, buying subscriptions to expensive magazines, going to the movies, all while they were completely broke.

Finally, I came walking in to find them surrounded with gifts for some family or something, all over the floor, and they were 2 months late on the rent, and I was giving them the lowest rent in the city.

This person will be poor until they die.... by choice.    They blow every single dollar that comes into their hands.   Check on Friday, gone by Thursday.

I finally informed them they needed to find another place to stay, and discovered that they couldn't get another place, because they still owed money to the last apartment they were in 18 months prior.   They never paid their electric, or their gas bill, from 18 months ago... yet they were blowing money on whatever they could grab.

Choice dude.   That person was making choices that left them in debt, and impoverished.   Has nothing to do with the 'deck stacked against them', because I was working at the EXACT SAME JOB THEY WERE, and I had saved money, and gotten out of debt, and I was paying more money for my living, than they were.

*No owning stocks doesn't take money away from the people at the bottom.*  That's garbage.   Prove it.    Prove that it takes money away from anyone.  Most of those people wouldn't even have jobs if those stocks didn't exist.  I don't think you grasp how stocks work, or what they are used for.

*Money and wealth, are not the same.   And wealth is not 'limited'.*  Wealth is constantly being created and destroyed.   The amount of physical money in the system is irrelevant.   This isn't a cartoon, with scrooge McDuck swimming through a vault full of cash.      Most of the wealthy don't have cash earnings.  They get stock options.    When you see Person X has $124 Million or whatever, that's not "money" that's in assets.

*The solution to having more debt than assets is.....*  TO NOT BORROW.   Hello....  it's just that simple dude.    I learned this the hard way.   I had 3 credit cards, and two of them were maxed out.    There were years that went by, where I had not a dollar to my name.     First..... cut up the credit cards.    Second.... cut your life style to nothing.    Third.... pay off debt.   Fourth, never borrow again for the rest of your life.

How much do you think I earn in a year?    $20,000.   I have never earned more than $20,000 in a year, for the past 15 years.     Why do I have thousands of dollars in stocks?   Why do I have ZERO debt anywhere?   It's actually really easy.   Spend less than you make, and don't borrow.

*There is no war on the poor.*   Huffington BS is wrong.  That's all there is too it.   The only war against the poor, is by the leftist liberal elite whose policies keep the poor down with taxes, and programs, and incentives to stay poor.

*Lastly, as far as personal fulfillment and all that.*  The American Dream, can't be confined to "personal Fulfillment".   It wouldn't be "the American Dream" then.    Think about it.... there are people in darkest jungles of Africa that also what personal fulfillment.

Is that what we've come to?   Some generic aspiration that could be attributed to any human being on the face of the planet?

The American dream has always been to advance, in whatever way you choose.   Whether it's whittling duck callers on your back porch, driving an old pickup truck with a sign that says "will stash your trash", or soldering circuit boards in California with the emblem of an Apple on them.... they are all seeking personal fulfillment.

And honestly, this is a self defeating argument.  Because if your point is that material wealth doesn't matter, then once again, why do you care about the wealth gap?  Why care about the percentage of income, or share of the wealth?     It can only be for greed and envy, because you just said that materialism isn't the American Dream anymore.  So why care what material others have?


----------



## Indeependent

If everybody lived on 20K/Year there would be no point in inventiveness.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

IlarMeilyr said:


> * * * *
> 
> What I ASKED you, and what you persist in NOT addressing, isn't really all that difficult to answer.  So try ANSWERING it this time.
> 
> You harbor serious misgivings about wealth "disparity" (or income "disparity" which is  not the same thing).
> 
> * * * *
> 
> *The QUESTION is WHAT, be precise here, WHAT do you propose we DO about it?*



Will gnarlyload answer or will he play Shrinking Violet?


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about 1997 is that you are just throwing out a reason and deciding something with no analysis other than "name something else" which really isn't all that meaningful. Actually other countries do matter because it suggests it was economic.
> 
> I am sorry but there is no comparison between the private industry following suit with ratings standards and the private industry and the ratings agencies not doing their job because of F&F.
> 
> There were plenty of local banks and credit unions that did fine even with the large economic crash. In fact the banks that did the worst were ones who were mixed institutions, something now possible since Glass Steagall.
> 
> Yes the combination of commercial banking and investment banking meant more capital flowing into the MBS market. It took a lot of capital flowing into the market for the bubble to grow so big. It also played a major part in the reason we bailed them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Round and round we go...
> 
> No, other countries don't matter, unless you can specifically point to empirical data that suggest they do.    It's ironic that you claim I'm just throwing out stuff, and yet you are throwing out "other countries" with absolutely nothing to support that their problems were in any way, related to ours.
> 
> Pointing out that Freddie Mac Securitized Sub-prime loans in 1997, is not just a random irrelevant factoid.   It represents the reversal of 50 years worth of standards on what qualified to be a secure loan to the investor market.    Pointing out that this act happen at the very exact moment that the sub-prime market shoots off, represents a reversal of at least 20 years of sub-prime being a niche market.     Pointing out that the price bubble started, at the very moment these two events happened, is not irrelevant, or inconsequential.   It is the logical steps of action verse reaction.
> 
> My opinion is based on the empirical data, that is widely known, and accepted.    Saying "other countries has something similar happen in a similar time span" is both vague and correlative, not causative.
> 
> *Further it seems like you have an extreme double standard.*    When talking about borrowers, you give them a complete and total free-pass for taking loans they had absolutely no ability to repay, and buying homes they had no ability to afford.  You do not require them to have any responsibility in the loans they got, and signed their names too.
> 
> Yet with the loan originators, you claim they should have complete responsibility to knowing the ability of the borrower to pay back.
> 
> Now that right there, is in itself illogical.  You expect that the person taking the loan, should have less self-knowledge of their own ability to repay, than some accountant in a cubicle somewhere?   What logic is that?
> 
> Yet the government told both the borrower, and the lender, that these loans were safe, by virtue of the fact gov had their arms, Freddie and Fannie, securitize those loans.
> 
> Why is it that when the banker is told to make these loans, and that they are safe because Fannie Freddie securitized them, or they'll get sued by the government, they are supposed to know better somehow.... yet when a borrower who has bad credit, low income, no down payment walks into a bank and asks for a loan, they are absolved from knowing better, and taking responsibility for taking a loan they can't afford?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact the banks that did the worst were ones who were mixed institutions, something now possible since Glass Steagall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely wrong....   I'm sorry, we're not going past this point either, until you admit the truth.
> (GSA-  Glass Steagall Act)
> 
> Washington Mutual.    Savings and Loans.   Did not fall under GSA.
> IndyMac.      Savings and Loans.  Did not fall under the GSA.
> Bear Stearns.  Investment bank.    Did not fall under the GSA.
> CountryWide.    Investment bank.   Did not fall under the GSA.
> Merrill Lynch.   Investment bank.  Did not fall under the GSA.
> AIG.    Insurance company.   Did not fall under the GSA.
> 
> In fact, if you just walk down the list of all the failures, very very few were Financial Holding Companies.    If you don't know... the GrammLeachBliley Act, did not just "allow banks to do whatever they want" or something.
> 
> GrammLeachBliley Act, allowed banks to apply to change their charter to a "Financial Holding Company".   By doing this, they could then operate Retail Banking (your local bank, open a savings account and such), Commercial Banking (loans and accounts of corporations and business), Investment Banking (buying securities like MBS and such), and Insurance Services.
> 
> But the key is, they had to change over their charter.   Most didn't.
> 
> Thus the vast majority of all the banks that failed during the crash, were not Financial Holding Companies, and if GLB Act had never existed, nothing would have changed with the vast majority of those failures.
> 
> The only big exception that I know of, would be Wachovia.
> 
> But other companies that WERE Financial Holding Companies, many of them weathered the storm better.  Wells Fargo was a FHC.   They did fine.  JPMorgan Chase, was a FHC, and they had no problems.
> 
> In fact, over all, Financial Holding Companies did better than their more limited competitors, naturally because of diversification.   If you have your entire business wrapped up exclusively in Mortgages, and the Mortgage market tanks, you are likely to go down.    If on the other hand, you have some insurance business, and some retail business, and investment business, and a fraction of your business is in Mortgages, and they tank, you or more likely to survive.
> 
> *Further!!*
> 
> The government actually used Financial Holding Companies, as their method for FIXING the crisis.
> 
> Hello?!?
> 
> Bank of America was not a FHC.   But the government asked them to buy out CountryWide..... which required them to become an FHC.
> JP Morgan Chase, was asked to purchase Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.... which they would not have been able to do without being an FHC.
> Wells Fargo was asked to buy Wachovia, and Century Bank....   which they would not have been able to do without being an FHC.
> 
> What part of this is not making sense?
> 
> Bottom line..... Glass Steagall, and the Gramm Leach Bliley, neither one had ANYTHING.... to do with the crash.   Nothing.  Period.    Sorry, you are wrong.  Flat out, wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem convinced that CRA caused a bubble but your analysis amounts to looking at a graph and a date on legislation. I am sorry but I don't think that is exactly proof. I admit that I have no proven that the bubble in 97 was just about global economic trends but I didn't mean to act like I was.
> 
> I am not saying that the borrowers are free of guilt. They just haven't been talked about until now. Seems pretty pointless to blame them as they are the ones that are getting foreclosed on and their "guilt" is rather established already.
> 
> You keep acting like F&F was mandating all of these loans which they were not. That is simply a falsehood.
> 
> You also seem set to ignore the fact that ratings agencies have a responsibility to rate both mortgages and MBS.
> 
> You also seem set to ignore the lowering of lending standards well beyond the lowered standards allowed under the CRA.
> 
> You also seem set to ignore the fact that all of these companies are responsible for their own choices for better or worse.  How do you think this all went down? From what you said it is like these institutions made financial decisions by blindly trusting F&F. Do you think that passes as an excuse for the CEO's of these companies? Sorry I lost all your money, I know you pay me millions upon millions of dollars to make these decisions but I figured why think for myself when I can let F&F think for me. Yeah they used this new formula for packaging MBS but I didn't bother to check it out. I figure we should just take it on faith that F&F knows what it is doing. Sure we employee all these people who are supposed to know this stuff but lets ignore that too.
> 
> As for GSA, look at the companies that were bailed out. Look at how their willingness to take on risk changed. Investment firms were historically far more willing to take risks than commercial banks. But hey lets just assume that had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


Looking at relevant legislation, and empirical data on a graph is 'all' I'm looking at?   Should I consult a ouija board, or the stars too?

Looking at relevant data, and relevant legislation seems to be the proper course of action for investigating the empirical evidence for a given topic.  What would you suggest?

F&F didn't have to mandate anything.   As I've said before, they are the largest player, with the biggest authority in the market, backed by the Federal Government.     When they move.... whether they "mandate it" or not, the market follows.   That's how that works.

The same is true in other completely private markets.   Take Intel.   Intel is the 6000 lbs gorilla of the microchip market.   When Intel says "we're going to do this", suddenly the market follows.   Why?  They are the biggest player, they hold the cards, they have the biggest weight in the market.

When Intel integrated graphic processors into their CPU chips, AMD started integrating ATI graphics processors into their CPU chips.   Did Intel "mandate" it?   No, they just happen to be the biggest player in the game, and they move the market, whether they intend to, or not.

Fannie and Freddie.... Same thing.

Again, the CRA lowered the standard to sub-prime.    There is no standard below sub-prime.   There is no Sub-sub-prime.      The prime rate standard, is in fact the only standard.

So when you say they lowered the standard below the CRA.... I have no idea what you are talking about because there is nothing below sub-prime.

*From what you said it is like these institutions made financial decisions by blindly trusting F&F. Do you think that passes as an excuse for the CEO's of these companies?*

Again, I don't understand this comment.    Yes, the fact the institution did make decisions blindly trusting F&F.   Like I posted before, Countrywide was a preferred partner of Fannie Mae, and was given awards by Fannie Mae for doing what Fannie Mae wanted.  I posted you the article written by Fannie Mae back in 2000, about this very issue.

Now does it excuse anything?  No.  I never said, nor suggested they were excused.    You can't find any comment by me, which suggests that they should be excused for this.     There should never have been a bailout of any type.  The companies should have been bankrupted, and sold off.

Again, the difference between you and me, is not that.  The difference is, I want to focus on causes, not resulting problems.  What was the cause?  The cause was F&F, and the Government pushing sub-prime loans.  If we don't deal with the cause, and we only focus on smacking around the banks, in 10 years time, we'll be right back here with another crash, because as long as government is pushing policies to give loans to people who don't qualify.... this is the outcome.  You can scream at the banks for following the government until the end of time, and they are still going to do it.     I promise you.  You can fine them, jail them, attack them, run around in some park, with signs saying 'eat the rich'.  It won't change anything, and we'll end up right back here all over again.  You have to stop the cause.... stop government from pushing bad loans.

*As for GSA, look at the companies that were bailed out. Look at how their willingness to take on risk changed. Investment firms were historically far more willing to take risks than commercial banks. But hey lets just assume that had nothing to do with it*

The Glass Steagall Act has nothing to do with investment firms.     GSA did not prevent them from existing.   GSA did not prevent them from growing.   GSA did not prevent them from taking risks.    GSA did not prevent them from buying MBSs.    GSA did not prevent them from buying CDOs.    GSA did not prevent them from doing anything at all.

The *ONLY* thing that GSA prevented, was it prevented them from ALSO running retail savings and loans, running Commercial banking, and from offering insurance.

Bear Stearns,  Merrill Lynch, and Countrywide, were all just, and only, investment banks.  None of them were doing retail, commercial, or insurance.

GSA would have had ZERO effect on any of them.   None of them were Financial Holding Companies.   None of them were affected by GSA, or GLBA.

If the GSA was the law of the land, it would have had *zero* effect on the crash of all these firms.

And by way... investment firms always take more risk than banks.   That's the nature of the beast.   The whole reason investment firms exist, is because banks don't pay jack on their deposits.   That's why *I* invest.   Do I want 0.01% interest from my account at the bank?  Or do I want 26% interest I earned at my mutual fund investments?.............

Hmmmm.... 0.01%, or 26%.... hmmmm......   I want the 26%.  That's why I hired my mutual fund broker to buy those investments for me.


----------



## Mr. H.

As I've stated, Capitalism guarantees nothing. 

Socialism guarantees everything. 

Everyone  needs at least basic things. In perpetuity. 

The fight to provide trumps provision by fighting.


----------



## thereisnospoon

gnarlylove said:


> I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.
> 
> I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.
> 
> Bertrand Russell observed, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." I am full of doubt about what works and what doesn't but I am sure that our current levels of human suffering are not essential to a functioning world and I stand by with my fellow man in solidarity, including you, to eradicate the unnecessary suffering in the world and leave the rest for individuals to manage.


Stop it. The system we use does the best for the most.
If you have a better idea, other than government central planning command and control economics, bring it on. Otherwise you can stop complaining.


----------



## thereisnospoon

gnarlylove said:


> Your republican spin brings us back to square one. Regression is the name of the game.
> 
> No one is being accused of being evil. We are all trying to do well for ourselves and do what's right. So you can put the spin of confiscation, of commandeering, of taking but these are stumbling blocks to understanding what a healthy society looks like. You have no idea what I'm talking about when I say the 2% do you? Those who own 10 houses worldwide. 70 cars. 2 private jets etc etc
> 
> A healthy society can withstand external forces and internal strife. We should seek to better cooperate instead of disparage one another if we wish to live in a resilient society. But I know you know no other game than to agree with republicans and disagree with anything that is nonrepublican. We are trying your policies in economics and it's causing ever increasing strife as we speak. Maybe your idea of a society is one that worships the one true republican diety but if you expect to endure, this business of alienating people from the propserity in America is damaging to the strength of our nation.
> 
> At the level it has reached, this is not a matter of taking, its a matter of sharing what the working class helped create. We understand there will always be levels of difference where people deserve more than others. But what I'm talking about the top 2% you will never brush elbows with and who own the majority of the world's wealth. 85 individuals own the equivalent wealth of the poorest 3.5 billion people! That isn't a matter of earning, its a matter of not sharing. They fly across the world whenever they want and eat anything they desire without repercussion. This is not reality. The rest of us do not aim for such exorbitance; rather, we seek to simply stay sane and that's awfully hard to do when there is no work and what work there is pays less than what it takes to survive. It's a circus for the majority and with gullible folks like you we maintain this unshared prosperity. You stand to benefit from the sharing of the wealth you and I help generate but yet you fight to keep it stowed safely among the 2%. Geesh!



To whom are you posting?
Use the quote feature please!


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove "CRA loans were nearly all bad."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those "Really?!?" points in the discussion.
> 
> First off.... the whole point of the CRA is to provide loans to people that would not qualify.
> 
> Why would people not qualify?   Because it's a bad loan.
> 
> Banks love to make loans, if they know they'll make a good return on it..... that's why they make loans.
> 
> If this is sounding like I'm saying the obvious, that's because I am.    Because the obvious is the answer to your question.
> 
> So the CRA pushes banks to make loans that they would otherwise deny, because it's not a safe loan.   Therefore.........  CRA loans are nearly all bad.   IF they were "good", they would be prime rate loans, and the borrower would never be denied, and the CRA would never need to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really.
> The whole point to CRA was to help people, who may have been good or bad credit risks, but lived in a geographic area where their local banks gladly took their deposits but refused to make loans for homes or businesses.
> Put up some numbers proving most CRA loans were nearly all bad.
> How do CRA foreclosures compare to other loans?
> No more anecdotes.
> No body cares.
Click to expand...


Really....   So we can't talk about basic facts of what the CRA does, and make logical conclusions... no, we have to have someone else tell us basic obvious logic, or else we won't believe it, because we have our head shoved so far up our politics, we can't think for ourselves anymore, and need it spoon fed to us?

Fine...   I can play the "tell me the obvious" game.

The Federal Reserve, directed by the Gramm Leach Bliley Act, was required to do a study of CRA loans.
FRB: Performance Survey
Report on the Performance and Profitability of CRA-Related Lending 
Report Tables, Page 7.






As you can clearly see what should have been obvious before needing the government to spend millions doing research on the obvious....  the 30 to 89 day delinquency rate for CRA loans, was double that of all loans.

Further institutions reported consistently that in general CRA loans had a higher delinquency rate, by a large margin.  12 to 76, 8 to 86, and 15 to 41.

The exact same thing was shown with 90 days plus delinquency, with nearly double the CRA delinquency rate, to all loans.    Ironically "all loans" in both cases included the CRA loans.

Similarly, institutions reported consistently that in general CRA loans had higher 90 day delinquency rates, but similarly large margins.   19 to 37, 6 to 76, and 25 to 75.

If you read the entire report, it all basically says the same thing.   CRA loans have a higher delinquency, and higher default rate......  just as I had known was the case using the most elementary level logic, before I even knew this report existed.

I'm starting to grasp why the government spends millions of dollars to make reports whose conclusions are obvious to the rest of society.


----------



## thereisnospoon

gnarlylove said:


> Your republican spin brings us back to square one. Regression is the name of the game.
> 
> No one is being accused of being evil. We are all trying to do well for ourselves and do what's right. So you can put the spin of confiscation, of commandeering, of taking but these are stumbling blocks to understanding what a healthy society looks like. You have no idea what I'm talking about when I say the 2% do you? Those who own 10 houses worldwide. 70 cars. 2 private jets etc etc
> 
> A healthy society can withstand external forces and internal strife. We should seek to better cooperate instead of disparage one another if we wish to live in a resilient society. But I know you know no other game than to agree with republicans and disagree with anything that is nonrepublican. We are trying your policies in economics and it's causing ever increasing strife as we speak. Maybe your idea of a society is one that worships the one true republican diety but if you expect to endure, this business of alienating people from the propserity in America is damaging to the strength of our nation.
> 
> At the level it has reached, this is not a matter of taking, its a matter of sharing what the working class helped create. We understand there will always be levels of difference where people deserve more than others. But what I'm talking about the top 2% you will never brush elbows with and who own the majority of the world's wealth. 85 individuals own the equivalent wealth of the poorest 3.5 billion people! That isn't a matter of earning, its a matter of not sharing. They fly across the world whenever they want and eat anything they desire without repercussion. This is not reality. The rest of us do not aim for such exorbitance; rather, we seek to simply stay sane and that's awfully hard to do when there is no work and what work there is pays less than what it takes to survive. It's a circus for the majority and with gullible folks like you we maintain this unshared prosperity. You stand to benefit from the sharing of the wealth you and I help generate but yet you fight to keep it stowed safely among the 2%. Geesh!



Let's discuss some of the points of your post..
"We are trying your policies in economics".....Now, "your" I guess in your book, means GOP, right wing, conservative, etc...Umm, our system is not being "tried" unless you want to label a system that's been in existence for over 230 years as a "trial".
"it's causing ever increasing strife as we speak."..
Excuse me. Strife? Where. Among whom?\
" this business of alienating people from the propserity in America is damaging to the strength of our nation."......
Who is doing this to you? 
" this is not a matter of taking, its a matter of sharing what the working class helped create. "
Oh really? It's not "taking"....Hey genius, when government gets involved, it IS a taking. 
I have no idea what you refer to when you say "sharing". People work. If they are employed, they have entered into an agreement. They are compensated for the work they perform. If in the opinion of the employee, the wage becomes substandard, he as three choices. Ask for a raise. Move on. Improve skill set to increase his value to the firm.
THAT is how one increases their so called share. 
"That isn't a matter of earning, its a matter of not sharing.".....
From where did you get this idea that someone owes someone else?
Because that is what you project. "I earn therefore I owe a 'share' to you."
I don't think so.
I do not care to 'rub elbows' with the super wealthy. I have little in common with these people other than we belong to the same species. Nor do i wish to be in their company. 
"They fly across the world whenever they want and eat anything they desire without repercussion. "....
That is just pure envy on your part. Repercussions? You're kidding, right?
What business is it of yours what anyone does with THEIR money?
" there is no work and what work there is pays less than what it takes to survive."....Come on....Stop complaining.
" It's a circus for the majority and with gullible folks like you we maintain this unshared prosperity. You stand to benefit from the sharing of the wealth you and I help generate but yet you fight to keep it stowed safely among the 2%. Geesh"
That Keynesian economics theory is debunked. 
A person of wealth is no more in charge of my destiny than I am of his.
Now that you've complained about a number of things, how about you offering up a solution. One that does not involve some crackpot government mandate scheme, mandated income limits. tax increases or forced 'sharing'....
Take your time and come up with a better idea. 
You have a couple weeks to complete your assignment.


----------



## georgephillip

Rottweiler said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only said that monarchy would be infinitely preferable to the rule by Obama and Harry Reid that we are all currently suffering under.  At a minimum, our taxes would be less than 20% of what we now pay.
> 
> 
> 
> *So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."
> 
> Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for him! That is _outstanding_. Sadly, it's 4.1% more than than any of us should be paying.
Click to expand...

*Stop Whining*

"Roosevelts debt ceiling battle actually began right after Pearl Harbor. 

"The nation needed a revenue boost to wage and win the war.
FDR and his New Dealers wanted to finance the war equitably, with stiff tax rates on high incomes. 

"How stiff? 

"*FDR proposed a 100 percent top tax rate*. 

"At a time of 'grave national danger,' Roosevelt told Congress in April 1942, 'no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.' 

"That would be about $350,000 in todays dollars.

"FDR 'settled' for a marginal tax rate of 94%.

"Makes today's super-wealthy seem pretty whiny and greedy, doesn't it?"

*Doesn't it.*

FDR's Proposed Marginal Tax Rate Was 100%


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I only said that monarchy would be infinitely preferable to the rule by Obama and Harry Reid that we are all currently suffering under.  At a minimum, our taxes would be less than 20% of what we now pay.
> 
> 
> 
> *So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."
> 
> Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Mitt Romney have to do with issue of whether monarchy is preferable to democracy?
Click to expand...

Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes and gave $4 million to charity.
> 
> That bastard! Giving away over 43% of his income. Awful, just awful.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.
> It should've been 94%.
> Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it have been 94%?
Click to expand...

"During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments. 

"*In pursuit of equality (rather than revenue) President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000.[30][31]* 

"When Congress did not enact that proposal, Roosevelt issued an executive order attempting to achieve a similar result through a salary cap on certain salaries in connection with contracts between the private sector and the federal government.[32][33][34] 

"For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% for tax years 1954 through 1963."

Taxation history of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

IlarMeilyr said:


> THOSE evil fucking "rich" people eat well while the less affluent have to scrape by.
> 
> That's the gist of the complaint.
> 
> But while the new lolberal talking point is making the rounds, I can't help but ask:
> 
> what exactly do these guys propose as the solution for this disparity?
> 
> Strip away all the excess verbiage (verbal camouflage, since they don't want to ever come right out and SAY it) and their agenda is revealed.  (This is why they don't care to address their 'solution" in clear terms.)
> 
> They want to -- they think they should be entitled to do it in fact -- and they WILL seek to confiscate from the evil rich bastards ever increasing amounts of their wealth.  It doesn't belong to them, you see.  They didn't earn that.  They didn't build that.  (Sound familiar?)
> 
> It isn't "really" the wealth of the rich greedy bastards.  No.  No no. It's stuff they somehow denied the other 99% from having.  So, whether it takes the form of outright confiscation or just the death of a million cuts (taxation without end), the 'solution" is some kind of TAKING.  It's a reclamation, you see.  It's not "taking from the rich."  It's taking BACK from the "rich" to redistribute to everybody ELSE.
> 
> But enough of this analysis.  Let's have the spokespersons for this new liberal talking point meme step up to the podium and cut the malarkey.
> 
> The rich have more.  The less affluent (the poor, the 99%) have less.  There is an income inequality.  There is a wealth disparity.  Now, what is the proposed "lib" solution to this identified "problem?"
> 
> We await your eloquence.


Corruption is the single most eloquent explanation for why your beloved "greedy rich bastards" eat better that the poor. Daily reports from around the planet confirm how government bureaucrats abuse their offices for personal gain. In the US, the greedy rich bastards bribed elected Republicans AND Democrats over the past four decades for favorable tax and trade policies that have increased a few private fortunes at the expense of millions of lost middle class jobs, pension plans, and homes. The solution was pioneered by FDR during WWII; in today's class war impose a 100% tax rates on all US incomes over 1,000,000 dollars. Any of the rich greedy pseudo job creators in the US who don't like it are free to polish their Mandarin and move where they will feel more at home.

We await your wimpish, whining, weaseling response.


----------



## georgephillip

Sunshine said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GP, *life* guarantees inequality.  People are not born equal, not in physical, mental abilities nor in desires.  Life's not fair, and you can't make it fair.
> 
> If you and I were equal we would both get a piece of chocolate cake.  But the problem with that is I really don't like chocolate cake.  So, that approach may be equal, but it is not fair.
Click to expand...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

*Our current dilemma stems from government accepting bribes to monopolize the chocolate cake cartel.*

All men are created equal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."
> 
> Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Mitt Romney have to do with issue of whether monarchy is preferable to democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.
Click to expand...


The only parasites I'm aware of are all getting checks from the government.

My preference is that everyone's taxes should go to 0.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Mitt Romney have to do with issue of whether monarchy is preferable to democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only parasites I'm aware of are all getting checks from the government.
> 
> My preference is that everyone's taxes should go to 0.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  IMO every dollar taxed and subsequently "re-distributed" is a dollar stolen.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GP, *life* guarantees inequality.  People are not born equal, not in physical, mental abilities nor in desires.  Life's not fair, and you can't make it fair.
> 
> If you and I were equal we would both get a piece of chocolate cake.  But the problem with that is I really don't like chocolate cake.  So, that approach may be equal, but it is not fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
> 
> *Our current dilemma stems from government accepting bribes to monopolize the chocolate cake cartel.*
> 
> All men are created equal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


For those of you with reading comprehension problems, in the sentence "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" the second part of the sentence explains the meaning of the first.  That is, men are equally endowed with rights.  Note that it refers to "the pursuit of happiness," not happiness itself.  That means men are free to pursue whatever goals they desire.  It doesn't mean the government is obligated to provide them with a living.  It certainly doesn't mean that anyone is entitled to chocolate cake.

Our current dilemma stems from that fact that government has any authority whatsoever to establish a chocolate cake cartel.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> THOSE evil fucking "rich" people eat well while the less affluent have to scrape by.
> 
> That's the gist of the complaint.
> 
> But while the new lolberal talking point is making the rounds, I can't help but ask:
> 
> what exactly do these guys propose as the solution for this disparity?
> 
> Strip away all the excess verbiage (verbal camouflage, since they don't want to ever come right out and SAY it) and their agenda is revealed.  (This is why they don't care to address their 'solution" in clear terms.)
> 
> They want to -- they think they should be entitled to do it in fact -- and they WILL seek to confiscate from the evil rich bastards ever increasing amounts of their wealth.  It doesn't belong to them, you see.  They didn't earn that.  They didn't build that.  (Sound familiar?)
> 
> It isn't "really" the wealth of the rich greedy bastards.  No.  No no. It's stuff they somehow denied the other 99% from having.  So, whether it takes the form of outright confiscation or just the death of a million cuts (taxation without end), the 'solution" is some kind of TAKING.  It's a reclamation, you see.  It's not "taking from the rich."  It's taking BACK from the "rich" to redistribute to everybody ELSE.
> 
> But enough of this analysis.  Let's have the spokespersons for this new liberal talking point meme step up to the podium and cut the malarkey.
> 
> The rich have more.  The less affluent (the poor, the 99%) have less.  There is an income inequality.  There is a wealth disparity.  Now, what is the proposed "lib" solution to this identified "problem?"
> 
> We await your eloquence.
> 
> 
> 
> Corruption is the single most eloquent explanation for why your beloved "greedy rich bastards" eat better that the poor. Daily reports from around the planet confirm how government bureaucrats abuse their offices for personal gain. In the US, the greedy rich bastards bribed elected Republicans AND Democrats over the past four decades for favorable tax and trade policies that have increased a few private fortunes at the expense of millions of lost middle class jobs, pension plans, and homes. The solution was pioneered by FDR during WWII; in today's class war impose a 100% tax rates on all US incomes over 1,000,000 dollars. Any of the rich greedy pseudo job creators in the US who don't like it are free to polish their Mandarin and move where they will feel more at home.
> 
> We await your wimpish, whining, weaseling response.
Click to expand...


Go fuck yourself, you fucking commie asshole.  

Government has no right to anyone's money.  It certainly doesn't have the moral authority to determine how much anyone can earn.  If the person who earned the money isn't entitled to it, then why is government entitled to it?

You're nothing but a thief and a cheap thug.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


>



This is what losers say to excuse themselves from being losers.  When you read the histories of rich people, they got rich by working hard, working smart.

Luck?  Sure, everyone has a measure of luck.   But most of that luck, comes from a long history of hard work.

Alex Spanos, became a multimillionaire, after he ran into a guy who needed living accommodations, and then a guy in his town happen to have live space available, and offered it to Alex Spanos without any deposit.

Was that "luck"?     Somewhat, but it was also because both people knew Alex, and knew he'd worked his butt off for 10 years, at minimum wage in a bakery, and knew he was a good worker, and knew he was honest and trust worthy.

Spanos built a reputation for himself with honesty, credibility, and hard work for over a decade making minimum wage.

See stupid losers, they don't work hard, don't have credibility, are not trust worthy, and then they spend barely a year working a minimum wage job, late coming to work, leave early, and do as little as possible while they are there.... and then want to b!tch and moan that rich people are lucky.

No, you are a lousy worker, and that's why you are paid nothing, and have no 'luck'.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Round and round we go...
> 
> No, other countries don't matter, unless you can specifically point to empirical data that suggest they do.    It's ironic that you claim I'm just throwing out stuff, and yet you are throwing out "other countries" with absolutely nothing to support that their problems were in any way, related to ours.
> 
> Pointing out that Freddie Mac Securitized Sub-prime loans in 1997, is not just a random irrelevant factoid.   It represents the reversal of 50 years worth of standards on what qualified to be a secure loan to the investor market.    Pointing out that this act happen at the very exact moment that the sub-prime market shoots off, represents a reversal of at least 20 years of sub-prime being a niche market.     Pointing out that the price bubble started, at the very moment these two events happened, is not irrelevant, or inconsequential.   It is the logical steps of action verse reaction.
> 
> My opinion is based on the empirical data, that is widely known, and accepted.    Saying "other countries has something similar happen in a similar time span" is both vague and correlative, not causative.
> 
> *Further it seems like you have an extreme double standard.*    When talking about borrowers, you give them a complete and total free-pass for taking loans they had absolutely no ability to repay, and buying homes they had no ability to afford.  You do not require them to have any responsibility in the loans they got, and signed their names too.
> 
> Yet with the loan originators, you claim they should have complete responsibility to knowing the ability of the borrower to pay back.
> 
> Now that right there, is in itself illogical.  You expect that the person taking the loan, should have less self-knowledge of their own ability to repay, than some accountant in a cubicle somewhere?   What logic is that?
> 
> Yet the government told both the borrower, and the lender, that these loans were safe, by virtue of the fact gov had their arms, Freddie and Fannie, securitize those loans.
> 
> Why is it that when the banker is told to make these loans, and that they are safe because Fannie Freddie securitized them, or they'll get sued by the government, they are supposed to know better somehow.... yet when a borrower who has bad credit, low income, no down payment walks into a bank and asks for a loan, they are absolved from knowing better, and taking responsibility for taking a loan they can't afford?
> 
> 
> 
> Completely wrong....   I'm sorry, we're not going past this point either, until you admit the truth.
> (GSA-  Glass Steagall Act)
> 
> Washington Mutual.    Savings and Loans.   Did not fall under GSA.
> IndyMac.      Savings and Loans.  Did not fall under the GSA.
> Bear Stearns.  Investment bank.    Did not fall under the GSA.
> CountryWide.    Investment bank.   Did not fall under the GSA.
> Merrill Lynch.   Investment bank.  Did not fall under the GSA.
> AIG.    Insurance company.   Did not fall under the GSA.
> 
> In fact, if you just walk down the list of all the failures, very very few were Financial Holding Companies.    If you don't know... the Gramm&#8211;Leach&#8211;Bliley Act, did not just "allow banks to do whatever they want" or something.
> 
> Gramm&#8211;Leach&#8211;Bliley Act, allowed banks to apply to change their charter to a "Financial Holding Company".   By doing this, they could then operate Retail Banking (your local bank, open a savings account and such), Commercial Banking (loans and accounts of corporations and business), Investment Banking (buying securities like MBS and such), and Insurance Services.
> 
> But the key is, they had to change over their charter.   Most didn't.
> 
> Thus the vast majority of all the banks that failed during the crash, were not Financial Holding Companies, and if GLB Act had never existed, nothing would have changed with the vast majority of those failures.
> 
> The only big exception that I know of, would be Wachovia.
> 
> But other companies that WERE Financial Holding Companies, many of them weathered the storm better.  Wells Fargo was a FHC.   They did fine.  JPMorgan Chase, was a FHC, and they had no problems.
> 
> In fact, over all, Financial Holding Companies did better than their more limited competitors, naturally because of diversification.   If you have your entire business wrapped up exclusively in Mortgages, and the Mortgage market tanks, you are likely to go down.    If on the other hand, you have some insurance business, and some retail business, and investment business, and a fraction of your business is in Mortgages, and they tank, you or more likely to survive.
> 
> *Further!!*
> 
> The government actually used Financial Holding Companies, as their method for FIXING the crisis.
> 
> Hello?!?
> 
> Bank of America was not a FHC.   But the government asked them to buy out CountryWide..... which required them to become an FHC.
> JP Morgan Chase, was asked to purchase Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.... which they would not have been able to do without being an FHC.
> Wells Fargo was asked to buy Wachovia, and Century Bank....   which they would not have been able to do without being an FHC.
> 
> What part of this is not making sense?
> 
> Bottom line..... Glass Steagall, and the Gramm Leach Bliley, neither one had ANYTHING.... to do with the crash.   Nothing.  Period.    Sorry, you are wrong.  Flat out, wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem convinced that CRA caused a bubble but your analysis amounts to looking at a graph and a date on legislation. I am sorry but I don't think that is exactly proof. I admit that I have no proven that the bubble in 97 was just about global economic trends but I didn't mean to act like I was.
> 
> I am not saying that the borrowers are free of guilt. They just haven't been talked about until now. Seems pretty pointless to blame them as they are the ones that are getting foreclosed on and their "guilt" is rather established already.
> 
> You keep acting like F&F was mandating all of these loans which they were not. That is simply a falsehood.
> 
> You also seem set to ignore the fact that ratings agencies have a responsibility to rate both mortgages and MBS.
> 
> You also seem set to ignore the lowering of lending standards well beyond the lowered standards allowed under the CRA.
> 
> You also seem set to ignore the fact that all of these companies are responsible for their own choices for better or worse.  How do you think this all went down? From what you said it is like these institutions made financial decisions by blindly trusting F&F. Do you think that passes as an excuse for the CEO's of these companies? Sorry I lost all your money, I know you pay me millions upon millions of dollars to make these decisions but I figured why think for myself when I can let F&F think for me. Yeah they used this new formula for packaging MBS but I didn't bother to check it out. I figure we should just take it on faith that F&F knows what it is doing. Sure we employee all these people who are supposed to know this stuff but lets ignore that too.
> 
> As for GSA, look at the companies that were bailed out. Look at how their willingness to take on risk changed. Investment firms were historically far more willing to take risks than commercial banks. But hey lets just assume that had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking at relevant legislation, and empirical data on a graph is 'all' I'm looking at?   Should I consult a ouija board, or the stars too?
> 
> Looking at relevant data, and relevant legislation seems to be the proper course of action for investigating the empirical evidence for a given topic.  What would you suggest?
> 
> F&F didn't have to mandate anything.   As I've said before, they are the largest player, with the biggest authority in the market, backed by the Federal Government.     When they move.... whether they "mandate it" or not, the market follows.   That's how that works.
> 
> The same is true in other completely private markets.   Take Intel.   Intel is the 6000 lbs gorilla of the microchip market.   When Intel says "we're going to do this", suddenly the market follows.   Why?  They are the biggest player, they hold the cards, they have the biggest weight in the market.
> 
> When Intel integrated graphic processors into their CPU chips, AMD started integrating ATI graphics processors into their CPU chips.   Did Intel "mandate" it?   No, they just happen to be the biggest player in the game, and they move the market, whether they intend to, or not.
> 
> Fannie and Freddie.... Same thing.
> 
> Again, the CRA lowered the standard to sub-prime.    There is no standard below sub-prime.   There is no Sub-sub-prime.      The prime rate standard, is in fact the only standard.
> 
> So when you say they lowered the standard below the CRA.... I have no idea what you are talking about because there is nothing below sub-prime.
> 
> *From what you said it is like these institutions made financial decisions by blindly trusting F&F. Do you think that passes as an excuse for the CEO's of these companies?*
> 
> Again, I don't understand this comment.    Yes, the fact the institution did make decisions blindly trusting F&F.   Like I posted before, Countrywide was a preferred partner of Fannie Mae, and was given awards by Fannie Mae for doing what Fannie Mae wanted.  I posted you the article written by Fannie Mae back in 2000, about this very issue.
> 
> Now does it excuse anything?  No.  I never said, nor suggested they were excused.    You can't find any comment by me, which suggests that they should be excused for this.     There should never have been a bailout of any type.  The companies should have been bankrupted, and sold off.
> 
> Again, the difference between you and me, is not that.  The difference is, I want to focus on causes, not resulting problems.  What was the cause?  The cause was F&F, and the Government pushing sub-prime loans.  If we don't deal with the cause, and we only focus on smacking around the banks, in 10 years time, we'll be right back here with another crash, because as long as government is pushing policies to give loans to people who don't qualify.... this is the outcome.  You can scream at the banks for following the government until the end of time, and they are still going to do it.     I promise you.  You can fine them, jail them, attack them, run around in some park, with signs saying 'eat the rich'.  It won't change anything, and we'll end up right back here all over again.  You have to stop the cause.... stop government from pushing bad loans.
> 
> *As for GSA, look at the companies that were bailed out. Look at how their willingness to take on risk changed. Investment firms were historically far more willing to take risks than commercial banks. But hey lets just assume that had nothing to do with it*
> 
> The Glass Steagall Act has nothing to do with investment firms.     GSA did not prevent them from existing.   GSA did not prevent them from growing.   GSA did not prevent them from taking risks.    GSA did not prevent them from buying MBSs.    GSA did not prevent them from buying CDOs.    GSA did not prevent them from doing anything at all.
> 
> The *ONLY* thing that GSA prevented, was it prevented them from ALSO running retail savings and loans, running Commercial banking, and from offering insurance.
> 
> Bear Stearns,  Merrill Lynch, and Countrywide, were all just, and only, investment banks.  None of them were doing retail, commercial, or insurance.
> 
> GSA would have had ZERO effect on any of them.   None of them were Financial Holding Companies.   None of them were affected by GSA, or GLBA.
> 
> If the GSA was the law of the land, it would have had *zero* effect on the crash of all these firms.
> 
> And by way... investment firms always take more risk than banks.   That's the nature of the beast.   The whole reason investment firms exist, is because banks don't pay jack on their deposits.   That's why *I* invest.   Do I want 0.01% interest from my account at the bank?  Or do I want 26% interest I earned at my mutual fund investments?.............
> 
> Hmmmm.... 0.01%, or 26%.... hmmmm......   I want the 26%.  That's why I hired my mutual fund broker to buy those investments for me.
Click to expand...


The cause is clearly without a doubt the fact that decisions were made with bad information. 

The cause is clearly NOT a result of mandated loans based on the CRA. It is a FACT that sub-prime loans were willingly taken on by these institutions independent of mandates of the law.

F&F could have made MBS with all sub-prime loans. That doesn't mean the market will automatically follow suit and rate them AAA and buy them like they are. You keep acting like F&F is dictating the nature of the market while completely ignoring the fact that they are NOT A RATINGS AGENCY. F&F can make all of the MBS they want but it is the choice of those institutions to buy them.

There is not a single decision maker at these institutions that will ever say that F&F dictated to them beyond the mandates of the CRA. Yet that is exactly what you are claiming which is total nonsense.

Your understanding of a single cause in 1997 is a fools errand. There is little to no reason to think the historical nature of this bubble is due to something that happened in 97 nor is there great evidence that mandated loans were a major cause.

MBS are a significantly different issue than mandated loans. They don't represent a mandate by government. Instead they are a financial instrument that is meant to help manage risk, whether it is mandated or not. The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.

As for GSA, I think there is far more evidence that it resulted in increased risk across the board and it played a part in the bailout.


----------



## Erand7899

georgephillip said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> THOSE evil fucking "rich" people eat well while the less affluent have to scrape by.
> 
> That's the gist of the complaint.
> 
> But while the new lolberal talking point is making the rounds, I can't help but ask:
> 
> what exactly do these guys propose as the solution for this disparity?
> 
> Strip away all the excess verbiage (verbal camouflage, since they don't want to ever come right out and SAY it) and their agenda is revealed.  (This is why they don't care to address their 'solution" in clear terms.)
> 
> They want to -- they think they should be entitled to do it in fact -- and they WILL seek to confiscate from the evil rich bastards ever increasing amounts of their wealth.  It doesn't belong to them, you see.  They didn't earn that.  They didn't build that.  (Sound familiar?)
> 
> It isn't "really" the wealth of the rich greedy bastards.  No.  No no. It's stuff they somehow denied the other 99% from having.  So, whether it takes the form of outright confiscation or just the death of a million cuts (taxation without end), the 'solution" is some kind of TAKING.  It's a reclamation, you see.  It's not "taking from the rich."  It's taking BACK from the "rich" to redistribute to everybody ELSE.
> 
> But enough of this analysis.  Let's have the spokespersons for this new liberal talking point meme step up to the podium and cut the malarkey.
> 
> The rich have more.  The less affluent (the poor, the 99%) have less.  There is an income inequality.  There is a wealth disparity.  Now, what is the proposed "lib" solution to this identified "problem?"
> 
> We await your eloquence.
> 
> 
> 
> Corruption is the single most eloquent explanation for why your beloved "greedy rich bastards" eat better that the poor. Daily reports from around the planet confirm how government bureaucrats abuse their offices for personal gain. In the US, the greedy rich bastards bribed elected Republicans AND Democrats over the past four decades for favorable tax and trade policies that have increased a few private fortunes at the expense of millions of lost middle class jobs, pension plans, and homes. The solution was pioneered by FDR during WWII; in today's class war impose a 100% tax rates on all US incomes over 1,000,000 dollars. Any of the rich greedy pseudo job creators in the US who don't like it are free to polish their Mandarin and move where they will feel more at home.
> 
> We await your wimpish, whining, weaseling response.
Click to expand...


Moving to a place where they will feel more at home, is exactly what they would do, and they would take a whole lot of jobs with them.  Investment, (money) moves to the place where it earns the best returns consistent with acceptable risk.  That is a natural law that neither you, nor Obama can repeal.  

Without investment, there are few jobs for the millions of people who do not have capital of their own.  Today, we live in a world where capital can move anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds.  And, like any other market, movement occurs on the margins, but those margins have serious affects on economic growth.  When an investor can make a better return by investing in India or China, marginal job growth will occur in India or China, and marginal job loss will occur here.


----------



## Erand7899

Any job that pays a wage, requires an entity that has the capital to pay that wage.  No capital, no paying jobs.  

Good paying jobs that offer security to workers, requires a lot of capital.  It requires those evil, greedy, rich bastards to risk their capital in an enterprise that requires workers.  No, evil, greedy, rich bastards, means no capital to provide good paying jobs with job security.  

There is no free lunch, and there never will be a free lunch.


----------



## Bombur

Erand7899 said:


> Any job that pays a wage, requires an entity that has the capital to pay that wage.  No capital, no paying jobs.
> 
> Good paying jobs that offer security to workers, requires a lot of capital.  It requires those evil, greedy, rich bastards to risk their capital in an enterprise that requires workers.  No, evil, greedy, rich bastards, means no capital to provide good paying jobs with job security.
> 
> There is no free lunch, and there never will be a free lunch.



No demand for a product then there is no demand for labor or capital. 

Look what we have now. Corporations shed their debt and their workforce.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw, you are mighty proud of yourself. And there are plenty of reasons to be glad you are working. You certainly deserve some of the merit you receive, but you are blind if you think you deserve even half of what you make.

It results from the fact that your success could not exist without the complexity of social cooperation.  Your idea of earning is conflated with the idea with what you actually make. You ignore the fact I said the truth lies somewhere in the middle of that exaggerated pie. I know it takes hard work (for most people) but hard labor is not how you win on the stock market, its intelligence which is a different kind of "work" and is by no means a scientific definition of "work."

Regardless, those born into cushy lives as a result of affluent parents account for the majority of success in this country--it breeds success because the opportunities to acheive and become are so readily apparent. In low income communities, not that they are any less of a human, but they indeed are offered sub-par education and virtually no good opportunities. You act like you have achieved everything on your own when in reality you heavily depend on the cohesion of society essential to generating your capital. You were raised for years and fed by your family before you had a clue of what independence meant.

I am not trying to take away your efforts over the years to become the prideful person you are, they must be acknowledged and worshiped--you wouldn't have it any other way. But if you think your labor of investing stocks and taking risks deserves the pay you receive, then you exist in a separate part of the economy isolated from those that actually work hard and are not that successful in capital. But thank god capital is not our only motivation. Many of us low income folks note the primary things in life are loving one another and respecting our fellow man whether they have money or not. Apparently this human decency has not trickled up to you egotistical world.

A 16 hour work day getting paid under $10/hr is magnitudes above your labor and yet they "earn" far less than you. Garbage men are absolutely essential and yet are paid poverty wages more often than not. This is the result of social ranking, not your got-dang "hard-work."

Both my parents and I have worked since 16 in demeaning and hard labor jobs. I managed to get out of menial labor and tried wilderness counseling  but now I'm back to square one working in menail labor because where I live and nothing more. Opportunities don't exist like they do where you live and you take that for granted. Not to mention my parents are over 60 and still grinding it. My mother works 60 hours a week minimum and often works up to 99 hours lifting 300 and 400 pound elderly working in a nursing home. 

Though we've always worked hard our whole lives, we are still ranked as low income qualifying for food stamps, heat programs etc. but we don't because we have pride. This is supposedly the same idea and work ethic that drives your investments? This makes me sick with your un-deserved air of self-accomplishment and merit. You simply ignore parts of reality so you can feel like you earned everything you have and then have the audacity to ask the question from your privileged kingdom "What's a matter little people? Can't work hard to become richer?" Well, that's cause it ain't that black and white.


----------



## dblack

I'm still not clear whether those opposed to 'too much' income inequality are claiming the income is gained unjustly, or whether they think it's wrong regardless. Is there anything wrong, in your view, with extreme incomes that are generated honestly, via voluntary transactions with others?


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> I'm still not clear whether those opposed to 'too much' income inequality are claiming the income is gained unjustly, or whether they think it's wrong regardless. Is there anything wrong, in your view, with extreme incomes that are generated honestly, via voluntary transactions with others?



Owning 10 mansions and 50 cars is simply unsustainable. These kinds of exorbitance isolate the elite into thinking they've earned everything by their lonesome. Excessive egos, as on display in this message board, is the number one reason preventing humanity from acknowledging our similarities and realizing they far outweigh our differences.

It seems TV shows exemplifying wealthy estates have caught the attention of virtually all people and we only want that. We forget we are part of a human race that can create better lives for everyone, not just ourselves yet we focus on bettering our own life as the only priority. If our success happens to spill into the economy and other people, great, but it was not an intention.

You seem to think there should be no cap on individual prosperity. While I think people should be free to pursue there private aims (wealth accumulation, tons of sex, plethora of beatnik experience etc) as long as these personal projects doesn't harm others--the classic libertarian principle. Of course defining harm can be challenging but I think we know harm when we feel it ourselves so...

Richard Rorty elaborates on this magnificently. He advocates us to "drop the demand for a theory which unifies the public and private... [and] treat the demands of self-creation and of human solidarity as equally valid, yet forever incommensurable." Hence, he calls himself a liberal ironist and defines it thusly:



			
				Richard Rorty in "Contingency said:
			
		

> I borrow my definition of "liberal from Judith Skhlar, who says that liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing we do. I use "ironist" to name the sort of person who faces up to the contingency of his or her own most central beliefs and desires--someone sufficiently historicist and nominalist to have abandoned the idea that those central beliefs and desires refer back to something beyond the reach of time and chance. Liberal ironists are people who include among these ungroundable desires their own hope that suffering will be diminished, that the humiliation of human beings by other human beings may cease.



Basically all our beliefs come from our conditions. No belief is eternal or refers to beyond our conditions (though we may claim such). So any belief may or may not conflict with the public good. When it does we ought to investigate how essential our conditional belief is. The belief that cruelty is wrong is just another ungrounded conditional belief but iif we saw it in operation we would see the blossoming of humanity. I think our personal whims and projects make sense to set aside WHEN they conflict with harming another human being. Of course this should be decided case by case but this is a general rule of thumb.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still not clear whether those opposed to 'too much' income inequality are claiming the income is gained unjustly, or whether they think it's wrong regardless. Is there anything wrong, in your view, with extreme incomes that are generated honestly, via voluntary transactions with others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Owning 10 mansions and 50 cars is simply unsustainable. These kinds of exorbitance isolate the elite into thinking they've earned everything by their lonesome. Excessive egos, as on display in this message board, is the number one reason preventing humanity from acknowledging our similarities and realizing they far outweigh our differences.
> 
> It seems TV shows exemplifying wealthy estates have caught the attention of virtually all people and we only want that. We forget we are part of a human race that can create better lives for everyone, not just ourselves yet we focus on bettering our own life as the only priority. If our success happens to spill into the economy and other people, great, but it was not an intention.
> 
> You seem to think there should be no cap on individual prosperity. While I think people should be free to pursue there private aims (wealth accumulation, tons of sex, plethora of beatnik experience etc) as long as these personal projects doesn't harm others--the classic libertarian principle. Of course defining harm can be challenging but I think we know harm when we feel it ourselves so...
> 
> Richard Rorty elaborates on this magnificently. He advocates us to "drop the demand for a theory which unifies the public and private... [and] treat the demands of self-creation and of human solidarity as equally valid, yet forever incommensurable." Hence, he calls himself a liberal ironist and defines it thusly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Rorty in "Contingency said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I borrow my definition of "liberal from Judith Skhlar, who says that liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing we do. I use "ironist" to name the sort of person who faces up to the contingency of his or her own most central beliefs and desires--someone sufficiently historicist and nominalist to have abandoned the idea that those central beliefs and desires refer back to something beyond the reach of time and chance. Liberal ironists are people who include among these ungroundable desires their own hope that suffering will be diminished, that the humiliation of human beings by other human beings may cease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically all our beliefs come from our conditions. No belief is eternal or refers to beyond our conditions (though we may claim such). So any belief may or may not conflict with the public good. When it does we ought to investigate how essential our conditional belief is. The belief that cruelty is wrong is just another ungrounded conditional belief but iif we saw it in operation we would see the blossoming of humanity. I think our personal whims and projects make sense to set aside WHEN they conflict with harming another human being. Of course this should be decided case by case but this is a general rule of thumb.
Click to expand...


Hmm... well, it's not really clear to me what you're getting at. You seem to be answering my question with a 'yes', that even if income is derived from honest, voluntary transactions, there should some upper maximum. Are you presuming that capping upper incomes would somehow benefit those with lower incomes? How so? 

Income is an expression of how much society values the work that someone does. Arbitrarily limiting the income of some, won't change how people value the work of others. Arguably, it would lower the income of lesser valued work because, relatively, it would still be valued less by consumers and investors. The point is, honest income disparity is an accurate difference in how much society values different kinds of work. Setting nominal limits (upper or lower) on incomes doesn't change that evaluation. It just monkeys with the scale.


----------



## Erand7899

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still not clear whether those opposed to 'too much' income inequality are claiming the income is gained unjustly, or whether they think it's wrong regardless. Is there anything wrong, in your view, with extreme incomes that are generated honestly, via voluntary transactions with others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Owning 10 mansions and 50 cars is simply unsustainable. These kinds of exorbitance isolate the elite into thinking they've earned everything by their lonesome. Excessive egos, as on display in this message board, is the number one reason preventing humanity from acknowledging our similarities and realizing they far outweigh our differences.
> 
> It seems TV shows exemplifying wealthy estates have caught the attention of virtually all people and we only want that. We forget we are part of a human race that can create better lives for everyone, not just ourselves yet we focus on bettering our own life as the only priority. If our success happens to spill into the economy and other people, great, but it was not an intention.
> 
> You seem to think there should be no cap on individual prosperity. While I think people should be free to pursue there private aims (wealth accumulation, tons of sex, plethora of beatnik experience etc) as long as these personal projects doesn't harm others--the classic libertarian principle. Of course defining harm can be challenging but I think we know harm when we feel it ourselves so...
> 
> Richard Rorty elaborates on this magnificently. He advocates us to "drop the demand for a theory which unifies the public and private... [and] treat the demands of self-creation and of human solidarity as equally valid, yet forever incommensurable." Hence, he calls himself a liberal ironist and defines it thusly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Rorty in "Contingency said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I borrow my definition of "liberal from Judith Skhlar, who says that liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing we do. I use "ironist" to name the sort of person who faces up to the contingency of his or her own most central beliefs and desires--someone sufficiently historicist and nominalist to have abandoned the idea that those central beliefs and desires refer back to something beyond the reach of time and chance. Liberal ironists are people who include among these ungroundable desires their own hope that suffering will be diminished, that the humiliation of human beings by other human beings may cease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically all our beliefs come from our conditions. No belief is eternal or refers to beyond our conditions (though we may claim such). So any belief may or may not conflict with the public good. When it does we ought to investigate how essential our conditional belief is. The belief that cruelty is wrong is just another ungrounded conditional belief but iif we saw it in operation we would see the blossoming of humanity. I think our personal whims and projects make sense to set aside WHEN they conflict with harming another human being. Of course this should be decided case by case but this is a general rule of thumb.
Click to expand...


No one is entitled to harm another human being, and that is definitely a general rule of thumb, not to mention a general rule of law in this country.  Or, at least that was the case before the Supreme Court expanded the right of eminent domain.  

However, the idea that the success of one person harms another person who has not met with the same success is nonsense.  What is harmful to many is being sold the idea that they cannot escape the condition they were born into.  That is so false as to be ridiculous.  Anyone who really desires to escape, and who puts forth the effort to escape can readily do so.  

However, if one is sold on the idea that escape is impossible, or even improbable, they lose the desire to put much effort into the attempt.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> I'm still not clear whether those opposed to 'too much' income inequality are claiming the income is gained unjustly, or whether they think it's wrong regardless. Is there anything wrong, in your view, with extreme incomes that are generated honestly, via voluntary transactions with others?



Growing income inequality is likely due to market trends as opposed to anything anyone did themselves. This discussion shouldn't be considered to be a knock against rich people or the middle class. They are doing what they are supposed to do in the system. The problem is the current state of the system.

It is not their job to fix it. It is the job of the government.


----------



## gnarlylove

If you think hunger insecurity is not a social harm when there is technically enough food to feed the entire planet 2,700 kilo calories, then you and I have different ideas. I view this intentional deprivation as indirect social harm.

Also, Social mobility is not lubricated like you believe. See the link provided to see why America is the worst developed nation when it comes social mobility.

Furthermore, there are many more factors to exiting poverty than "a desire to leave low-income ranks." The way you say it sounds so easy, because you're only using words and not demonstrating for us what it really means to grow up in poverty and then leave it. You wouldn't even know because you didn't come from a family that makes under 22,000 a year. So you listen to what you want to hear and validates you naieve social views--coming from a middle class family you have no flippin clue what real poverty is, your whole life is spent avoiding it unintentionally. It turns out I'd know since the average income in my area is 29,000/year. Education, opportunity and malnutrition play a huge role in whether one leaps out of poverty by "trying hard enough."

It isn't for lack of trying, but its a lack of opportunity. Sure, a few thousand can climb out of poverty to middle class incomes through luck and hard work and knowing the right people but you offer no feasible hope for the millions lagging in poverty or on the border of poverty. Without offering more opportunity then low income folks or no income simply lack viable avenues.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still not clear whether those opposed to 'too much' income inequality are claiming the income is gained unjustly, or whether they think it's wrong regardless. Is there anything wrong, in your view, with extreme incomes that are generated honestly, via voluntary transactions with others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Growing income inequality is likely due to market trends as opposed to anything anyone did themselves. This discussion shouldn't be considered to be a knock against rich people or the middle class. They are doing what they are supposed to do in the system. The problem is the current state of the system.
> 
> It is not their job to fix it. It is the job of the government.
Click to expand...


Ok, so you're agreeing that there's nothing wrong with honestly allocated income disparity? I agree. I also agree there are significant problems with the current state of the system, problems that we need to address. 

What do you think those problems are, and how should we address them?


----------



## hunarcy

dblack said:


> I'm still not clear whether those opposed to 'too much' income inequality are claiming the income is gained unjustly, or whether they think it's wrong regardless. Is there anything wrong, in your view, with extreme incomes that are generated honestly, via voluntary transactions with others?



They don't even see that while they complain about "income inequality", even they are benefitting from capitalism.  It's almost as if they wish the poor were in abject poverty just so the rich don't advance either.  I have visited West Africa and I know that capitalism has created a situation where the poor here are like kings compared to the middle class in Ghana.  It wasn't socialism that led us to live the lives we have and socialism won't keep us from declining if they succeed in foisting it on us as a way of life.


----------



## Indeependent

hunarcy said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still not clear whether those opposed to 'too much' income inequality are claiming the income is gained unjustly, or whether they think it's wrong regardless. Is there anything wrong, in your view, with extreme incomes that are generated honestly, via voluntary transactions with others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't even see that while they complain about "income inequality", even they are benefitting from capitalism.  It's almost as if they wish the poor were in abject poverty just so the rich don't advance either.  I have visited West Africa and I know that capitalism has created a situation where the poor here are like kings compared to the middle class in Ghana.  It wasn't socialism that led us to live the lives we have and socialism won't keep us from declining if they succeed in foisting it on us as a way of life.
Click to expand...


Warlords practice a flavor of capitalism without representation or legal recourse.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still not clear whether those opposed to 'too much' income inequality are claiming the income is gained unjustly, or whether they think it's wrong regardless. Is there anything wrong, in your view, with extreme incomes that are generated honestly, via voluntary transactions with others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Growing income inequality is likely due to market trends as opposed to anything anyone did themselves. This discussion shouldn't be considered to be a knock against rich people or the middle class. They are doing what they are supposed to do in the system. The problem is the current state of the system.
> 
> It is not their job to fix it. It is the job of the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're agreeing that there's nothing wrong with honestly allocated income disparity? I agree. I also agree there are significant problems with the current state of the system, problems that we need to address.
> 
> What do you think those problems are, and how should we address them?
Click to expand...


I am not saying there is nothing wrong with it. I am saying it is not the fault of those benefiting from it or those who are hurt by it.

It just isn't about income inequality but what is causing it. Namely a weak labor market, stagnant wages, a trade imbalance, a regressive tax code, a tax code that hurt US production, economic volatility, increased poverty, increased crime, and more.


----------



## gnarlylove

The capitalist class, who own the means of production have become increasingly elite and astute at propaganda (controlling the mass media). Each year with more mergers and acquisitions this small elite group grow in political and global control, having convinced most of us that we that there is no other way to operate a society and we must rely on them for sustenance and freedom.

I don't doubt the majority favors the capitalist class, they bring such treats to those who can afford it. But the fact is a growing minority of the majority (i.e. the working class) are expressing our dissatisfaction with the way the capitalist class executes its power and indeed, the power they wield is absolutely corrupting. I know many of you disagree but I strongly believe no human should go without food when there is enough kilo calories to feed every single person (and there is, see Josette Sheeran work as UN Executive Director). This is a warfare against humanity, against our very own kind over profit.

Profit is not more valuable than life and to withhold food preventing proper human development to continue exploiting cheap labor is making profits more appealing than human life. To those of us with empathy, we say FUCK THAT! Human life is in most cases more valuable than profit but as far as the capitalist class is concerned, they are ignoring this truth in order to continue global exploitation and we go along with them every step of the way.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."
> 
> Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him! That is _outstanding_. Sadly, it's 4.1% more than than any of us should be paying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Stop Whining*
> 
> "Roosevelts debt ceiling battle actually began right after Pearl Harbor.
> 
> "The nation needed a revenue boost to wage and win the war.
> FDR and his New Dealers wanted to finance the war equitably, with stiff tax rates on high incomes.
> 
> "How stiff?
> 
> "*FDR proposed a 100 percent top tax rate*.
> 
> "At a time of 'grave national danger,' Roosevelt told Congress in April 1942, 'no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.'
> 
> "That would be about $350,000 in todays dollars.
> 
> "FDR 'settled' for a marginal tax rate of 94%.
> 
> "Makes today's super-wealthy seem pretty whiny and greedy, doesn't it?"
> 
> *Doesn't it.*
> 
> FDR's Proposed Marginal Tax Rate Was 100%
Click to expand...


Yeah, FDR's failings in economics are well known.
No American president ought to violate the Constitution like he did.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romney gave $4 million to charity.
> 
> That bastard! Giving away over 43% of his income. Awful, just awful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That could mean many things, including PR stunt (in addition to mere charity). I don't think it's that though. What I hope it shows is that Romney is admitting that 13.4 million wasn't earned by him in full. Without our country's citizens and indeed the global economy he could never attain the success he has. So he is simply giving back to the community that helped him _generate_millions in profits, which is different than earning precisely 13.4M in profits. It is naive and brutish to think anyone "fully and completely" earns every penny. They depend on complex social nexus created and reified by everyone, not by a single individual. Egos kill.
Click to expand...

*
Without our country's citizens and indeed the global economy he could never attain the success he has. *

So what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."
> 
> Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes and gave $4 million to charity.
> 
> That bastard! Giving away over 43% of his income. Awful, just awful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right.
> It should've been 94%.
> Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.
Click to expand...


Fuck you, stupid Commie.


----------



## KevinWestern

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes and gave $4 million to charity.
> 
> That bastard! Giving away over 43% of his income. Awful, just awful.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.
> It should've been 94%.
> Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you, stupid Commie.
Click to expand...


94%?? Is he crazy, lol.

94%!!?


----------



## Ropey

Of course he's crazy.  There are those who will never be able to compete at the lower money making levels, let alone the top money making levels.

There will always be a divide, just like there's a divide between the best scholars and those who are just not as capable. 

Even those who are born into money only had the advantages of being born into it. The original makers of the money were and are the self made.

94%?


----------



## Andylusion

KNB said:


> Record corporate profits coupled with high unemployment.
> 
> Trickle-down theory doesn't work.



*First off, unemployment has nothing to do with record profits.*  Unemployment has to do with labor being unprofitable to hire.   When you increase the minimum wage, and increase the taxes, and increase the cost of labor with health care mandates and regulations, logically....  the amount of labor you purchase will be lower.

In any other situation, you would grasp this instinctively.  If the government passed a $10 tax on coke, and buying coke required you to pay a pop can disposal fee of $10, and the Coke company increased the price per can to $10.   So it cost you $30 instead of 50¢ to buy one can of pop.... obviously the amount of coke you would buy, would drastically decrease.

Yet this basic logic, is apparently lost when it comes to employment.   Employment is people buying labor.   When you increase the cost of labor, ....dur..... the amount of labor bought goes down.

Further, very often driving up costs, will in fact result in higher profits.  A lot of people don't grasp this.

Let's say that you have a town with 10 fast food joints.   Now let's say that you increase regulations, taxes, and the minimum wage.

The three big chain joints, they have the money to afford higher wages, and expensive regulations, and taxes.   The smaller, startup joints, or independent joints, they don't have the resources of a Wendy's McDonald's type place, to afford all these things.   So they close down.   Sure enough in a matter of a year or two, only 3 fast food joints remain, and all the other shops close down.

Now with less competition, they can charge higher and higher prices, resulting in higher and higher profits.

Take McDonald's.   They replaced all their cashiers in Europe, with Kiosks.   Small independent shops, don't have the resources to do that.   Thus McDonald's can make record profits, while having fewer employed people, and less competition.... all thanks to leftists pushing for free health care, high taxes, and high minimum wages.

*Second, trickle down is how everything works*.  As in.... EVERYTHING.

Saying trickle down doesn't work, is like saying gravity doesn't work.

Everything trickles down.   It never trickles up.   Let's say that we all get together, and decide we want to build a car.

First you pay a designer to come up with the designs, then pay engineers to design the parts, then pay suppliers to make those parts, then pay to have a building, and pay for the equipment, pay for the tools, and then pay to have employees come put everything together, and pay to have all the stuff and materials, and tools and equipment delivered to our building, then pay to have people install everything, and then when we have some finish product, pay to have it delivered to the dealerships, and pay people to sell the cars.

All of that expense has to happen before a single customer, pays for a single product.    So all of us get together, and we're going to trickle up an automobile.   Who is going to buy the building?   Whose going to pay the electric bill?  Whose going to pay the designers and engineers?   Whose buying all the tools?

Millions of dollars worth of stuff needs bought, and you think 'trickle down' doesn't work? 

Every job in existence, is proof trickle down works.   Every bit of wealth in the country is proof trickle down works.

WalMart sold $350 Billion dollars worth of wealth last year.   The citizens of this country have $350 Billion in wealth, because of Walmart.   Walmart creates 2.2 Million jobs.  Walmart trickled down 2.2 million employed people.

And you want to tell me trickle down doesn't work?  Bull.   In fact, trickle down works in every economic system the world over.   Even in socialist systems, everything works from Trickle down.   The China National Oil Company, state owned, has a chairman Zhou Jiping, appointed by the government, who earned a cool $970 Thousand dollars a year, and unlike American CEOs, that's all cold hard cash.   And talk about the gap between the rich and the poor, the *AVERAGE* income in China today is $2,000 a year.

So even in socialized system, you still have the rich wealthy trickling down jobs and wealth to the rest of society.   The only difference is, to be CEO in a socialized system, it doesn't matter what you do, or how you work, or what skills you have, or anything.  All that matters in a socialized system, is that you have favor from the government which appoints you CEO.   Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae.   Same deal.

In a capitalist system, you can be a hill billy drunk guy, and start whittling duck callers, and end up a multimillionaire with your own TV show.   But everything is trickle down.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is inherently undemocratic, as it's practiced in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism isn't meant to be democratic. Democracy is a principle that applies to government, where consensus decisions are often necessary.  Majority rule isn't necessary, nor, in my view, desirable, when it comes to our economic decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you agree with this: your freedom of enterprise denies my freedom of a job?
> If you believe in democracy, how can you justify not instituting it in the place where we spend most of our adult lives?
Click to expand...


So you can dictate to others whether or not they hire you?    So if I come to your place, and demand you pay me $50 every week to cut your lawn, whether you want that done, or not, my right to democracy requires that you do it?

See this is the kind of logic, that if the tables were reversed, you would instinctively understand that your right to your property, is not to be denied because someone wants it.

But employment is the same thing.  You don't have a right to someone else's hard earned money as CEO of a company either.      That money that the company has, was hard earned by the people who put their money, their homes, their blood sweat and tears into, in order to make it work.

I just got to hear the story of the CEO of my company.  He spent four years working while going to school.   He earned a degree in engineering.   He worked for 20 years, as a level 1, and then level 2 engineer at a small company.   Then he mortgaged his home, and his father mortgaged his home, and they both put both their homes on the line to buy out this small business.   Now he's CEO of the business.  He is there at 7 AM every morning.  He leaves at 6 PM every night.   He's flown around the world, traveled thousands of miles to go to trade shows. 

He works his butt off.  Now you tell me what you think you 'deserve democracy in his company'?    Why do you have any right, what so ever, to tell him jack squat about how he runs his company?   Bull.  You have no right period.     None!

And if you put in the hours that he did, and the money he did, and the risk he did, to run your own business, you wouldn't put up with me coming around demand democracy in your company either.  And don't lie and say you would.  You wouldn't.  I know better.  

Don't even try and tell me you would put your home on the line, and risk losing everything, and have some newly hired employee in the stock room, telling you he should have a say in how you run your business.   Bull crap.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KevinWestern said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.
> It should've been 94%.
> Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, stupid Commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 94%?? Is he crazy, lol.
> 
> 94%!!?
Click to expand...


He is crazy. And stupid.

Working the deep fryer has gone to his head.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> For more on recently elected Socialist, see her site VoteSawant.org



Great political move.   However, two problems.    First, even if she cuts her salary to that amount, still won't stop her from getting numerous kick backs.   Bill Clinton was hired on the board of directors for a company he never actually visited.    Never been to it, never sat in on a board meeting, never did any work of any kind... yet he was paid over hundred thousand, as a board member.

Being in government, in and of itself, allows you all kinds of opportunities.  Book deals, for books that never sold and such.

So officially not taking money, doesn't mean much.   I'm cynical about any politician that claims "I'm not taking money", because so often their are getting more than enough other things.

Second.... even if she is in fact pure as the wind driven snow, which would be great, that doesn't mean that socialist policies are good.   Stalin was notably not corrupt.   He lived a meager life style, to the very day he died.     That didn't change the fact that his policies caused the death of over a hundred million people, with mass starvation, and extreme poverty throughout the country.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."
> 
> Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Mitt Romney have to do with issue of whether monarchy is preferable to democracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.
Click to expand...


If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........  I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.

Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding.  But for sure, he's not a "parasite".   You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> The cause is clearly without a doubt the fact that decisions were made with bad information.
> 
> The cause is clearly NOT a result of mandated loans based on the CRA. It is a FACT that sub-prime loans were willingly taken on by these institutions independent of mandates of the law.
> 
> F&F could have made MBS with all sub-prime loans. That doesn't mean the market will automatically follow suit and rate them AAA and buy them like they are. You keep acting like F&F is dictating the nature of the market while completely ignoring the fact that they are NOT A RATINGS AGENCY. F&F can make all of the MBS they want but it is the choice of those institutions to buy them.
> 
> There is not a single decision maker at these institutions that will ever say that F&F dictated to them beyond the mandates of the CRA. Yet that is exactly what you are claiming which is total nonsense.
> 
> Your understanding of a single cause in 1997 is a fools errand. There is little to no reason to think the historical nature of this bubble is due to something that happened in 97 nor is there great evidence that mandated loans were a major cause.
> 
> MBS are a significantly different issue than mandated loans. They don't represent a mandate by government. Instead they are a financial instrument that is meant to help manage risk, whether it is mandated or not. The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.
> 
> As for GSA, I think there is far more evidence that it resulted in increased risk across the board and it played a part in the bailout.



Again, the information prior to 1997, was that sub-prime loans were not good investment securities.    That's why no one sold a single MBS with sub-prime loans.

So obviously, after decades with zero Sub-prime MBSs, and then suddenly tons of sub-prime MBSs, indicates someone changed the information.    That was government, through Freddie Mac, which securitized sub-prime MBSs, making people believe they were safe.

Yes, bad information, caused by government, motivated by CRA laws, was the cause.

Look.... before Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating... they never rated sub-prime loans with a AAA rating.   You can keep saying that Freddie Mac is not a rating agency, but what happened is a fact.   It's not up for you to debate.   This is in fact what happened.   Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans in MBSs, an implied AAA rating which had never happened before in history.

That a fact dude.  You can't argue it, when that is in fact what happened.  "THEY ARE NOT A RATING AGENCY!"  Dur.... doesn't matter.  That's what happened!  "BUT BUT!"   Dude.... this is established historical fact.  It will never change no matter how many times you repeat your complaint.

Before Freddie Mac gave them an implied AAA rating, not one single sub-prime loan had ever gotten a AAA rating.

Period.   Stop arguing against established fact.  You lose.  You can't change the facts.

Again, once the standard was lowered..... they didn't have to mandate anything.   The standard was lowered.   Period.   Doesn't matter what they mandated or what they didn't.  There is no 'sub-sub-prime' loan.    Once you lower the standard to sub-prime, below the prime rate, it's lower than the prime rate.   That's it.   Game over.   It's now sub-prime.   Period.

*The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.*

No, sorry.   You fail at logic.   They lowered the standard.   The moment they lowered the standard so that you could have a sub-prime loan in a MBS, that's it.   That changed the standard.

You evidently don't know about Fannie and Freddies "alt-a" loans.   Those loans exist specifically for low-doc, or no-doc loans.  That's what Alt-A is.

And no.  You are wrong about the GSA.  It had nothing to do with risk.  And it didn't play a part in the bailouts.   You are just making up stuff now.


----------



## Mojo2

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



Our capitalist system of wealth creation is the alternative to what Obama observed growing up abroad, of successful business being only possible through theft.

Same attitude as in Europe, says Dinesh D'Souza.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> The capitalist class, who own the means of production have become increasingly elite and astute at propaganda (controlling the mass media). Each year with more mergers and acquisitions this small elite group grow in political and global control, having convinced most of us that we that there is no other way to operate a society and we must rely on them for sustenance and freedom.
> 
> I don't doubt the majority favors the capitalist class, they bring such treats to those who can afford it. But the fact is a growing minority of the majority (i.e. the working class) are expressing our dissatisfaction with the way the capitalist class executes its power and indeed, the power they wield is absolutely corrupting. I know many of you disagree but I strongly believe no human should go without food when there is enough kilo calories to feed every single person (and there is, see Josette Sheeran work as UN Executive Director). This is a warfare against humanity, against our very own kind over profit.
> 
> Profit is not more valuable than life and to withhold food preventing proper human development to continue exploiting cheap labor is making profits more appealing than human life. To those of us with empathy, we say FUCK THAT! Human life is in most cases more valuable than profit but as far as the capitalist class is concerned, they are ignoring this truth in order to continue global exploitation and we go along with them every step of the way.



What are you arguing for here in terms of policy? You seem to be making the case for a social safety net, which is a different issue than income inequality.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> So officially not taking money, doesn't mean much.   I'm cynical about any politician that claims "I'm not taking money", because so often their are getting more than enough other things.
> 
> Second.... even if she is in fact pure as the wind driven snow, which would be great, that doesn't mean that socialist policies are good.   Stalin was notably not corrupt.   He lived a meager life style, to the very day he died.     That didn't change the fact that his policies caused the death of over a hundred million people, with mass starvation, and extreme poverty throughout the country.



It's clear you are an antagonist. She donated that money to worker related causes. By saying Stalin was not corrupt and evoking such ignorant comparisons, you remove yourself from serious discussion and enter the realm of jokes and farts. It's a politically charged ignoble analogy that lacks any basis in reality. I know you believe it but it's just apples and oranges, it has not effect other than to incite fear and anger by comparing her to Stalin.


----------



## freedombecki

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> So officially not taking money, doesn't mean much. I'm cynical about any politician that claims "I'm not taking money", because so often their are getting more than enough other things.
> 
> Second.... even if she is in fact pure as the wind driven snow, which would be great, that doesn't mean that socialist policies are good. Stalin was notably not corrupt. He lived a meager life style, to the very day he died. That didn't change the fact that his policies caused the death of over a hundred million people, with mass starvation, and extreme poverty throughout the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear you are an antagonist. She donated that money to worker related causes. By saying Stalin was not corrupt and evoking such ignorant comparisons, you remove yourself from serious discussion and enter the realm of jokes and farts. It's a politically charged ignoble analogy that lacks any basis in reality. I know you believe it but it's just apples and oranges, it has not effect other than to incite fear and anger by comparing her to Stalin.
Click to expand...

You should not speak until spoken to.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> What are you arguing for here in terms of policy? You seem to be making the case for a social safety net, which is a different issue than income inequality.



I advocate for policy that treats humans as more valuable than profit. Instead we see a system that makes humans expendable and replaceable. This means our primary value is to be a worker and machine. Why do you think selling one's time and labor for survival is freedom? We are brothers, fathers, family members and lovers second or third at best. 

Economics is not a real thing. It's a helpful description of the monetary system and little more. Thinking of a social safety net or an economy as a real, concrete thing is simply a fallacy. See reification. So to think we cannot create a different set of rules is to think humans are subservient to our own creations, and we are if we act like we are. I'm not claiming you commit this fallacy, we just need to be careful how we think about this.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you arguing for here in terms of policy? You seem to be making the case for a social safety net, which is a different issue than income inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate for policy that treats humans as more valuable than profit. Instead we see a system that makes humans expendable and replaceable. This means our primary value is to be a worker and machine. Why do you think selling one's time and labor for survival is freedom? We are brothers, fathers, family members and lovers second or third at best.
> 
> Economics is not a real thing. It's a helpful description of the monetary system and little more. Thinking of a social safety net or an economy as a real, concrete thing is simply a fallacy. See reification. So to think we cannot create a different set of rules is to think humans are subservient to our own creations, and we are if we act like we are. I'm not claiming you commit this fallacy, we just need to be careful how we think about this.
Click to expand...


What are you arguing for in terms of policy?


----------



## gnarlylove

Are you asking me to write a Bill for the Congress or do you just not wish to participate in fruitful discussion? If you have such an interest in understanding it in terms of some H.Res Bill then you should be smart enough to glean some policy changes from what I've said if it matters so much you have to ask it repeatedly...the point I'm making is the system is fundamentally flawed. We know so because it's destroying our resources and cannot continue at current pace.

Picking out a singular policy tends to loose attention on this fact. It allows us to operate from our fundamentally flawed concepts and arguing which fundamentally flawed option is right. This breeds division and avoids the important issue that we are operating from flawed premises of how society should proceed. Debt and compounded interest is breaking the world and it's made up! By 2060, S&P says 60% of the countries worldwide will be bankrupt resulting in real human suffering. But what for? Because we held on to the notion of debt as a real thing and used it to oppress our fellow man without cause except to get richer, not for need but out of greed.

The subtle essence of the universe does nothing,
yet leaves nothing undone.

If powerful men and women
could center themselves in it,
the whole world would be transformed
by itself, in its natural rhythms.

When life is simple,
pretenses fall away;
our essential nature shines through.

When there is no desire,
all things are at peace
and the world will straighten itself.
When there is silence,
one finds the anchor of the universe within oneself.

Tao verse 37


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Are you asking me to write a Bill for the Congress or do you just not wish to participate in fruitful discussion?



I'm merely trying to gain some clarity on the views you're expressing. "Policy that treats humans as more valuable than profit" is fairly vague. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd disagree. But what of our current laws and policies conflict with that? I have my own set of complaints about the status quo, but I'm pretty sure they're quite different than yours, even though we're recognizing many of the same problems. 

I'm not asking your for a comprehensive legislative proposal - just some concrete examples of what you'd like to see changed, or at least a general idea of how you think government should involve itself in our economic activities.


----------



## hunarcy

Indeependent said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still not clear whether those opposed to 'too much' income inequality are claiming the income is gained unjustly, or whether they think it's wrong regardless. Is there anything wrong, in your view, with extreme incomes that are generated honestly, via voluntary transactions with others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't even see that while they complain about "income inequality", even they are benefitting from capitalism.  It's almost as if they wish the poor were in abject poverty just so the rich don't advance either.  I have visited West Africa and I know that capitalism has created a situation where the poor here are like kings compared to the middle class in Ghana.  It wasn't socialism that led us to live the lives we have and socialism won't keep us from declining if they succeed in foisting it on us as a way of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Warlords practice a flavor of capitalism without representation or legal recourse.
Click to expand...


Ignorant or a liar?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2-yRBGfuGU]Oingo Boingo - 'Capitalism' - Occupy Wall Street Edition - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bayoubill

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Oingo Boingo - 'Capitalism' - Occupy Wall Street Edition - YouTube



tickled to see that young-'n-dumbfuckism is alive and well more'n 40 years after I grew outta it...


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> So officially not taking money, doesn't mean much.   I'm cynical about any politician that claims "I'm not taking money", because so often their are getting more than enough other things.
> 
> Second.... even if she is in fact pure as the wind driven snow, which would be great, that doesn't mean that socialist policies are good.   Stalin was notably not corrupt.   He lived a meager life style, to the very day he died.     That didn't change the fact that his policies caused the death of over a hundred million people, with mass starvation, and extreme poverty throughout the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear you are an antagonist. She donated that money to worker related causes. By saying Stalin was not corrupt and evoking such ignorant comparisons, you remove yourself from serious discussion and enter the realm of jokes and farts. It's a politically charged ignoble analogy that lacks any basis in reality. I know you believe it but it's just apples and oranges, it has not effect other than to incite fear and anger by comparing her to Stalin.
Click to expand...


When I ever care in any way, what you think of me, I'll let you know.  Otherwise, you would wise to assume that I don't give a crap about your personal opinion of me.

Back to the topic....  I don't know, or personally care if Kshama Sawant is wonderful and perfect or not.

She's not my politician.

All I know is, I've heard this song and dance many many times, by many many politicians.    They all tend to start off great, and later end up just like any other politician once in office.

Now if she turns out wonderful in the long haul... great!

My only other point was, I think it is a mistake to assume that merely the lack of corruption automatically yields good results.   No, it does not.  You can have the most pure motives in the worlds in giving out loans to low and moderate income people, and still end up with defaults and crash.

The point wasn't to say that Kshama Sawant is Stalin.  The only people who would assume that from my post, are ignorant people with weak arguments, that need to erect a red herring to attack.

My point was that Stalin was fairly pure in his belief system, and not very corrupt at all.   That didn't change his bad policies from killing thousands of people.

Sawant could be entirely pure, and if she supports bad policies, they will have bad results, no matter how honest pure and uncorrupted she is.


----------



## georgephillip

*The latest exploits of the Great Vampire Squid:*

"Most observers on the Hill thought the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999  also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act  was just the latest and boldest in a long line of deregulatory handouts to Wall Street that had begun in the Reagan years"

"*it would take half a generation  till now, basically*  to understand the most explosive part of the bill, which additionally legalized new forms of monopoly, allowing banks to merge with heavy industry. 

"A tiny provision in the bill also permitted commercial banks to delve into any activity that is 'complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally.'

"Complementary to a financial activity. What the hell did that mean?..."

"Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals. 

"They likewise can now be found exerting direct control over the supply of a whole galaxy of raw materials crucial to world industry and to society in general, including everything from *food products* to metals like zinc, copper, tin, nickel and, most infamously thanks to a recent high-profile scandal, aluminum. 

*Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?
Capitalist squids know this world is theirs to strangle
Maybe it's long past time for a tentacle trim?*

?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for him! That is _outstanding_. Sadly, it's 4.1% more than than any of us should be paying.
> 
> 
> 
> *Stop Whining*
> 
> "Roosevelts debt ceiling battle actually began right after Pearl Harbor.
> 
> "The nation needed a revenue boost to wage and win the war.
> FDR and his New Dealers wanted to finance the war equitably, with stiff tax rates on high incomes.
> 
> "How stiff?
> 
> "*FDR proposed a 100 percent top tax rate*.
> 
> "At a time of 'grave national danger,' Roosevelt told Congress in April 1942, 'no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.'
> 
> "That would be about $350,000 in todays dollars.
> 
> "FDR 'settled' for a marginal tax rate of 94%.
> 
> "Makes today's super-wealthy seem pretty whiny and greedy, doesn't it?"
> 
> *Doesn't it.*
> 
> FDR's Proposed Marginal Tax Rate Was 100%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, FDR's failings in economics are well known.
> No American president ought to violate the Constitution like he did.
Click to expand...

*Define "failings":*

"The Works Progress Administration (renamed in 1939 as the Work Projects Administration; WPA) was the largest and most ambitious New Deal agency, employing millions of unemployed people (mostly unskilled men) to carry out public works projects,[1] including the construction of public buildings and roads. 

"In much smaller but more famous projects the WPA employed musicians, artists, writers, actors and directors in large arts, drama, media, and literacy projects.[1]

"Almost every community in the United States had a new park, bridge or school constructed by the agency. 

"The WPA's initial appropriation in 1935 was for $4.9 billion (about 6.7 percent of the 1935 GDP), and in total it spent $13.4 billionAt its peak in 1938, it provided paid jobs for three million unemployed men and women, as well as youth in a separate division, the National Youth Administration. 

"Headed by Harry Hopkins, the WPA provided jobs and income to the unemployed during the Great Depression in the United States. 

"Between 1935 and 1943, the WPA provided almost eight million jobs.[3] 

"Full employment, which emerged as a national goal around 1944, was not the WPA goal. It tried to provide one paid job for all families in which the breadwinner suffered long-term unemployment."

*Roosevelt's principal economic failing was saving capitalism from itself.*

Works Progress Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> *Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?*



I have. And, call me paranoid, but I suspect it'll be the next thing they'll try to centralize control over. They've all but succeeded with health care, and I suspect the food supply is next.


----------



## thereisnospoon

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking me to write a Bill for the Congress or do you just not wish to participate in fruitful discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm merely trying to gain some clarity on the views you're expressing. "Policy that treats humans as more valuable than profit" is fairly vague. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd disagree. But what of our current laws and policies conflict with that? I have my own set of complaints about the status quo, but I'm pretty sure they're quite different than yours, even though we're recognizing many of the same problems.
> 
> I'm not asking your for a comprehensive legislative proposal - just some concrete examples of what you'd like to see changed, or at least a general idea of how you think government should involve itself in our economic activities.
Click to expand...


The OP would rather not put forth a straightforward list of ideas.
It is more important to express style rather than substance.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. And, call me paranoid, but I suspect it'll be the next thing they'll try to centralize control over. They've all but succeeded with health care, and I suspect the food supply is next.
Click to expand...

*FWIW, I don't think you engage in paranoid thinking on matters like these.
Gramm-Leach-Bililey seems a prime example of how "they", meaning government in service to private wealth, enact laws that work to the economic detriment of most citizens.*

"...banks aren't just buying stuff, they're buying whole industrial processes. They're buying oil that's still in the ground, the tankers that move it across the sea, the refineries that turn it into fuel, and the pipelines that bring it to your home. 

"Then, just for kicks, they're also betting on the timing and efficiency of these same industrial processes in the financial markets  buying and selling oil stocks on the stock exchange, oil futures on the futures market, swaps on the swaps market, etc.

"Allowing one company to control the supply of crucial physical commodities, and also trade in the financial products that might be related to those markets, is an open invitation to commit mass manipulation. 

"It's something akin to letting casino owners who take book on NFL games during the week also coach all the teams on Sundays"

?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi

*Didn't Kissinger draw a comparison between controlling oil and controlling food?*


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> *The latest exploits of the Great Vampire Squid:*
> 
> "Most observers on the Hill thought the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999  also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act  was just the latest and boldest in a long line of deregulatory handouts to Wall Street that had begun in the Reagan years"
> 
> "*it would take half a generation  till now, basically*  to understand the most explosive part of the bill, which additionally legalized new forms of monopoly, allowing banks to merge with heavy industry.
> 
> "A tiny provision in the bill also permitted commercial banks to delve into any activity that is 'complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally.'
> 
> "Complementary to a financial activity. What the hell did that mean?..."
> 
> "Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals.
> 
> "They likewise can now be found exerting direct control over the supply of a whole galaxy of raw materials crucial to world industry and to society in general, including everything from *food products* to metals like zinc, copper, tin, nickel and, most infamously thanks to a recent high-profile scandal, aluminum.
> 
> *Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?
> Capitalist squids know this world is theirs to strangle
> Maybe it's long past time for a tentacle trim?*
> 
> ?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi



First off, nothing you say here has anything at all to do with sub-prime loans, the sub-prime melt down, the crash of sub-prime mortgage backed securities, or the crash on 2008, and resulting economic situation in the US.

So even if we pretend this article is true, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or the topic of the thread.

Even the topic of the link you cited, has nothing to do with Glass Steagall, but rather the Banking Holding Company Act of 1956.

Now let's begin a new topic, given that your post basically proves you can't make the argument that the GBLA, or the GSA, had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash, or the 2008 crisis.

*So, new topic.... should we allow banks to buy non-banking business?
*

First, banks have owned commodities for ages.  Since the beginning of the country really.   It's not a 'new' or change in the law that banks own copper, or oil, or even corn feed.   That's what the commodity market is all about.  It's nothing new or important.

What is relatively new, is banks owning production of such commodities.    This however, is just another illustration of just how much regulation there is of US Banking, over international banking.

Banks in other countries never had this restriction.   The largest bank that owns the most non-banking industry, is actually Barclays, which is British.   Other massive banks that own hundreds of non-banking business, are AXA which is French, UBS AG which is Swiss, Deutsche Bank AG which is German, Credit Suisse Group which is Switzerland, and lastly Natixis which is also French.

None of these banking companies, have ever had the restrictions on buying non-banking companies, that American banks have had.  Just like none of the rest of the world had restrictions on Commercial, Investment, Retail, and Insurance being forcibly separate.

Which leads to the question, if all that is such a big deal, why hasn't the rest of the world had crashes because of those non-restrictions?

But the real point is, the US has the most regulated banking sector in the world.   We have more regulations and controls on our banks than any private banking system in the world.   The only place you can find a more controlled system, is in countries with state owned banks.

Yet, where did the crash originate?   In the US.  Point being, that regulations have not prevent crashes.  Regulations likely caused more crashes than it ever prevented.

*So given those facts, and they are facts, should we allow banks to own non-banking business?*

I would lean toward, yes why not?     Some people tend to act like this is crazy talk, that has never happened before.     In reality, banks have been intertwined with non-banking, since the beginning.    Some simple modern examples, is GMAC, or Ford Credit, GTE Visa, and hundreds of other examples.

So why is a company that owns a bank, perfectly fine and proper, but a bank that owns a company, is completely wrong and bad?

Further, banks always buy shares in companies.   This is a normal common part of investment.    So why is a banking owning 49% of shares in company X, good and fine, while a bank owning 51% is bad and horrible?

What reason do we have to assume that the end of the world will happen if a bank has majority stake in another company?   Especially when banks have been doing this for decades around the world.

As near as I can tell, the only reason is so that fruit cakes on the internet, can proclaim "The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet!"  chocked full of drama queen proclamations.    Certainly banks in Europe haven't doomed Europe to 3rd world status by owning non-banking companies, and ironically is not it normally your side, the leftist side, that typically says we should emulate Europe?


----------



## P@triot

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Oingo Boingo - 'Capitalism' - Occupy Wall Street Edition - YouTube



Immature....Ignorant....Indolent.... The perfect trifecta to breed Dumbocrats. You see those people who look like they haven't bathed in weeks, have the grooming habits of barnyard animals, wallow in disease, drugs, and promiscuity and you wonder who in the _hell_ would ever align themselves with them?!?

At least 90% of them have no idea why they are even there. They are just modern day hippies looking for a cause to rally around (because being at a protest means not having to hold a job). The other 10% that does know why they are there are too ignorant of basic economics to understand that they shouldn't be there. It's literally the blind leading the blind...


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes and gave $4 million to charity.
> 
> That bastard! Giving away over 43% of his income. Awful, just awful.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.
> It should've been 94%.
> Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you, stupid Commie.
Click to expand...

Do you find this a trying time to be rich, Bitch?
100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
Can you do that math?
Show your work.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> My point was that Stalin was fairly pure in his belief system, and not very corrupt at all.   That didn't change his bad policies from killing thousands of people.



Then we have different ideas of what corruption is. I don't think any system or ideology that carries out the systematic oppression and murder of anyone let alone millions has any right to be considered pure or retain dignity. Of course as Stalin reigned over the masses, it doesn't take much to realize his policies are diametrically opposed to real socialism and real communism.

These systems are defined by their edification of humanity and the removing of alienating labor--making the human whole unlike our fragmented lifestyles that lead to less productivity and depression/anti-social behavior. Socialism aims to pave the road for communism by changing our attitudes from ego to altruistic. Socialism is thus an attempt to run a society without EXTREME inequality and vitriol. Socialism as such recognizes there will be inequality but aims to reduce it to healthy levels. Communism is quite utopian vision of of a highly advanced socialist society--and I'm not really talking about Denmark because those countries practice a heavy blend of capitalism. Of course communism is disputable and most utopian visions are illusory but to think Stalin practiced either is just sucking from the propaganda teat.




			
				Karl Marx said:
			
		

> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor...has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly&#8212;only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs



The red quote, put differently, says when such human synergy takes place and abundance is flowing for all (or a high percentage) only then can we call a society truly communist. Communism being summed up in the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Don't take me the wrong way, I am not saying communism or even socialism is viable at the present time. However, we are in desperate need of a shift in power away from elite control and to a more democratic approach to power, wealth, and even the police (since they target those already in poverty when whites are more likely to use drugs).

I encourage sensible steps towards a society that treats profit secondary to human life.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Regardless, those born into cushy lives as a result of affluent parents account for the majority of success in this country--it breeds success because the opportunities to acheive and become are so readily apparent. In low income communities, not that they are any less of a human, but they indeed are offered sub-par education and virtually no good opportunities.



Pure, unadulterated, I-want-life-handed-to-me-on-silver-platter, sniveling, *bullshit*.

The Menendez brothers were born into affluence - today they sit in prison.

Chris Gardner was born into poverty, today he sits on tens of millions of dollars.

78% of NFL players file bankruptcy within 5 years of retiring. These are people who have made ungodly sums of money.

The people who handle their business and persevere _always_ succeed. The people who do not, always fail (liberals just ensure more of that failure by artificially propping it up).

You show me someone who relentlessly pursues excellence for a decade and I guarantee you I will show you someone who is *not* in poverty. 100% of the time.

But hey - keep with the pity-party mentality of the Dumbocrats. It worked soooooo well in Detroit!


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.
> It should've been 94%.
> Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, stupid Commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you find this a trying time to be rich, Bitch?
> 100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
> 10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
> 0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
> Can you do that math?
> Show your work.
Click to expand...


In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.

And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....


----------



## P@triot

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. And, call me paranoid, but I suspect it'll be the next thing they'll try to centralize control over. They've all but succeeded with health care, and I suspect the food supply is next.
Click to expand...


And that's exactly what Obama will do actually. He'll call you "paranoid" and a "conspiracy theorist" all while doing exactly what you knew he was doing.

It's already been proven that he knew Americans would not be able to keep their health insurance plan or their doctors. Yet he looked directly into the camera time and time again and adamantly insisted the exact opposite.

It was one of the most egregious and disgusting lies ever told to the American people. And Barack Hussein was proud to do it.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The latest exploits of the Great Vampire Squid:*
> 
> "Most observers on the Hill thought the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999  also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act  was just the latest and boldest in a long line of deregulatory handouts to Wall Street that had begun in the Reagan years"
> 
> "*it would take half a generation  till now, basically*  to understand the most explosive part of the bill, which additionally legalized new forms of monopoly, allowing banks to merge with heavy industry.
> 
> "A tiny provision in the bill also permitted commercial banks to delve into any activity that is 'complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally.'
> 
> "Complementary to a financial activity. What the hell did that mean?..."
> 
> "Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals.
> 
> "They likewise can now be found exerting direct control over the supply of a whole galaxy of raw materials crucial to world industry and to society in general, including everything from *food products* to metals like zinc, copper, tin, nickel and, most infamously thanks to a recent high-profile scandal, aluminum.
> 
> *Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?
> Capitalist squids know this world is theirs to strangle
> Maybe it's long past time for a tentacle trim?*
> 
> ?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, nothing you say here has anything at all to do with sub-prime loans, the sub-prime melt down, the crash of sub-prime mortgage backed securities, or the crash on 2008, and resulting economic situation in the US.
> 
> So even if we pretend this article is true, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or the topic of the thread.
> 
> Even the topic of the link you cited, has nothing to do with Glass Steagall, but rather the Banking Holding Company Act of 1956.
> 
> Now let's begin a new topic, given that your post basically proves you can't make the argument that the GBLA, or the GSA, had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash, or the 2008 crisis.
> 
> *So, new topic.... should we allow banks to buy non-banking business?
> *
> 
> First, banks have owned commodities for ages.  Since the beginning of the country really.   It's not a 'new' or change in the law that banks own copper, or oil, or even corn feed.   That's what the commodity market is all about.  It's nothing new or important.
> 
> What is relatively new, is banks owning production of such commodities.    This however, is just another illustration of just how much regulation there is of US Banking, over international banking.
> 
> Banks in other countries never had this restriction.   The largest bank that owns the most non-banking industry, is actually Barclays, which is British.   Other massive banks that own hundreds of non-banking business, are AXA which is French, UBS AG which is Swiss, Deutsche Bank AG which is German, Credit Suisse Group which is Switzerland, and lastly Natixis which is also French.
> 
> None of these banking companies, have ever had the restrictions on buying non-banking companies, that American banks have had.  Just like none of the rest of the world had restrictions on Commercial, Investment, Retail, and Insurance being forcibly separate.
> 
> Which leads to the question, if all that is such a big deal, why hasn't the rest of the world had crashes because of those non-restrictions?
> 
> But the real point is, the US has the most regulated banking sector in the world.   We have more regulations and controls on our banks than any private banking system in the world.   The only place you can find a more controlled system, is in countries with state owned banks.
> 
> Yet, where did the crash originate?   In the US.  Point being, that regulations have not prevent crashes.  Regulations likely caused more crashes than it ever prevented.
> 
> *So given those facts, and they are facts, should we allow banks to own non-banking business?*
> 
> I would lean toward, yes why not?     Some people tend to act like this is crazy talk, that has never happened before.     In reality, banks have been intertwined with non-banking, since the beginning.    Some simple modern examples, is GMAC, or Ford Credit, GTE Visa, and hundreds of other examples.
> 
> So why is a company that owns a bank, perfectly fine and proper, but a bank that owns a company, is completely wrong and bad?
> 
> Further, banks always buy shares in companies.   This is a normal common part of investment.    So why is a banking owning 49% of shares in company X, good and fine, while a bank owning 51% is bad and horrible?
> 
> What reason do we have to assume that the end of the world will happen if a bank has majority stake in another company?   Especially when banks have been doing this for decades around the world.
> 
> As near as I can tell, the only reason is so that fruit cakes on the internet, can proclaim "The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet!"  chocked full of drama queen proclamations.    Certainly banks in Europe haven't doomed Europe to 3rd world status by owning non-banking companies, and ironically is not it normally your side, the leftist side, that typically says we should emulate Europe?
Click to expand...

*Do you happen to know the name of this thread?
Possibly you neglected to read its OP link, which, if true, makes you lazy and ignorant.
Here it is:*

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

"The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth. According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

*Among the reasons why "the disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater that it has even been" include Wall Street's manipulation of the CRA to produce a sub-prime meltdown and global recession in 2008.

Since no one on Wall Street went to prison for the poison they injected into the global economy five years ago, bankers today are manipulating key commodities markets which is further increasing global economic inequality WHICH IS WHAT MY THREAD IS ABOUT:*

"And last summer, The New York Times described how Goldman Sachs was caught systematically delaying the delivery of metals out of a network of warehouses it owned in order to jack up rents and artificially boost prices.

"You might not have been surprised that Goldman got caught scamming the world again, but it was certainly news to a lot of people that an investment bank with no industrial expertise, just five years removed from a federal bailout, stores and controls enough of America's aluminum supply to affect world prices.

"How was all of this possible? And who signed off on it?

"By exploiting loopholes in a dense, decade-and-a-half-old piece of financial legislation, Wall Street has effected a revolutionary change that American citizens never discussed, debated or prepared for, and certainly never explicitly permitted in any meaningful way: *the wholesale merger of high finance with heavy industry.* 

"This blitzkrieg reorganization of our economy has left millions of Americans facing a smorgasbord of frightfully unexpected new problems. 

"Do we even have a regulatory structure in place to look out for these new forms of manipulation? (Answer: We don't.) 

"And given that the banking sector that came so close to ruining the world economy five years ago has now vastly expanded its footprint, who's in charge of preventing the next crash?

The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet | Politics News | Rolling Stone


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.
> It should've been 94%.
> Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, stupid Commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you find this a trying time to be rich, Bitch?
> 100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
> 10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
> 0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
> Can you do that math?
> Show your work.
Click to expand...


Here is a much better plan.....

1% tax on anyone making over a million dollars

5% tax on anyone making over $500,000

10% tax on anyone making over $40,000

50% tax on anyone making over $20,000

Anyone on welfare, unemployment, etc. is sent to work every day doing hard labor for 12 hours repairing roads, cleaning parks and highways (saving us a TON of tax dollars on roads, parks, etc.)

Here is basically what liberals and your very absurd "plan" above do:

Your child comes home from school with a report card that has straight A's and a glowing report about their behavior, effort, etc. from the teacher. Your other child comes home with straight F's. They tell you they quit school two months ago and are strung out on heroin. You violently and mercilessly beat the child with straight A's and you reward the child who dropped out with a new iPhone and a new Ford Mustang.

You would _never_ do that. Nobody (even idiot Dumbocrats) would do that. And yet, that's exactly how Dumbocrats think we should run the country and how we should design our tax laws and regulate our economy.

Yes folks, Dumbocrats really are _this_ stupid....


----------



## georgephillip

Rottweiler said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, stupid Commie.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you find this a trying time to be rich, Bitch?
> 100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
> 10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
> 0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
> Can you do that math?
> Show your work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.
> 
> And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....
Click to expand...

How are you defining "successful?"
$100,000 per year?
$1,000,000 per year??
Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that Stalin was fairly pure in his belief system, and not very corrupt at all.   That didn't change his bad policies from killing thousands of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have different ideas of what corruption is. I don't think any system or ideology that carries out the systematic oppression and murder of anyone let alone millions has any right to be considered pure or retain dignity. Of course as Stalin reigned over the masses, it doesn't take much to realize his policies are diametrically opposed to real socialism and real communism.
> 
> These systems are defined by their edification of humanity and the removing of alienating labor--making the human whole unlike our fragmented lifestyles that lead to less productivity and depression/anti-social behavior. Socialism aims to pave the road for communism by changing our attitudes from ego to altruistic. Socialism is thus an attempt to run a society without EXTREME inequality and vitriol. Socialism as such recognizes there will be inequality but aims to reduce it to healthy levels. Communism is quite utopian vision of of a highly advanced socialist society--and I'm not really talking about Denmark because those countries practice a heavy blend of capitalism. Of course communism is disputable and most utopian visions are illusory but to think Stalin practiced either is just sucking from the propaganda teat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Marx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor...has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantlyonly then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The red quote, put differently, says when such human synergy takes place and abundance is flowing for all (or a high percentage) only then can we call a society truly communist. Communism being summed up in the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
> 
> Don't take me the wrong way, I am not saying communism or even socialism is viable at the present time. However, we are in desperate need of a shift in power away from elite control and to a more democratic approach to power, wealth, and even the police (since they target those already in poverty when whites are more likely to use drugs).
> 
> I encourage sensible steps towards a society that treats profit secondary to human life.
Click to expand...


The "red quote" is a truism that glosses over the crucial question of how we decide what the relevant abilities and needs are. Capitalism leaves us free to work this out through voluntary interactions. Socialism replaces individual judgment with state mandate.


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you find this a trying time to be rich, Bitch?
> 100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
> 10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
> 0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
> Can you do that math?
> Show your work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.
> 
> And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you defining "successful?"
> $100,000 per year?
> $1,000,000 per year??
> Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?
Click to expand...


  

Oh man, I love that desperate argument. "But....but...but...you're 'exploiting' people, resources". The only thing being "exploited" is _you_ - by your Dumbocrat masters who are treating you like the useful idiot that you are.

It is illegal to "exploit" in America. For instance, sex-slavery is _actual_ "exploitation". Sex-slavery is illegal in America genius.

As far as "defining" success - do you really need me to post the definition for you? We are clearly speaking financially here. And if you make $1 million per year, you are _clearly_ more successful than the guy making $100,000 per year. The guy making $100,000 per year is _clearly_ more successful than the guy making $40,000 per year (again - strictly speaking financially of course).

The fact that you have to pretend that there is some ambiguity around the term "success" is evidence of how desperate you are to make an argument which isn't holding up under the facts.


----------



## georgephillip

KevinWestern said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.
> It should've been 94%.
> Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, stupid Commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 94%?? Is he crazy, lol.
> 
> 94%!!?
Click to expand...

*It wouldn't be the first time.*

"The Roosevelt administration had been gearing up to support the war effort long before the actual attack. 

"When bombers struck on December 7, 1941, taxes were already high by historical standards. 

"There were a dizzying 32 different tax brackets, starting at 10% and topping out at 79% on incomes over $1 million, 80% on incomes over $2 million, and 81% on income over $5 million.

"In April 1942, just a few short months after the attack, President Roosevelt proposed a 100% top rate. 

"At a time of 'grave national danger,' he argued, 'no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year." (That's roughly '$300,000 in today's dollars).

"Roosevelt never got his 100% rate. 

"However, the Revenue Act of 1942 raised top rates to 88% on incomes over $200,000. 

"By 1944, the bottom rate had more than doubled to 23%, and the top rate reached an all-time high of 94%."

How would you feel about a 94% tax rate? - CBS News


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> "Policy that treats humans as more valuable than profit" is fairly vague. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd disagree.



I think you are sheltering yourself from what goes on if you think we value life over profit. In your personal life I know you value life over money but the system doesn't.

Our system is designed to reward those with money and punish those without it by making their lives miserable. But since we inherit our parents circumstances, our freedom is moot.

Those born in need are encouraged through billions in advertising to borrow in an attempt to improve their life. They may have an immediate improvement in their welfare but what happens in the long run?

Compounded interest maintains their status as long-term customers. For every dollar spent on paying the principal, there are 3 dollars spent on fees and interest, according to Elizabeth Warren and the banks confirmed this (see "Maxed Out"). However, in the past debt forgiveness was a regular affair in governments (see the Bible or The Shadow Side of Debt). But today debt is essential to the system. Anyone in debt must either pay the principal and the interest (sometimes as high as 40%) in full or die (or file bankruptcy). So anyone in this predicament is much more likely, nay, obligated to take any low paying job in order to stop debt collection harassment and feel like they are making progress towards financial success.

This is known as wage slavery. In addition to debt, wage slavery is also essential mechanism of the system. It provides cheap and dispensable labor force , whether here or abroad.

Thus, we value debt and profit above human life by taking from the poor and redistributing their money to the Wall St. via compounded interest and the stock market. Those who trade money and buy/sell debt are those with the most lavish lifestyles. So clearly we value their "work" above those providing essential services to maintain society such as garbage men who wake at 3AM to pick up heavy, smelly barrels.

Those who manage their debt well are few and far between because the onus is often too great. Not to mention advertising is so ubiquitous that it induces cyclical consumption--yet another essential feature to our system. Without perpetual increasing demand the system falters and may collapse. The fact that more money is spent on ads than the making of products should clue you into how important advertising is to maintain our drone like consumption.

These three mechanisms, debt, wage slavery and cyclical consumption are essential and are also designed to keep the poor down and aide the rich. But the rich really don't need more of anything  because they aren't the one's asking for soup or hope. Instead, they have no conception of how their actions impact ecology and humanity. All they know is they are making bank and it feels wonderful. And their game called economics supports their externalizing of ecology and humanity.

This article, Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor - WSJ.com, demonstrates how harmful and corrosive to society the stock market really is. A brain damaged trader is better off than an trader with a normal brain. That's because those without empathy tend to trade better since they have no ties about if there actions are harming a family or a community.

So yeah, we are definitely valuing profit over humanity in a very real yet covert way. It's deliciously baked into the system yet every day people die in the tens of thousands as a result of preventable problems like malnutrition (obesity and starvation) and billions more suffer daily with no end in sight.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> The "red quote" is a truism that glosses over the crucial question of how we decide what the relevant abilities and needs are. Capitalism leaves us free to work this out through voluntary interactions. Socialism replaces individual judgment with state mandate.



I tried to make it clear this is not necessarily the best system of governance. Of course if our goal is to generate wealth to no end, capitalism is your best bet.

Also, socialism is not necessarily state sponsored. It treats humans much more realistically than thinking each human is a profit maximizing entity. That is a joke if you think each human acts that way yet capitalism depends on this foul assumption. Profit should not be the end goal, it should be to create a balance between humanity and nature.

That's why addressing particular policy issues ignores these huge gaffes in general principles. We are not profit maximizing entities, we are human beings that need to share love and share space. Ignoring these needs as fundamental is ignoring humanity and calling us robots.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism isn't meant to be democratic. Democracy is a principle that applies to government, where consensus decisions are often necessary.  Majority rule isn't necessary, nor, in my view, desirable, when it comes to our economic decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you agree with this: your freedom of enterprise denies my freedom of a job?
> If you believe in democracy, how can you justify not instituting it in the place where we spend most of our adult lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can dictate to others whether or not they hire you?    So if I come to your place, and demand you pay me $50 every week to cut your lawn, whether you want that done, or not, my right to democracy requires that you do it?
> 
> See this is the kind of logic, that if the tables were reversed, you would instinctively understand that your right to your property, is not to be denied because someone wants it.
> 
> But employment is the same thing.  You don't have a right to someone else's hard earned money as CEO of a company either.      That money that the company has, was hard earned by the people who put their money, their homes, their blood sweat and tears into, in order to make it work.
> 
> I just got to hear the story of the CEO of my company.  He spent four years working while going to school.   He earned a degree in engineering.   He worked for 20 years, as a level 1, and then level 2 engineer at a small company.   Then he mortgaged his home, and his father mortgaged his home, and they both put both their homes on the line to buy out this small business.   Now he's CEO of the business.  He is there at 7 AM every morning.  He leaves at 6 PM every night.   He's flown around the world, traveled thousands of miles to go to trade shows.
> 
> He works his butt off.  Now you tell me what you think you 'deserve democracy in his company'?    Why do you have any right, what so ever, to tell him jack squat about how he runs his company?   Bull.  You have no right period.     None!
> 
> And if you put in the hours that he did, and the money he did, and the risk he did, to run your own business, you wouldn't put up with me coming around demand democracy in your company either.  And don't lie and say you would.  You wouldn't.  I know better.
> 
> Don't even try and tell me you would put your home on the line, and risk losing everything, and have some newly hired employee in the stock room, telling you he should have a say in how you run your business.   Bull crap.
Click to expand...

Even if your latest anecdote isn't more BS, how many total employees does your alleged employer have? How many total man hours per week does your owner pay for? What's the ratio of your owner's hours toil per week to total hours per week worked by all employees? Whats the ratio of your owner's pay to his latest stock room hire?


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, stupid Commie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 94%?? Is he crazy, lol.
> 
> 94%!!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It wouldn't be the first time.*
> 
> "The Roosevelt administration had been gearing up to support the war effort long before the actual attack.
> 
> "When bombers struck on December 7, 1941, taxes were already high by historical standards.
> 
> "There were a dizzying 32 different tax brackets, starting at 10% and topping out at 79% on incomes over $1 million, 80% on incomes over $2 million, and 81% on income over $5 million.
> 
> "In April 1942, just a few short months after the attack, President Roosevelt proposed a 100% top rate.
> 
> "At a time of 'grave national danger,' he argued, 'no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year." (That's roughly '$300,000 in today's dollars).
> 
> "Roosevelt never got his 100% rate.
> 
> "However, the Revenue Act of 1942 raised top rates to 88% on incomes over $200,000.
> 
> "By 1944, the bottom rate had more than doubled to 23%, and the top rate reached an all-time high of 94%."
> 
> How would you feel about a 94% tax rate? - CBS News
Click to expand...


Actually, it _would_ be the first time (basically). Welcome to what is known as facts (these are the exact opposite of the liberal propaganda you eagerly choke down):

Democrats defend high tax rates on the basis of the rates in the mid-twentieth century.18 But thats another distortion. It is true that FDR raised the top rate in 1935 to 79 percent. But what we never hear is that it only applied to incomes over $5 millionthe equivalent of $76,000,000 per year today. In 1935 *only* *one* man in the _entire_ U.S.A. paid a penny at that rateJohn D. Rockefeller.19 The reality is that from 1935 through the 1970s the highest tax rates did pass 70 percent, 80 percent, and for a time even 90 percent, but those rates were aimed only at billionaire industrialists, not small business owners. Only a handful of taxpayers in America ever paid the top rates.

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide. Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks. 
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

The reality of the FDR Taxes

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ.com


----------



## georgephillip

Rottweiler said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.
> 
> And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "successful?"
> $100,000 per year?
> $1,000,000 per year??
> Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man, I love that desperate argument. "But....but...but...you're 'exploiting' people, resources". The only thing being "exploited" is _you_ - by your Dumbocrat masters who are treating you like the useful idiot that you are.
> 
> It is illegal to "exploit" in America. For instance, sex-slavery is _actual_ "exploitation". Sex-slavery is illegal in America genius.
> 
> As far as "defining" success - do you really need me to post the definition for you? We are clearly speaking financially here. And if you make $1 million per year, you are _clearly_ more successful than the guy making $100,000 per year. The guy making $100,000 per year is _clearly_ more successful than the guy making $40,000 per year (again - strictly speaking financially of course).
> 
> The fact that you have to pretend that there is some ambiguity around the term "success" is evidence of how desperate you are to make an argument which isn't holding up under the facts.
Click to expand...

"suc·cess  (s&#601;k-s&#277;s&#8242
n.
1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work.
2.
a. The gaining of fame or prosperity: an artist spoiled by success.
b. The extent of such gain.
3. One that is successful: The plan was a success.
4. Obsolete A result or an outcome."

*$50,000 is about average for US incomes.
$100,000 is successful enough for many if increased leisure is the compensation.
You've obviously ingested enough of the Koch-Aid to believe earning a million a year makes you ten times more $ucce$$ful than earning only $100,000.

BTW, when four percent of the world's population controls 25% of its resources, that's called exploitation.

The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.*

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/success


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "successful?"
> $100,000 per year?
> $1,000,000 per year??
> Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man, I love that desperate argument. "But....but...but...you're 'exploiting' people, resources". The only thing being "exploited" is _you_ - by your Dumbocrat masters who are treating you like the useful idiot that you are.
> 
> It is illegal to "exploit" in America. For instance, sex-slavery is _actual_ "exploitation". Sex-slavery is illegal in America genius.
> 
> As far as "defining" success - do you really need me to post the definition for you? We are clearly speaking financially here. And if you make $1 million per year, you are _clearly_ more successful than the guy making $100,000 per year. The guy making $100,000 per year is _clearly_ more successful than the guy making $40,000 per year (again - strictly speaking financially of course).
> 
> The fact that you have to pretend that there is some ambiguity around the term "success" is evidence of how desperate you are to make an argument which isn't holding up under the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "suc·cess  (s&#601;k-s&#277;s&#8242
> n.
> 1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work.
> 2.
> a. The gaining of fame or prosperity: an artist spoiled by success.
> b. The extent of such gain.
> 3. One that is successful: The plan was a success.
> 4. Obsolete A result or an outcome."
> 
> $50,000 is about average for US incomes.
> $100,000 *is successful enough for many if increased leisure is the compensation*.
> You've obviously ingested enough of the Koch-Aid to believe earning a million a year makes you ten times more $ucce$$ful than earning only $100,000.
Click to expand...


Remind me again - who are you to make that decision for the United States? Are you under the impression that we care what you believe is "enough"? If it's enough for you - God Bless you. Good for you. For someone else, that is not enough. And guess what, the Constitution guarantees them that your opinion (and that's all it is) on "enough" doesn't mean shit.



georgephillip said:


> BTW, when four percent of the world's population controls 25% of its resources, that's called exploitation.



No - that's called you being envious of their success. Your ineptitude is not their "exploitation".



georgephillip said:


> The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.
> 
> success - definition of success by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.



Unless they have a gun to their head, they are not "exploited". They made an agreement - of their own free will - which they felt was mutually beneficial. Your envy does not make their agreement "exploitation".


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Mitt Romney have to do with issue of whether monarchy is preferable to democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........  I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.
> 
> Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding.  But for sure, he's not a "parasite".   You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.
Click to expand...

What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?

Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........  I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.
> 
> Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding.  But for sure, he's not a "parasite".   You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?
> 
> Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.
Click to expand...


Mitt's money is not going to fix our government waste problems. It's not going to fix our corporate collusion problems. And the minute you think that robbing individuals of their wealth is the solution is the minute you've lost all perspective.


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........  I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.
> 
> Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding.  But for sure, he's not a "parasite".   You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?
> 
> Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.
Click to expand...


To say you are an immature naive idealist would be a major understatement. "Put to good use"? _Really_? 

Government Waste 2010

Government Waste 2011


----------



## P@triot

TheGreatGatsby said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........  I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.
> 
> Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding.  But for sure, he's not a "parasite".   You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.
> 
> 
> 
> What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?
> 
> Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitt's money is not going to fix our government waste problems. It's not going to fix our corporate collusion problems. And the minute you think that robbing individuals of their wealth is the solution is the minute you've lost all perspective.
Click to expand...


He's mad that Mitt has been more successful than he has in life....


----------



## Antares

georgephillip said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you find this a trying time to be rich, Bitch?
> 100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
> 10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
> 0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
> Can you do that math?
> Show your work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.
> 
> And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you defining "successful?"
> $100,000 per year?
> $1,000,000 per year??
> Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?
Click to expand...


That must make me DOUBLY EVILLLLLLLL since I make a shitload selling "health Insurance".


----------



## KNB

Greed is the only thing that guarantees rising inequality.  Just greed.  If Fortune 500 corporations spent their record-breaking quarterly profits, wealth inequality would automatically decline.

Then Republicans could say, "Trickle-down economics really works."


----------



## bripat9643

TheGreatGatsby said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........  I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.
> 
> Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding.  But for sure, he's not a "parasite".   You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.
> 
> 
> 
> What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?
> 
> Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitt's money is not going to fix our government waste problems. It's not going to fix our corporate collusion problems. And the minute you think that robbing individuals of their wealth is the solution is the minute you've lost all perspective.
Click to expand...


It's actually the minute you unveil yourself as nothing more than a thug.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. And, call me paranoid, but I suspect it'll be the next thing they'll try to centralize control over. They've all but succeeded with health care, and I suspect the food supply is next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FWIW, I don't think you engage in paranoid thinking on matters like these.
> Gramm-Leach-Bililey seems a prime example of how "they", meaning government in service to private wealth, enact laws that work to the economic detriment of most citizens.*
> 
> "...banks aren't just buying stuff, they're buying whole industrial processes. They're buying oil that's still in the ground, the tankers that move it across the sea, the refineries that turn it into fuel, and the pipelines that bring it to your home.
> 
> "Then, just for kicks, they're also betting on the timing and efficiency of these same industrial processes in the financial markets  buying and selling oil stocks on the stock exchange, oil futures on the futures market, swaps on the swaps market, etc.
> 
> "Allowing one company to control the supply of crucial physical commodities, and also trade in the financial products that might be related to those markets, is an open invitation to commit mass manipulation.
> 
> "It's something akin to letting casino owners who take book on NFL games during the week also coach all the teams on Sundays"
> 
> ?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi
> 
> *Didn't Kissinger draw a comparison between controlling oil and controlling food?*
Click to expand...


Matt is funny when he gets sand in his vagina.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.
> It should've been 94%.
> Greedy fuck, tsk tsk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, stupid Commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you find this a trying time to be rich, Bitch?
> 100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
> 10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
> 0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
> Can you do that math?
> Show your work.
Click to expand...


Poor whiner says what?


----------



## Chris

Just four blocks from the White House is the headquarters of the Employment Policies Institute, a widely quoted economic research center whose academic reports have repeatedly warned that increasing the minimum wage could be harmful, increasing poverty and unemployment.
But something fundamental goes unsaid in the institute&#8217;s reports: The nonprofit group is run by a public relations firm that also represents the restaurant industry, as part of a tightly coordinated effort to defeat the minimum wage increase that the White House and Democrats in Congress have pushed for. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/u...ge-illustrates-web-of-industry-ties.html?_r=0


----------



## Chris

The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek point out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).

Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "successful?"
> $100,000 per year?
> $1,000,000 per year??
> Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man, I love that desperate argument. "But....but...but...you're 'exploiting' people, resources". The only thing being "exploited" is _you_ - by your Dumbocrat masters who are treating you like the useful idiot that you are.
> 
> It is illegal to "exploit" in America. For instance, sex-slavery is _actual_ "exploitation". Sex-slavery is illegal in America genius.
> 
> As far as "defining" success - do you really need me to post the definition for you? We are clearly speaking financially here. And if you make $1 million per year, you are _clearly_ more successful than the guy making $100,000 per year. The guy making $100,000 per year is _clearly_ more successful than the guy making $40,000 per year (again - strictly speaking financially of course).
> 
> The fact that you have to pretend that there is some ambiguity around the term "success" is evidence of how desperate you are to make an argument which isn't holding up under the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "suc·cess  (s&#601;k-s&#277;s&#8242
> n.
> 1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work.
> 2.
> a. The gaining of fame or prosperity: an artist spoiled by success.
> b. The extent of such gain.
> 3. One that is successful: The plan was a success.
> 4. Obsolete A result or an outcome."
> 
> *$50,000 is about average for US incomes.
> $100,000 is successful enough for many if increased leisure is the compensation.
> You've obviously ingested enough of the Koch-Aid to believe earning a million a year makes you ten times more $ucce$$ful than earning only $100,000.
> 
> BTW, when four percent of the world's population controls 25% of its resources, that's called exploitation.
> 
> The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.*
> 
> success - definition of success by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Click to expand...


*The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.*

An agreement reached freely between two consenting parties is not exploitation.
It's freedom and capitalism.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that Stalin was fairly pure in his belief system, and not very corrupt at all.   That didn't change his bad policies from killing thousands of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have different ideas of what corruption is. I don't think any system or ideology that carries out the systematic oppression and murder of anyone let alone millions has any right to be considered pure or retain dignity. Of course as Stalin reigned over the masses, it doesn't take much to realize his policies are diametrically opposed to real socialism and real communism.
> 
> These systems are defined by their edification of humanity and the removing of alienating labor--making the human whole unlike our fragmented lifestyles that lead to less productivity and depression/anti-social behavior. Socialism aims to pave the road for communism by changing our attitudes from ego to altruistic. Socialism is thus an attempt to run a society without EXTREME inequality and vitriol. Socialism as such recognizes there will be inequality but aims to reduce it to healthy levels. Communism is quite utopian vision of of a highly advanced socialist society--and I'm not really talking about Denmark because those countries practice a heavy blend of capitalism. Of course communism is disputable and most utopian visions are illusory but to think Stalin practiced either is just sucking from the propaganda teat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Marx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor...has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantlyonly then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The red quote, put differently, says when such human synergy takes place and abundance is flowing for all (or a high percentage) only then can we call a society truly communist. Communism being summed up in the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
> 
> Don't take me the wrong way, I am not saying communism or even socialism is viable at the present time. However, we are in desperate need of a shift in power away from elite control and to a more democratic approach to power, wealth, and even the police (since they target those already in poverty when whites are more likely to use drugs).
> 
> I encourage sensible steps towards a society that treats profit secondary to human life.
Click to expand...


Yes, you have accurately pinpointed the difference in our discussions.   You are talking about policy, and I'm talking about corruption, as it is defined....

"In philosophical, theological, or moral discussions, corruption is spiritual or moral impurity or deviation from an ideal. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement. Government, or 'political', corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain."

Based on the definition, Stalin was not corrupt.  Now you might say he deviated from the ideal, but that depends on whose ideal you are referring to.  His ideal?  The Lenin ideal?  Or what you have determined the ideal to be?    From everything I've read, what Stalin, and Lenin pushed, were their own ideals, and they held fast to them.

If your ideology supports the murder and oppression of people, and you accurately follow that ideology, you are not 'corrupt', by the definition.

Stalin did not advance himself, or use his authority for personal gain, or take bribes or embezzlement.

He lived a very modest life style, and held true to the beliefs of the Communist party very clearly.

Now if you want to debate whether or not the Lenin, Stalin communist party adhered correctly to the Socialist dogma or not, that's fine, but not the subject of my post.



gnarlylove said:


> For more on recently elected Socialist, see her site VoteSawant.org



This political ad, does not talk about economic policy, nor what real socialism is, nor how communism works, nor anything else.    I know nothing about her policies, except that she has chosen to not take the $117K salary.

Yet this is held up as someone we should elect.

Which goes back to my point.  Stalin also didn't use his political office for personal advancement, just like Sawant.    Stalin didn't take bribes, or use his position to enrich himself.

Does that mean his policies were good?   No, obviously not.

I'm not saying that Sawant is Stalin.   I am saying that simply because she is not taking the $117K, doesn't mean her policies are good.

Now, if you want to argue about 'true socialism', that can be a fun debate, but that has nothing to do with my point.


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> *The latest exploits of the Great Vampire Squid:*
> 
> "&#8230;Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals.
> 
> *So, new topic.... should we allow banks to buy non-banking business?
> *
> 
> First, banks have owned commodities for ages.  Since the beginning of the country really.   It's not a 'new' or change in the law that banks own copper, or oil, or even corn feed.   That's what the commodity market is all about.  It's nothing new or important.
> 
> What is relatively new, is banks owning production of such commodities.    This however, is just another illustration of just how much regulation there is of US Banking, over international banking.
> 
> Banks in other countries never had this restriction.   The largest bank that owns the most non-banking industry, is actually Barclays, which is British.   Other massive banks that own hundreds of non-banking business, are AXA which is French, UBS AG which is Swiss, Deutsche Bank AG which is German, Credit Suisse Group which is Switzerland, and lastly Natixis which is also French.
> 
> The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet | Politics News | Rolling Stone



"The irony was incredible. After fucking up so badly that the government had to give them federal bank charters and bottomless wells of free cash to save their necks, the feds gave Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley hall passes to become cross-species monopolistic powers with almost limitless reach into any sectors of the economy."

Sounds pretty important. Also sounds like we are entering a new era of monopoly control. Not talking about your grandma's AT&T monopoly either!


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The latest exploits of the Great Vampire Squid:*
> 
> "Most observers on the Hill thought the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999  also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act  was just the latest and boldest in a long line of deregulatory handouts to Wall Street that had begun in the Reagan years"
> 
> "*it would take half a generation  till now, basically*  to understand the most explosive part of the bill, which additionally legalized new forms of monopoly, allowing banks to merge with heavy industry.
> 
> "A tiny provision in the bill also permitted commercial banks to delve into any activity that is 'complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally.'
> 
> "Complementary to a financial activity. What the hell did that mean?..."
> 
> "Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals.
> 
> "They likewise can now be found exerting direct control over the supply of a whole galaxy of raw materials crucial to world industry and to society in general, including everything from *food products* to metals like zinc, copper, tin, nickel and, most infamously thanks to a recent high-profile scandal, aluminum.
> 
> *Anybody notice a rise in the price of food products lately?
> Capitalist squids know this world is theirs to strangle
> Maybe it's long past time for a tentacle trim?*
> 
> ?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, nothing you say here has anything at all to do with sub-prime loans, the sub-prime melt down, the crash of sub-prime mortgage backed securities, or the crash on 2008, and resulting economic situation in the US.
> 
> So even if we pretend this article is true, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or the topic of the thread.
> 
> Even the topic of the link you cited, has nothing to do with Glass Steagall, but rather the Banking Holding Company Act of 1956.
> 
> Now let's begin a new topic, given that your post basically proves you can't make the argument that the GBLA, or the GSA, had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash, or the 2008 crisis.
> 
> *So, new topic.... should we allow banks to buy non-banking business?
> *
> 
> First, banks have owned commodities for ages.  Since the beginning of the country really.   It's not a 'new' or change in the law that banks own copper, or oil, or even corn feed.   That's what the commodity market is all about.  It's nothing new or important.
> 
> What is relatively new, is banks owning production of such commodities.    This however, is just another illustration of just how much regulation there is of US Banking, over international banking.
> 
> Banks in other countries never had this restriction.   The largest bank that owns the most non-banking industry, is actually Barclays, which is British.   Other massive banks that own hundreds of non-banking business, are AXA which is French, UBS AG which is Swiss, Deutsche Bank AG which is German, Credit Suisse Group which is Switzerland, and lastly Natixis which is also French.
> 
> None of these banking companies, have ever had the restrictions on buying non-banking companies, that American banks have had.  Just like none of the rest of the world had restrictions on Commercial, Investment, Retail, and Insurance being forcibly separate.
> 
> Which leads to the question, if all that is such a big deal, why hasn't the rest of the world had crashes because of those non-restrictions?
> 
> But the real point is, the US has the most regulated banking sector in the world.   We have more regulations and controls on our banks than any private banking system in the world.   The only place you can find a more controlled system, is in countries with state owned banks.
> 
> Yet, where did the crash originate?   In the US.  Point being, that regulations have not prevent crashes.  Regulations likely caused more crashes than it ever prevented.
> 
> *So given those facts, and they are facts, should we allow banks to own non-banking business?*
> 
> I would lean toward, yes why not?     Some people tend to act like this is crazy talk, that has never happened before.     In reality, banks have been intertwined with non-banking, since the beginning.    Some simple modern examples, is GMAC, or Ford Credit, GTE Visa, and hundreds of other examples.
> 
> So why is a company that owns a bank, perfectly fine and proper, but a bank that owns a company, is completely wrong and bad?
> 
> Further, banks always buy shares in companies.   This is a normal common part of investment.    So why is a banking owning 49% of shares in company X, good and fine, while a bank owning 51% is bad and horrible?
> 
> What reason do we have to assume that the end of the world will happen if a bank has majority stake in another company?   Especially when banks have been doing this for decades around the world.
> 
> As near as I can tell, the only reason is so that fruit cakes on the internet, can proclaim "The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet!"  chocked full of drama queen proclamations.    Certainly banks in Europe haven't doomed Europe to 3rd world status by owning non-banking companies, and ironically is not it normally your side, the leftist side, that typically says we should emulate Europe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you happen to know the name of this thread?
> Possibly you neglected to read its OP link, which, if true, makes you lazy and ignorant.
> Here it is:*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth. According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


Which doesn't address, contradict, or answer anything I said.



> *Among the reasons why "the disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater that it has even been" include Wall Street's manipulation of the CRA to produce a sub-prime meltdown and global recession in 2008.*


*

That's a lie.




			Since no one on Wall Street went to prison for the poison they injected into the global economy five years ago, bankers today are manipulating key commodities markets which is further increasing global economic inequality WHICH IS WHAT MY THREAD IS ABOUT:
		
Click to expand...

*
The people on Wall Street didn't go to prison, because they didn't violate any laws.  Inequality is not a violation of law.   Nor is it a violation of law to make loans the Federal Government was suing you in court, forcing you to make.



> "And last summer, The New York Times described how Goldman Sachs was caught systematically delaying the delivery of metals out of a network of warehouses it owned in order to jack up rents and artificially boost prices.



It's interesting how innocent until proven guilty applies to leftists, but never the people they accuse.    JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs are being investigated.   It's possible it's true, in which case they will be fined or charged.   If it's not true, and right now all they have is allegations, then you are blowing smoke, to support your preconceived judgement on others.

The fact is, Goldman owns such a tiny portion of the metals market, the idea that one warehouse on the entire planet, can sway the price level of the entire market, is absolutely ridiculous.   Now that doesn't mean they were not doing something wrong, but only the economically illiterate would think that Goldman Sachs can corner the entire market with a tiny sliver of the market share.



> "You might not have been surprised that Goldman got caught scamming the world again, but it was certainly news to a lot of people that an investment bank with no industrial expertise, just five years removed from a federal bailout, stores and controls enough of America's aluminum supply to affect world prices.



Lots of hearsay, very little fact.

Again, European banks have never had a restriction on buying up non-banking companies.    If allowing that, allowed them to "CONTROL THE PLANET!", then why haven't the European banks taken over the world by now?

Lots of drama, and blustery proclamations, very little reality.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you find this a trying time to be rich, Bitch?
> 100% tax on all incomes of any kind over $1,000,000 for the next generation, at least.
> 10% tax rate on all income between $100,000 - $1,000,000.
> 0% tax rate on all incomes below $100,000.
> Can you do that math?
> Show your work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.
> 
> And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you defining "successful?"
> $100,000 per year?
> $1,000,000 per year??
> Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?
Click to expand...


Oh please.    If we didn't buy their oil, they'd be more poor and impoverished than they are now.

It's this level of stupidity, that results in wealthy upper class American leftists, ruining the lives of people in other countries.

Remember the Nike plant in Malaysia?   Everyone had a cow, and threw a fit.   Meanwhile, these Malaysians were happy to even have a job.

But the upper class liberal leftists that have never worked a day in their lives, had a fit.    Nike agreed, and raised the pay of the employees..... AND LAID A TON OF THEM OFF.

Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.

What part of this, do you people not get?  If you raise the cost of labor, people buy less labor.    You raise the wages of people in Malaysia, and now fewer of them have jobs.    Yes the few still employed get paid a bit more, but now hundreds are unemployed and starving, in a country very poor, and have few jobs.

BRILLIANT!  Who cares about those people.  Screw them.  We're leftist, and we're going to "stick it to the company" even if we ruin people's lives in the process!


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you agree with this: your freedom of enterprise denies my freedom of a job?
> If you believe in democracy, how can you justify not instituting it in the place where we spend most of our adult lives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can dictate to others whether or not they hire you?    So if I come to your place, and demand you pay me $50 every week to cut your lawn, whether you want that done, or not, my right to democracy requires that you do it?
> 
> See this is the kind of logic, that if the tables were reversed, you would instinctively understand that your right to your property, is not to be denied because someone wants it.
> 
> But employment is the same thing.  You don't have a right to someone else's hard earned money as CEO of a company either.      That money that the company has, was hard earned by the people who put their money, their homes, their blood sweat and tears into, in order to make it work.
> 
> I just got to hear the story of the CEO of my company.  He spent four years working while going to school.   He earned a degree in engineering.   He worked for 20 years, as a level 1, and then level 2 engineer at a small company.   Then he mortgaged his home, and his father mortgaged his home, and they both put both their homes on the line to buy out this small business.   Now he's CEO of the business.  He is there at 7 AM every morning.  He leaves at 6 PM every night.   He's flown around the world, traveled thousands of miles to go to trade shows.
> 
> He works his butt off.  Now you tell me what you think you 'deserve democracy in his company'?    Why do you have any right, what so ever, to tell him jack squat about how he runs his company?   Bull.  You have no right period.     None!
> 
> And if you put in the hours that he did, and the money he did, and the risk he did, to run your own business, you wouldn't put up with me coming around demand democracy in your company either.  And don't lie and say you would.  You wouldn't.  I know better.
> 
> Don't even try and tell me you would put your home on the line, and risk losing everything, and have some newly hired employee in the stock room, telling you he should have a say in how you run your business.   Bull crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if your latest anecdote isn't more BS, how many total employees does your alleged employer have? How many total man hours per week does your owner pay for? What's the ratio of your owner's hours toil per week to total hours per week worked by all employees? Whats the ratio of your owner's pay to his latest stock room hire?
Click to expand...


What difference does that make?     If he's putting in 60 hours a week, and I'm putting in 40, and he has to take all the responsibility for everything in the company, and I take no responsibility except for my work table.... you are telling me that there should be any ratio between us?

The only reason anyone should care about that, is if they are greedy and envious of others. 

And don't make me laugh....   So he's putting twice as much into the company than I ever have, and so magically now I get to count all the other employees hours, as my own?     Sorry, that's not logic, not intelligent, and rather stupid.     Well there's 4 employees, and so we're putting in 160 hours, to his 60..........  really......

That is the most mindlessly stupid argument I've ever heard.   Not to mention none of us have degrees.  None of us have mortgaged our home to buy the company.   None of us worked our way up over 20 years.   But apparently that doesn't count in leftard land.  Nope, add up all the hours everyone else works, and if it's greater than the CEO, then we ought to be paid as much.... dur dur......

Please.... are you trying to make me think you are a clown?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man, I love that desperate argument. "But....but...but...you're 'exploiting' people, resources". The only thing being "exploited" is _you_ - by your Dumbocrat masters who are treating you like the useful idiot that you are.
> 
> It is illegal to "exploit" in America. For instance, sex-slavery is _actual_ "exploitation". Sex-slavery is illegal in America genius.
> 
> As far as "defining" success - do you really need me to post the definition for you? We are clearly speaking financially here. And if you make $1 million per year, you are _clearly_ more successful than the guy making $100,000 per year. The guy making $100,000 per year is _clearly_ more successful than the guy making $40,000 per year (again - strictly speaking financially of course).
> 
> The fact that you have to pretend that there is some ambiguity around the term "success" is evidence of how desperate you are to make an argument which isn't holding up under the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> "suc·cess  (s&#601;k-s&#277;s&#8242
> n.
> 1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work.
> 2.
> a. The gaining of fame or prosperity: an artist spoiled by success.
> b. The extent of such gain.
> 3. One that is successful: The plan was a success.
> 4. Obsolete A result or an outcome."
> 
> *$50,000 is about average for US incomes.
> $100,000 is successful enough for many if increased leisure is the compensation.
> You've obviously ingested enough of the Koch-Aid to believe earning a million a year makes you ten times more $ucce$$ful than earning only $100,000.
> 
> BTW, when four percent of the world's population controls 25% of its resources, that's called exploitation.
> 
> The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.*
> 
> success - definition of success by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.*
> 
> An agreement reached freely between two consenting parties is not exploitation.
> It's freedom and capitalism.
Click to expand...

*It's colonialism and fascism for those who know history:*

"On Aug. 19, 1953, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran became the first victim of a C.I.A. coup. Ten months later, on June 27, 1954, President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala became the second..."

"SOON after the C.I.A. installed him as president of Guatemala in 1954, Col. Carlos Castillo Armas visited Washington. 

"He was unusually forthright with Vice President Richard M. Nixon. '*Tell me what you want me to do,' he said, 'and I will do it*.'

"What the United States wanted in Guatemala -- and in Iran, where the C.I.A. also deposed a government in the early 1950's -- was pro-American stability. 

"In the long run, though, neither Colonel Castillo Armas nor his Iranian counterpart, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, provided it. Instead, both led their countries away from democracy and toward repression and tragedy.

"How did this happen? From the perspective of half a century, what is the legacy of these two coups?

"Several dozen scholars, including leading experts on Iran and Guatemala, gathered in Chicago this month to consider those questions. Their conclusions were grim. All agreed that both coups -- the first that the C.I.A. carried out -- had terrible long-term effects."

*Not unlike the terrible long term effects inflicted upon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan by rich parasites who profit from 21st century wars of aggression.*

Ideas & Trends - Iran and Guatemala, 1953-54 - Revisiting Cold War Coups and Finding Them Costly - NYTimes.com


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........  I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.
> 
> Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding.  But for sure, he's not a "parasite".   You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?
> 
> Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.
Click to expand...


What....?     0.o   Are you serious? 

Bain Capital, has built, and grown, and expanded dozens of companies of their years, and Romney was a principal investor.     Look at the companies... in the real economy.... that are alive and well, and employ thousands of people, and provide billions in wealth to the country that our citizens enjoy.

AMC Theatres
Aspen Education Group
Brookstone
Burger King
Burlington Coat Factory
Canada Goose
Clear Channel Communications
Domino's Pizza
DoubleClick
Dunkin' Donuts
D&M Holdings
Guitar Center
Hospital Corporation of America (HCA)
Sealy
Sports Authority
Staples
Toys "R" Us
Warner Music Group
The Weather Channel

And you want to claim his investments have not benefited the public?

Do you not know or understand how investment works?   Because you are not coming across as knowledgeable in this area.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The latest exploits of the Great Vampire Squid:*
> 
> "Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals.
> 
> *So, new topic.... should we allow banks to buy non-banking business?
> *
> 
> First, banks have owned commodities for ages.  Since the beginning of the country really.   It's not a 'new' or change in the law that banks own copper, or oil, or even corn feed.   That's what the commodity market is all about.  It's nothing new or important.
> 
> What is relatively new, is banks owning production of such commodities.    This however, is just another illustration of just how much regulation there is of US Banking, over international banking.
> 
> Banks in other countries never had this restriction.   The largest bank that owns the most non-banking industry, is actually Barclays, which is British.   Other massive banks that own hundreds of non-banking business, are AXA which is French, UBS AG which is Swiss, Deutsche Bank AG which is German, Credit Suisse Group which is Switzerland, and lastly Natixis which is also French.
> 
> The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet | Politics News | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The irony was incredible. After fucking up so badly that the government had to give them federal bank charters and bottomless wells of free cash to save their necks, the feds gave Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley hall passes to become cross-species monopolistic powers with almost limitless reach into any sectors of the economy."
> 
> Sounds pretty important. Also sounds like we are entering a new era of monopoly control. Not talking about your grandma's AT&T monopoly either!
Click to expand...


Free cash? When?


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> I'm not saying that Sawant is Stalin.   I am saying that simply because she is not taking the $117K, doesn't mean her policies are good.



Your point went over my head. I guess drawing comparisons to a murderous dictator didn't seem apt given such a benign point of deductive logic. I agree this is insufficient evidence to think her policies are the best or that they even work.

But given her decision to stand in solidarity with the working class is noteworthy. Moreover, she refused corporate donations meaning there are no direct corporate influence on her policy. We can certainly say this is a refreshing change from millionaire politicians in the media.

Nobody denies money is changing our democratic system. Genuine representative democracy is often buried behind corporate contributions. So special and monied interest win the day typically rather than folks with average incomes. So her decision to accept the average income and refuse corporate contributions is certainly a STEP in the right direction IF our goal is to have a representative democracy instead of a plutocracy.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cause is clearly without a doubt the fact that decisions were made with bad information.
> 
> The cause is clearly NOT a result of mandated loans based on the CRA. It is a FACT that sub-prime loans were willingly taken on by these institutions independent of mandates of the law.
> 
> F&F could have made MBS with all sub-prime loans. That doesn't mean the market will automatically follow suit and rate them AAA and buy them like they are. You keep acting like F&F is dictating the nature of the market while completely ignoring the fact that they are NOT A RATINGS AGENCY. F&F can make all of the MBS they want but it is the choice of those institutions to buy them.
> 
> There is not a single decision maker at these institutions that will ever say that F&F dictated to them beyond the mandates of the CRA. Yet that is exactly what you are claiming which is total nonsense.
> 
> Your understanding of a single cause in 1997 is a fools errand. There is little to no reason to think the historical nature of this bubble is due to something that happened in 97 nor is there great evidence that mandated loans were a major cause.
> 
> MBS are a significantly different issue than mandated loans. They don't represent a mandate by government. Instead they are a financial instrument that is meant to help manage risk, whether it is mandated or not. The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.
> 
> As for GSA, I think there is far more evidence that it resulted in increased risk across the board and it played a part in the bailout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the information prior to 1997, was that sub-prime loans were not good investment securities.    That's why no one sold a single MBS with sub-prime loans.
> 
> So obviously, after decades with zero Sub-prime MBSs, and then suddenly tons of sub-prime MBSs, indicates someone changed the information.    That was government, through Freddie Mac, which securitized sub-prime MBSs, making people believe they were safe.
> 
> Yes, bad information, caused by government, motivated by CRA laws, was the cause.
> 
> Look.... before Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating... they never rated sub-prime loans with a AAA rating.   You can keep saying that Freddie Mac is not a rating agency, but what happened is a fact.   It's not up for you to debate.   This is in fact what happened.   Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans in MBSs, an implied AAA rating which had never happened before in history.
> 
> That a fact dude.  You can't argue it, when that is in fact what happened.  "THEY ARE NOT A RATING AGENCY!"  Dur.... doesn't matter.  That's what happened!  "BUT BUT!"   Dude.... this is established historical fact.  It will never change no matter how many times you repeat your complaint.
> 
> Before Freddie Mac gave them an implied AAA rating, not one single sub-prime loan had ever gotten a AAA rating.
> 
> Period.   Stop arguing against established fact.  You lose.  You can't change the facts.
> 
> Again, once the standard was lowered..... they didn't have to mandate anything.   The standard was lowered.   Period.   Doesn't matter what they mandated or what they didn't.  There is no 'sub-sub-prime' loan.    Once you lower the standard to sub-prime, below the prime rate, it's lower than the prime rate.   That's it.   Game over.   It's now sub-prime.   Period.
> 
> *The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.*
> 
> No, sorry.   You fail at logic.   They lowered the standard.   The moment they lowered the standard so that you could have a sub-prime loan in a MBS, that's it.   That changed the standard.
> 
> You evidently don't know about Fannie and Freddies "alt-a" loans.   Those loans exist specifically for low-doc, or no-doc loans.  That's what Alt-A is.
> 
> And no.  You are wrong about the GSA.  It had nothing to do with risk.  And it didn't play a part in the bailouts.   You are just making up stuff now.
Click to expand...


Now you are just making crap up to fit your world view. The government can't just change the way things are rated in a market and F&F certainly can't. F&F can't sell anything that doesn't have a market and the only reason there was a market was because everyone was using the same formula and everyone was wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(statistics)

The idea that mandating lower standards automatically meant all standards are lowered is complete and total gibberish. If certain risk is being mandated that puts extra pressure on the rest of the portfolio to be less risky, not more. You are completely and totally wrong.

Until financial institutions and ratings agencies bought into the copula formula there wasn't a market. You keep using the word "imply" like it means anything in this discussion. It doesn't.

Ratings agencies don't rate something AAA because a government agency "implied" something.

Financial institutions don't buy MBS because the government "implied" that it was all ok.

Yes GSA changed the marketplace. It is hardly important in this conversation though. 

It is kind of strange to see anyone make the argument you are making. It is like you think the decision makers at these institutions are brain dead who can't think for themselves. It is like F&F makes some decisions and everyone else just follows along like Lemmings. You should tell your tall tail to them sometimes. It would be great fun to watch.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "suc·cess  (s&#601;k-s&#277;s&#8242
> n.
> 1. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted: attributed their success in business to hard work.
> 2.
> a. The gaining of fame or prosperity: an artist spoiled by success.
> b. The extent of such gain.
> 3. One that is successful: The plan was a success.
> 4. Obsolete A result or an outcome."
> 
> *$50,000 is about average for US incomes.
> $100,000 is successful enough for many if increased leisure is the compensation.
> You've obviously ingested enough of the Koch-Aid to believe earning a million a year makes you ten times more $ucce$$ful than earning only $100,000.
> 
> BTW, when four percent of the world's population controls 25% of its resources, that's called exploitation.
> 
> The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.*
> 
> success - definition of success by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.*
> 
> An agreement reached freely between two consenting parties is not exploitation.
> It's freedom and capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's colonialism and fascism for those who know history:*
> 
> "On Aug. 19, 1953, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran became the first victim of a C.I.A. coup. Ten months later, on June 27, 1954, President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala became the second..."
> 
> "SOON after the C.I.A. installed him as president of Guatemala in 1954, Col. Carlos Castillo Armas visited Washington.
> 
> "He was unusually forthright with Vice President Richard M. Nixon. '*Tell me what you want me to do,' he said, 'and I will do it*.'
> 
> "What the United States wanted in Guatemala -- and in Iran, where the C.I.A. also deposed a government in the early 1950's -- was pro-American stability.
> 
> "In the long run, though, neither Colonel Castillo Armas nor his Iranian counterpart, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, provided it. Instead, both led their countries away from democracy and toward repression and tragedy.
> 
> "How did this happen? From the perspective of half a century, what is the legacy of these two coups?
> 
> "Several dozen scholars, including leading experts on Iran and Guatemala, gathered in Chicago this month to consider those questions. Their conclusions were grim. All agreed that both coups -- the first that the C.I.A. carried out -- had terrible long-term effects."
> 
> *Not unlike the terrible long term effects inflicted upon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan by rich parasites who profit from 21st century wars of aggression.*
> 
> Ideas & Trends - Iran and Guatemala, 1953-54 - Revisiting Cold War Coups and Finding Them Costly - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

*
It's colonialism and fascism *

If you say so, Nancy.


----------



## bripat9643

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.
> 
> And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "successful?"
> $100,000 per year?
> $1,000,000 per year??
> Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.    If we didn't buy their oil, they'd be more poor and impoverished than they are now.
> 
> It's this level of stupidity, that results in wealthy upper class American leftists, ruining the lives of people in other countries.
> 
> Remember the Nike plant in Malaysia?   Everyone had a cow, and threw a fit.   Meanwhile, these Malaysians were happy to even have a job.
> 
> But the upper class liberal leftists that have never worked a day in their lives, had a fit.    Nike agreed, and raised the pay of the employees..... AND LAID A TON OF THEM OFF.
> 
> Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.
> 
> What part of this, do you people not get?  If you raise the cost of labor, people buy less labor.    You raise the wages of people in Malaysia, and now fewer of them have jobs.    Yes the few still employed get paid a bit more, but now hundreds are unemployed and starving, in a country very poor, and have few jobs.
> 
> BRILLIANT!  Who cares about those people.  Screw them.  We're leftist, and we're going to "stick it to the company" even if we ruin people's lives in the process!
Click to expand...


Attacking capitalism is the agenda of every leftist.  It doesn't matter whether these attacks are justified or rational.  In fact, they are invariably neither.  Capitalism is what happens when people are left to make their own decisions, and the minions of the all powerful state can't allow that, especially when it benefits all parties involved.  They have to keep alive the idea that the state has to interfere in every transaction or the result would be chaos and disaster.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can dictate to others whether or not they hire you?    So if I come to your place, and demand you pay me $50 every week to cut your lawn, whether you want that done, or not, my right to democracy requires that you do it?
> 
> See this is the kind of logic, that if the tables were reversed, you would instinctively understand that your right to your property, is not to be denied because someone wants it.
> 
> But employment is the same thing.  You don't have a right to someone else's hard earned money as CEO of a company either.      That money that the company has, was hard earned by the people who put their money, their homes, their blood sweat and tears into, in order to make it work.
> 
> I just got to hear the story of the CEO of my company.  He spent four years working while going to school.   He earned a degree in engineering.   He worked for 20 years, as a level 1, and then level 2 engineer at a small company.   Then he mortgaged his home, and his father mortgaged his home, and they both put both their homes on the line to buy out this small business.   Now he's CEO of the business.  He is there at 7 AM every morning.  He leaves at 6 PM every night.   He's flown around the world, traveled thousands of miles to go to trade shows.
> 
> He works his butt off.  Now you tell me what you think you 'deserve democracy in his company'?    Why do you have any right, what so ever, to tell him jack squat about how he runs his company?   Bull.  You have no right period.     None!
> 
> And if you put in the hours that he did, and the money he did, and the risk he did, to run your own business, you wouldn't put up with me coming around demand democracy in your company either.  And don't lie and say you would.  You wouldn't.  I know better.
> 
> Don't even try and tell me you would put your home on the line, and risk losing everything, and have some newly hired employee in the stock room, telling you he should have a say in how you run your business.   Bull crap.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if your latest anecdote isn't more BS, how many total employees does your alleged employer have? How many total man hours per week does your owner pay for? What's the ratio of your owner's hours toil per week to total hours per week worked by all employees? Whats the ratio of your owner's pay to his latest stock room hire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does that make?     If he's putting in 60 hours a week, and I'm putting in 40, and he has to take all the responsibility for everything in the company, and I take no responsibility except for my work table.... you are telling me that there should be any ratio between us?
> 
> The only reason anyone should care about that, is if they are greedy and envious of others.
> 
> And don't make me laugh....   So he's putting twice as much into the company than I ever have, and so magically now I get to count all the other employees hours, as my own?     Sorry, that's not logic, not intelligent, and rather stupid.     Well there's 4 employees, and so we're putting in 160 hours, to his 60..........  really......
> 
> That is the most mindlessly stupid argument I've ever heard.   Not to mention none of us have degrees.  None of us have mortgaged our home to buy the company.   None of us worked our way up over 20 years.   But apparently that doesn't count in leftard land.  Nope, add up all the hours everyone else works, and if it's greater than the CEO, then we ought to be paid as much.... dur dur......
> 
> Please.... are you trying to make me think you are a clown?
Click to expand...

*So far, you've posted nothing to make me think you are even capable of independent, critical thought.*

"The average U.S. chief executive earned more than $11 million last year in salary, stock options and other compensation, according to a new analysis by the Economic Policy Institute. Thats about 231 times more, on average, than workers..."

"...What's clear is that the pay gap between U.S. CEOs and rank-and-file workers is higher than anywhere else in the developed world. And it has been accelerating over the last few decades. In 1965, the U.S. CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was roughly 20 to 1."

*Your alleged anecdotes are beyond clownish, and your reading comprehension abilities track low, as well. If you're happy being a wage slave, you are welcome to it.*

U.S. CEOs paid 231 times more than average workers - Los Angeles Times


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.
> 
> What part of this, do you people not get?



This idea is fundamentally flawed. Humanity doesn't exist to generate profit or to have a job; we are meant to survive and flourish. Paying them wages of less than 5 dollars a day is not conducive to this goal, its plain exploitation. This game of cheap labor keeps the system flowing with huge profits by those doing the exploitation (huge multi-national corporations) while passing a fraction of the savings onto the consumer. Some Liz Claiborn shirts sell for $75 and the worker is paid 3 cents per shirt. Go figure.

By crushing subsistence farming in local areas you create the demand for cheap labor. This cheap labor is waiting to be exploited because they are living in destitution. No work means total suffering. Work means total suffering with a slight pay off of two meals a day. Now that local forces have destroyed their former livelihood they are moving into cities hoping of a better future but their future ends up being total dependence on their job for sustenance. SO that means they will accept virtually any pay as long as it results in SOME food instead of nothing.

It's a mix of these people's hopes being dashed via exploitation and the fact that these people are not profit maximizing entities. They are human beings with families trying give their children more opportunities instead of mere subsistence farming. So they are willing to undergo exploitation for hopes that almost never manifest because they must work all day and their spouse works all night.


----------



## Andylusion

KNB said:


> Greed is the only thing that guarantees rising inequality.  Just greed.  If Fortune 500 corporations spent their record-breaking quarterly profits, wealth inequality would automatically decline.
> 
> Then Republicans could say, "Trickle-down economics really works."



No it wouldn't.     What are you talking about?

The source of wealth inequality, is the choices that people make to either consume, or invest their wealth.

No amount of "spending of corporate profits" is ever going to change that.

I don't know why this is so hard for people on the left to understand.

If you have two farmers.... and both farmers have an equal amount of corn.   One Farmer eats very very little, and plants the rest.   The other farmer cooks up all the corn and has a feast.

At harvest, one farmer is going to be wealthy, with a crop of corn.  The other farmer will be impoverished with nothing.

Wealth is either created, or it is consumed.   The difference between wealthy people, and poor people, (generally speaking), is that one consumes their wealth, and the other invests it and grows it.

This is why the vast majority of millionaire lottery winners end up bankrupt in 10 years.

Sharon Tirabassi, won $10 Million dollars in 2004.  Today she's broke.   All the wealth is gone.   She's working a part time job, has no car, rides the bus to work.

$10 Million dollars gone.

She consumed her wealth.

Alternatively take Steve Jobs.   Jobs got $5 Million dollars.   What did he do with it?   He bought Pixar, which in 2006 was worth $7.4 Billion, employs over 600 people, and produced dozens of box office hit movies like Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, and Bug's Life.

Are you grasping this?    All the handouts, all the spending, all the government programs in the world, will never fix this.

*As long as people are able to choose what to do with their money, there will always be the PinBall People, and the Beer Pong people.*

Where does that come from?

It comes from the story of Warren Buffet.

When Warren Buffet was in High School, he was working a paper route.   He saved up money from his route, and bought a PinBall machine.   He placed the Pinball machine in a local business, where it earned more money.

What do most people do in high school?   I can't speak for everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do with money, was you bought a keg of beer, went to someone's home whose parents were away, and you played Beer Pong, and drank your money away.

Pinball people, and Beer Pong people.

There will always be Pinball people, who invest their wealth into growing more wealth.   There will always be Beer Pong people, who consume their wealth, and are poor.

Nothing you do, no economic system you employ, no government policy you put in place, will ever change this.   Some people will consume all they have.  Others will invest all they have.    The people invest, will have concentrated wealth.   The people who consume, will have little to nothing.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if your latest anecdote isn't more BS, how many total employees does your alleged employer have? How many total man hours per week does your owner pay for? What's the ratio of your owner's hours toil per week to total hours per week worked by all employees? Whats the ratio of your owner's pay to his latest stock room hire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does that make?     If he's putting in 60 hours a week, and I'm putting in 40, and he has to take all the responsibility for everything in the company, and I take no responsibility except for my work table.... you are telling me that there should be any ratio between us?
> 
> The only reason anyone should care about that, is if they are greedy and envious of others.
> 
> And don't make me laugh....   So he's putting twice as much into the company than I ever have, and so magically now I get to count all the other employees hours, as my own?     Sorry, that's not logic, not intelligent, and rather stupid.     Well there's 4 employees, and so we're putting in 160 hours, to his 60..........  really......
> 
> That is the most mindlessly stupid argument I've ever heard.   Not to mention none of us have degrees.  None of us have mortgaged our home to buy the company.   None of us worked our way up over 20 years.   But apparently that doesn't count in leftard land.  Nope, add up all the hours everyone else works, and if it's greater than the CEO, then we ought to be paid as much.... dur dur......
> 
> Please.... are you trying to make me think you are a clown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *So far, you've posted nothing to make me think you are even capable of independent, critical thought.*
> 
> "The average U.S. chief executive earned more than $11 million last year in salary, stock options and other compensation, according to a new analysis by the Economic Policy Institute. Thats about 231 times more, on average, than workers..."
> 
> "...What's clear is that the pay gap between U.S. CEOs and rank-and-file workers is higher than anywhere else in the developed world. And it has been accelerating over the last few decades. In 1965, the U.S. CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was roughly 20 to 1."
> 
> *Your alleged anecdotes are beyond clownish, and your reading comprehension abilities track low, as well. If you're happy being a wage slave, you are welcome to it.*
> 
> U.S. CEOs paid 231 times more than average workers - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...


Resorting exclusively to personal attacks.   You lost GP.   You lost.  The argument is over, and you don't have anything.  Good debate sir, but you have made your last point, and it's only personal attacks.    There is nothing left for you to say, or you would have said it.

Good day.  Be well.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that Sawant is Stalin.   I am saying that simply because she is not taking the $117K, doesn't mean her policies are good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point went over my head. I guess drawing comparisons to a murderous dictator didn't seem apt given such a benign point of deductive logic. I agree this is insufficient evidence to think her policies are the best or that they even work.
> 
> But given her decision to stand in solidarity with the working class is noteworthy. Moreover, she refused corporate donations meaning there are no direct corporate influence on her policy. We can certainly say this is a refreshing change from millionaire politicians in the media.
> 
> Nobody denies money is changing our democratic system. Genuine representative democracy is often buried behind corporate contributions. So special and monied interest win the day typically rather than folks with average incomes. So her decision to accept the average income and refuse corporate contributions is certainly a STEP in the right direction IF our goal is to have a representative democracy instead of a plutocracy.
Click to expand...


The term "plutocracy" is utterly meaningless.  Lefty's throw it around like they throw the word "fascist" and "racist" around.  Any society where incomes aren't 100% equal can be labeled a "plutocracy."  In other words, every society can be labeled as such.  The term doesn't serve to distinguish one form of government from another.

Also, if you think "Genuine representative democracy" would be any better than the kind we have, you're sadly naïve.  The majority isn't any more wise, caring, just or principled than the so-called "plutocracy."  Democracies are noted for the venality, cruelty, arbitrariness and general idiocy.  The lynch mob is democracy in its purest form.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cause is clearly without a doubt the fact that decisions were made with bad information.
> 
> The cause is clearly NOT a result of mandated loans based on the CRA. It is a FACT that sub-prime loans were willingly taken on by these institutions independent of mandates of the law.
> 
> F&F could have made MBS with all sub-prime loans. That doesn't mean the market will automatically follow suit and rate them AAA and buy them like they are. You keep acting like F&F is dictating the nature of the market while completely ignoring the fact that they are NOT A RATINGS AGENCY. F&F can make all of the MBS they want but it is the choice of those institutions to buy them.
> 
> There is not a single decision maker at these institutions that will ever say that F&F dictated to them beyond the mandates of the CRA. Yet that is exactly what you are claiming which is total nonsense.
> 
> Your understanding of a single cause in 1997 is a fools errand. There is little to no reason to think the historical nature of this bubble is due to something that happened in 97 nor is there great evidence that mandated loans were a major cause.
> 
> MBS are a significantly different issue than mandated loans. They don't represent a mandate by government. Instead they are a financial instrument that is meant to help manage risk, whether it is mandated or not. The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.
> 
> As for GSA, I think there is far more evidence that it resulted in increased risk across the board and it played a part in the bailout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the information prior to 1997, was that sub-prime loans were not good investment securities.    That's why no one sold a single MBS with sub-prime loans.
> 
> So obviously, after decades with zero Sub-prime MBSs, and then suddenly tons of sub-prime MBSs, indicates someone changed the information.    That was government, through Freddie Mac, which securitized sub-prime MBSs, making people believe they were safe.
> 
> Yes, bad information, caused by government, motivated by CRA laws, was the cause.
> 
> Look.... before Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating... they never rated sub-prime loans with a AAA rating.   You can keep saying that Freddie Mac is not a rating agency, but what happened is a fact.   It's not up for you to debate.   This is in fact what happened.   Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans in MBSs, an implied AAA rating which had never happened before in history.
> 
> That a fact dude.  You can't argue it, when that is in fact what happened.  "THEY ARE NOT A RATING AGENCY!"  Dur.... doesn't matter.  That's what happened!  "BUT BUT!"   Dude.... this is established historical fact.  It will never change no matter how many times you repeat your complaint.
> 
> Before Freddie Mac gave them an implied AAA rating, not one single sub-prime loan had ever gotten a AAA rating.
> 
> Period.   Stop arguing against established fact.  You lose.  You can't change the facts.
> 
> Again, once the standard was lowered..... they didn't have to mandate anything.   The standard was lowered.   Period.   Doesn't matter what they mandated or what they didn't.  There is no 'sub-sub-prime' loan.    Once you lower the standard to sub-prime, below the prime rate, it's lower than the prime rate.   That's it.   Game over.   It's now sub-prime.   Period.
> 
> *The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.*
> 
> No, sorry.   You fail at logic.   They lowered the standard.   The moment they lowered the standard so that you could have a sub-prime loan in a MBS, that's it.   That changed the standard.
> 
> You evidently don't know about Fannie and Freddies "alt-a" loans.   Those loans exist specifically for low-doc, or no-doc loans.  That's what Alt-A is.
> 
> And no.  You are wrong about the GSA.  It had nothing to do with risk.  And it didn't play a part in the bailouts.   You are just making up stuff now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are just making crap up to fit your world view. The government can't just change the way things are rated in a market and F&F certainly can't. F&F can't sell anything that doesn't have a market and the only reason there was a market was because everyone was using the same formula and everyone was wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(statistics)
> 
> The idea that mandating lower standards automatically meant all standards are lowered is complete and total gibberish. If certain risk is being mandated that puts extra pressure on the rest of the portfolio to be less risky, not more. You are completely and totally wrong.
> 
> Until financial institutions and ratings agencies bought into the copula formula there wasn't a market. You keep using the word "imply" like it means anything in this discussion. It doesn't.
> 
> Ratings agencies don't rate something AAA because a government agency "implied" something.
> 
> Financial institutions don't buy MBS because the government "implied" that it was all ok.
> 
> Yes GSA changed the marketplace. It is hardly important in this conversation though.
> 
> It is kind of strange to see anyone make the argument you are making. It is like you think the decision makers at these institutions are brain dead who can't think for themselves. It is like F&F makes some decisions and everyone else just follows along like Lemmings. You should tell your tall tail to them sometimes. It would be great fun to watch.
Click to expand...


Ok, here is the official press release again.

CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- First Union Capital Markets Corp.
 and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
 securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the
 industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
     The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union
 Corporation and subsidiaries.  Customers will experience no impact - they will
 continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA
 loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and
 neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
     "The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy
 capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit
 to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing
 director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs.
 "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally
 underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible
 affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to
 aggressively serve those markets."
*The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
 and have an implied "AAA" rating*.​
Now... what did I make up?  Let's start there, and then I'll answer the rest of your post.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.
> 
> What part of this, do you people not get?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This idea is fundamentally flawed. Humanity doesn't exist to generate profit or to have a job; we are meant to survive and flourish. Paying them wages of less than 5 dollars a day is not conducive to this goal, its plain exploitation. This game of cheap labor keeps the system flowing with huge profits by those doing the exploitation (huge multi-national corporations) while passing a fraction of the savings onto the consumer. Some Liz Claiborn shirts sell for $75 and the worker is paid 3 cents per shirt. Go figure.
> 
> By crushing subsistence farming in local areas you create the demand for cheap labor. This cheap labor is waiting to be exploited because they are living in destitution. No work means total suffering. Work means total suffering with a slight pay off of two meals a day. Now that local forces have destroyed their former livelihood they are moving into cities hoping of a better future but their future ends up being total dependence on their job for sustenance. SO that means they will accept virtually any pay as long as it results in SOME food instead of nothing.
> 
> It's a mix of these people's hopes being dashed via exploitation and the fact that these people are not profit maximizing entities. They are human beings with families trying give their children more opportunities instead of mere subsistence farming. So they are willing to undergo exploitation for hopes that almost never manifest because they must work all day and their spouse works all night.
Click to expand...


*Paying them wages of less than 5 dollars a day is not conducive to this goal, its plain exploitation. *

If the alternative is a job paying them $4 a day or no job at all, I think $5 a day is fucking awesome.

Maybe you should start a company and pay these exploited workers a fair wage?
Let us know how that works out, would you?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I had the choice of Romney having money, and investing it into growing the economy, or having it taxed away to government where it is blown on kick backs, and bad grants for so-called green-energy........  I'd rather Romney have it over the government, any day.
> 
> Further, Romney had done more to create jobs, than you apparently are capable of understanding.  But for sure, he's not a "parasite".   You could possibly be a parasite, but not Romney.
> 
> 
> 
> What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?
> 
> Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What....?     0.o   Are you serious?
> 
> Bain Capital, has built, and grown, and expanded dozens of companies of their years, and Romney was a principal investor.     Look at the companies... in the real economy.... that are alive and well, and employ thousands of people, and provide billions in wealth to the country that our citizens enjoy.
> 
> AMC Theatres
> Aspen Education Group
> Brookstone
> Burger King
> Burlington Coat Factory
> Canada Goose
> Clear Channel Communications
> Domino's Pizza
> DoubleClick
> Dunkin' Donuts
> D&M Holdings
> Guitar Center
> Hospital Corporation of America (HCA)
> Sealy
> Sports Authority
> Staples
> Toys "R" Us
> Warner Music Group
> The Weather Channel
> 
> And you want to claim his investments have not benefited the public?
> 
> Do you not know or understand how investment works?   Because you are not coming across as knowledgeable in this area.
Click to expand...

*How would you know who is knowledgeable about investment and who isn't?*

"Mitt Romney has taken to saying that he created more than 100,000 net jobs through his work in the private sector, and more jobs as governor than President Obama has created since taking office. 

"But the first claim is unproven, and the second is misleading.

"Its true that the private equity firm Bain Capital, which Romney headed from 1984 to 1999, invested in many companies that went on to add jobs. But theres no thorough count of the jobs gained and lost in all the companies in which Bain invested. 

"And its highly debatable whether Bain, and Romney, deserve credit for all of the jobs created, particularly when there were other investors, executives who launched or ran the companies, and new owners in later years.

"As for his time as governor, Romneys claim is true as far as it goes. 

"But hes comparing his full four years in office with fewer than three years for Obama. 

"Furthermore, he governed Massachusetts at a time of economic improvement. And he didnt do that well when compared with other states. Obama took office when the economy was tanking."

Romney?s Shaky Job Claims

*You're coming across as an adolescent ideologue who's confused by how capitalism works in an adult world.*


----------



## georgephillip

Antares said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.
> 
> And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "successful?"
> $100,000 per year?
> $1,000,000 per year??
> Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That must make me DOUBLY EVILLLLLLLL since I make a shitload selling "health Insurance".
Click to expand...

For Tony Soprano or Chris Christie?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What economy do you imagine Romney's investments grow, the real one or the vast $700 trillion derivatives market?
> 
> Personally I would much rather see Mitt's millions put to good use funding infrastructure or public education than creating yet another financial crisis that will make 2008 look like a loud hiccup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What....?     0.o   Are you serious?
> 
> Bain Capital, has built, and grown, and expanded dozens of companies of their years, and Romney was a principal investor.     Look at the companies... in the real economy.... that are alive and well, and employ thousands of people, and provide billions in wealth to the country that our citizens enjoy.
> 
> AMC Theatres
> Aspen Education Group
> Brookstone
> Burger King
> Burlington Coat Factory
> Canada Goose
> Clear Channel Communications
> Domino's Pizza
> DoubleClick
> Dunkin' Donuts
> D&M Holdings
> Guitar Center
> Hospital Corporation of America (HCA)
> Sealy
> Sports Authority
> Staples
> Toys "R" Us
> Warner Music Group
> The Weather Channel
> 
> And you want to claim his investments have not benefited the public?
> 
> Do you not know or understand how investment works?   Because you are not coming across as knowledgeable in this area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How would you know who is knowledgeable about investment and who isn't?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney has taken to saying that he created more than 100,000 net jobs through his work in the private sector, and more jobs as governor than President Obama has created since taking office.
> 
> "But the first claim is unproven, and the second is misleading.
> 
> "Its true that the private equity firm Bain Capital, which Romney headed from 1984 to 1999, invested in many companies that went on to add jobs. But theres no thorough count of the jobs gained and lost in all the companies in which Bain invested.
> 
> "And its highly debatable whether Bain, and Romney, deserve credit for all of the jobs created, particularly when there were other investors, executives who launched or ran the companies, and new owners in later years.
> 
> "As for his time as governor, Romneys claim is true as far as it goes.
> 
> "But hes comparing his full four years in office with fewer than three years for Obama.
> 
> "Furthermore, he governed Massachusetts at a time of economic improvement. And he didnt do that well when compared with other states. Obama took office when the economy was tanking."
> 
> Romney?s Shaky Job Claims
> 
> *You're coming across as an adolescent ideologue who's confused by how capitalism works in an adult world.*
Click to expand...


None of that changes anything I said.

Did Bain Capital invest in those companies?  Yes.   Period.   You can't debate that. 

Did those companies create jobs?   Yes.  Period.  You can't debate that either.

The only thing they debate is if Bain Capital, or the CEOs who created those individual companies should get the credit.    That's a false presupposition, that only one can get credit.    It's both.

Most companies start off with a single guy building the company, and then later have investor that help grow the company.

That's typically the primary reason companies go public and sell stock, to begin with.  Its to build capital so they can expand and grow.

To then think that companies don't need investor to expand, but get them anyway for no reason, is the words of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.


----------



## georgephillip

Chris said:


> Just four blocks from the White House is the headquarters of the Employment Policies Institute, a widely quoted economic research center whose academic reports have repeatedly warned that increasing the minimum wage could be harmful, increasing poverty and unemployment.
> But something fundamental goes unsaid in the institutes reports: The nonprofit group is run by a public relations firm that also represents the restaurant industry, as part of a tightly coordinated effort to defeat the minimum wage increase that the White House and Democrats in Congress have pushed for.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/u...ge-illustrates-web-of-industry-ties.html?_r=0


"In this case, the policy dispute is over whether increasing the minimum wage by nearly 40 percent to $10.10 an hour within two and a half years would reduce poverty or further it.

"Even if the legislation never passes  and it is unlikely to, given the political divide in Congress  millions of dollars will be spent this year on lobbying firms, nonprofit research organizations and advertising campaigns, as industry groups like the National Restaurant Association and the National Retail Federation try to bury it. 

"Liberal groups, in turn, will be spending lots of money as they try to make the debate a political issue for the midterm elections."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/us/politics/fight-over-minimum-wage-illustrates-web-of-industry-ties.html?_r=1


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. And, call me paranoid, but I suspect it'll be the next thing they'll try to centralize control over. They've all but succeeded with health care, and I suspect the food supply is next.
> 
> 
> 
> *FWIW, I don't think you engage in paranoid thinking on matters like these.
> Gramm-Leach-Bililey seems a prime example of how "they", meaning government in service to private wealth, enact laws that work to the economic detriment of most citizens.*
> 
> "...banks aren't just buying stuff, they're buying whole industrial processes. They're buying oil that's still in the ground, the tankers that move it across the sea, the refineries that turn it into fuel, and the pipelines that bring it to your home.
> 
> "Then, just for kicks, they're also betting on the timing and efficiency of these same industrial processes in the financial markets  buying and selling oil stocks on the stock exchange, oil futures on the futures market, swaps on the swaps market, etc.
> 
> "Allowing one company to control the supply of crucial physical commodities, and also trade in the financial products that might be related to those markets, is an open invitation to commit mass manipulation.
> 
> "It's something akin to letting casino owners who take book on NFL games during the week also coach all the teams on Sundays"
> 
> ?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi
> 
> *Didn't Kissinger draw a comparison between controlling oil and controlling food?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matt is funny when he gets sand in his vagina.
Click to expand...

When a single company controls the supply of crucial physical commodities and trades in complex financial products related to those markets, does that plant happy pennies in your pussy?


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> The majority isn't any more wise, caring, just or principled than the so-called "plutocracy."  Democracies are noted for the venality, cruelty, arbitrariness and general idiocy.  The lynch mob is democracy in its purest form.



Are we living in the same country? I'm glad you're willing to really say what you believe. It results in such fine eloquence on your part although its completely absurd. Democracy as I mentioned is governed by the people with a civil servant arbitrating between policy and the people. They are not permitted to serve self-interests in this position. While I admit this doesn't necessitate accuracy or wisdom, it does result in people being treated the way they choose--that's called freedom.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority isn't any more wise, caring, just or principled than the so-called "plutocracy."  Democracies are noted for the venality, cruelty, arbitrariness and general idiocy.  The lynch mob is democracy in its purest form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we living in the same country? I'm glad you're willing to really say what you believe. It results in such fine eloquence on your part although its completely absurd. Democracy as I mentioned is governed by the people with a civil servant arbitrating between policy and the people. They are not permitted to serve self-interests in this position. While I admit this doesn't necessitate accuracy or wisdom, it does result in people being treated the way they choose--that's called freedom.
Click to expand...


That's a weird definition of freedom, don't you think? From where I sit, democracy isn't the same thing as freedom.


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The latest exploits of the Great Vampire Squid:*
> 
> "Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals.
> 
> *So, new topic.... should we allow banks to buy non-banking business?
> *
> 
> First, banks have owned commodities for ages.  Since the beginning of the country really.   It's not a 'new' or change in the law that banks own copper, or oil, or even corn feed.   That's what the commodity market is all about.  It's nothing new or important.
> 
> What is relatively new, is banks owning production of such commodities.    This however, is just another illustration of just how much regulation there is of US Banking, over international banking.
> 
> Banks in other countries never had this restriction.   The largest bank that owns the most non-banking industry, is actually Barclays, which is British.   Other massive banks that own hundreds of non-banking business, are AXA which is French, UBS AG which is Swiss, Deutsche Bank AG which is German, Credit Suisse Group which is Switzerland, and lastly Natixis which is also French.
> 
> The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet | Politics News | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The irony was incredible. After fucking up so badly that the government had to give them federal bank charters and bottomless wells of free cash to save their necks, the feds gave Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley hall passes to become cross-species monopolistic powers with almost limitless reach into any sectors of the economy."
> 
> Sounds pretty important. Also sounds like we are entering a new era of monopoly control. Not talking about your grandma's AT&T monopoly either!
Click to expand...

*Apparently there was a small provision of Gramm-Leach-Bliley that virtually no one understood when the legislation passed. This provision allowed commercial banks to delve into any activity that is "complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally."*

""From the perspective of the banks," says Saule Omarova, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, 'pretty much everything is considered complementary to a financial activity.'

"Fifteen years later, in fact, it now looks like Wall Street and its lawyers took the term to be a synonym for ruthless campaigns of world domination. 'Nobody knew the reach it would have into the real economy,' says Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown. 

"Now a leading voice on the Hill against the hidden provisions, Brown actually voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley as a congressman, along with all but 72 other House members. 'I bet even some of the people who were the bill's advocates had no idea.'"

The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet | Politics News | Rolling Stone

*Obviously that part about posing a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of the financial system got lost in tran$lation, as I'm sure we will all be reminded of very soon.*


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority isn't any more wise, caring, just or principled than the so-called "plutocracy."  Democracies are noted for the venality, cruelty, arbitrariness and general idiocy.  The lynch mob is democracy in its purest form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we living in the same country? I'm glad you're willing to really say what you believe. It results in such fine eloquence on your part although its completely absurd. Democracy as I mentioned is governed by the people with a civil servant arbitrating between policy and the people. They are not permitted to serve self-interests in this position. While I admit this doesn't necessitate accuracy or wisdom, it does result in people being treated the way they choose--that's called freedom.
Click to expand...


You're talking about some pie-in-the sky delusion.  I'm talking about reality.  All you have to do is look at the history of real democracies to know that what I say is true.

Just take the Athenian democracy, for example.  It attempted to establish hegemony over its neighbors.  It engaged in numerous wars.  It inflicted cruel and arbitrary punishments on its citizens.  

Then consider the French Republic.  It spilled more blood than any monarch had ever conceived of in his wildest imagination.

What is there about democracies that should be admired?


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority isn't any more wise, caring, just or principled than the so-called "plutocracy."  Democracies are noted for the venality, cruelty, arbitrariness and general idiocy.  The lynch mob is democracy in its purest form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we living in the same country? I'm glad you're willing to really say what you believe. It results in such fine eloquence on your part although its completely absurd. Democracy as I mentioned is governed by the people with a civil servant arbitrating between policy and the people. They are not permitted to serve self-interests in this position. While I admit this doesn't necessitate accuracy or wisdom, it does result in people being treated the way they choose--that's called freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a weird definition of freedom, don't you think? From where I sit, democracy isn't the same thing as freedom.
Click to expand...


Libturds like to confuse democracy with freedom so they can swindle the voters into selling themselves into slavery.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *FWIW, I don't think you engage in paranoid thinking on matters like these.
> Gramm-Leach-Bililey seems a prime example of how "they", meaning government in service to private wealth, enact laws that work to the economic detriment of most citizens.*
> 
> "...banks aren't just buying stuff, they're buying whole industrial processes. They're buying oil that's still in the ground, the tankers that move it across the sea, the refineries that turn it into fuel, and the pipelines that bring it to your home.
> 
> "Then, just for kicks, they're also betting on the timing and efficiency of these same industrial processes in the financial markets  buying and selling oil stocks on the stock exchange, oil futures on the futures market, swaps on the swaps market, etc.
> 
> "Allowing one company to control the supply of crucial physical commodities, and also trade in the financial products that might be related to those markets, is an open invitation to commit mass manipulation.
> 
> "It's something akin to letting casino owners who take book on NFL games during the week also coach all the teams on Sundays"
> 
> ?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi
> 
> *Didn't Kissinger draw a comparison between controlling oil and controlling food?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matt is funny when he gets sand in his vagina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a single company controls the supply of crucial physical commodities and trades in complex financial products related to those markets, does that plant happy pennies in your pussy?
Click to expand...


What single company controls the supply of oil?


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> That's a weird definition of freedom, don't you think? From where I sit, democracy isn't the same thing as freedom.



"people being treated the way they choose" is an odd way to construe freedom? Freedom is not synonymous with democracy but if practiced in a way that enables the people to decide their own fate, that sounds like increasing freedom.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a weird definition of freedom, don't you think? From where I sit, democracy isn't the same thing as freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "people being treated the way they choose" is an odd way to construe freedom? Freedom is not synonymous with democracy but if practiced in a way that enables the people to decide their own fate, that sounds like increasing freedom.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  If 900 lemmings vote to jump over the cliff, does that make it "freedom" for the 100 lemmings who voted not to?


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> What is there about democracies that should be admired?



Now here I agree with you, democracy is not necessarily praiseworthy. There is nothing special about theories. What matters is how they are practiced. That leads us to asking how do we actually treat humans and if they should be ranked or stratified how do we determine that, which is where we diverge. I find inherent dignity in every person and you dismiss this for a hierarchy that says people are worth what they get paid.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is there about democracies that should be admired?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now here I agree with you, democracy is not necessarily praiseworthy. There is nothing special about theories. What matters is how they are practiced. That leads us to asking how do we actually treat humans and if they should be ranked or stratified how do we determine that, which is where we diverge. I find inherent dignity in every person and you dismiss this for a hierarchy that says people are worth what they get paid.
Click to expand...


How much they get paid only reflects the value of what they produce.  However, I don't find much of value in people who don't produce much of anything.  Why shouldn't we place a higher value on someone who invents the light bulb or an assembly line that can crank out 20 million automobiles at a reasonable price over the welfare queen who does nothing but pop out mouths for others to feed?


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/u...ge-illustrates-web-of-industry-ties.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> "In this case, the policy dispute is over whether increasing the minimum wage by nearly 40 percent to $10.10 an hour within two and a half years would reduce poverty or further it.
> 
> "Even if the legislation never passes  and it is unlikely to, given the political divide in Congress  millions of dollars will be spent this year on lobbying firms, nonprofit research organizations and advertising campaigns, as industry groups like the National Restaurant Association and the National Retail Federation try to bury it.
> 
> "Liberal groups, in turn, will be spending lots of money as they try to make the debate a political issue for the midterm elections."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/us/politics/fight-over-minimum-wage-illustrates-web-of-industry-ties.html?_r=1
Click to expand...


This was an excellent exposure of the corruption that surrounds raising minimum wage. Going so far as to bribe academics to produce favorable studies, which is nothing new. The job creators stand to loose profits and so they fight tooth and nail. Why? It's not like they won't be able to send their daughter to Harvard, it just means she won't get that new Porsche in addition to her BMW.

On the other hand, an increase in Min Wage for many in the working class means a noticeable increase in spending power (stimulating the economy) and moderate alleviation of stress brought on by hard times.

If you want profit maximization you will side with "the minimum wage increase is harmful" but if you have common sense, you will see this mild increase stands to benefit the economy across the board.


----------



## EconChick

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> *



Who cares.

Besides, inequality has jumped under this President.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> How much they get paid only reflects the value of what they produce.  However, I don't find much of value in people who don't produce much of anything.



Can you tell me what the stock market does for society? What does it produce that is so valuable? I wonder because the richest people in the world center around its "products." They aren't building schools or producing tables or water purifying systems on Wall St. They aren't collecting my trash or providing my electric. They only do these things some of the time as a result of the insane money they made on these financial products. The products themselves seem to have little value but they are the richest people on the planet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *FWIW, I don't think you engage in paranoid thinking on matters like these.
> Gramm-Leach-Bililey seems a prime example of how "they", meaning government in service to private wealth, enact laws that work to the economic detriment of most citizens.*
> 
> "...banks aren't just buying stuff, they're buying whole industrial processes. They're buying oil that's still in the ground, the tankers that move it across the sea, the refineries that turn it into fuel, and the pipelines that bring it to your home.
> 
> "Then, just for kicks, they're also betting on the timing and efficiency of these same industrial processes in the financial markets  buying and selling oil stocks on the stock exchange, oil futures on the futures market, swaps on the swaps market, etc.
> 
> "Allowing one company to control the supply of crucial physical commodities, and also trade in the financial products that might be related to those markets, is an open invitation to commit mass manipulation.
> 
> "It's something akin to letting casino owners who take book on NFL games during the week also coach all the teams on Sundays"
> 
> ?The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet,? by Matt Taibbi
> 
> *Didn't Kissinger draw a comparison between controlling oil and controlling food?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matt is funny when he gets sand in his vagina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a single company controls the supply of crucial physical commodities and trades in complex financial products related to those markets, does that plant happy pennies in your pussy?
Click to expand...


No single company controls the supply of crucial physical commodities .

*and trades in complex financial products related to those markets, *

Just because you're too dumb to understand them doesn't made the financial products complex.
Just because financial products are complex doesn't make them bad.


----------



## KNB

Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production, as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US.  That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.

Do Republicans think that the Founders envisioned one corporation with a 93% market share on our food production?


----------



## thereisnospoon

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/u...ge-illustrates-web-of-industry-ties.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> "In this case, the policy dispute is over whether increasing the minimum wage by nearly 40 percent to $10.10 an hour within two and a half years would reduce poverty or further it.
> 
> "Even if the legislation never passes  and it is unlikely to, given the political divide in Congress  millions of dollars will be spent this year on lobbying firms, nonprofit research organizations and advertising campaigns, as industry groups like the National Restaurant Association and the National Retail Federation try to bury it.
> 
> "Liberal groups, in turn, will be spending lots of money as they try to make the debate a political issue for the midterm elections."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/us/politics/fight-over-minimum-wage-illustrates-web-of-industry-ties.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was an excellent exposure of the corruption that surrounds raising minimum wage. Going so far as to bribe academics to produce favorable studies, which is nothing new. The job creators stand to loose profits and so they fight tooth and nail. Why? It's not like they won't be able to send their daughter to Harvard, it just means she won't get that new Porsche in addition to her BMW.
> 
> On the other hand, an increase in Min Wage for many in the working class means a noticeable increase in spending power (stimulating the economy) and moderate alleviation of stress brought on by hard times.
> 
> If you want profit maximization you will side with "the minimum wage increase is harmful" but if you have common sense, you will see this mild increase stands to benefit the economy across the board.
Click to expand...


The issue of the minimum wage is based on a political scheme. The issue does not solve any problems low wage earners face. It does however get their attention in that they may be enticed to vote for those who they believe are their providers.


----------



## KNB

Minimum wage just means that if they could pay us even less, they would.


----------



## Indeependent

KNB said:


> Minimum wage just means that if they could pay us even less, they would.



Well, yeah.
And both parties are ready to comply to have such occur.


----------



## thereisnospoon

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much they get paid only reflects the value of what they produce.  However, I don't find much of value in people who don't produce much of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell me what the stock market does for society? What does it produce that is so valuable? I wonder because the richest people in the world center around its "products." They aren't building schools or producing tables or water purifying systems on Wall St. They aren't collecting my trash or providing my electric. They only do these things some of the time as a result of the insane money they made on these financial products. The products themselves seem to have little value but they are the richest people on the planet.
Click to expand...


Yer kidding, right?
Those investors pour money into companies which provides capital that is used to keep the doors open which also permits these firms to create jobs.
What you know about investors could not fill a thimble. Isn't that right Mr. OWS?


----------



## thereisnospoon

KNB said:


> Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production, as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US.  That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.
> 
> Do Republicans think that the Founders envisioned one corporation with a 93% market share on our food production?



Are you sure about that?
Let me tell you something.....The reason wjhy corn prices have skyrocketed is because the fucking federal government mandated the 10% ethanol rule. What is the main ingredient in ethanol? Corn.
In fact 40% of the corn grown in the US no longer goes to food products for people and feed for cattle. It's used for ethanol.
The federal government created a de facto subsidy for Monsanto and other corn producers by guaranteeing them a share in the production of automobile fuels.
Go screech that the US Capitol.


----------



## thereisnospoon

KNB said:


> Minimum wage just means that if they could pay us even less, they would.



Are you a min wage worker? Who is "they"?


----------



## Indeependent

thereisnospoon said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much they get paid only reflects the value of what they produce.  However, I don't find much of value in people who don't produce much of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell me what the stock market does for society? What does it produce that is so valuable? I wonder because the richest people in the world center around its "products." They aren't building schools or producing tables or water purifying systems on Wall St. They aren't collecting my trash or providing my electric. They only do these things some of the time as a result of the insane money they made on these financial products. The products themselves seem to have little value but they are the richest people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yer kidding, right?
> Those investors pour money into companies which provides capital that is used to keep the doors open which also permits these firms to create jobs.
> What you know about investors could not fill a thimble. Isn't that right Mr. OWS?
Click to expand...


I think KNB was discussing the Stock Market' daily function, not the initial buy up of shares at IPO.
You know full well that post-IPO is nothing more than a hyped-up casino.
At least 98% of shares traded each day are Institutional hustling, partially intended to suck in the next bunch of suckers who won't be bailed out along with the major players


----------



## EconChick

Could we please put history about the Soviet Union back in American books??  

Where's it gone to?  Why do we have to teach this sh** all over again?  There was a big fight awhile ago; the Marxists and Socialists lost.  How do people not know this?


----------



## KNB

Yes, I'm sure about that.  Don't talk about ethanol.  Legalizing Cannabis Sativa again will replace corn for ethanol and for food, and Monsanto profits will nose-dive because they can't control the seed supply.


----------



## KNB

thereisnospoon said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum wage just means that if they could pay us even less, they would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a min wage worker? Who is "they"?
Click to expand...

They are the "job creators".  After slavery was abolished, they moved their operations overseas to pay exploited foreign labor dirt-poor wages because that limits expenses and increases company profits.

If we do away with the Federal minimum wage in the United States, perhaps more jobs will be created but with even less wages which means that those employees will still need government assistance to get by.

Record corporate profits are supposed to trickle down, otherwise trickle-down theory doesn't work.


----------



## History

Minimum Wage is exactly what it is, it is the "Start" of your work career.. We all go through it.. The question is, are you gonna strive for higher ground?? Are you going to work hard to make it to the top??
You can always go to college and get educated correct?? Some companies may help you "Pay for your college" or student loans or government assistance or be a man and "Pay Your Own Way"

Who knew you have the opportunity in America to be successful and if you need to, you can work 2 jobs and go to school if you're really motivated.. Wow.. Mind-blown liberals..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KNB said:


> Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production, as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US.  That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.
> 
> Do Republicans think that the Founders envisioned one corporation with a 93% market share on our food production?



*Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production*

No they don't.

*as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US. *

And if they stopped selling it, another supplier would quickly step in.

*That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.*

No it isn't.


----------



## KNB

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production, as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US.  That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.
> 
> Do Republicans think that the Founders envisioned one corporation with a 93% market share on our food production?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production*
> 
> No they don't.
> 
> *as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US. *
> 
> And if they stopped selling it, another supplier would quickly step in.
> 
> *That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.*
> 
> No it isn't.
Click to expand...

You should turn off the news and read more.

Monsanto: The behemoth that controls 90 percent of soybean production | Marketplace.org


----------



## gnarlylove

thereisnospoon said:


> What you know about investors could not fill a thimble. Isn't that right Mr. OWS?



I was asking bri or anyone to detail the benefits of our stock market as it actually functions--with insider trading, dark markets and buildings full of computers that flood the market with quick trades. What does society benefit from this? They clearly make the most amount of money, esp. people like Jaime Dimon, for the least amount of "labor" and so it's worth asking what do they do that brings such extreme value to society? But you'd rather play low-brow games of intimidation.

The fact that it helps to be a functional psychopath to be a Wall St. trader signifies something. It demonstrates, among other things, that this elaborate ruse of arbitrage is best played without human considerations. It's best to have no empathy. That's partially why computers are employed by the thousands to make trades across from Wall St.

For psychopaths to also weigh so heavily in policy decisions is a bit foul considering they tend to also have egos the size of the Ocean. They are the only profit maximizing creatures on earth. What do you think or would you prefer I smear you and disregard what you say?


----------



## Indeependent

gnarlylove said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you know about investors could not fill a thimble. Isn't that right Mr. OWS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking bri or anyone to detail the benefits of our stock market as it actually functions--with insider trading, dark markets and buildings full of computers that flood the market with quick trades. What does society benefit from this? They clearly make the most amount of money, esp. people like Jaime Dimon, for the least amount of "labor" and so it's worth asking what do they do that brings such extreme value to society? But you'd rather play low-brow games of intimidation.
> 
> The fact that it helps to be a functional psychopath to be a Wall St. trader signifies something. It demonstrates, among other things, that this elaborate ruse of arbitrage is best played without human considerations. It's best to have no empathy. That's partially why computers are employed by the thousands to make trades across from Wall St.
> 
> For psychopaths to also weigh so heavily in policy decisions is a bit foul considering they tend to also have egos the size of the Ocean. They are the only profit maximizing creatures on earth. What do you think or would you prefer I smear you and disregard what you say?
Click to expand...


The underutilized function of the Stock Market is the outsourcing of member entity data into the Stock Market that enables the fuzzy evaluation of an entity at any given moment.
This is theoretically a good thing.

It is, and always has been, severely undermined by human intervention both from the sources of information and how that information is utilized.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KNB said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production, as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US.  That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.
> 
> Do Republicans think that the Founders envisioned one corporation with a 93% market share on our food production?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production*
> 
> No they don't.
> 
> *as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US. *
> 
> And if they stopped selling it, another supplier would quickly step in.
> 
> *That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.*
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should turn off the news and read more.
> 
> Monsanto: The behemoth that controls 90 percent of soybean production | Marketplace.org
Click to expand...


You understand the difference between soybean production and seed production?
Probably not.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a weird definition of freedom, don't you think? From where I sit, democracy isn't the same thing as freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "people being treated the way they choose" is an odd way to construe freedom? Freedom is not synonymous with democracy but if practiced in a way that enables the people to decide their own fate, that sounds like increasing freedom.
Click to expand...


Do you think majority rule allows people to decide their own fate? Do you understand that, for up to 49% of them, it actually denies their ability to decide their own fate?


----------



## P@triot

Androw said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greed is the only thing that guarantees rising inequality.  Just greed.  If Fortune 500 corporations spent their record-breaking quarterly profits, wealth inequality would automatically decline.
> 
> Then Republicans could say, "Trickle-down economics really works."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't.     What are you talking about?
> 
> *The source of wealth inequality, is the choices that people make* to either consume, or invest their wealth.
> 
> No amount of "spending of corporate profits" is ever going to change that.
> 
> I don't know why this is so hard for people on the left to understand.
> 
> If you have two farmers.... and both farmers have an equal amount of corn.   One Farmer eats very very little, and plants the rest.   The other farmer cooks up all the corn and has a feast.
> 
> At harvest, one farmer is going to be wealthy, with a crop of corn.  The other farmer will be impoverished with nothing.
> 
> Wealth is either created, or it is consumed.   The difference between wealthy people, and poor people, (generally speaking), is that one consumes their wealth, and the other invests it and grows it.
> 
> This is why the vast majority of millionaire lottery winners end up bankrupt in 10 years.
> 
> Sharon Tirabassi, won $10 Million dollars in 2004.  Today she's broke.   All the wealth is gone.   She's working a part time job, has no car, rides the bus to work.
> 
> $10 Million dollars gone.
> 
> She consumed her wealth.
> 
> Alternatively take Steve Jobs.   Jobs got $5 Million dollars.   What did he do with it?   He bought Pixar, which in 2006 was worth $7.4 Billion, employs over 600 people, and produced dozens of box office hit movies like Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, and Bug's Life.
> 
> Are you grasping this?    All the handouts, all the spending, all the government programs in the world, will never fix this.
> 
> *As long as people are able to choose what to do with their money, there will always be the PinBall People, and the Beer Pong people.*
> 
> Where does that come from?
> 
> It comes from the story of Warren Buffet.
> 
> When Warren Buffet was in High School, he was working a paper route.   He saved up money from his route, and bought a PinBall machine.   He placed the Pinball machine in a local business, where it earned more money.
> 
> What do most people do in high school?   I can't speak for everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do with money, was you bought a keg of beer, went to someone's home whose parents were away, and you played Beer Pong, and drank your money away.
> 
> Pinball people, and Beer Pong people.
> 
> There will always be Pinball people, who invest their wealth into growing more wealth.   There will always be Beer Pong people, who consume their wealth, and are poor.
> 
> Nothing you do, no economic system you employ, no government policy you put in place, will ever change this.   Some people will consume all they have.  Others will invest all they have.    The people invest, will have concentrated wealth.   The people who consume, will have little to nothing.
Click to expand...


  

Liberals love to play the victim because playing the victim is easier than working.


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you know about investors could not fill a thimble. Isn't that right Mr. OWS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking bri or anyone to detail the benefits of our stock market as it actually functions--with insider trading, dark markets and buildings full of computers that flood the market with quick trades. What does society benefit from this? They clearly make the most amount of money, esp. people like Jaime Dimon, for the least amount of "labor" and so it's worth asking what do they do that brings such extreme value to society? But you'd rather play low-brow games of intimidation.
> 
> The fact that it helps to be a functional psychopath to be a Wall St. trader signifies something. It demonstrates, among other things, that this elaborate ruse of arbitrage is best played without human considerations. It's best to have no empathy. That's partially why computers are employed by the thousands to make trades across from Wall St.
> 
> For psychopaths to also weigh so heavily in policy decisions is a bit foul considering they tend to also have egos the size of the Ocean. They are the only profit maximizing creatures on earth. What do you think or would you prefer I smear you and disregard what you say?
Click to expand...

"The study suggests the (psychopathic) participants' lack of emotional responsiveness actually gave them an advantage when they played a simple investment game. 

"The emotionally impaired players were more willing to take gambles that had high payoffs because they lacked fear. 

"Players with undamaged brain wiring, however, were more cautious and reactive during the game, and wound up with less money at the end.

"Some neuroscientists believe good investors may be exceptionally skilled at suppressing emotional reactions. 'It's possible that people who are high-risk takers or good investors may have what you call a functional psychopathy,' says Antoine Bechara, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Iowa, and a co-author of the study. 

"'They don't react emotionally to things. 

"Good investors can learn to control their emotions in certain ways to become like those people.'"

"The study demonstrates how neuroeconomics can offer insight into a question that has become a growing focus of economic inquiry: *Why don't people always act in their own self-interest when they make economic decisions?*"

Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor - WSJ.com

*Fear of losing their jobs is one obvious reason why largely conservative voters in places West Virginia's Elk River tend to support business-friendly psychopaths at the polls and elsewhere.

The wages of production workers has been dropping steadily for four decades.
A smaller share of working age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in over three decades.
Apparently, jobs are more precious than safe workplaces or drinking water?*

Robert Reich (Fear is Why Workers in Red States Vote Against Their Economic Self-Interest)


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, nothing you say here has anything at all to do with sub-prime loans, the sub-prime melt down, the crash of sub-prime mortgage backed securities, or the crash on 2008, and resulting economic situation in the US.
> 
> So even if we pretend this article is true, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or the topic of the thread.
> 
> Even the topic of the link you cited, has nothing to do with Glass Steagall, but rather the Banking Holding Company Act of 1956.
> 
> Now let's begin a new topic, given that your post basically proves you can't make the argument that the GBLA, or the GSA, had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash, or the 2008 crisis.
> 
> *So, new topic.... should we allow banks to buy non-banking business?
> *
> 
> First, banks have owned commodities for ages.  Since the beginning of the country really.   It's not a 'new' or change in the law that banks own copper, or oil, or even corn feed.   That's what the commodity market is all about.  It's nothing new or important.
> 
> What is relatively new, is banks owning production of such commodities.    This however, is just another illustration of just how much regulation there is of US Banking, over international banking.
> 
> Banks in other countries never had this restriction.   The largest bank that owns the most non-banking industry, is actually Barclays, which is British.   Other massive banks that own hundreds of non-banking business, are AXA which is French, UBS AG which is Swiss, Deutsche Bank AG which is German, Credit Suisse Group which is Switzerland, and lastly Natixis which is also French.
> 
> None of these banking companies, have ever had the restrictions on buying non-banking companies, that American banks have had.  Just like none of the rest of the world had restrictions on Commercial, Investment, Retail, and Insurance being forcibly separate.
> 
> Which leads to the question, if all that is such a big deal, why hasn't the rest of the world had crashes because of those non-restrictions?
> 
> But the real point is, the US has the most regulated banking sector in the world.   We have more regulations and controls on our banks than any private banking system in the world.   The only place you can find a more controlled system, is in countries with state owned banks.
> 
> Yet, where did the crash originate?   In the US.  Point being, that regulations have not prevent crashes.  Regulations likely caused more crashes than it ever prevented.
> 
> *So given those facts, and they are facts, should we allow banks to own non-banking business?*
> 
> I would lean toward, yes why not?     Some people tend to act like this is crazy talk, that has never happened before.     In reality, banks have been intertwined with non-banking, since the beginning.    Some simple modern examples, is GMAC, or Ford Credit, GTE Visa, and hundreds of other examples.
> 
> So why is a company that owns a bank, perfectly fine and proper, but a bank that owns a company, is completely wrong and bad?
> 
> Further, banks always buy shares in companies.   This is a normal common part of investment.    So why is a banking owning 49% of shares in company X, good and fine, while a bank owning 51% is bad and horrible?
> 
> What reason do we have to assume that the end of the world will happen if a bank has majority stake in another company?   Especially when banks have been doing this for decades around the world.
> 
> As near as I can tell, the only reason is so that fruit cakes on the internet, can proclaim "The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet!"  chocked full of drama queen proclamations.    Certainly banks in Europe haven't doomed Europe to 3rd world status by owning non-banking companies, and ironically is not it normally your side, the leftist side, that typically says we should emulate Europe?
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you happen to know the name of this thread?
> Possibly you neglected to read its OP link, which, if true, makes you lazy and ignorant.
> Here it is:*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth. According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which doesn't address, contradict, or answer anything I said.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> The people on Wall Street didn't go to prison, because they didn't violate any laws.  Inequality is not a violation of law.   Nor is it a violation of law to make loans the Federal Government was suing you in court, forcing you to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And last summer, The New York Times described how Goldman Sachs was caught systematically delaying the delivery of metals out of a *network of warehouses* it owned in order to jack up rents and artificially boost prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting how innocent until proven guilty applies to leftists, but never the people they accuse.    JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs are being investigated.   It's possible it's true, in which case they will be fined or charged.   If it's not true, and right now all they have is allegations, then you are blowing smoke, to support your preconceived judgement on others.
> 
> The fact is, Goldman owns such a tiny portion of the metals market, the idea that *one warehouse on the entire planet*, can sway the price level of the entire market, is absolutely ridiculous.   Now that doesn't mean they were not doing something wrong, but only the economically illiterate would think that Goldman Sachs can corner the entire market with a tiny sliver of the market share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You might not have been surprised that Goldman got caught scamming the world again, but it was certainly news to a lot of people that an investment bank with no industrial expertise, just five years removed from a federal bailout, stores and controls enough of America's aluminum supply to affect world prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of hearsay, very little fact.
> 
> Again, European banks have never had a restriction on buying up non-banking companies.    If allowing that, allowed them to "CONTROL THE PLANET!", then why haven't the European banks taken over the world by now?
> 
> 
> Lots of drama, and blustery proclamations, very little reality.
Click to expand...

*Does your conception of reality include the distinction between "a network of warehouse" and "one warehouse on the entire planet?"

If not, it stands to reason you would be totally ignorant of the crime of control accounting fraud and its role in causing our latest financial collapse:*

"Joshua Holland: To date, a few loan officers  small fish  have been convicted of various offenses related to the financial crash. But none of the big bankers have faced any charges. And its not that the government has been losing cases in the courts. 

"Theres simply been no concerted effort to prosecute these guys. 

"Can you contrast that with what happened during the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s, and also give us your sense of why this has been the case?

William Black:  Sure. 

*"The savings and loan debacle was one-seventieth the size of the current crisis, both in terms of losses and the amount of fraud.* 

"In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as 'major' by the Department of Justice. 

"But even that understates the degree of prioritization, because we, the regulators, worked very closely with the FBI and the Justice Department to create a list of the top 100  the 100 worst fraud schemes. 

"They involved roughly 300 savings and loans and 600 individuals, and virtually all of those people were prosecuted. 

"We had a 90 percent conviction rate, which is the greatest success against elite white-collar crime (in terms of prosecution) in history.

"In the current crisis, that same agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was supposed to regulate, among others, *Countrywide, Washington Mutual and IndyMac  which collectively made hundreds of thousands of fraudulent mortgage loans*  made zero criminal referrals. 

"The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is supposed to regulate the largest national banks, made zero criminal referrals. 

"The Federal Reserve appears to have made zero criminal referrals; it made three about discrimination. 

"And the FDIC was smart enough to refuse to answer the question, but nobody thinks they made any material number of criminal referrals [either]."

Hundreds of Wall Street Execs Went to Prison During the Last Fraud-Fueled Bank Crisis | Blog, Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com

*Lots of facts, no hearsay needed.*


----------



## Silhouette

> Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality



Judging by the length of this thread, I'm sure it's gotten into deep metaphysical stuff by now.

But perhaps an interlude of a common sense idea for at least a partial solution?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...o-the-economy-without-hurting-capitalism.html


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you know about investors could not fill a thimble. Isn't that right Mr. OWS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking bri or anyone to detail the benefits of our stock market as it actually functions--with insider trading, dark markets and buildings full of computers that flood the market with quick trades. What does society benefit from this? They clearly make the most amount of money, esp. people like Jaime Dimon, for the least amount of "labor" and so it's worth asking what do they do that brings such extreme value to society? But you'd rather play low-brow games of intimidation.
> 
> The fact that it helps to be a functional psychopath to be a Wall St. trader signifies something. It demonstrates, among other things, that this elaborate ruse of arbitrage is best played without human considerations. It's best to have no empathy. That's partially why computers are employed by the thousands to make trades across from Wall St.
> 
> For psychopaths to also weigh so heavily in policy decisions is a bit foul considering they tend to also have egos the size of the Ocean. They are the only profit maximizing creatures on earth. What do you think or would you prefer I smear you and disregard what you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The study suggests the (psychopathic) participants' lack of emotional responsiveness actually gave them an advantage when they played a simple investment game.
> 
> "The emotionally impaired players were more willing to take gambles that had high payoffs because they lacked fear.
> 
> "Players with undamaged brain wiring, however, were more cautious and reactive during the game, and wound up with less money at the end.
> 
> "Some neuroscientists believe good investors may be exceptionally skilled at suppressing emotional reactions. 'It's possible that people who are high-risk takers or good investors may have what you call a functional psychopathy,' says Antoine Bechara, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Iowa, and a co-author of the study.
> 
> "'They don't react emotionally to things.
> 
> "Good investors can learn to control their emotions in certain ways to become like those people.'"
> 
> "The study demonstrates how neuroeconomics can offer insight into a question that has become a growing focus of economic inquiry: *Why don't people always act in their own self-interest when they make economic decisions?*"
> 
> Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor - WSJ.com
> 
> *Fear of losing their jobs is one obvious reason why largely conservative voters in places West Virginia's Elk River tend to support business-friendly psychopaths at the polls and elsewhere.
> 
> The wages of production workers has been dropping steadily for four decades.
> A smaller share of working age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in over three decades.
> Apparently, jobs are more precious than safe workplaces or drinking water?*
> 
> Robert Reich (Fear is Why Workers in Red States Vote Against Their Economic Self-Interest)
Click to expand...


How has voting for their economic self-interest been working for America's blue collar union workers over the last 50 years?

Robbie is such a funny little munchkin.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much they get paid only reflects the value of what they produce.  However, I don't find much of value in people who don't produce much of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell me what the stock market does for society? What does it produce that is so valuable? I wonder because the richest people in the world center around its "products." They aren't building schools or producing tables or water purifying systems on Wall St. They aren't collecting my trash or providing my electric. They only do these things some of the time as a result of the insane money they made on these financial products. The products themselves seem to have little value but they are the richest people on the planet.
Click to expand...


There are several reasons a company goes public.

The primary purpose of a company going public, and selling shares of stock in the company, is to raise capital.  The purpose of raising capital is to grow and expand the business.

Another reason is to gain wide spread knowledge of the company.  Going public automatically gives you name recognition, more than any marketing campaign.

Lastly, stocks can give the company leverage or securities to exchange.

*The stock market facilitates all of the above results.*

Take Apple computer.  In 1979, the private company, Apple Computer, employed only 250 people, and less than 10% name recognition, and had very limited funds to expand the company.

The Apple Computer IPO in 1980 changed all of that.  By 1981, 80% of Americans knew the name Apple Computer.   The IPO raised over $100 Million dollars in capital for Apple, resulting in the R&D budget spent at Apple, increased from about $1 Million in 1979, to $21 Million in 1981.   This also resulted in Apple employing over 1,000 people, up from the 250 in 1979.    Additionally, a deal was struck with Xerox, for Apple to use their Graphical User Interface GUI, in exchange for $1 Million in Apple Stock.    That deal spawned several R&D projects, which later ended up being the Macintosh computer, which I am currently using right now.

*That stock market facilitated all of that happening.*

The reason Apple gained name recognition, is because it was all over Wall St.    The reason Apple created at least 750 more jobs which employed people, was because of the Stock Market which raised the capital to do so.    The reason Apple was able to give Xerox shares of the company in exchange for technology, is because those shares were traded on the stock market, which gave them value to Xerox.

*The stock market creates tons of real world economic value, that provides jobs, employment, growth, and wealth for the country.*

It's just that simple sir.  The stock market is not just some random meaningless thing, or no one would use it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you happen to know the name of this thread?
> Possibly you neglected to read its OP link, which, if true, makes you lazy and ignorant.
> Here it is:*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth. According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which doesn't address, contradict, or answer anything I said.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> The people on Wall Street didn't go to prison, because they didn't violate any laws.  Inequality is not a violation of law.   Nor is it a violation of law to make loans the Federal Government was suing you in court, forcing you to make.
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how innocent until proven guilty applies to leftists, but never the people they accuse.    JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs are being investigated.   It's possible it's true, in which case they will be fined or charged.   If it's not true, and right now all they have is allegations, then you are blowing smoke, to support your preconceived judgement on others.
> 
> The fact is, Goldman owns such a tiny portion of the metals market, the idea that *one warehouse on the entire planet*, can sway the price level of the entire market, is absolutely ridiculous.   Now that doesn't mean they were not doing something wrong, but only the economically illiterate would think that Goldman Sachs can corner the entire market with a tiny sliver of the market share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You might not have been surprised that Goldman got caught scamming the world again, but it was certainly news to a lot of people that an investment bank with no industrial expertise, just five years removed from a federal bailout, stores and controls enough of America's aluminum supply to affect world prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of hearsay, very little fact.
> 
> Again, European banks have never had a restriction on buying up non-banking companies.    If allowing that, allowed them to "CONTROL THE PLANET!", then why haven't the European banks taken over the world by now?
> 
> 
> Lots of drama, and blustery proclamations, very little reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Does your conception of reality include the distinction between "a network of warehouse" and "one warehouse on the entire planet?"
> 
> If not, it stands to reason you would be totally ignorant of the crime of control accounting fraud and its role in causing our latest financial collapse:*
> 
> "Joshua Holland: To date, a few loan officers  small fish  have been convicted of various offenses related to the financial crash. But none of the big bankers have faced any charges. And its not that the government has been losing cases in the courts.
> 
> "Theres simply been no concerted effort to prosecute these guys.
> 
> "Can you contrast that with what happened during the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s, and also give us your sense of why this has been the case?
> 
> William Black:  Sure.
> 
> *"The savings and loan debacle was one-seventieth the size of the current crisis, both in terms of losses and the amount of fraud.*
> 
> "In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as 'major' by the Department of Justice.
> 
> "But even that understates the degree of prioritization, because we, the regulators, worked very closely with the FBI and the Justice Department to create a list of the top 100  the 100 worst fraud schemes.
> 
> "They involved roughly 300 savings and loans and 600 individuals, and virtually all of those people were prosecuted.
> 
> "We had a 90 percent conviction rate, which is the greatest success against elite white-collar crime (in terms of prosecution) in history.
> 
> "In the current crisis, that same agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was supposed to regulate, among others, *Countrywide, Washington Mutual and IndyMac  which collectively made hundreds of thousands of fraudulent mortgage loans*  made zero criminal referrals.
> 
> "The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is supposed to regulate the largest national banks, made zero criminal referrals.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve appears to have made zero criminal referrals; it made three about discrimination.
> 
> "And the FDIC was smart enough to refuse to answer the question, but nobody thinks they made any material number of criminal referrals [either]."
> 
> Hundreds of Wall Street Execs Went to Prison During the Last Fraud-Fueled Bank Crisis | Blog, Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com
> 
> *Lots of facts, no hearsay needed.*
Click to expand...


*"In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as 'major' by the Department of Justice. *

Corrupt self-dealing, involving corrupt politicians (Whitewater) is clearly a crime.

Lending money to poor credit risks, partially because of government pressure.....where is the crime?


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which doesn't address, contradict, or answer anything I said.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> The people on Wall Street didn't go to prison, because they didn't violate any laws.  Inequality is not a violation of law.   Nor is it a violation of law to make loans the Federal Government was suing you in court, forcing you to make.
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how innocent until proven guilty applies to leftists, but never the people they accuse.    JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs are being investigated.   It's possible it's true, in which case they will be fined or charged.   If it's not true, and right now all they have is allegations, then you are blowing smoke, to support your preconceived judgement on others.
> 
> The fact is, Goldman owns such a tiny portion of the metals market, the idea that *one warehouse on the entire planet*, can sway the price level of the entire market, is absolutely ridiculous.   Now that doesn't mean they were not doing something wrong, but only the economically illiterate would think that Goldman Sachs can corner the entire market with a tiny sliver of the market share.
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of hearsay, very little fact.
> 
> Again, European banks have never had a restriction on buying up non-banking companies.    If allowing that, allowed them to "CONTROL THE PLANET!", then why haven't the European banks taken over the world by now?
> 
> 
> Lots of drama, and blustery proclamations, very little reality.
> 
> 
> 
> *Does your conception of reality include the distinction between "a network of warehouse" and "one warehouse on the entire planet?"
> 
> If not, it stands to reason you would be totally ignorant of the crime of control accounting fraud and its role in causing our latest financial collapse:*
> 
> "Joshua Holland: To date, a few loan officers  small fish  have been convicted of various offenses related to the financial crash. But none of the big bankers have faced any charges. And its not that the government has been losing cases in the courts.
> 
> "Theres simply been no concerted effort to prosecute these guys.
> 
> "Can you contrast that with what happened during the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s, and also give us your sense of why this has been the case?
> 
> William Black:  Sure.
> 
> *"The savings and loan debacle was one-seventieth the size of the current crisis, both in terms of losses and the amount of fraud.*
> 
> "In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as 'major' by the Department of Justice.
> 
> "But even that understates the degree of prioritization, because we, the regulators, worked very closely with the FBI and the Justice Department to create a list of the top 100  the 100 worst fraud schemes.
> 
> "They involved roughly 300 savings and loans and 600 individuals, and virtually all of those people were prosecuted.
> 
> "We had a 90 percent conviction rate, which is the greatest success against elite white-collar crime (in terms of prosecution) in history.
> 
> "In the current crisis, that same agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was supposed to regulate, among others, *Countrywide, Washington Mutual and IndyMac  which collectively made hundreds of thousands of fraudulent mortgage loans*  made zero criminal referrals.
> 
> "The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is supposed to regulate the largest national banks, made zero criminal referrals.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve appears to have made zero criminal referrals; it made three about discrimination.
> 
> "And the FDIC was smart enough to refuse to answer the question, but nobody thinks they made any material number of criminal referrals [either]."
> 
> Hundreds of Wall Street Execs Went to Prison During the Last Fraud-Fueled Bank Crisis | Blog, Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com
> 
> *Lots of facts, no hearsay needed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as 'major' by the Department of Justice. *
> 
> Corrupt self-dealing, involving corrupt politicians (Whitewater) is clearly a crime.
> 
> Lending money to poor credit risks, partially because of government pressure.....where is the crime?
Click to expand...


The politicians and the libturds need someone to blame other than themselves.  They're perfectly happy to persecute the victims to deflect blame from themselves.


----------



## P@triot

KNB said:


> Monsanto has a 93% market share of soy production, as well as a patent on most of the corn grown in the US.  That's controlling the supply of crucial physical commodities.
> 
> Do Republicans think that the Founders envisioned one corporation with a 93% market share on our food production?



No. So that begs the question - why don't _you_ enter the soy market and help "balance" that out?


----------



## P@triot

KNB said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum wage just means that if they could pay us even less, they would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a min wage worker? Who is "they"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are the "job creators".  After slavery was abolished, they moved their operations overseas to pay exploited foreign labor dirt-poor wages because that limits expenses and increases company profits.
> 
> If we do away with the Federal minimum wage in the United States, perhaps more jobs will be created but with even less wages which means that those employees will still need government assistance to get by.
> 
> Record corporate profits are supposed to trickle down, otherwise trickle-down theory doesn't work.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, Dumbocrats have replaced trickle-down prosperity with trickle-up poverty.

There are no profits to trickle-down because the profits are taken by government in the form of taxes. 18 new taxes in Obamacare alone.

My salary is "income taxed" at the federal level (1). Then it is taxed again at the state level (2). Then it is taxed again at the local level (3). What's left I get to live off of. But then it is taxed again in the form of "property tax" (4). After that, it is taxed again when I fill up my tank to go to work in the form of "gas tax" (5). After that, it is taxed again on every item I purchase in the form of "sales tax" (6). After that, when I get my utilities bills (cable, cell phone, etc.) it is taxed again in various forms of "regulations taxes" (my favorite being the "911 tax" on my cell phone bill) - (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12).

So I'm curious KNB - when is it enough for you and your greedy liberal pals? How much of what I earned do you think you deserve? Because I'm literally taxed the fuck to death. And then I'm taxed some _more_.

You know, Dumbocrats vehemently opposed emancipation. 150 years later and liberals still can't accept that slavery is over. You still demand that I labor for _you_. That everything I work for is for you and I have no right to it. Liberals will never let go of slavery.


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a min wage worker? Who is "they"?
> 
> 
> 
> They are the "job creators".  After slavery was abolished, they moved their operations overseas to pay exploited foreign labor dirt-poor wages because that limits expenses and increases company profits.
> 
> If we do away with the Federal minimum wage in the United States, perhaps more jobs will be created but with even less wages which means that those employees will still need government assistance to get by.
> 
> Record corporate profits are supposed to trickle down, otherwise trickle-down theory doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, Dumbocrats have replaced trickle-down prosperity with trickle-up poverty.
> 
> There are no profits to trickle-down because the profits are taken by government in the form of taxes. 18 new taxes in Obamacare alone.
> 
> My salary is "income taxed" at the federal level (1). Then it is taxed again at the state level (2). Then it is taxed again at the local level (3). What's left I get to live off of. But then it is taxed again in the form of "property tax" (4). After that, it is taxed again when I fill up my tank to go to work in the form of "gas tax" (5). After that, it is taxed again on every item I purchase in the form of "sales tax" (6). After that, when I get my utilities bills (cable, cell phone, etc.) it is taxed again in various forms of "regulations taxes" (my favorite being the "911 tax" on my cell phone bill) - (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12).
> 
> So I'm curious KNB - when is it enough for you and your greedy liberal pals? How much of what I earned do you think you deserve? Because I'm literally taxed the fuck to death. And then I'm taxed some _more_.
> 
> You know, Dumbocrats vehemently opposed emancipation. 150 years later and liberals still can't accept that slavery is over. You still demand that I labor for _you_. That everything I work for is for you and I have no right to it. Liberals will never let go of slavery.
Click to expand...


But without welfare the poor and unemployed would have to work! 

Oh.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you happen to know the name of this thread?
> Possibly you neglected to read its OP link, which, if true, makes you lazy and ignorant.
> Here it is:*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth. According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which doesn't address, contradict, or answer anything I said.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> The people on Wall Street didn't go to prison, because they didn't violate any laws.  Inequality is not a violation of law.   Nor is it a violation of law to make loans the Federal Government was suing you in court, forcing you to make.
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how innocent until proven guilty applies to leftists, but never the people they accuse.    JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs are being investigated.   It's possible it's true, in which case they will be fined or charged.   If it's not true, and right now all they have is allegations, then you are blowing smoke, to support your preconceived judgement on others.
> 
> The fact is, Goldman owns such a tiny portion of the metals market, the idea that *one warehouse on the entire planet*, can sway the price level of the entire market, is absolutely ridiculous.   Now that doesn't mean they were not doing something wrong, but only the economically illiterate would think that Goldman Sachs can corner the entire market with a tiny sliver of the market share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You might not have been surprised that Goldman got caught scamming the world again, but it was certainly news to a lot of people that an investment bank with no industrial expertise, just five years removed from a federal bailout, stores and controls enough of America's aluminum supply to affect world prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of hearsay, very little fact.
> 
> Again, European banks have never had a restriction on buying up non-banking companies.    If allowing that, allowed them to "CONTROL THE PLANET!", then why haven't the European banks taken over the world by now?
> 
> 
> Lots of drama, and blustery proclamations, very little reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Does your conception of reality include the distinction between "a network of warehouse" and "one warehouse on the entire planet?"
> 
> If not, it stands to reason you would be totally ignorant of the crime of control accounting fraud and its role in causing our latest financial collapse:*
> 
> "Joshua Holland: To date, a few loan officers  small fish  have been convicted of various offenses related to the financial crash. But none of the big bankers have faced any charges. And its not that the government has been losing cases in the courts.
> 
> "Theres simply been no concerted effort to prosecute these guys.
> 
> "Can you contrast that with what happened during the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s, and also give us your sense of why this has been the case?
> 
> William Black:  Sure.
> 
> *"The savings and loan debacle was one-seventieth the size of the current crisis, both in terms of losses and the amount of fraud.*
> 
> "In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as 'major' by the Department of Justice.
> 
> "But even that understates the degree of prioritization, because we, the regulators, worked very closely with the FBI and the Justice Department to create a list of the top 100  the 100 worst fraud schemes.
> 
> "They involved roughly 300 savings and loans and 600 individuals, and virtually all of those people were prosecuted.
> 
> "We had a 90 percent conviction rate, which is the greatest success against elite white-collar crime (in terms of prosecution) in history.
> 
> "In the current crisis, that same agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was supposed to regulate, among others, *Countrywide, Washington Mutual and IndyMac  which collectively made hundreds of thousands of fraudulent mortgage loans*  made zero criminal referrals.
> 
> "The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is supposed to regulate the largest national banks, made zero criminal referrals.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve appears to have made zero criminal referrals; it made three about discrimination.
> 
> "And the FDIC was smart enough to refuse to answer the question, but nobody thinks they made any material number of criminal referrals [either]."
> 
> Hundreds of Wall Street Execs Went to Prison During the Last Fraud-Fueled Bank Crisis | Blog, Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com
> 
> *Lots of facts, no hearsay needed.*
Click to expand...


The more I investigate stuff, the more you are proven to be so completely ignorant.

Goldman to resume talks on sale of metals warehouse unit: source | Reuters

Form the article....
*Goldman Sachs (GS.N) plans to resume talks with parties interested in buying its metals warehousing business now that new exchange rules have been released, a source familiar with the matter said on Monday.

The talks with potential buyers, which are largely firms based outside the United States, are not part of a formal sales process, the source said.

Metro International Trading Services, which stores aluminum and other metals as part of the London Metal Exchange (LME) warehouse system, has been at the center of a controversy around Wall Street's ownership of physical commodity assets.

The paper said several of the potential buyers were Chinese firms, including Chinese insurer Ping An and China Minmetals. Brazilian bank Grupo BTG Pactual SA (BBTG11.SA) is also actively looking at warehouse assets, trade and industry sources say.

Goldman has said that Metro was bought under a "private equity exemption" that would allow the bank to own the business for up to 10 years as long as it operates at arm's length from its commodities traders.

The bank bought Metro in 2010 for around $500 million.*​
It's stuff like this, that proves to me why America will decline into 3rd world status, when the citizens of this country are so uninformed, and mindlessly follow the unsupportable statements of bloggers.

Several things here......

First, you people, the morons you support in office, have already won this idiotic fight.   Goldman Sachs is selling off the company.

Second, notice who they are selling it to?
Chinese insurer Ping An.   An insurance company.   That would be illegal under leftard stupidity, but China doesn't have that problem.
China Minmetals.   A bank and trading company.   That would be illegal under leftard stupidity, but China has no problem.
Grupo BTG Pactual SA.   A Brazilian bank.  Illegal under Leftard stupitidy, but Brazil has no problem with that.

It's posts like this, that I have to bite my tongue, because what I really want to do is scream, insult, and belittle you.    This right here, is why America is falling relative to the world, and you people don't even grasp that the cause of it is in your mirror.

Look at this.... An American Company, creating American jobs, paying American taxes, owning international assets, investments that bring to America international profits..... and here we are forcing them to sell off their assets to the exact same businesses in other countries, so that they are more wealthy, and we are less wealthy, so they get more international revenue, and we get less international revenue.

We have successfully made ourselves poorer, at the same time we helped other companies in other countries get richer, and the problem is *YOU* and those like you.

When you look around and wonder why our country is in the sad state it's in, *YOU* are the problem, and you are too ignorant to even know it.

You mindlessly spout off about how one bank, owning one commodity warehouse company, is going to move the market?

Did you read how much money Goldman Sachs paid for Metro?  $500 Million.     Did you read how much in commodities are traded on the London Exchange every year?   $14.5 Trillion.  That required me less than one minute to figure out, but you didn't.   What does that tell you about yourself?

And then your "network of wearhouses" crap?   Look it up.
London Metal Exchange: Warehousing
First link center of the page.
"View a list of approved warehouses and storage facilities"

27 pages of warehouses, each page listing 28 to 29 facilities, for a total of about 800 warehouses throughout the world.  There are a dozen warehousing companies.    Of those warehouses, only 60 of the 800, at most, are operated by Metro.     7% of all the warehouses, and you think that Goldman Sachs can corner the market with a mere 7% of the warehouses?

Really?   60 of 800 warehouses can corner the market?  Ugh.... so dumb.  So blindly stupid.

*THIS* is why America is falling.  This is why our economy is in the trash.  When people believe something so dumb, so stupid, so absolutely idiotic, and never fact check anything.... that's why our country is screwed up.   All of this required me less than 10 minutes worth of looking up the facts.   Yet you didn't know any of this.  What does that say about you, and those people you support? Huh?  What's your excuse?  I want to hear it!


----------



## georgephillip

EconChick said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares.
> 
> Besides, inequality has jumped under this President.
Click to expand...

This President serves the same 1% of voters his predecessors did, and the same 1% whoever occupies the Oval Office next will depend upon to finance her campaign and retirement. 

If you don't see the connection between private wealth concentration for the few and decreased democracy for the many, why should I care?


----------



## Indeependent

Didn't G-S get a BAIL-OUT which allowed them to do this?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The lifestyles of the rich and famous in the US don't exist without exploiting the resources and labor of distant colonies.*
> 
> An agreement reached freely between two consenting parties is not exploitation.
> It's freedom and capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> *It's colonialism and fascism for those who know history:*
> 
> "On Aug. 19, 1953, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran became the first victim of a C.I.A. coup. Ten months later, on June 27, 1954, President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala became the second..."
> 
> "SOON after the C.I.A. installed him as president of Guatemala in 1954, Col. Carlos Castillo Armas visited Washington.
> 
> "He was unusually forthright with Vice President Richard M. Nixon. '*Tell me what you want me to do,' he said, 'and I will do it*.'
> 
> "What the United States wanted in Guatemala -- and in Iran, where the C.I.A. also deposed a government in the early 1950's -- was pro-American stability.
> 
> "In the long run, though, neither Colonel Castillo Armas nor his Iranian counterpart, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, provided it. Instead, both led their countries away from democracy and toward repression and tragedy.
> 
> "How did this happen? From the perspective of half a century, what is the legacy of these two coups?
> 
> "Several dozen scholars, including leading experts on Iran and Guatemala, gathered in Chicago this month to consider those questions. Their conclusions were grim. All agreed that both coups -- the first that the C.I.A. carried out -- had terrible long-term effects."
> 
> *Not unlike the terrible long term effects inflicted upon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan by rich parasites who profit from 21st century wars of aggression.*
> 
> Ideas & Trends - Iran and Guatemala, 1953-54 - Revisiting Cold War Coups and Finding Them Costly - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It's colonialism and fascism *
> 
> If you say so, Nancy.
Click to expand...

*There is an alternative, Maggie*

"'It's quite clear that the 1953 coup cut short a move toward democracy in Iran' said Mark J. Gasiorowski, a historian at Louisiana State University who began studying that coup in the 1980's. '*The United States bears responsibility for this*.'

"Iranians wrote a constitution and elected a parliament early in the 20th century. 

"Their progress toward democracy stopped after the Pahlavi dynasty took the throne with British help in 1921, but resumed after World War II. 

"By the time of the 1953 coup, Iran was more free than at any time before or since.

"The verdict on Guatemala was even harsher. 

"Within a few years after the 1954 coup, Guatemala fell into a maelstrom of guerrilla war and state terror in which hundreds of thousands of people died."

*It's called Democracy*

Ideas & Trends - Iran and Guatemala, 1953-54 - Revisiting Cold War Coups and Finding Them Costly - NYTimes.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's colonialism and fascism for those who know history:*
> 
> "On Aug. 19, 1953, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran became the first victim of a C.I.A. coup. Ten months later, on June 27, 1954, President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala became the second..."
> 
> "SOON after the C.I.A. installed him as president of Guatemala in 1954, Col. Carlos Castillo Armas visited Washington.
> 
> "He was unusually forthright with Vice President Richard M. Nixon. '*Tell me what you want me to do,' he said, 'and I will do it*.'
> 
> "What the United States wanted in Guatemala -- and in Iran, where the C.I.A. also deposed a government in the early 1950's -- was pro-American stability.
> 
> "In the long run, though, neither Colonel Castillo Armas nor his Iranian counterpart, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, provided it. Instead, both led their countries away from democracy and toward repression and tragedy.
> 
> "How did this happen? From the perspective of half a century, what is the legacy of these two coups?
> 
> "Several dozen scholars, including leading experts on Iran and Guatemala, gathered in Chicago this month to consider those questions. Their conclusions were grim. All agreed that both coups -- the first that the C.I.A. carried out -- had terrible long-term effects."
> 
> *Not unlike the terrible long term effects inflicted upon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan by rich parasites who profit from 21st century wars of aggression.*
> 
> Ideas & Trends - Iran and Guatemala, 1953-54 - Revisiting Cold War Coups and Finding Them Costly - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> *
> It's colonialism and fascism *
> 
> If you say so, Nancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is an alternative, Maggie*
> 
> "'It's quite clear that the 1953 coup cut short a move toward democracy in Iran' said Mark J. Gasiorowski, a historian at Louisiana State University who began studying that coup in the 1980's. '*The United States bears responsibility for this*.'
> 
> "Iranians wrote a constitution and elected a parliament early in the 20th century.
> 
> "Their progress toward democracy stopped after the Pahlavi dynasty took the throne with British help in 1921, but resumed after World War II.
> 
> "By the time of the 1953 coup, Iran was more free than at any time before or since.
> 
> "The verdict on Guatemala was even harsher.
> 
> "Within a few years after the 1954 coup, Guatemala fell into a maelstrom of guerrilla war and state terror in which hundreds of thousands of people died."
> 
> *It's called Democracy*
> 
> Ideas & Trends - Iran and Guatemala, 1953-54 - Revisiting Cold War Coups and Finding Them Costly - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...


It's obvious that every barrel of oil we buy from a foreign country is due to exploitation, colonialism and fascism . /Marxist idiocy off


----------



## whitehall

Why not try out socialism in a tight, well organized high profile part of American society? Let's get behind the effort to pay actors the same scale as the people behind the camera and the people who build the sets and if the income equality works in Hollywood we can try it in politics next. Wadda youse lefties say? Is it a deal?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which doesn't address, contradict, or answer anything I said.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> The people on Wall Street didn't go to prison, because they didn't violate any laws.  Inequality is not a violation of law.   Nor is it a violation of law to make loans the Federal Government was suing you in court, forcing you to make.
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how innocent until proven guilty applies to leftists, but never the people they accuse.    JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs are being investigated.   It's possible it's true, in which case they will be fined or charged.   If it's not true, and right now all they have is allegations, then you are blowing smoke, to support your preconceived judgement on others.
> 
> The fact is, Goldman owns such a tiny portion of the metals market, the idea that *one warehouse on the entire planet*, can sway the price level of the entire market, is absolutely ridiculous.   Now that doesn't mean they were not doing something wrong, but only the economically illiterate would think that Goldman Sachs can corner the entire market with a tiny sliver of the market share.
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of hearsay, very little fact.
> 
> Again, European banks have never had a restriction on buying up non-banking companies.    If allowing that, allowed them to "CONTROL THE PLANET!", then why haven't the European banks taken over the world by now?
> 
> 
> Lots of drama, and blustery proclamations, very little reality.
> 
> 
> 
> *Does your conception of reality include the distinction between "a network of warehouse" and "one warehouse on the entire planet?"
> 
> If not, it stands to reason you would be totally ignorant of the crime of control accounting fraud and its role in causing our latest financial collapse:*
> 
> "Joshua Holland: To date, a few loan officers  small fish  have been convicted of various offenses related to the financial crash. But none of the big bankers have faced any charges. And its not that the government has been losing cases in the courts.
> 
> "Theres simply been no concerted effort to prosecute these guys.
> 
> "Can you contrast that with what happened during the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s, and also give us your sense of why this has been the case?
> 
> William Black:  Sure.
> 
> *"The savings and loan debacle was one-seventieth the size of the current crisis, both in terms of losses and the amount of fraud.*
> 
> "In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as 'major' by the Department of Justice.
> 
> "But even that understates the degree of prioritization, because we, the regulators, worked very closely with the FBI and the Justice Department to create a list of the top 100  the 100 worst fraud schemes.
> 
> "They involved roughly 300 savings and loans and 600 individuals, and virtually all of those people were prosecuted.
> 
> "We had a 90 percent conviction rate, which is the greatest success against elite white-collar crime (in terms of prosecution) in history.
> 
> "In the current crisis, that same agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was supposed to regulate, among others, *Countrywide, Washington Mutual and IndyMac  which collectively made hundreds of thousands of fraudulent mortgage loans*  made zero criminal referrals.
> 
> "The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is supposed to regulate the largest national banks, made zero criminal referrals.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve appears to have made zero criminal referrals; it made three about discrimination.
> 
> "And the FDIC was smart enough to refuse to answer the question, but nobody thinks they made any material number of criminal referrals [either]."
> 
> Hundreds of Wall Street Execs Went to Prison During the Last Fraud-Fueled Bank Crisis | Blog, Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com
> 
> *Lots of facts, no hearsay needed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more I investigate stuff, the more you are proven to be so completely ignorant.
> 
> Goldman to resume talks on sale of metals warehouse unit: source | Reuters
> 
> Form the article....
> *Goldman Sachs (GS.N) plans to resume talks with parties interested in buying its metals warehousing business now that new exchange rules have been released, a source familiar with the matter said on Monday.
> 
> The talks with potential buyers, which are largely firms based outside the United States, are not part of a formal sales process, the source said.
> 
> Metro International Trading Services, which stores aluminum and other metals as part of the London Metal Exchange (LME) warehouse system, has been at the center of a controversy around Wall Street's ownership of physical commodity assets.
> 
> The paper said several of the potential buyers were Chinese firms, including Chinese insurer Ping An and China Minmetals. Brazilian bank Grupo BTG Pactual SA (BBTG11.SA) is also actively looking at warehouse assets, trade and industry sources say.
> 
> Goldman has said that Metro was bought under a "private equity exemption" that would allow the bank to own the business for up to 10 years as long as it operates at arm's length from its commodities traders.
> 
> The bank bought Metro in 2010 for around $500 million.*​
> It's stuff like this, that proves to me why America will decline into 3rd world status, when the citizens of this country are so uninformed, and mindlessly follow the unsupportable statements of bloggers.
> 
> Several things here......
> 
> First, you people, the morons you support in office, have already won this idiotic fight.   Goldman Sachs is selling off the company.
> 
> Second, notice who they are selling it to?
> Chinese insurer Ping An.   An insurance company.   That would be illegal under leftard stupidity, but China doesn't have that problem.
> China Minmetals.   A bank and trading company.   That would be illegal under leftard stupidity, but China has no problem.
> Grupo BTG Pactual SA.   A Brazilian bank.  Illegal under Leftard stupitidy, but Brazil has no problem with that.
> 
> It's posts like this, that I have to bite my tongue, because what I really want to do is scream, insult, and belittle you.    This right here, is why America is falling relative to the world, and you people don't even grasp that the cause of it is in your mirror.
> 
> Look at this.... An American Company, creating American jobs, paying American taxes, owning international assets, investments that bring to America international profits..... and here we are forcing them to sell off their assets to the exact same businesses in other countries, so that they are more wealthy, and we are less wealthy, so they get more international revenue, and we get less international revenue.
> 
> We have successfully made ourselves poorer, at the same time we helped other companies in other countries get richer, and the problem is *YOU* and those like you.
> 
> When you look around and wonder why our country is in the sad state it's in, *YOU* are the problem, and you are too ignorant to even know it.
> 
> You mindlessly spout off about how one bank, owning one commodity warehouse company, is going to move the market?
> 
> Did you read how much money Goldman Sachs paid for Metro?  $500 Million.     Did you read how much in commodities are traded on the London Exchange every year?   $14.5 Trillion.  That required me less than one minute to figure out, but you didn't.   What does that tell you about yourself?
> 
> And then your "network of wearhouses" crap?   Look it up.
> London Metal Exchange: Warehousing
> First link center of the page.
> "View a list of approved warehouses and storage facilities"
> 
> 27 pages of warehouses, each page listing 28 to 29 facilities, for a total of about 800 warehouses throughout the world.  There are a dozen warehousing companies.    Of those warehouses, only 60 of the 800, at most, are operated by Metro.     7% of all the warehouses, and you think that Goldman Sachs can corner the market with a mere 7% of the warehouses?
> 
> Really?   60 of 800 warehouses can corner the market?  Ugh.... so dumb.  So blindly stupid.
> 
> *THIS* is why America is falling.  This is why our economy is in the trash.  When people believe something so dumb, so stupid, so absolutely idiotic, and never fact check anything.... that's why our country is screwed up.   All of this required me less than 10 minutes worth of looking up the facts.   Yet you didn't know any of this.  What does that say about you, and those people you support? Huh?  What's your excuse?  I want to hear it!
Click to expand...

"U.S. Subpoenas Goldman in Inquiry of Aluminum Warehouses
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: August 12, 2013

"Goldman Sachs has been subpoenaed by federal regulators investigating complaints that the financial giants metals warehouses have intentionally created delays and inflated the price of aluminum.

"The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued subpoenas to Goldman and owners of other major warehouses as part of its inquiry into irregularities in the aluminum market that are believed to have *cost consumers billions of dollars since 2010.*

"The subpoenas seek all documents, e-mails, correspondence, voice recordings and other records concerning the warehouse operations dating back to January 2010, according to two people familiar with the documents. 

"The subpoenas also demand documents and correspondence regarding the London Metals Exchange, a private trade association that regulates warehousing. The subpoenas indicate that the federal inquiry has 30 'areas of interest.'

"Goldman bought Metropolitan International Trade Services, a string of Detroit-area 
metals warehouses, in 2010 and soon afterward beverage makers and manufacturers began complaining that the company was restricting the outflow of metal, causing lengthy delays in delivery. 

"Those waits, which grew from six weeks in 2010 to around 16 months now, mean higher storage costs for metal owners, who are charged rent by the day."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/business/us-subpoenas-goldman-in-inquiry-of-aluminum-warehouses.html?_r=0

*The blind faith that ignorant fools place in rich parasites like GS to extort rents in pursuit of private profit by socializing costs on consumers world-wide, doesn't mode well for democratic rule in this country. *


----------



## georgephillip

whitehall said:


> Why not try out socialism in a tight, well organized high profile part of American society? Let's get behind the effort to pay actors the same scale as the people behind the camera and the people who build the sets and if the income equality works in Hollywood we can try it in politics next. Wadda youse lefties say? Is it a deal?


How about we start on Wall Street and Hollywood?


----------



## 1776

I doubt Sean Penn is going to give up his wealth...or George Soros.



georgephillip said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not try out socialism in a tight, well organized high profile part of American society? Let's get behind the effort to pay actors the same scale as the people behind the camera and the people who build the sets and if the income equality works in Hollywood we can try it in politics next. Wadda youse lefties say? Is it a deal?
> 
> 
> 
> How about we start on Wall Street and Hollywood?
Click to expand...


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Does your conception of reality include the distinction between "a network of warehouse" and "one warehouse on the entire planet?"
> 
> If not, it stands to reason you would be totally ignorant of the crime of control accounting fraud and its role in causing our latest financial collapse:*
> 
> "Joshua Holland: To date, a few loan officers  small fish  have been convicted of various offenses related to the financial crash. But none of the big bankers have faced any charges. And its not that the government has been losing cases in the courts.
> 
> "Theres simply been no concerted effort to prosecute these guys.
> 
> "Can you contrast that with what happened during the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s, and also give us your sense of why this has been the case?
> 
> William Black:  Sure.
> 
> *"The savings and loan debacle was one-seventieth the size of the current crisis, both in terms of losses and the amount of fraud.*
> 
> "In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as 'major' by the Department of Justice.
> 
> "But even that understates the degree of prioritization, because we, the regulators, worked very closely with the FBI and the Justice Department to create a list of the top 100  the 100 worst fraud schemes.
> 
> "They involved roughly 300 savings and loans and 600 individuals, and virtually all of those people were prosecuted.
> 
> "We had a 90 percent conviction rate, which is the greatest success against elite white-collar crime (in terms of prosecution) in history.
> 
> "In the current crisis, that same agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was supposed to regulate, among others, *Countrywide, Washington Mutual and IndyMac  which collectively made hundreds of thousands of fraudulent mortgage loans*  made zero criminal referrals.
> 
> "The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is supposed to regulate the largest national banks, made zero criminal referrals.
> 
> "The Federal Reserve appears to have made zero criminal referrals; it made three about discrimination.
> 
> "And the FDIC was smart enough to refuse to answer the question, but nobody thinks they made any material number of criminal referrals [either]."
> 
> Hundreds of Wall Street Execs Went to Prison During the Last Fraud-Fueled Bank Crisis | Blog, Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com
> 
> *Lots of facts, no hearsay needed.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more I investigate stuff, the more you are proven to be so completely ignorant.
> 
> Goldman to resume talks on sale of metals warehouse unit: source | Reuters
> 
> Form the article....
> *Goldman Sachs (GS.N) plans to resume talks with parties interested in buying its metals warehousing business now that new exchange rules have been released, a source familiar with the matter said on Monday.
> 
> The talks with potential buyers, which are largely firms based outside the United States, are not part of a formal sales process, the source said.
> 
> Metro International Trading Services, which stores aluminum and other metals as part of the London Metal Exchange (LME) warehouse system, has been at the center of a controversy around Wall Street's ownership of physical commodity assets.
> 
> The paper said several of the potential buyers were Chinese firms, including Chinese insurer Ping An and China Minmetals. Brazilian bank Grupo BTG Pactual SA (BBTG11.SA) is also actively looking at warehouse assets, trade and industry sources say.
> 
> Goldman has said that Metro was bought under a "private equity exemption" that would allow the bank to own the business for up to 10 years as long as it operates at arm's length from its commodities traders.
> 
> The bank bought Metro in 2010 for around $500 million.*​
> It's stuff like this, that proves to me why America will decline into 3rd world status, when the citizens of this country are so uninformed, and mindlessly follow the unsupportable statements of bloggers.
> 
> Several things here......
> 
> First, you people, the morons you support in office, have already won this idiotic fight.   Goldman Sachs is selling off the company.
> 
> Second, notice who they are selling it to?
> Chinese insurer Ping An.   An insurance company.   That would be illegal under leftard stupidity, but China doesn't have that problem.
> China Minmetals.   A bank and trading company.   That would be illegal under leftard stupidity, but China has no problem.
> Grupo BTG Pactual SA.   A Brazilian bank.  Illegal under Leftard stupitidy, but Brazil has no problem with that.
> 
> It's posts like this, that I have to bite my tongue, because what I really want to do is scream, insult, and belittle you.    This right here, is why America is falling relative to the world, and you people don't even grasp that the cause of it is in your mirror.
> 
> Look at this.... An American Company, creating American jobs, paying American taxes, owning international assets, investments that bring to America international profits..... and here we are forcing them to sell off their assets to the exact same businesses in other countries, so that they are more wealthy, and we are less wealthy, so they get more international revenue, and we get less international revenue.
> 
> We have successfully made ourselves poorer, at the same time we helped other companies in other countries get richer, and the problem is *YOU* and those like you.
> 
> When you look around and wonder why our country is in the sad state it's in, *YOU* are the problem, and you are too ignorant to even know it.
> 
> You mindlessly spout off about how one bank, owning one commodity warehouse company, is going to move the market?
> 
> Did you read how much money Goldman Sachs paid for Metro?  $500 Million.     Did you read how much in commodities are traded on the London Exchange every year?   $14.5 Trillion.  That required me less than one minute to figure out, but you didn't.   What does that tell you about yourself?
> 
> And then your "network of wearhouses" crap?   Look it up.
> London Metal Exchange: Warehousing
> First link center of the page.
> "View a list of approved warehouses and storage facilities"
> 
> 27 pages of warehouses, each page listing 28 to 29 facilities, for a total of about 800 warehouses throughout the world.  There are a dozen warehousing companies.    Of those warehouses, only 60 of the 800, at most, are operated by Metro.     7% of all the warehouses, and you think that Goldman Sachs can corner the market with a mere 7% of the warehouses?
> 
> Really?   60 of 800 warehouses can corner the market?  Ugh.... so dumb.  So blindly stupid.
> 
> *THIS* is why America is falling.  This is why our economy is in the trash.  When people believe something so dumb, so stupid, so absolutely idiotic, and never fact check anything.... that's why our country is screwed up.   All of this required me less than 10 minutes worth of looking up the facts.   Yet you didn't know any of this.  What does that say about you, and those people you support? Huh?  What's your excuse?  I want to hear it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "U.S. Subpoenas Goldman in Inquiry of Aluminum Warehouses
> By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
> Published: August 12, 2013
> 
> "Goldman Sachs has been subpoenaed by federal regulators investigating complaints that the financial giants metals warehouses have intentionally created delays and inflated the price of aluminum.
> 
> "The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued subpoenas to Goldman and owners of other major warehouses as part of its inquiry into irregularities in the aluminum market that are believed to have *cost consumers billions of dollars since 2010.*
> 
> "The subpoenas seek all documents, e-mails, correspondence, voice recordings and other records concerning the warehouse operations dating back to January 2010, according to two people familiar with the documents.
> 
> "The subpoenas also demand documents and correspondence regarding the London Metals Exchange, a private trade association that regulates warehousing. The subpoenas indicate that the federal inquiry has 30 'areas of interest.'
> 
> "Goldman bought Metropolitan International Trade Services, a string of Detroit-area
> metals warehouses, in 2010 and soon afterward beverage makers and manufacturers began complaining that the company was restricting the outflow of metal, causing lengthy delays in delivery.
> 
> "Those waits, which grew from six weeks in 2010 to around 16 months now, mean higher storage costs for metal owners, who are charged rent by the day."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/business/us-subpoenas-goldman-in-inquiry-of-aluminum-warehouses.html?_r=0
> 
> *The blind faith that ignorant fools place in rich parasites like GS to extort rents in pursuit of private profit by socializing costs on consumers world-wide, doesn't mode well for democratic rule in this country. *
Click to expand...


You lost the argument again.   Just like that.  You didn't address, nor contradict a single statement.  You didn't address any of the facts.

You have an allegation.   Is innocent until proven guilty only apply to Leftards, and not the people they accuse?

Further, even if everything is proven true, does that change anything I said?  Nope.

You lost dude.   The argument is obviously over, and you have nothing left to add, or you would have said it by now.


----------



## georgephillip

Indeependent said:


> Didn't G-S get a BAIL-OUT which allowed them to do this?


*Matt Taibbi seems to think so:*

"Call it the loophole that destroyed the world. It's 1999, the tail end of the Clinton years. While the rest of America obsesses over Monica Lewinsky, Columbine and Mark McGwire's biceps, Congress is feverishly crafting what could yet prove to be one of the most transformative laws in the history of our economy  a law that would make possible a broader concentration of financial and industrial power than we've seen in more than a century..."

"And last summer, The New York Times described how Goldman Sachs was caught systematically delaying the delivery of metals out of a network of warehouses it owned in order to jack up rents and artificially boost prices.

"You might not have been surprised that Goldman got caught scamming the world again, but it was certainly news to a lot of people that an investment bank with no industrial expertise, *just five years removed from a federal bailout*, stores and controls enough of America's aluminum supply to affect world prices.

The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet | Politics News | Rolling Stone


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more I investigate stuff, the more you are proven to be so completely ignorant.
> 
> Goldman to resume talks on sale of metals warehouse unit: source | Reuters
> 
> Form the article....
> *Goldman Sachs (GS.N) plans to resume talks with parties interested in buying its metals warehousing business now that new exchange rules have been released, a source familiar with the matter said on Monday.
> 
> The talks with potential buyers, which are largely firms based outside the United States, are not part of a formal sales process, the source said.
> 
> Metro International Trading Services, which stores aluminum and other metals as part of the London Metal Exchange (LME) warehouse system, has been at the center of a controversy around Wall Street's ownership of physical commodity assets.
> 
> The paper said several of the potential buyers were Chinese firms, including Chinese insurer Ping An and China Minmetals. Brazilian bank Grupo BTG Pactual SA (BBTG11.SA) is also actively looking at warehouse assets, trade and industry sources say.
> 
> Goldman has said that Metro was bought under a "private equity exemption" that would allow the bank to own the business for up to 10 years as long as it operates at arm's length from its commodities traders.
> 
> The bank bought Metro in 2010 for around $500 million.*​
> It's stuff like this, that proves to me why America will decline into 3rd world status, when the citizens of this country are so uninformed, and mindlessly follow the unsupportable statements of bloggers.
> 
> Several things here......
> 
> First, you people, the morons you support in office, have already won this idiotic fight.   Goldman Sachs is selling off the company.
> 
> Second, notice who they are selling it to?
> Chinese insurer Ping An.   An insurance company.   That would be illegal under leftard stupidity, but China doesn't have that problem.
> China Minmetals.   A bank and trading company.   That would be illegal under leftard stupidity, but China has no problem.
> Grupo BTG Pactual SA.   A Brazilian bank.  Illegal under Leftard stupitidy, but Brazil has no problem with that.
> 
> It's posts like this, that I have to bite my tongue, because what I really want to do is scream, insult, and belittle you.    This right here, is why America is falling relative to the world, and you people don't even grasp that the cause of it is in your mirror.
> 
> Look at this.... An American Company, creating American jobs, paying American taxes, owning international assets, investments that bring to America international profits..... and here we are forcing them to sell off their assets to the exact same businesses in other countries, so that they are more wealthy, and we are less wealthy, so they get more international revenue, and we get less international revenue.
> 
> We have successfully made ourselves poorer, at the same time we helped other companies in other countries get richer, and the problem is *YOU* and those like you.
> 
> When you look around and wonder why our country is in the sad state it's in, *YOU* are the problem, and you are too ignorant to even know it.
> 
> You mindlessly spout off about how one bank, owning one commodity warehouse company, is going to move the market?
> 
> Did you read how much money Goldman Sachs paid for Metro?  $500 Million.     Did you read how much in commodities are traded on the London Exchange every year?   $14.5 Trillion.  That required me less than one minute to figure out, but you didn't.   What does that tell you about yourself?
> 
> And then your "network of wearhouses" crap?   Look it up.
> London Metal Exchange: Warehousing
> First link center of the page.
> "View a list of approved warehouses and storage facilities"
> 
> 27 pages of warehouses, each page listing 28 to 29 facilities, for a total of about 800 warehouses throughout the world.  There are a dozen warehousing companies.    Of those warehouses, only 60 of the 800, at most, are operated by Metro.     7% of all the warehouses, and you think that Goldman Sachs can corner the market with a mere 7% of the warehouses?
> 
> Really?   60 of 800 warehouses can corner the market?  Ugh.... so dumb.  So blindly stupid.
> 
> *THIS* is why America is falling.  This is why our economy is in the trash.  When people believe something so dumb, so stupid, so absolutely idiotic, and never fact check anything.... that's why our country is screwed up.   All of this required me less than 10 minutes worth of looking up the facts.   Yet you didn't know any of this.  What does that say about you, and those people you support? Huh?  What's your excuse?  I want to hear it!
> 
> 
> 
> "U.S. Subpoenas Goldman in Inquiry of Aluminum Warehouses
> By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
> Published: August 12, 2013
> 
> "Goldman Sachs has been subpoenaed by federal regulators investigating complaints that the financial giants metals warehouses have intentionally created delays and inflated the price of aluminum.
> 
> "The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued subpoenas to Goldman and owners of other major warehouses as part of its inquiry into irregularities in the aluminum market that are believed to have *cost consumers billions of dollars since 2010.*
> 
> "The subpoenas seek all documents, e-mails, correspondence, voice recordings and other records concerning the warehouse operations dating back to January 2010, according to two people familiar with the documents.
> 
> "The subpoenas also demand documents and correspondence regarding the London Metals Exchange, a private trade association that regulates warehousing. The subpoenas indicate that the federal inquiry has 30 'areas of interest.'
> 
> "Goldman bought Metropolitan International Trade Services, a string of Detroit-area
> metals warehouses, in 2010 and soon afterward beverage makers and manufacturers began complaining that the company was restricting the outflow of metal, causing lengthy delays in delivery.
> 
> "Those waits, which grew from six weeks in 2010 to around 16 months now, mean higher storage costs for metal owners, who are charged rent by the day."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/business/us-subpoenas-goldman-in-inquiry-of-aluminum-warehouses.html?_r=0
> 
> *The blind faith that ignorant fools place in rich parasites like GS to extort rents in pursuit of private profit by socializing costs on consumers world-wide, doesn't mode well for democratic rule in this country. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost the argument again.   Just like that.  You didn't address, nor contradict a single statement.  You didn't address any of the facts.
> 
> You have an allegation.   Is innocent until proven guilty only apply to Leftards, and not the people they accuse?
> 
> Further, even if everything is proven true, does that change anything I said?  Nope.
> 
> You lost dude.   The argument is obviously over, and you have nothing left to add, or you would have said it by now.
Click to expand...

*Nothing you've linked to so far contradicts any of the allegations of price fixing I've made against GS.

If GS ducks another conviction it will be due to the political corruption that Capitalism has  never existed without*

"An analyst at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) has raised its price target on Alcoa Inc. (NYSE: AA) from $12 to $15, a jump of about 36% from the stocks trading price of around $11 and change late Tuesday afternoon. The research note is cited a Barrons:

"Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) has reduced the weight of its F-150 pickup by 700 pounds using aluminum instead of steel for some body panels, and Goldmans analyst thinks other carmakers will follow suit. 

"That is good news for Alcoa, but its also good news for Goldman.

"Goldman owns a Detroit-based warehouse operator, Metro International, that has been the subject of complaints from aluminum users like The Coca-Cola Co. (NYSE: KO) which filed a complaint with the London Metal Exchange (LME) in 2011 alleging that Metro brought aluminum into its warehouses and then refused to let the stuff leave, which caused delays in delivery, higher storage charges, and, ultimately, higher prices for aluminum.

"Last July Goldman agreed to swap spot shipments for its warehoused aluminum after Coca-Cola and MillerCoors again complained of difficulty in getting aluminum shipped from the warehouse. 

"In late December Goldman announced an increase of $0.03 per metric ton effective in April, from $0.48 to $0.51, to store aluminum in its warehouse."

Goldman: Aluminum Looks Good; By the Way, We Own Warehouses Full of the Stuff - MarketWatch


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "successful?"
> $100,000 per year?
> $1,000,000 per year??
> Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.    If we didn't buy their oil, they'd be more poor and impoverished than they are now.
> 
> It's this level of stupidity, that results in wealthy upper class American leftists, ruining the lives of people in other countries.
> 
> Remember the Nike plant in Malaysia?   Everyone had a cow, and threw a fit.   Meanwhile, these Malaysians were happy to even have a job.
> 
> But the upper class liberal leftists that have never worked a day in their lives, had a fit.    Nike agreed, and raised the pay of the employees..... AND LAID A TON OF THEM OFF.
> 
> Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.
> 
> What part of this, do you people not get?  If you raise the cost of labor, people buy less labor.    You raise the wages of people in Malaysia, and now fewer of them have jobs.    Yes the few still employed get paid a bit more, but now hundreds are unemployed and starving, in a country very poor, and have few jobs.
> 
> BRILLIANT!  Who cares about those people.  Screw them.  We're leftist, and we're going to "stick it to the company" even if we ruin people's lives in the process!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Attacking capitalism is the agenda of every leftist.  It doesn't matter whether these attacks are justified or rational.  In fact, they are invariably neither.  Capitalism is what happens when people are left to make their own decisions, and the minions of the all powerful state can't allow that, especially when it benefits all parties involved.  They have to keep alive the idea that the state has to interfere in every transaction or the result would be chaos and disaster.
Click to expand...

*Capitalism is what happens when corruption is endemic to a political economic system.*

"What chiefly drives this sort of political corruption today is capitalism's structure. 

"For many capitalist enterprises, competitive and other pressures exist to increase profits, growth rates, and/or market share. 

"Their boards and top managers seek to find cheaper produced inputs and cheaper labor power, to extract more output from their workers, to sell their outputs at the highest possible prices and to find more profitable technologies. 

"The structure provides them with every incentive of financial gain and/or career security and advancement to behave in those ways. 

"Thus, boards and top managers seek the maximum obtainable assistance of government officials in all these areas and also try to pay the least possible portion of their net revenues as taxes. 

"Boards of directors tap their corporations' profits to corrupt mostly the top echelons of the government bureaucracy, those needed to make advantageous official decisions."

http://rdwolff.com/content/political-corruption-and-capitalism

*Capitalism could not exist in a system that made it impossible for private wealth to dictate public policy; democratized workplaces where workers collectively direct their collective destinies is where Capitalism dies.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.    If we didn't buy their oil, they'd be more poor and impoverished than they are now.
> 
> It's this level of stupidity, that results in wealthy upper class American leftists, ruining the lives of people in other countries.
> 
> Remember the Nike plant in Malaysia?   Everyone had a cow, and threw a fit.   Meanwhile, these Malaysians were happy to even have a job.
> 
> But the upper class liberal leftists that have never worked a day in their lives, had a fit.    Nike agreed, and raised the pay of the employees..... AND LAID A TON OF THEM OFF.
> 
> Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.
> 
> What part of this, do you people not get?  If you raise the cost of labor, people buy less labor.    You raise the wages of people in Malaysia, and now fewer of them have jobs.    Yes the few still employed get paid a bit more, but now hundreds are unemployed and starving, in a country very poor, and have few jobs.
> 
> BRILLIANT!  Who cares about those people.  Screw them.  We're leftist, and we're going to "stick it to the company" even if we ruin people's lives in the process!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking capitalism is the agenda of every leftist.  It doesn't matter whether these attacks are justified or rational.  In fact, they are invariably neither.  Capitalism is what happens when people are left to make their own decisions, and the minions of the all powerful state can't allow that, especially when it benefits all parties involved.  They have to keep alive the idea that the state has to interfere in every transaction or the result would be chaos and disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Capitalism is what happens when corruption is endemic to a political economic system.*
> 
> "What chiefly drives this sort of political corruption today is capitalism's structure.
> 
> "For many capitalist enterprises, competitive and other pressures exist to increase profits, growth rates, and/or market share.
> 
> "Their boards and top managers seek to find cheaper produced inputs and cheaper labor power, to extract more output from their workers, to sell their outputs at the highest possible prices and to find more profitable technologies.
> 
> "The structure provides them with every incentive of financial gain and/or career security and advancement to behave in those ways.
> 
> "Thus, boards and top managers seek the maximum obtainable assistance of government officials in all these areas and also try to pay the least possible portion of their net revenues as taxes.
> 
> "Boards of directors tap their corporations' profits to corrupt mostly the top echelons of the government bureaucracy, those needed to make advantageous official decisions."
> 
> Political Corruption and Capitalism | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> *Capitalism could not exist in a system that made it impossible for private wealth to dictate public policy; democratized workplaces where workers collectively direct their collective destinies is where Capitalism dies.*
Click to expand...


It's true, the bigger government becomes, the greater the chance for corruption.

Shrink government now!

The Tea Party is glad you agree.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words - don't be successful. Make sure you fail so you are rewarded.
> 
> And Dumbocrats wonder why they create failure, misery, and poverty with everything they touch....
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "successful?"
> $100,000 per year?
> $1,000,000 per year??
> Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Oh please.    If we didn't buy their oil, they'd be more poor and impoverished than they are now.*
> 
> It's this level of stupidity, that results in wealthy upper class American leftists, ruining the lives of people in other countries.
> 
> Remember the Nike plant in Malaysia?   Everyone had a cow, and threw a fit.   Meanwhile, these Malaysians were happy to even have a job.
> 
> But the upper class liberal leftists that have never worked a day in their lives, had a fit.    Nike agreed, and raised the pay of the employees..... AND LAID A TON OF THEM OFF.
> 
> Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.
> 
> What part of this, do you people not get?  If you raise the cost of labor, people buy less labor.    You raise the wages of people in Malaysia, and now fewer of them have jobs.    Yes the few still employed get paid a bit more, but now hundreds are unemployed and starving, in a country very poor, and have few jobs.
> 
> BRILLIANT!  Who cares about those people.  Screw them.  We're leftist, and we're going to "stick it to the company" even if we ruin people's lives in the process!
Click to expand...

*How's the oil production in Fallujah?*

"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

"Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. 

"They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

*How many people had their lives ruined in Iraq and Afghanistan from capitalism's inherent dependence on war and debt?*

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking capitalism is the agenda of every leftist.  It doesn't matter whether these attacks are justified or rational.  In fact, they are invariably neither.  Capitalism is what happens when people are left to make their own decisions, and the minions of the all powerful state can't allow that, especially when it benefits all parties involved.  They have to keep alive the idea that the state has to interfere in every transaction or the result would be chaos and disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism is what happens when corruption is endemic to a political economic system.*
> 
> "What chiefly drives this sort of political corruption today is capitalism's structure.
> 
> "For many capitalist enterprises, competitive and other pressures exist to increase profits, growth rates, and/or market share.
> 
> "Their boards and top managers seek to find cheaper produced inputs and cheaper labor power, to extract more output from their workers, to sell their outputs at the highest possible prices and to find more profitable technologies.
> 
> "The structure provides them with every incentive of financial gain and/or career security and advancement to behave in those ways.
> 
> "Thus, boards and top managers seek the maximum obtainable assistance of government officials in all these areas and also try to pay the least possible portion of their net revenues as taxes.
> 
> "Boards of directors tap their corporations' profits to corrupt mostly the top echelons of the government bureaucracy, those needed to make advantageous official decisions."
> 
> Political Corruption and Capitalism | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> *Capitalism could not exist in a system that made it impossible for private wealth to dictate public policy; democratized workplaces where workers collectively direct their collective destinies is where Capitalism dies.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's true, the bigger government becomes, the greater the chance for corruption.
> 
> Shrink government now!
> 
> The Tea Party is glad you agree.
Click to expand...


The TP LOVES off-shoring and business visas.
That's JUST what we need right now to boost employment.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

georgephillip said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> THOSE evil fucking "rich" people eat well while the less affluent have to scrape by.
> 
> That's the gist of the complaint.
> 
> But while the new lolberal talking point is making the rounds, I can't help but ask:
> 
> what exactly do these guys propose as the solution for this disparity?
> 
> Strip away all the excess verbiage (verbal camouflage, since they don't want to ever come right out and SAY it) and their agenda is revealed.  (This is why they don't care to address their 'solution" in clear terms.)
> 
> They want to -- they think they should be entitled to do it in fact -- and they WILL seek to confiscate from the evil rich bastards ever increasing amounts of their wealth.  It doesn't belong to them, you see.  They didn't earn that.  They didn't build that.  (Sound familiar?)
> 
> It isn't "really" the wealth of the rich greedy bastards.  No.  No no. It's stuff they somehow denied the other 99% from having.  So, whether it takes the form of outright confiscation or just the death of a million cuts (taxation without end), the 'solution" is some kind of TAKING.  It's a reclamation, you see.  It's not "taking from the rich."  It's taking BACK from the "rich" to redistribute to everybody ELSE.
> 
> But enough of this analysis.  Let's have the spokespersons for this new liberal talking point meme step up to the podium and cut the malarkey.
> 
> The rich have more.  The less affluent (the poor, the 99%) have less.  There is an income inequality.  There is a wealth disparity.  Now, what is the proposed "lib" solution to this identified "problem?"
> 
> We await your eloquence.
> 
> 
> 
> Corruption is the single most eloquent explanation for why your beloved "greedy rich bastards" eat better that the poor. Daily reports from around the planet confirm how government bureaucrats abuse their offices for personal gain. In the US, the greedy rich bastards bribed elected Republicans AND Democrats over the past four decades for favorable tax and trade policies that have increased a few private fortunes at the expense of millions of lost middle class jobs, pension plans, and homes. The solution was pioneered by FDR during WWII; in today's class war impose a 100% tax rates on all US incomes over 1,000,000 dollars. Any of the rich greedy pseudo job creators in the US who don't like it are free to polish their Mandarin and move where they will feel more at home.
> 
> We await your wimpish, whining, weaseling response.
Click to expand...


The wimpish and whining and weaseling response is the one you just offered.  You are badly confused or just a willful liar.  

And corruption is a bad thing.  It should, in fact, be addressed -- and it is.  Sporadically.  Not always effectively.  And like a weed, it crops up again when rooted out.  But your PREMISE is absolutely false.

There's no surprise.

The "rich" eat better and live in better homes and overall live in a more comfortable style largely because Capitalism rewards productivity.

I await more of your dishonesty and your general sophistry, georgieporgie.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> What....?     0.o   Are you serious?
> 
> Bain Capital, has built, and grown, and expanded dozens of companies of their years, and Romney was a principal investor.     Look at the companies... in the real economy.... that are alive and well, and employ thousands of people, and provide billions in wealth to the country that our citizens enjoy.
> 
> AMC Theatres
> Aspen Education Group
> Brookstone
> Burger King
> Burlington Coat Factory
> Canada Goose
> Clear Channel Communications
> Domino's Pizza
> DoubleClick
> Dunkin' Donuts
> D&M Holdings
> Guitar Center
> Hospital Corporation of America (HCA)
> Sealy
> Sports Authority
> Staples
> Toys "R" Us
> Warner Music Group
> The Weather Channel
> 
> And you want to claim his investments have not benefited the public?
> 
> Do you not know or understand how investment works?   Because you are not coming across as knowledgeable in this area.
> 
> 
> 
> *How would you know who is knowledgeable about investment and who isn't?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney has taken to saying that he created more than 100,000 net jobs through his work in the private sector, and more jobs as governor than President Obama has created since taking office.
> 
> "But the first claim is unproven, and the second is misleading.
> 
> "It&#8217;s true that the private equity firm Bain Capital, which Romney headed from 1984 to 1999, invested in many companies that went on to add jobs. But there&#8217;s no thorough count of the jobs gained and lost in all the companies in which Bain invested.
> 
> "And it&#8217;s highly debatable whether Bain, and Romney, deserve credit for all of the jobs created, particularly when there were other investors, executives who launched or ran the companies, and new owners in later years.
> 
> "As for his time as governor, Romney&#8217;s claim is true as far as it goes.
> 
> "But he&#8217;s comparing his full four years in office with fewer than three years for Obama.
> 
> "Furthermore, he governed Massachusetts at a time of economic improvement. And he didn&#8217;t do that well when compared with other states. Obama took office when the economy was tanking."
> 
> Romney?s Shaky Job Claims
> 
> *You're coming across as an adolescent ideologue who's confused by how capitalism works in an adult world.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that changes anything I said.
> 
> Did Bain Capital invest in those companies?  Yes.   Period.   You can't debate that.
> 
> Did those companies create jobs?   Yes.  Period.  You can't debate that either.
> 
> The only thing they debate is if Bain Capital, or the CEOs who created those individual companies should get the credit.    That's a false presupposition, that only one can get credit.    It's both.
> 
> Most companies start off with a single guy building the company, and then later have investor that help grow the company.
> 
> That's typically the primary reason companies go public and sell stock, to begin with.  Its to build capital so they can expand and grow.
> 
> To then think that companies don't need investor to expand, but get them anyway for no reason, is the words of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

*So how many jobs did Mitt create and how many did he destroy?
*
"It&#8217;s true that the private equity firm Bain Capital, which Romney headed from 1984 to 1999, invested in many companies that went on to add jobs. But there&#8217;s no thorough count of the jobs gained and lost in all the companies in which Bain invested. 

"And it&#8217;s highly debatable whether Bain, and Romney, deserve credit for all of the jobs created, particularly when there were other investors, executives who launched or ran the companies, and new owners in later years."

*You're the only one so far to make the claim "that companies don't need investors to expand." My point is that some investors value personal financial gain over the greatest economic good for the greatest number of workers*.

Romney?s Shaky Job Claims


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism is what happens when corruption is endemic to a political economic system.*
> 
> "What chiefly drives this sort of political corruption today is capitalism's structure.
> 
> "For many capitalist enterprises, competitive and other pressures exist to increase profits, growth rates, and/or market share.
> 
> "Their boards and top managers seek to find cheaper produced inputs and cheaper labor power, to extract more output from their workers, to sell their outputs at the highest possible prices and to find more profitable technologies.
> 
> "The structure provides them with every incentive of financial gain and/or career security and advancement to behave in those ways.
> 
> "Thus, boards and top managers seek the maximum obtainable assistance of government officials in all these areas and also try to pay the least possible portion of their net revenues as taxes.
> 
> "Boards of directors tap their corporations' profits to corrupt mostly the top echelons of the government bureaucracy, those needed to make advantageous official decisions."
> 
> Political Corruption and Capitalism | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> *Capitalism could not exist in a system that made it impossible for private wealth to dictate public policy; democratized workplaces where workers collectively direct their collective destinies is where Capitalism dies.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true, the bigger government becomes, the greater the chance for corruption.
> 
> Shrink government now!
> 
> The Tea Party is glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TP LOVES off-shoring and business visas.
> That's JUST what we need right now to boost employment.
Click to expand...


Stupid liberals love to make it harder to hire people and then whine that not enough are hired.
Now they want to reward criminal invaders with citizenship.
Because that will help low-skill Americans earn more.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.    If we didn't buy their oil, they'd be more poor and impoverished than they are now.
> 
> It's this level of stupidity, that results in wealthy upper class American leftists, ruining the lives of people in other countries.
> 
> Remember the Nike plant in Malaysia?   Everyone had a cow, and threw a fit.   Meanwhile, these Malaysians were happy to even have a job.
> 
> But the upper class liberal leftists that have never worked a day in their lives, had a fit.    Nike agreed, and raised the pay of the employees..... AND LAID A TON OF THEM OFF.
> 
> Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.
> 
> What part of this, do you people not get?  If you raise the cost of labor, people buy less labor.    You raise the wages of people in Malaysia, and now fewer of them have jobs.    Yes the few still employed get paid a bit more, but now hundreds are unemployed and starving, in a country very poor, and have few jobs.
> 
> BRILLIANT!  Who cares about those people.  Screw them.  We're leftist, and we're going to "stick it to the company" even if we ruin people's lives in the process!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking capitalism is the agenda of every leftist.  It doesn't matter whether these attacks are justified or rational.  In fact, they are invariably neither.  Capitalism is what happens when people are left to make their own decisions, and the minions of the all powerful state can't allow that, especially when it benefits all parties involved.  They have to keep alive the idea that the state has to interfere in every transaction or the result would be chaos and disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Capitalism is what happens when corruption is endemic to a political economic system.*
Click to expand...


Hmmmm, no.  corruption is endemic wherever government sticks its nose.  There's no corruption in transactions between one business and another.  Corruption only obtains in transactions between business and government or between private individuals and government. 



georgephillip said:


> ["What chiefly drives this sort of political corruption today is capitalism's structure.



Nope.  Government is the cause of all corruption.  Government is the monopoly on the use of force.  Whenever you introduce force into a transaction, corruption is inevitable.  Politicians and bureaucrats are not spending their own money.  They have no personal financial stake in the transactions that government makes.  There is therefor no disincentive for them to sell out the people who do have a financial stake in the transaction.



georgephillip said:


> "For many capitalist enterprises, competitive and other pressures exist to increase profits, growth rates, and/or market share.
> 
> "Their boards and top managers seek to find cheaper produced inputs and cheaper labor power, to extract more output from their workers, to sell their outputs at the highest possible prices and to find more profitable technologies.
> 
> "The structure provides them with every incentive of financial gain and/or career security and advancement to behave in those ways.
> 
> "Thus, boards and top managers seek the maximum obtainable assistance of government officials in all these areas and also try to pay the least possible portion of their net revenues as taxes.
> 
> "Boards of directors tap their corporations' profits to corrupt mostly the top echelons of the government bureaucracy, those needed to make advantageous official decisions."



You're ignoring the fact that without the participation of politicians and government officials no corruption could occur.   Somehow corporate executives are responsible for the failure of politicians and bureaucrats to fulfill their oaths of office and protect the taxpayers.



georgephillip said:


> Political Corruption and Capitalism | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> *Capitalism could not exist in a system that made it impossible for private wealth to dictate public policy; democratized workplaces where workers collectively direct their collective destinies is where Capitalism dies.*



Sure it could.  Capitalism can exist without government entirely.  Worker collectives are where workers die.  They starve to death.  Your belief that they can't be corrupt is laughable.  There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support such a claim.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt is funny when he gets sand in his vagina.
> 
> 
> 
> When a single company controls the supply of crucial physical commodities and trades in complex financial products related to those markets, does that plant happy pennies in your pussy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What single company controls the supply of oil?
Click to expand...

*Goldman Sachs and/or Morgan Stanley seem a likely pair of suspects*

"...For nearly a decade, this obscure provision of Gramm-Leach-Bliley effectively applied to nobody. 

"Then, in the third week of September 2008, while the economy was imploding after the collapses of Lehman and AIG, two of America's biggest investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, found themselves in desperate need of emergency financing. 

"So late on a Sunday night, on September 21st, to be exact, the two banks announced they had applied to the Federal Reserve to become bank holding companies, which would give them lifesaving access to emergency cash from the Fed's discount window.

"The Fed granted the requests overnight. 

"The move saved the bacon of both firms, and it had one additional benefit: It made Goldman and Morgan Stanley, which both had significant commodity-trading operations prior to 1997, *the first and last two companies to qualify for the grandfather exemption of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act*. 'Kind of convenient, isn't it?' says one congressional aide. 'It's almost like the law was written specifically for them.'"

"The irony was incredible. 

"After fucking up so badly that the government had to give them federal bank charters and bottomless wells of free cash to save their necks, the feds gave Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley hall passes to *become cross-species monopolistic powers with almost limitless reach into any sectors of the economy.*

The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet | Politics News | Rolling Stone


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the information prior to 1997, was that sub-prime loans were not good investment securities.    That's why no one sold a single MBS with sub-prime loans.
> 
> So obviously, after decades with zero Sub-prime MBSs, and then suddenly tons of sub-prime MBSs, indicates someone changed the information.    That was government, through Freddie Mac, which securitized sub-prime MBSs, making people believe they were safe.
> 
> Yes, bad information, caused by government, motivated by CRA laws, was the cause.
> 
> Look.... before Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans an implied AAA rating... they never rated sub-prime loans with a AAA rating.   You can keep saying that Freddie Mac is not a rating agency, but what happened is a fact.   It's not up for you to debate.   This is in fact what happened.   Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans in MBSs, an implied AAA rating which had never happened before in history.
> 
> That a fact dude.  You can't argue it, when that is in fact what happened.  "THEY ARE NOT A RATING AGENCY!"  Dur.... doesn't matter.  That's what happened!  "BUT BUT!"   Dude.... this is established historical fact.  It will never change no matter how many times you repeat your complaint.
> 
> Before Freddie Mac gave them an implied AAA rating, not one single sub-prime loan had ever gotten a AAA rating.
> 
> Period.   Stop arguing against established fact.  You lose.  You can't change the facts.
> 
> Again, once the standard was lowered..... they didn't have to mandate anything.   The standard was lowered.   Period.   Doesn't matter what they mandated or what they didn't.  There is no 'sub-sub-prime' loan.    Once you lower the standard to sub-prime, below the prime rate, it's lower than the prime rate.   That's it.   Game over.   It's now sub-prime.   Period.
> 
> *The MBS business requires the ratings agencies and the buyers of the MBS to have good information. They didn't. MBS are a clear cause of the bubble and the crash.*
> 
> No, sorry.   You fail at logic.   They lowered the standard.   The moment they lowered the standard so that you could have a sub-prime loan in a MBS, that's it.   That changed the standard.
> 
> You evidently don't know about Fannie and Freddies "alt-a" loans.   Those loans exist specifically for low-doc, or no-doc loans.  That's what Alt-A is.
> 
> And no.  You are wrong about the GSA.  It had nothing to do with risk.  And it didn't play a part in the bailouts.   You are just making up stuff now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are just making crap up to fit your world view. The government can't just change the way things are rated in a market and F&F certainly can't. F&F can't sell anything that doesn't have a market and the only reason there was a market was because everyone was using the same formula and everyone was wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(statistics)
> 
> The idea that mandating lower standards automatically meant all standards are lowered is complete and total gibberish. If certain risk is being mandated that puts extra pressure on the rest of the portfolio to be less risky, not more. You are completely and totally wrong.
> 
> Until financial institutions and ratings agencies bought into the copula formula there wasn't a market. You keep using the word "imply" like it means anything in this discussion. It doesn't.
> 
> Ratings agencies don't rate something AAA because a government agency "implied" something.
> 
> Financial institutions don't buy MBS because the government "implied" that it was all ok.
> 
> Yes GSA changed the marketplace. It is hardly important in this conversation though.
> 
> It is kind of strange to see anyone make the argument you are making. It is like you think the decision makers at these institutions are brain dead who can't think for themselves. It is like F&F makes some decisions and everyone else just follows along like Lemmings. You should tell your tall tail to them sometimes. It would be great fun to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, here is the official press release again.
> 
> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- First Union Capital Markets Corp.
> and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
> securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the
> industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union
> Corporation and subsidiaries.  Customers will experience no impact - they will
> continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA
> loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and
> neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
> "The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy
> capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit
> to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing
> director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs.
> "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally
> underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible
> affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to
> aggressively serve those markets."
> *The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
> and have an implied "AAA" rating*.​
> Now... what did I make up?  Let's start there, and then I'll answer the rest of your post.
Click to expand...


Do you simply not get wtf is being talked about here or what?

No one is arguing that the MBS were created without the intent that they were going to be given a AAA rating. F&F could have used any formula they wanted in an attempt to create a AAA rated MBS but that doesn't make it AAA. 

F&F didn't just wake up one day and decide that there was a market for MBS and they could "imply" they were AAA and therefor get a AAA rating. Bear Stearns didn't just blindly jump into this deal without knowing what went into the creation of the MBS. F&F can't do any of this without the market participants knowing what is going into the MBS.

The first round of MBS were not even the problem. The problem was the MBS formula not being able to adapt to the price bubble and no one buying, selling, or rating the MBS knew enough about the formula to stop it.

Also ZERO of this discussion about MBS even remotely establishes that the market can't handle the added risk of mandated sub-prime loans.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a single company controls the supply of crucial physical commodities and trades in complex financial products related to those markets, does that plant happy pennies in your pussy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What single company controls the supply of oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Goldman Sachs and/or Morgan Stanley seem a likely pair of suspects*
> 
> "...For nearly a decade, this obscure provision of Gramm-Leach-Bliley effectively applied to nobody.
> 
> "Then, in the third week of September 2008, while the economy was imploding after the collapses of Lehman and AIG, two of America's biggest investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, found themselves in desperate need of emergency financing.
> 
> "So late on a Sunday night, on September 21st, to be exact, the two banks announced they had applied to the Federal Reserve to become bank holding companies, which would give them lifesaving access to emergency cash from the Fed's discount window.
> 
> "The Fed granted the requests overnight.
> 
> "The move saved the bacon of both firms, and it had one additional benefit: It made Goldman and Morgan Stanley, which both had significant commodity-trading operations prior to 1997, *the first and last two companies to qualify for the grandfather exemption of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act*. 'Kind of convenient, isn't it?' says one congressional aide. 'It's almost like the law was written specifically for them.'"
> 
> "The irony was incredible.
> 
> "After fucking up so badly that the government had to give them federal bank charters and bottomless wells of free cash to save their necks, the feds gave Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley hall passes to *become cross-species monopolistic powers with almost limitless reach into any sectors of the economy.*
> 
> The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet | Politics News | Rolling Stone
Click to expand...


Wrong.  I doubt GS or MS have anything to do with the oil industry.  As I suspected, it was just another of your delusions.


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> Didn't G-S get a BAIL-OUT which allowed them to do this?



No Goldman Sachs didn't get a bailout.  Goldman Sachs was never in any trouble. 

It's not your fault for not knowing this, because of the way the "bailout" worked.

It actually was not a bailout.  The firms who got money, were never the firms that were bankrupt.    The Federal Reserve gave money, through TARP, to healthy banks, in order to get those banks to buy bankrupt banks.

Think of it like this....  say your buddy is selling a car for $5,000, that happens to have a broken engine.    You know that if you buy the car, it will cost you $5,000 to fix the engine.    The car in good condition is only worth $8,000.

You'll end up spending $10,000 ($5K to buy, and $5K to fix), in order to get a car that is only worth $8,000.   You would lose money doing this deal.  In fact no one would do this deal.  Your buddy would be stuck with the car.

But let's say that the government came in, and decided it was so incredibly important that the car is sold, that they came to you, and suggested, if they give you the $5,000 to buy the car, will you buy it?

So the government gives you $5K, and you pay $5K to have it fixed, and sell the car for $8,000, you made an easy $3,000 dollars profit on the deal.

This is kind of what happened with the banks.   The government didn't give money to Countrywide Financial.   Go look it up.   The government did not give money to them.   The government gave money to Bank of American, to buy Countrywide Financial.   BoA, was not in any trouble.  They didn't get bailed out, because they were in no trouble to get bailed out from.   Countrywide Financial, was the bank that was going bankrupt, and they didn't get any money.    There was no actual "bailout".

That's what happened.   Government paid other banks, banks that were completely fine, to buy out banks that were broke.    The government didn't actually "bail out" any bank.

The people who got "bailed out", were the investors into the bad banks.  The people who gave money to Bear Stearns, they got 100¢ on the dollar back from their bad investment, courtesy of the American Tax Payer.   Who are the bond holders?    For Bear Stearns, the Chinese financial firm Citic Securities, walked away with $1 Billion dollars from US tax payers.    Thanks government!   You sure saved us!

What should have happened, is what happened with Lehman Brothers.  The people who gave Lehman Brothers money, ended up with about 22¢ on the dollar.    And guess what.... the world kept spinning.  We're all still here.     If that had happened, I wager we'd be in better economic situation than we are now.

But the morons we elected into office, determined to give out tax money, and then stimulus, and cash for clunkers, and on and on....


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not try out socialism in a tight, well organized high profile part of American society? Let's get behind the effort to pay actors the same scale as the people behind the camera and the people who build the sets and if the income equality works in Hollywood we can try it in politics next. Wadda youse lefties say? Is it a deal?
> 
> 
> 
> How about we start on Wall Street and Hollywood?
Click to expand...


Wall St doesn't hypocritically claim to be in favor of socialism.   HollyWood does.   You people on the left, start practicing what you preach first.   Then if that works, maybe the rest of us will follow.  Otherwise.... just shut up.  Go preach at a Scientology church or something.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "U.S. Subpoenas Goldman in Inquiry of Aluminum Warehouses
> By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
> Published: August 12, 2013
> 
> "Goldman Sachs has been subpoenaed by federal regulators investigating complaints that the financial giants metals warehouses have intentionally created delays and inflated the price of aluminum.
> 
> "The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued subpoenas to Goldman and owners of other major warehouses as part of its inquiry into irregularities in the aluminum market that are believed to have *cost consumers billions of dollars since 2010.*
> 
> "The subpoenas seek all documents, e-mails, correspondence, voice recordings and other records concerning the warehouse operations dating back to January 2010, according to two people familiar with the documents.
> 
> "The subpoenas also demand documents and correspondence regarding the London Metals Exchange, a private trade association that regulates warehousing. The subpoenas indicate that the federal inquiry has 30 'areas of interest.'
> 
> "Goldman bought Metropolitan International Trade Services, a string of Detroit-area
> metals warehouses, in 2010 and soon afterward beverage makers and manufacturers began complaining that the company was restricting the outflow of metal, causing lengthy delays in delivery.
> 
> "Those waits, which grew from six weeks in 2010 to around 16 months now, mean higher storage costs for metal owners, who are charged rent by the day."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/business/us-subpoenas-goldman-in-inquiry-of-aluminum-warehouses.html?_r=0
> 
> *The blind faith that ignorant fools place in rich parasites like GS to extort rents in pursuit of private profit by socializing costs on consumers world-wide, doesn't mode well for democratic rule in this country. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the argument again.   Just like that.  You didn't address, nor contradict a single statement.  You didn't address any of the facts.
> 
> You have an allegation.   Is innocent until proven guilty only apply to Leftards, and not the people they accuse?
> 
> Further, even if everything is proven true, does that change anything I said?  Nope.
> 
> You lost dude.   The argument is obviously over, and you have nothing left to add, or you would have said it by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Nothing you've linked to so far contradicts any of the allegations of price fixing I've made against GS.
> 
> If GS ducks another conviction it will be due to the political corruption that Capitalism has  never existed without*
> 
> "An analyst at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) has raised its price target on Alcoa Inc. (NYSE: AA) from $12 to $15, a jump of about 36% from the stocks trading price of around $11 and change late Tuesday afternoon. The research note is cited a Barrons:
> 
> "Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) has reduced the weight of its F-150 pickup by 700 pounds using aluminum instead of steel for some body panels, and Goldmans analyst thinks other carmakers will follow suit.
> 
> "That is good news for Alcoa, but its also good news for Goldman.
> 
> "Goldman owns a Detroit-based warehouse operator, Metro International, that has been the subject of complaints from aluminum users like The Coca-Cola Co. (NYSE: KO) which filed a complaint with the London Metal Exchange (LME) in 2011 alleging that Metro brought aluminum into its warehouses and then refused to let the stuff leave, which caused delays in delivery, higher storage charges, and, ultimately, higher prices for aluminum.
> 
> "Last July Goldman agreed to swap spot shipments for its warehoused aluminum after Coca-Cola and MillerCoors again complained of difficulty in getting aluminum shipped from the warehouse.
> 
> "In late December Goldman announced an increase of $0.03 per metric ton effective in April, from $0.48 to $0.51, to store aluminum in its warehouse."
> 
> Goldman: Aluminum Looks Good; By the Way, We Own Warehouses Full of the Stuff - MarketWatch
Click to expand...


*Nothing you've linked to so far contradicts any of the allegations of price fixing I've made against GS.*

Who cares?   Do you not know the difference between established fact, and an allegation?

Now I'm supposed to debate with you over allegations you, nor me, can prove either way?

You lost the argument.   You failed.  Your post proves it.    If this is all you have, then you have nothing.    Thanks for stopping by.   Try having a point next time.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greed is the only thing that guarantees rising inequality.  Just greed.  If Fortune 500 corporations spent their record-breaking quarterly profits, wealth inequality would automatically decline.
> 
> Then Republicans could say, "Trickle-down economics really works."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't.     What are you talking about?
> 
> The source of wealth inequality, is the choices that people make to either consume, or invest their wealth.
> 
> No amount of "spending of corporate profits" is ever going to change that.
> 
> I don't know why this is so hard for people on the left to understand.
> 
> If you have two farmers.... and both farmers have an equal amount of corn.   One Farmer eats very very little, and plants the rest.   The other farmer cooks up all the corn and has a feast.
> 
> At harvest, one farmer is going to be wealthy, with a crop of corn.  The other farmer will be impoverished with nothing.
> 
> Wealth is either created, or it is consumed.   The difference between wealthy people, and poor people, (generally speaking), is that one consumes their wealth, and the other invests it and grows it.
> 
> This is why the vast majority of millionaire lottery winners end up bankrupt in 10 years.
> 
> Sharon Tirabassi, won $10 Million dollars in 2004.  Today she's broke.   All the wealth is gone.   She's working a part time job, has no car, rides the bus to work.
> 
> $10 Million dollars gone.
> 
> She consumed her wealth.
> 
> Alternatively take Steve Jobs.   Jobs got $5 Million dollars.   What did he do with it?   He bought Pixar, which in 2006 was worth $7.4 Billion, employs over 600 people, and produced dozens of box office hit movies like Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, and Bug's Life.
> 
> Are you grasping this?    All the handouts, all the spending, all the government programs in the world, will never fix this.
> 
> *As long as people are able to choose what to do with their money, there will always be the PinBall People, and the Beer Pong people.*
> 
> Where does that come from?
> 
> It comes from the story of Warren Buffet.
> 
> When Warren Buffet was in High School, he was working a paper route.   He saved up money from his route, and bought a PinBall machine.   He placed the Pinball machine in a local business, where it earned more money.
> 
> What do most people do in high school?   I can't speak for everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do with money, was you bought a keg of beer, went to someone's home whose parents were away, and you played Beer Pong, and drank your money away.
> 
> Pinball people, and Beer Pong people.
> 
> There will always be Pinball people, who invest their wealth into growing more wealth.   There will always be Beer Pong people, who consume their wealth, and are poor.
> 
> Nothing you do, no economic system you employ, no government policy you put in place, will ever change this.   Some people will consume all they have.  Others will invest all they have.    The people invest, will have concentrated wealth.   The people who consume, will have little to nothing.
Click to expand...


I have already told you why this analogy is brain dead stupid. 

Rising inequality has to do with markets. The fact that there is inequality at all has to do with individuals. The issue being talked about is RISING INEQUALITY. 

You literally don't know wtf is being talked about and this thread is on page 129 or something. Inequality is rising even as Americans are working more and improving their education more. 

If you understood the first thing about market economics you would know how ridiculous you sound.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "successful?"
> $100,000 per year?
> $1,000,000 per year??
> Has it ever occurred to you your success may we come by exploiting the resources of other countries (O-I-L) or labor of other human beings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh please.    If we didn't buy their oil, they'd be more poor and impoverished than they are now.*
> 
> It's this level of stupidity, that results in wealthy upper class American leftists, ruining the lives of people in other countries.
> 
> Remember the Nike plant in Malaysia?   Everyone had a cow, and threw a fit.   Meanwhile, these Malaysians were happy to even have a job.
> 
> But the upper class liberal leftists that have never worked a day in their lives, had a fit.    Nike agreed, and raised the pay of the employees..... AND LAID A TON OF THEM OFF.
> 
> Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.
> 
> What part of this, do you people not get?  If you raise the cost of labor, people buy less labor.    You raise the wages of people in Malaysia, and now fewer of them have jobs.    Yes the few still employed get paid a bit more, but now hundreds are unemployed and starving, in a country very poor, and have few jobs.
> 
> BRILLIANT!  Who cares about those people.  Screw them.  We're leftist, and we're going to "stick it to the company" even if we ruin people's lives in the process!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How's the oil production in Fallujah?*
> 
> "Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
> 
> "Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs.
> 
> "They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.
> 
> *How many people had their lives ruined in Iraq and Afghanistan from capitalism's inherent dependence on war and debt?*
> 
> Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' - Middle East - World - The Independent
Click to expand...


You lost yet again!  LOL.   That didn't address anything I said.  It makes no valid points at all.   Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.

You lose again sir.

Pro-Debating Hint:   Posting stuff that doesn't have anything at all to do with the topic, proves you lost the argument.  Because if you had a point, you would make it.  The fact you are just spewing random crap, proves you can't make a point.

Every single time you post random crap, that doesn't contradict, address, or make any kind of a counter point, I'm going to call you out on it, and let you know you lost the argument.  Because that's what you are proving, by making pointless unrelated posts.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How would you know who is knowledgeable about investment and who isn't?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney has taken to saying that he created more than 100,000 net jobs through his work in the private sector, and more jobs as governor than President Obama has created since taking office.
> 
> "But the first claim is unproven, and the second is misleading.
> 
> "Its true that the private equity firm Bain Capital, which Romney headed from 1984 to 1999, invested in many companies that went on to add jobs. But theres no thorough count of the jobs gained and lost in all the companies in which Bain invested.
> 
> "And its highly debatable whether Bain, and Romney, deserve credit for all of the jobs created, particularly when there were other investors, executives who launched or ran the companies, and new owners in later years.
> 
> "As for his time as governor, Romneys claim is true as far as it goes.
> 
> "But hes comparing his full four years in office with fewer than three years for Obama.
> 
> "Furthermore, he governed Massachusetts at a time of economic improvement. And he didnt do that well when compared with other states. Obama took office when the economy was tanking."
> 
> Romney?s Shaky Job Claims
> 
> *You're coming across as an adolescent ideologue who's confused by how capitalism works in an adult world.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that changes anything I said.
> 
> Did Bain Capital invest in those companies?  Yes.   Period.   You can't debate that.
> 
> Did those companies create jobs?   Yes.  Period.  You can't debate that either.
> 
> The only thing they debate is if Bain Capital, or the CEOs who created those individual companies should get the credit.    That's a false presupposition, that only one can get credit.    It's both.
> 
> Most companies start off with a single guy building the company, and then later have investor that help grow the company.
> 
> That's typically the primary reason companies go public and sell stock, to begin with.  Its to build capital so they can expand and grow.
> 
> To then think that companies don't need investor to expand, but get them anyway for no reason, is the words of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *So how many jobs did Mitt create and how many did he destroy?
> *
> "Its true that the private equity firm Bain Capital, which Romney headed from 1984 to 1999, invested in many companies that went on to add jobs. But theres no thorough count of the jobs gained and lost in all the companies in which Bain invested.
> 
> "And its highly debatable whether Bain, and Romney, deserve credit for all of the jobs created, particularly when there were other investors, executives who launched or ran the companies, and new owners in later years."
> 
> *You're the only one so far to make the claim "that companies don't need investors to expand." My point is that some investors value personal financial gain over the greatest economic good for the greatest number of workers*.
> 
> Romney?s Shaky Job Claims
Click to expand...


Mitt didn't destroy ANY jobs.    If a company is successful and profitable, investment makes it more successful, and more profitable.    If a company is unsuccessful, and unprofitable, all the investment in the world can't fix that.

When an investment buys a company, they NEVER buy it just to make a profitable successful company, into a failure.   You lose money doing that.  It's not possible (contrary to moronic economically illiterate leftards), to make a profit by destroying a company.

If you think you can do that, by all means let's see you try.   You'll find out pretty quick, what a moronic theory that is.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greed is the only thing that guarantees rising inequality.  Just greed.  If Fortune 500 corporations spent their record-breaking quarterly profits, wealth inequality would automatically decline.
> 
> Then Republicans could say, "Trickle-down economics really works."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't.     What are you talking about?
> 
> The source of wealth inequality, is the choices that people make to either consume, or invest their wealth.
> 
> No amount of "spending of corporate profits" is ever going to change that.
> 
> I don't know why this is so hard for people on the left to understand.
> 
> If you have two farmers.... and both farmers have an equal amount of corn.   One Farmer eats very very little, and plants the rest.   The other farmer cooks up all the corn and has a feast.
> 
> At harvest, one farmer is going to be wealthy, with a crop of corn.  The other farmer will be impoverished with nothing.
> 
> Wealth is either created, or it is consumed.   The difference between wealthy people, and poor people, (generally speaking), is that one consumes their wealth, and the other invests it and grows it.
> 
> This is why the vast majority of millionaire lottery winners end up bankrupt in 10 years.
> 
> Sharon Tirabassi, won $10 Million dollars in 2004.  Today she's broke.   All the wealth is gone.   She's working a part time job, has no car, rides the bus to work.
> 
> $10 Million dollars gone.
> 
> She consumed her wealth.
> 
> Alternatively take Steve Jobs.   Jobs got $5 Million dollars.   What did he do with it?   He bought Pixar, which in 2006 was worth $7.4 Billion, employs over 600 people, and produced dozens of box office hit movies like Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, and Bug's Life.
> 
> Are you grasping this?    All the handouts, all the spending, all the government programs in the world, will never fix this.
> 
> *As long as people are able to choose what to do with their money, there will always be the PinBall People, and the Beer Pong people.*
> 
> Where does that come from?
> 
> It comes from the story of Warren Buffet.
> 
> When Warren Buffet was in High School, he was working a paper route.   He saved up money from his route, and bought a PinBall machine.   He placed the Pinball machine in a local business, where it earned more money.
> 
> What do most people do in high school?   I can't speak for everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do with money, was you bought a keg of beer, went to someone's home whose parents were away, and you played Beer Pong, and drank your money away.
> 
> Pinball people, and Beer Pong people.
> 
> There will always be Pinball people, who invest their wealth into growing more wealth.   There will always be Beer Pong people, who consume their wealth, and are poor.
> 
> Nothing you do, no economic system you employ, no government policy you put in place, will ever change this.   Some people will consume all they have.  Others will invest all they have.    The people invest, will have concentrated wealth.   The people who consume, will have little to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already told you why this analogy is brain dead stupid.
> 
> Rising inequality has to do with markets. The fact that there is inequality at all has to do with individuals. The issue being talked about is RISING INEQUALITY.
> 
> You literally don't know wtf is being talked about and this thread is on page 129 or something. Inequality is rising even as Americans are working more and improving their education more.
> 
> If you understood the first thing about market economics you would know how ridiculous you sound.
Click to expand...


Libturds have been whining about "rising inequality" ever since Karl Marx published Dad Kapital.  Inequality only matters if it's the result of government favoritism.  That explains the current wave of it, if it exists.   Government and crony capitalism are the cause, not the free market.


----------



## gnarlylove

I keep reading the same old worn out templates. The government is full of corruption but the private sector is our golden ticket. So we need to bow down to the market and enjoy our participation in the private sector--most likely selling my body and time for survival. But when it comes to the government, or really just democrats, massive problems exist. Suffice to say, the claim is we need more freedom in the private sector and less government thereby reducing the restrictions and multiplying freedom.

Our concept of freedom is irresponsible at best.

Reducing restrictions is not a guarantee _desirable_ freedom, it only reduces responsibility companies must take for their actions, like dumping waste. Freedom from responsibility is a poor way to advocate for freedom. Refusing to accept responsibility tends to lead to greater problems down the road. Like eating a poor diet may feel like freedom at first but in the long run it's guaranteed to make you sick, less productive and likely obese. Accepting restrictions or taking responsibility can reflect a good character because it ultimately lend itself to greater freedoms--by eating healthy one can do more and feel better doing it.

I'm not saying the government functions like it should by any means and many laws or restrictions have been gutted so they don't really serve the public interest.

But is anyone aware that those in government are of the same ilk that operates over half the private sector/global economy? Why do we think the government is the only problem when government officials, after serving their purpose, are hired onto the board of directors of major corporations?  Doesn't this sound fishy to Republicans?


----------



## gnarlylove

We like to think the private sector is based solely on merit and hard work. Indeed, I've read this a thousand times here but upon any scrutiny, one can see success and affluence centers around inheritance and proper networking or knowing the right people. This is diametrically opposed to a genuine meritocratic system, which is based on one's ability, not who you know or where you were born. A local commercial for employment at a hospital was proud to announce their general staff consisted of mostly relatives and family members. So if you want to work there fuck being the best, just know the right people and the job is yours.

Sounds all too familiar. I only receive call backs for jobs where I know a current employee. This has happened too many times to be simple coincidence. It has nothing to do with merit since the positions I've applied for I have over 3 years of paid experience.

The private sector _ideals_ are based in merit; however, we know how things are on paper are not how they operate in the real world (as with the government). So wake up and smell the corruption in the air. Of course not all businesses are corrupt, this is not my point, what I am saying is that the government and major businesses walk hand in hand to maintain their wealth and power in spite of aim for a meritocracy. No politician would deny we strive to be the most meritocratic system on earth but this is pure rhetoric and all you funky monkeys have bought it hook, line and banana. I know I don't live in a genuine meritocratic system.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are just making crap up to fit your world view. The government can't just change the way things are rated in a market and F&F certainly can't. F&F can't sell anything that doesn't have a market and the only reason there was a market was because everyone was using the same formula and everyone was wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(statistics)
> 
> The idea that mandating lower standards automatically meant all standards are lowered is complete and total gibberish. If certain risk is being mandated that puts extra pressure on the rest of the portfolio to be less risky, not more. You are completely and totally wrong.
> 
> Until financial institutions and ratings agencies bought into the copula formula there wasn't a market. You keep using the word "imply" like it means anything in this discussion. It doesn't.
> 
> Ratings agencies don't rate something AAA because a government agency "implied" something.
> 
> Financial institutions don't buy MBS because the government "implied" that it was all ok.
> 
> Yes GSA changed the marketplace. It is hardly important in this conversation though.
> 
> It is kind of strange to see anyone make the argument you are making. It is like you think the decision makers at these institutions are brain dead who can't think for themselves. It is like F&F makes some decisions and everyone else just follows along like Lemmings. You should tell your tall tail to them sometimes. It would be great fun to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, here is the official press release again.
> 
> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- First Union Capital Markets Corp.
> and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
> securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the
> industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union
> Corporation and subsidiaries.  Customers will experience no impact - they will
> continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA
> loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and
> neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
> "The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy
> capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit
> to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing
> director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs.
> "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally
> underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible
> affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to
> aggressively serve those markets."
> *The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
> and have an implied "AAA" rating*.​
> Now... what did I make up?  Let's start there, and then I'll answer the rest of your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you simply not get wtf is being talked about here or what?
> 
> No one is arguing that the MBS were created without the intent that they were going to be given a AAA rating. F&F could have used any formula they wanted in an attempt to create a AAA rated MBS but that doesn't make it AAA.
> 
> F&F didn't just wake up one day and decide that there was a market for MBS and they could "imply" they were AAA and therefor get a AAA rating. Bear Stearns didn't just blindly jump into this deal without knowing what went into the creation of the MBS. F&F can't do any of this without the market participants knowing what is going into the MBS.
> 
> The first round of MBS were not even the problem. The problem was the MBS formula not being able to adapt to the price bubble and no one buying, selling, or rating the MBS knew enough about the formula to stop it.
> 
> Also ZERO of this discussion about MBS even remotely establishes that the market can't handle the added risk of mandated sub-prime loans.
Click to expand...


Yes, the first round of sub-prime MBSs were the problem.  Default rates on Sub-prime MBS, dating all the way back to 1997, were double that of Prime-Rate loans.

Second, Yes, as a matter of fact, F&F did exactly that.  They decided they could bundle sub-prime loans into MBSs and with the backing of the federal government, give those MBS a AAA rating.   That's exactly what they did.   They brought those Mortgage Backed Securities to the rating agencies, and asked they be given a AAA rating, because Freddie Mac with the backing of the Federal Government, was guaranteeing them, regardless of the Sub-prime loans bundled into them.

The rating Agencies followed suit.   Should they have?  Maybe not.   But they did.   Because Freddie Mac has the backing of the Federal Government, and only moronic retard would conclude that the agencies should defy the Federal Government.... especially when the Clinton administration was suing banks to make those types of loans.

Not smart to rebuff the President of the US.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Libturds have been whining about "rising inequality" ever since Karl Marx published Dad Kapital.  Inequality on matters if it's the result of government favoritism.  That explains the current wave of it, if it exists.   Government and crony capitalism are the cause, not the free market.



Theoretically possible but your position is 100% speculation and does not compare well with other data dealing with changes in the US labor market. 

Whether you like it or not Marx predicted our current problems and understood the nature of the labor market, even if his solution was naive and ignorant. Marx's biggest fear was that Democracy would be taken over by money. So you have more in common with him than you might think.


----------



## dblack

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a weird definition of freedom, don't you think? From where I sit, democracy isn't the same thing as freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "people being treated the way they choose" is an odd way to construe freedom? Freedom is not synonymous with democracy but if practiced in a way that enables the people to decide their own fate, that sounds like increasing freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think majority rule allows people to decide their own fate? Do you understand that, for up to 49% of them, it actually denies their ability to decide their own fate?
Click to expand...


I'd like to come back to this, because I've seen this meme pop up with increasing frequency lately. There seems to be an effort to redefine 'freedom' as the power for majority to dictate policy. That seems much closer to the opposite of freedom. Is this really how you see it? Or is it just a rhetorical device?


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greed is the only thing that guarantees rising inequality.  Just greed.  If Fortune 500 corporations spent their record-breaking quarterly profits, wealth inequality would automatically decline.
> 
> Then Republicans could say, "Trickle-down economics really works."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't.     What are you talking about?
> 
> The source of wealth inequality, is the choices that people make to either consume, or invest their wealth.
> 
> No amount of "spending of corporate profits" is ever going to change that.
> 
> I don't know why this is so hard for people on the left to understand.
> 
> If you have two farmers.... and both farmers have an equal amount of corn.   One Farmer eats very very little, and plants the rest.   The other farmer cooks up all the corn and has a feast.
> 
> At harvest, one farmer is going to be wealthy, with a crop of corn.  The other farmer will be impoverished with nothing.
> 
> Wealth is either created, or it is consumed.   The difference between wealthy people, and poor people, (generally speaking), is that one consumes their wealth, and the other invests it and grows it.
> 
> This is why the vast majority of millionaire lottery winners end up bankrupt in 10 years.
> 
> Sharon Tirabassi, won $10 Million dollars in 2004.  Today she's broke.   All the wealth is gone.   She's working a part time job, has no car, rides the bus to work.
> 
> $10 Million dollars gone.
> 
> She consumed her wealth.
> 
> Alternatively take Steve Jobs.   Jobs got $5 Million dollars.   What did he do with it?   He bought Pixar, which in 2006 was worth $7.4 Billion, employs over 600 people, and produced dozens of box office hit movies like Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, and Bug's Life.
> 
> Are you grasping this?    All the handouts, all the spending, all the government programs in the world, will never fix this.
> 
> *As long as people are able to choose what to do with their money, there will always be the PinBall People, and the Beer Pong people.*
> 
> Where does that come from?
> 
> It comes from the story of Warren Buffet.
> 
> When Warren Buffet was in High School, he was working a paper route.   He saved up money from his route, and bought a PinBall machine.   He placed the Pinball machine in a local business, where it earned more money.
> 
> What do most people do in high school?   I can't speak for everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do with money, was you bought a keg of beer, went to someone's home whose parents were away, and you played Beer Pong, and drank your money away.
> 
> Pinball people, and Beer Pong people.
> 
> There will always be Pinball people, who invest their wealth into growing more wealth.   There will always be Beer Pong people, who consume their wealth, and are poor.
> 
> Nothing you do, no economic system you employ, no government policy you put in place, will ever change this.   Some people will consume all they have.  Others will invest all they have.    The people invest, will have concentrated wealth.   The people who consume, will have little to nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already told you why this analogy is brain dead stupid.
> 
> Rising inequality has to do with markets. The fact that there is inequality at all has to do with individuals. The issue being talked about is RISING INEQUALITY.
> 
> You literally don't know wtf is being talked about and this thread is on page 129 or something. Inequality is rising even as Americans are working more and improving their education more.
> 
> If you understood the first thing about market economics you would know how ridiculous you sound.
Click to expand...


You literally don't know what you are talking about.   That post was so simple, Forest Gump could have figured out my meaning, but you apparently can not.

Oh well.   Some people are leftists, and ignorance is required to maintain that belief system.  Good luck to you.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, here is the official press release again.
> 
> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- First Union Capital Markets Corp.
> and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
> securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the
> industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union
> Corporation and subsidiaries.  Customers will experience no impact - they will
> continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA
> loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and
> neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
> "The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy
> capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit
> to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing
> director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs.
> "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally
> underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible
> affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to
> aggressively serve those markets."
> *The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
> and have an implied "AAA" rating*.​
> Now... what did I make up?  Let's start there, and then I'll answer the rest of your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you simply not get wtf is being talked about here or what?
> 
> No one is arguing that the MBS were created without the intent that they were going to be given a AAA rating. F&F could have used any formula they wanted in an attempt to create a AAA rated MBS but that doesn't make it AAA.
> 
> F&F didn't just wake up one day and decide that there was a market for MBS and they could "imply" they were AAA and therefor get a AAA rating. Bear Stearns didn't just blindly jump into this deal without knowing what went into the creation of the MBS. F&F can't do any of this without the market participants knowing what is going into the MBS.
> 
> The first round of MBS were not even the problem. The problem was the MBS formula not being able to adapt to the price bubble and no one buying, selling, or rating the MBS knew enough about the formula to stop it.
> 
> Also ZERO of this discussion about MBS even remotely establishes that the market can't handle the added risk of mandated sub-prime loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the first round of sub-prime MBSs were the problem.  Default rates on Sub-prime MBS, dating all the way back to 1997, were double that of Prime-Rate loans.
> 
> Second, Yes, as a matter of fact, F&F did exactly that.  They decided they could bundle sub-prime loans into MBSs and with the backing of the federal government, give those MBS a AAA rating.   That's exactly what they did.   They brought those Mortgage Backed Securities to the rating agencies, and asked they be given a AAA rating, because Freddie Mac with the backing of the Federal Government, was guaranteeing them, regardless of the Sub-prime loans bundled into them.
> 
> The rating Agencies followed suit.   Should they have?  Maybe not.   But they did.   Because Freddie Mac has the backing of the Federal Government, and only moronic retard would conclude that the agencies should defy the Federal Government.... especially when the Clinton administration was suing banks to make those types of loans.
> 
> Not smart to rebuff the President of the US.
Click to expand...


LOL it wasn't the default rates that were the problem. 

No that is not how reality works. You are just making up crap again.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you simply not get wtf is being talked about here or what?
> 
> No one is arguing that the MBS were created without the intent that they were going to be given a AAA rating. F&F could have used any formula they wanted in an attempt to create a AAA rated MBS but that doesn't make it AAA.
> 
> F&F didn't just wake up one day and decide that there was a market for MBS and they could "imply" they were AAA and therefor get a AAA rating. Bear Stearns didn't just blindly jump into this deal without knowing what went into the creation of the MBS. F&F can't do any of this without the market participants knowing what is going into the MBS.
> 
> The first round of MBS were not even the problem. The problem was the MBS formula not being able to adapt to the price bubble and no one buying, selling, or rating the MBS knew enough about the formula to stop it.
> 
> Also ZERO of this discussion about MBS even remotely establishes that the market can't handle the added risk of mandated sub-prime loans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the first round of sub-prime MBSs were the problem.  Default rates on Sub-prime MBS, dating all the way back to 1997, were double that of Prime-Rate loans.
> 
> Second, Yes, as a matter of fact, F&F did exactly that.  They decided they could bundle sub-prime loans into MBSs and with the backing of the federal government, give those MBS a AAA rating.   That's exactly what they did.   They brought those Mortgage Backed Securities to the rating agencies, and asked they be given a AAA rating, because Freddie Mac with the backing of the Federal Government, was guaranteeing them, regardless of the Sub-prime loans bundled into them.
> 
> The rating Agencies followed suit.   Should they have?  Maybe not.   But they did.   Because Freddie Mac has the backing of the Federal Government, and only moronic retard would conclude that the agencies should defy the Federal Government.... especially when the Clinton administration was suing banks to make those types of loans.
> 
> Not smart to rebuff the President of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL it wasn't the default rates that were the problem.
> 
> No that is not how reality works. You are just making up crap again.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you are proving post after post, you really don't know anything about this topic.   Thanks for stopping by, but I'm looking to talk to more informed people.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't.     What are you talking about?
> 
> The source of wealth inequality, is the choices that people make to either consume, or invest their wealth.
> 
> No amount of "spending of corporate profits" is ever going to change that.
> 
> I don't know why this is so hard for people on the left to understand.
> 
> If you have two farmers.... and both farmers have an equal amount of corn.   One Farmer eats very very little, and plants the rest.   The other farmer cooks up all the corn and has a feast.
> 
> At harvest, one farmer is going to be wealthy, with a crop of corn.  The other farmer will be impoverished with nothing.
> 
> Wealth is either created, or it is consumed.   The difference between wealthy people, and poor people, (generally speaking), is that one consumes their wealth, and the other invests it and grows it.
> 
> This is why the vast majority of millionaire lottery winners end up bankrupt in 10 years.
> 
> Sharon Tirabassi, won $10 Million dollars in 2004.  Today she's broke.   All the wealth is gone.   She's working a part time job, has no car, rides the bus to work.
> 
> $10 Million dollars gone.
> 
> She consumed her wealth.
> 
> Alternatively take Steve Jobs.   Jobs got $5 Million dollars.   What did he do with it?   He bought Pixar, which in 2006 was worth $7.4 Billion, employs over 600 people, and produced dozens of box office hit movies like Toy Story, Cars, Finding Nemo, and Bug's Life.
> 
> Are you grasping this?    All the handouts, all the spending, all the government programs in the world, will never fix this.
> 
> *As long as people are able to choose what to do with their money, there will always be the PinBall People, and the Beer Pong people.*
> 
> Where does that come from?
> 
> It comes from the story of Warren Buffet.
> 
> When Warren Buffet was in High School, he was working a paper route.   He saved up money from his route, and bought a PinBall machine.   He placed the Pinball machine in a local business, where it earned more money.
> 
> What do most people do in high school?   I can't speak for everyone, but when I was in high school, the popular thing to do with money, was you bought a keg of beer, went to someone's home whose parents were away, and you played Beer Pong, and drank your money away.
> 
> Pinball people, and Beer Pong people.
> 
> There will always be Pinball people, who invest their wealth into growing more wealth.   There will always be Beer Pong people, who consume their wealth, and are poor.
> 
> Nothing you do, no economic system you employ, no government policy you put in place, will ever change this.   Some people will consume all they have.  Others will invest all they have.    The people invest, will have concentrated wealth.   The people who consume, will have little to nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already told you why this analogy is brain dead stupid.
> 
> Rising inequality has to do with markets. The fact that there is inequality at all has to do with individuals. The issue being talked about is RISING INEQUALITY.
> 
> You literally don't know wtf is being talked about and this thread is on page 129 or something. Inequality is rising even as Americans are working more and improving their education more.
> 
> If you understood the first thing about market economics you would know how ridiculous you sound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You literally don't know what you are talking about.   That post was so simple, Forest Gump could have figured out my meaning, but you apparently can not.
> 
> Oh well.   Some people are leftists, and ignorance is required to maintain that belief system.  Good luck to you.
Click to expand...


Your post was simplistic and irrelevant to the conversation of RISING INEQUALITY. You already seem to get that it was simplistic so we are half the way there to agreeing.

Page 130 and you still don't know that we are talking about rising inequality.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the first round of sub-prime MBSs were the problem.  Default rates on Sub-prime MBS, dating all the way back to 1997, were double that of Prime-Rate loans.
> 
> Second, Yes, as a matter of fact, F&F did exactly that.  They decided they could bundle sub-prime loans into MBSs and with the backing of the federal government, give those MBS a AAA rating.   That's exactly what they did.   They brought those Mortgage Backed Securities to the rating agencies, and asked they be given a AAA rating, because Freddie Mac with the backing of the Federal Government, was guaranteeing them, regardless of the Sub-prime loans bundled into them.
> 
> The rating Agencies followed suit.   Should they have?  Maybe not.   But they did.   Because Freddie Mac has the backing of the Federal Government, and only moronic retard would conclude that the agencies should defy the Federal Government.... especially when the Clinton administration was suing banks to make those types of loans.
> 
> Not smart to rebuff the President of the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL it wasn't the default rates that were the problem.
> 
> No that is not how reality works. You are just making up crap again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you are proving post after post, you really don't know anything about this topic.   Thanks for stopping by, but I'm looking to talk to more informed people.
Click to expand...


Yeah the guy that thinks the government controls Bears Stearns and the ratings agencies is the guy that knows what he is talking about.

The default rates were not the problem. The problem was the price bubble. Even with defaults the banks can manage the rate of default. That is what the MBS were created to do. They failed to adjust based on the change is price. 

Seriously read up some more about how the MBS were created so I don't have to constantly point out why you are wrong. You clearly don't listen to what I say so use some google.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Your post was simplistic and irrelevant to the conversation of RISING INEQUALITY. You already seem to get that it was simplistic so we are half the way there to agreeing.
> 
> Page 130 and you still don't know that we are talking about rising inequality.



Yes, but still don't know what you are talking about.  You could not grasp my posts, which in fact were very simplistic, and yet still not simple enough for you to come up with even a valid response.

Sorry, nothing personal, but you just simply don't know enough about this discussion, to make a logical intelligent answer.   It's been fun, but I'm looking for more informed people to talk to.  Thanks for stopping by.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libturds have been whining about "rising inequality" ever since Karl Marx published Dad Kapital.  Inequality on matters if it's the result of government favoritism.  That explains the current wave of it, if it exists.   Government and crony capitalism are the cause, not the free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theoretically possible but your position is 100% speculation and does not compare well with other data dealing with changes in the US labor market.
> 
> Whether you like it or not Marx predicted our current problems and understood the nature of the labor market, even if his solution was naive and ignorant. Marx's biggest fear was that Democracy would be taken over by money. So you have more in common with him than you might think.
Click to expand...


Marx predicted that capitalism would blow up 100 years ago, which is clearly wrong.  He also didn't understand diddly-squat about the U.S. labor market.  According to him, we should all be earning less than we did when he wrote Das Kapital.  The reality is that we are all earning fabulously more.  Economists have demonstrated the idiocy of the labor theory of value time and time again.  In short, you have to be a brain dead loser to believe Karl Marx said anything useful.

Your position is 100% horse manure.  It's all based on Marxist propaganda which we know to be dead wrong.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL it wasn't the default rates that were the problem.
> 
> No that is not how reality works. You are just making up crap again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you are proving post after post, you really don't know anything about this topic.   Thanks for stopping by, but I'm looking to talk to more informed people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah the guy that thinks the government controls Bears Stearns and the ratings agencies is the guy that knows what he is talking about.
> 
> The default rates were not the problem. The problem was the price bubble. Even with defaults the banks can manage the rate of default. That is what the MBS were created to do. They failed to adjust based on the change is price.
> 
> Seriously read up some more about how the MBS were created so I don't have to constantly point out why you are wrong. You clearly don't listen to what I say so use some google.
Click to expand...


See, once again, you couldn't even grasp my post.   You simply don't know enough about this topic, to answer anything I've written.   The fact you are now making up things I didn't say, while at the same time denying that defaults on mortgage caused the "mortgage crisis".... (seriously?), proves you just don't know enough about this to talk.   You should find another topic to discuss.  Hopefully one you know.... something.... anything... about.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> "people being treated the way they choose" is an odd way to construe freedom? Freedom is not synonymous with democracy but if practiced in a way that enables the people to decide their own fate, that sounds like increasing freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think majority rule allows people to decide their own fate? Do you understand that, for up to 49% of them, it actually denies their ability to decide their own fate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like to come back to this...
Click to expand...


By the people coming together in classic town hall meeting, our problems could be resolved by ourselves. It's called compromise. Compromise isn't always possible but the IDEAL is that we can reach agreements on how to solve basic problems. Then the "government" or our representative simply enacts legislation based on our ability to agree on what solves a problem. I agree that majority rule based on 51% can cause serious problems--it's a recognition of the fallacy of popular opinion. You are making a fundamental point about logic.

Would this work in America today? FUCK NO. Our system depends on division and strife. People stick to their principles whether they have any relevance to solving a problem or not. I think once we overcome this and realize we are all humans with basic needs, that we must work together then we can genuinely solve our problems. The use of Democracy can lead to the resolution of many problems when humans seek solutions, not our ideologies.

In effect I'm saying the majority rule should only be reached when everyone agrees (of course there will be outliers and mental illness) but by being forced to unanimously agree we would hope that this requires serious thought instead of the current system of paying money to get "solutions" across. The problem is we don't live in a society that likes to work together in recognition of solidarity to solve our problems. We stick to ideals and slogans that prevent non-partisan ideas from flourishing. So no democracy can flourish when one side is always right, the other is always wrong, and the majority of Americans don't agree with either side!


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not try out socialism in a tight, well organized high profile part of American society? Let's get behind the effort to pay actors the same scale as the people behind the camera and the people who build the sets and if the income equality works in Hollywood we can try it in politics next. Wadda youse lefties say? Is it a deal?
> 
> 
> 
> How about we start on Wall Street and Hollywood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wall St doesn't hypocritically claim to be in favor of socialism.   HollyWood does.   You people on the left, start practicing what you preach first.   Then if that works, maybe the rest of us will follow.  Otherwise.... just shut up.  Go preach at a Scientology church or something.
Click to expand...

*Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:*

"Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.

"Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."

"Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.

"Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.

"Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse. 

"*Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.*

"Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."

"Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."

Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com

*Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
You people on the right should learn to think logically.
In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.*


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we start on Wall Street and Hollywood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall St doesn't hypocritically claim to be in favor of socialism.   HollyWood does.   You people on the left, start practicing what you preach first.   Then if that works, maybe the rest of us will follow.  Otherwise.... just shut up.  Go preach at a Scientology church or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:*
> 
> "Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."
> 
> "Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.
> 
> "Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.
> 
> "*Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.*
> 
> "Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."
> 
> "Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."
> 
> Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
> You people on the right should learn to think logically.
> In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.*
Click to expand...


So what?   I didn't say Wall St hypocritically supported Socialism either.

Wall St is a just a bunch of people trying to earn money, just like you, just like me, just like Hollywood, just like everyone.

Hollywood, and the rest of the leftard hypocrites, are the people who claim to support socialism and equality.   You hypocrites go first.

Start with this.... how much do you make?   If you make just $30,000 a year, you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

You go first.  Go for equality.  Give out your money, and cut your income to $10,000 a year.  That's what the world average income is.   You start first, and show us what a real Socialist is.  Show us what true income equality is.

But you won't, and neither will your Hollywood hypocrites.  You have no credibility to accuse Wall St of anything.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh please.    If we didn't buy their oil, they'd be more poor and impoverished than they are now.*
> 
> It's this level of stupidity, that results in wealthy upper class American leftists, ruining the lives of people in other countries.
> 
> Remember the Nike plant in Malaysia?   Everyone had a cow, and threw a fit.   Meanwhile, these Malaysians were happy to even have a job.
> 
> But the upper class liberal leftists that have never worked a day in their lives, had a fit.    Nike agreed, and raised the pay of the employees..... AND LAID A TON OF THEM OFF.
> 
> Hundreds of Malaysians who had no opportunity for a job, were laid off, and left fend for themselves.
> 
> What part of this, do you people not get?  If you raise the cost of labor, people buy less labor.    You raise the wages of people in Malaysia, and now fewer of them have jobs.    Yes the few still employed get paid a bit more, but now hundreds are unemployed and starving, in a country very poor, and have few jobs.
> 
> BRILLIANT!  Who cares about those people.  Screw them.  We're leftist, and we're going to "stick it to the company" even if we ruin people's lives in the process!
> 
> 
> 
> *How's the oil production in Fallujah?*
> 
> "Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
> 
> "Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs.
> 
> "They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.
> 
> *How many people had their lives ruined in Iraq and Afghanistan from capitalism's inherent dependence on war and debt?*
> 
> Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' - Middle East - World - The Independent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost yet again!  LOL.   That didn't address anything I said.  It makes no valid points at all.   Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.
> 
> You lose again sir.
> 
> Pro-Debating Hint:   Posting stuff that doesn't have anything at all to do with the topic, proves you lost the argument.  Because if you had a point, you would make it.  The fact you are just spewing random crap, proves you can't make a point.
> 
> Every single time you post random crap, that doesn't contradict, address, or make any kind of a counter point, I'm going to call you out on it, and let you know you lost the argument.  Because that's what you are proving, by making pointless unrelated posts.
Click to expand...

*You said this:
"Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
Remember?
I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L*

"What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation  O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..." 

*Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?*


----------



## TemplarKormac

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How's the oil production in Fallujah?*
> 
> "Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
> 
> "Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs.
> 
> "They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.
> 
> *How many people had their lives ruined in Iraq and Afghanistan from capitalism's inherent dependence on war and debt?*
> 
> Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' - Middle East - World - The Independent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost yet again!  LOL.   That didn't address anything I said.  It makes no valid points at all.   Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.
> 
> You lose again sir.
> 
> Pro-Debating Hint:   Posting stuff that doesn't have anything at all to do with the topic, proves you lost the argument.  Because if you had a point, you would make it.  The fact you are just spewing random crap, proves you can't make a point.
> 
> Every single time you post random crap, that doesn't contradict, address, or make any kind of a counter point, I'm going to call you out on it, and let you know you lost the argument.  Because that's what you are proving, by making pointless unrelated posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You said this:
> "Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
> Remember?
> I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L*
> 
> "What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation &#8211; O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."
> 
> *Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?*
Click to expand...


Hey george, how does the Iraq War have anything to do with the subprime mortgage crisis? Sigh. Androw destroyed your premise, now you're throwing random points at him/her. Your arguments and rebuttals are textbook examples of ignoratio elenchi.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall St doesn't hypocritically claim to be in favor of socialism.   HollyWood does.   You people on the left, start practicing what you preach first.   Then if that works, maybe the rest of us will follow.  Otherwise.... just shut up.  Go preach at a Scientology church or something.
> 
> 
> 
> *Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:*
> 
> "Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."
> 
> "Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.
> 
> "Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.
> 
> "*Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.*
> 
> "Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."
> 
> "Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."
> 
> Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
> You people on the right should learn to think logically.
> In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?   I didn't say Wall St hypocritically supported Socialism either.
> 
> Wall St is a just a bunch of people trying to earn money, just like you, just like me, just like Hollywood, just like everyone.
> 
> Hollywood, and the rest of the leftard hypocrites, are the people who claim to support socialism and equality.   You hypocrites go first.
> 
> Start with this.... how much do you make?   If you make just $30,000 a year, you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.
> 
> You go first.  Go for equality.  Give out your money, and cut your income to $10,000 a year.  That's what the world average income is.   You start first, and show us what a real Socialist is.  Show us what true income equality is.
> 
> But you won't, and neither will your Hollywood hypocrites.  You have no credibility to accuse Wall St of anything.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance.
You want to make this personal?
I've never made twenty thousand dollars in a single year of my 45 years in the private work force.
I currently earn $897.40 a month or $10,768.80 per year.
Your turn, Stud.
Your credibility is on the line.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you are proving post after post, you really don't know anything about this topic.   Thanks for stopping by, but I'm looking to talk to more informed people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the guy that thinks the government controls Bears Stearns and the ratings agencies is the guy that knows what he is talking about.
> 
> The default rates were not the problem. The problem was the price bubble. Even with defaults the banks can manage the rate of default. That is what the MBS were created to do. They failed to adjust based on the change is price.
> 
> Seriously read up some more about how the MBS were created so I don't have to constantly point out why you are wrong. You clearly don't listen to what I say so use some google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, once again, you couldn't even grasp my post.   You simply don't know enough about this topic, to answer anything I've written.   The fact you are now making up things I didn't say, while at the same time denying that defaults on mortgage caused the "mortgage crisis".... (seriously?), proves you just don't know enough about this to talk.   You should find another topic to discuss.  Hopefully one you know.... something.... anything... about.
Click to expand...


Ohh I am sorry did I not use the word "imply" enough when describing your "understanding" of the crisis.

You don't know how MBS are created, rated, or priced. You think F&F can make decisions that they don't. You think the problem with a historic price bubble was not these high prices but default rates. 

The only thing you have shown me is that you don't understand what you read. Even the article you posted doesn't actually say what you thought it said.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post was simplistic and irrelevant to the conversation of RISING INEQUALITY. You already seem to get that it was simplistic so we are half the way there to agreeing.
> 
> Page 130 and you still don't know that we are talking about rising inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but still don't know what you are talking about.  You could not grasp my posts, which in fact were very simplistic, and yet still not simple enough for you to come up with even a valid response.
> 
> Sorry, nothing personal, but you just simply don't know enough about this discussion, to make a logical intelligent answer.   It's been fun, but I'm looking for more informed people to talk to.  Thanks for stopping by.
Click to expand...


Then logically explain why you are talking about income inequality between individuals in a thread about rising income inequality at the national level.


----------



## georgephillip

TemplarKormac said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost yet again!  LOL.   That didn't address anything I said.  It makes no valid points at all.   Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.
> 
> You lose again sir.
> 
> Pro-Debating Hint:   Posting stuff that doesn't have anything at all to do with the topic, proves you lost the argument.  Because if you had a point, you would make it.  The fact you are just spewing random crap, proves you can't make a point.
> 
> Every single time you post random crap, that doesn't contradict, address, or make any kind of a counter point, I'm going to call you out on it, and let you know you lost the argument.  Because that's what you are proving, by making pointless unrelated posts.
> 
> 
> 
> *You said this:
> "Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
> Remember?
> I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L*
> 
> "What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation  O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."
> 
> *Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey george, how does the Iraq War have anything to do with the subprime mortgage crisis? Sigh. Androw destroyed your premise, now you're throwing random points at him/her. Your arguments and rebuttals are textbook examples of ignoratio elenchi.
Click to expand...

*TK, where the hell you been?
This thread began as an indictment of capitalism's contribution to rising economic inequality.

From my OP*

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence. 

"It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

"The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth. 

"According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

*I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO

I did bring the Iraq War into the discussion because the same rich capitalists use war and the public debt and private profits it produces to bring about the same ends as control accounting fraud on Wall Street, namely an ever widening economic gap between the richest 1% and the majority of Americans.

Hardly an irrelevant conclusion, IMHO.*


----------



## P@triot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism is what happens when corruption is endemic to a political economic system.*
> 
> "What chiefly drives this sort of political corruption today is capitalism's structure.
> 
> "For many capitalist enterprises, competitive and other pressures exist to increase profits, growth rates, and/or market share.
> 
> "Their boards and top managers seek to find cheaper produced inputs and cheaper labor power, to extract more output from their workers, to sell their outputs at the highest possible prices and to find more profitable technologies.
> 
> "The structure provides them with every incentive of financial gain and/or career security and advancement to behave in those ways.
> 
> "Thus, boards and top managers seek the maximum obtainable assistance of government officials in all these areas and also try to pay the least possible portion of their net revenues as taxes.
> 
> "Boards of directors tap their corporations' profits to corrupt mostly the top echelons of the government bureaucracy, those needed to make advantageous official decisions."
> 
> Political Corruption and Capitalism | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> *Capitalism could not exist in a system that made it impossible for private wealth to dictate public policy; democratized workplaces where workers collectively direct their collective destinies is where Capitalism dies.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true, the bigger government becomes, the greater the chance for corruption.
> 
> Shrink government now!
> 
> The Tea Party is glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TP LOVES off-shoring and business visas.
> That's JUST what we need right now to boost employment.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's the Dumbocrats who love off-shoring. That's why they keep punishing business with high taxes, costly crushing regulations, and greedy extortion unions - to force business overseas.

It's not rocket science - whoever welcomes businesses gets the businesses. Whoever demonizes and punishes them, loses them. Sadly, Dumbocrats are just too fuck'n stupid to figure out even something _this_ basic....


----------



## P@triot

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true, the bigger government becomes, the greater the chance for corruption.
> 
> Shrink government now!
> 
> The Tea Party is glad you agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TP LOVES off-shoring and business visas.
> That's JUST what we need right now to boost employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid liberals love to make it harder to hire people and then whine that not enough are hired.
> Now they want to reward criminal invaders with citizenship.
> Because that will help low-skill Americans earn more.
Click to expand...


Of course Dumbocrats want to reward criminals - because there is nothing Dumbocrats love more than power. Why do you think - despite vehemently opposing ending slavery and the Civil Rights movement (and despite their deep and disgusting history of racism), they feign being the party of minorities? Why do you think they openly invite every and any deviant behavior into their party? And, why do you think they keep them all ignorant, poor, and dependent on government?

Answer: *power*

*"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." --Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957*

The Democrat Plantation: Top Racist Quotes by Notable Left Wingers


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> So what?   I didn't say Wall St hypocritically supported Socialism either.
> 
> Wall St is a just a bunch of people trying to earn money, just like you, just like me, just like Hollywood, just like everyone.



If Wall St. is like you in ANY WAY they MUST oppose socialism tooth and nail. But why don't they?

Because only Wall St acts as profit-maximizers on the planet--they have no allegiance to policy and ideology, they follow where the money flows--and money flows with financial arbitrage. They don't care where they get the money, the fact is all they care about is making more of it.

This is not a positive contribution to society. This is arbitrage seeking ever increasing profits without the concern for how it effects society. Yet you shovel me complete BS about the ideals of the stock market.

Wall St. and the stock market were established under the pretense that it would help society, but in reality, there's a fair amount of harm resulting from this system. Many on Wall St. are money machines who only benefit those within the money business. The rest of society is left to pay for its negative contribution to society--its vacuum cleaner of money.

What you are doing is trying to have your cake and eat it too. Wall St. should deny socialism if they are to be exemplary capitalists. But like you said, they are just trying to make money and so they have no allegiance to principles, they have allegiance to money.

This damages the integrity of society. This is made worse by the fact those with an allegiance to money often harm rather than contribute to society. Some do make valuable contributions to society but they aren't the ones making the most money. The Stock Market is broken by the fact that egotistical shit holes seek profits above humanity. profits over the advancement of society. TO them the advancement of society is growing their wealth. This is by no means sustainable model for growth--infinite growth is not possible with a finite earth/resources.



Androw said:


> Hollywood, and the rest of the leftard hypocrites, are the people who claim to support socialism and equality.   You hypocrites go first.



You throw your hands up when it comes to explaining Wall St. motives but are so quick to put blame on lefttards. You are so hypocritical in your analysis you can't even see it because it's so dang obvious. I know you don't care but god you're posts are completely ignoble in the context of genuine debate. I guess that's not what we are trying to accomplish here anyway.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think majority rule allows people to decide their own fate? Do you understand that, for up to 49% of them, it actually denies their ability to decide their own fate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to come back to this...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *By the people coming together in classic town hall meeting, our problems could be resolved by ourselves.* It's called compromise. Compromise isn't always possible but the IDEAL is that we can reach agreements on how to solve basic problems. Then the "government" or our representative simply enacts legislation based on our ability to agree on what solves a problem. I agree that majority rule based on 51% can cause serious problems--it's a recognition of the fallacy of popular opinion. You are making a fundamental point about logic.
> 
> Would this work in America today? FUCK NO. Our system depends on division and strife. People stick to their principles whether they have any relevance to solving a problem or not. I think once we overcome this and realize we are all humans with basic needs, that we must work together then we can genuinely solve our problems. The use of Democracy can lead to the resolution of many problems when humans seek solutions, not our ideologies.
> 
> In effect I'm saying the majority rule should only be reached when everyone agrees (of course there will be outliers and mental illness) but by being forced to unanimously agree we would hope that this requires serious thought instead of the current system of paying money to get "solutions" across. The problem is we don't live in a society that likes to work together in recognition of solidarity to solve our problems. We stick to ideals and slogans that prevent non-partisan ideas from flourishing. So no democracy can flourish when one side is always right, the other is always wrong, and the majority of Americans don't agree with either side!
Click to expand...


Oh the irony... He's 100% accurate on what he says. But then he goes and stands with the very people who prevent this because they believe the federal government (through force via marxism) is the "solution".

Return to Constitutional government, _force_ the federal government to adhere to the 18 enumerated powers _delegated_ to them by the states (and only those 18 enumerated powers) and our problems would be forever solved. It really is that easy. But Dumbocrats are too stupid and too lazy to accept Constitutional government.


----------



## gnarlylove

I just said this wouldn't work in America. It was a hypothetical for dblack. What more do I need to say? You are just begging for conflict. Please lay off the cocaine and it might reduce your need to gab about nothing.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libturds have been whining about "rising inequality" ever since Karl Marx published Dad Kapital.  Inequality on matters if it's the result of government favoritism.  That explains the current wave of it, if it exists.   Government and crony capitalism are the cause, not the free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theoretically possible but your position is 100% speculation and does not compare well with other data dealing with changes in the US labor market.
> 
> Whether you like it or not Marx predicted our current problems and understood the nature of the labor market, even if his solution was naive and ignorant. Marx's biggest fear was that Democracy would be taken over by money. So you have more in common with him than you might think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marx predicted that capitalism would blow up 100 years ago, which is clearly wrong.  He also didn't understand diddly-squat about the U.S. labor market.  According to him, we should all be earning less than we did when he wrote Das Kapital.  The reality is that we are all earning fabulously more.  Economists have demonstrated the idiocy of the labor theory of value time and time again.  In short, you have to be a brain dead loser to believe Karl Marx said anything useful.
> 
> Your position is 100% horse manure.  It's all based on Marxist propaganda which we know to be dead wrong.
Click to expand...


Capitalism almost did implode on itself 100 years ago. Nothing like a massive labor shortage to undo a long term trend in wages and nothing like globalization and peace to undo those trends. 

Who said he was perfectly right about everything? 

Capitalism favors the capitalist, which is both capitalism's greatest strength and the biggest threat to capitalism in the long term. 

I think it is wonderfully ironic that you complain about the corrupting influence of money on Democracy and then complain about Marx in the next breath. 

The future of modern economics is finding a way to balance growth in production and growth in wages. China has demonstrated rather clearly just how fast productivity can increase but they have relied heavily on the US to provide them with a growing consumer market that is independent of their wage market.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How's the oil production in Fallujah?*
> 
> "Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
> 
> "Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs.
> 
> "They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.
> 
> *How many people had their lives ruined in Iraq and Afghanistan from capitalism's inherent dependence on war and debt?*
> 
> Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' - Middle East - World - The Independent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost yet again!  LOL.   That didn't address anything I said.  It makes no valid points at all.   Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.
> 
> You lose again sir.
> 
> Pro-Debating Hint:   Posting stuff that doesn't have anything at all to do with the topic, proves you lost the argument.  Because if you had a point, you would make it.  The fact you are just spewing random crap, proves you can't make a point.
> 
> Every single time you post random crap, that doesn't contradict, address, or make any kind of a counter point, I'm going to call you out on it, and let you know you lost the argument.  Because that's what you are proving, by making pointless unrelated posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You said this:
> "Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
> Remember?
> I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L*
> 
> "What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation  O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."
> 
> *Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?*
Click to expand...


What did I just tell you?  If you have to change topics because you can't make a valid point, that only proves you lost the argument.

Do you want to talk about oil?  Or do you want to talk about war?   Two different topics.   We didn't go to Iraq for oil.  Name one oil field we own, in Iraq?   Name the oil tanker of oil from Iraq, that we didn't buy from them on the market?

In fact it was because of people like you, that Iraq signed servicing contracts with China, instead of the US.   China richer, US poorer, and all thanks to people like you, saying we went there for oil.  Now US companies, with US employees, paying US taxes, are NOT working in Iraqi oil fields.

If we didn't buy their legally sold resources, they would simply be poorer.

You want to talk about Operation Iraqi Liberation, a war?  Fine.  War sucks.  People die.  Avoid it as much as possible, but not when a madman in Iraq gives us no choice.

Nevertheless, that topic, is not the topic we were talking about, meaning you lost the argument again.    You lost again man.     If you can't argue the points brought up, and have no valid counter points, and all you can do is change topics.... that shows you lost the argument.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:*
> 
> "Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."
> 
> "Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.
> 
> "Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.
> 
> "*Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.*
> 
> "Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."
> 
> "Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."
> 
> Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
> You people on the right should learn to think logically.
> In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?   I didn't say Wall St hypocritically supported Socialism either.
> 
> Wall St is a just a bunch of people trying to earn money, just like you, just like me, just like Hollywood, just like everyone.
> 
> Hollywood, and the rest of the leftard hypocrites, are the people who claim to support socialism and equality.   You hypocrites go first.
> 
> Start with this.... how much do you make?   If you make just $30,000 a year, you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.
> 
> You go first.  Go for equality.  Give out your money, and cut your income to $10,000 a year.  That's what the world average income is.   You start first, and show us what a real Socialist is.  Show us what true income equality is.
> 
> But you won't, and neither will your Hollywood hypocrites.  You have no credibility to accuse Wall St of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance.
> You want to make this personal?
> I've never made twenty thousand dollars in a single year of my 45 years in the private work force.
> I currently earn $897.40 a month or $10,768.80 per year.
> Your turn, Stud.
> Your credibility is on the line.
Click to expand...


That explains a bunch.   If you are in fact earning that little, should I assume you are using all the government programs for people at your level?

And what exactly is it that you do?  What's your occupation?


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the guy that thinks the government controls Bears Stearns and the ratings agencies is the guy that knows what he is talking about.
> 
> The default rates were not the problem. The problem was the price bubble. Even with defaults the banks can manage the rate of default. That is what the MBS were created to do. They failed to adjust based on the change is price.
> 
> Seriously read up some more about how the MBS were created so I don't have to constantly point out why you are wrong. You clearly don't listen to what I say so use some google.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, once again, you couldn't even grasp my post.   You simply don't know enough about this topic, to answer anything I've written.   The fact you are now making up things I didn't say, while at the same time denying that defaults on mortgage caused the "mortgage crisis".... (seriously?), proves you just don't know enough about this to talk.   You should find another topic to discuss.  Hopefully one you know.... something.... anything... about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohh I am sorry did I not use the word "imply" enough when describing your "understanding" of the crisis.
> 
> You don't know how MBS are created, rated, or priced. You think F&F can make decisions that they don't. You think the problem with a historic price bubble was not these high prices but default rates.
> 
> The only thing you have shown me is that you don't understand what you read. Even the article you posted doesn't actually say what you thought it said.
Click to expand...


Again, you just don't know enough for me to debate with you.   The posts I made, the points I spelled out, the links I provided, all made the arguments with clear cut accuracy, and you simply haven't given a valid response.   You just don't know enough about the topic for me to discuss it with you.

You need to be more informed about the topic, in order to engage in intelligent conversation about it.   The fact that the only response you have it to claim others don't know what they are talking about, when they have shown numerous times they do, just goes to highlight the fact you really don't know what you are talking about.  You would have a more relevant, and accurate response if you did.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post was simplistic and irrelevant to the conversation of RISING INEQUALITY. You already seem to get that it was simplistic so we are half the way there to agreeing.
> 
> Page 130 and you still don't know that we are talking about rising inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but still don't know what you are talking about.  You could not grasp my posts, which in fact were very simplistic, and yet still not simple enough for you to come up with even a valid response.
> 
> Sorry, nothing personal, but you just simply don't know enough about this discussion, to make a logical intelligent answer.   It's been fun, but I'm looking for more informed people to talk to.  Thanks for stopping by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then logically explain why you are talking about income inequality between individuals in a thread about rising income inequality at the national level.
Click to expand...


If you don't know the answer to that yourself.... then you just proved me right, that you don't know enough to comment on it.   How can you even ask that, and expect to be taken seriously by anyone, but other ignorant people?    Again, I outlined exactly how the comments fit with economic reality throughout the country, and even the world.    I spelled it out in such simple terms, that Forest Gump would have gotten it.    But you didn't...... that reflects more on you, than anyone else.

Go take a course in modern economics.  Hopefully if you go to a decent college, and at least pass, you'll be more intelligent in discussions like this.


----------



## Mojo2

> &#8220;The only time you should look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them.&#8221;
> 
> 
> &#8213; Louis C.K.



http://static4.quoteswave.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/The-only-time-you-should.png



> CadeuxUWhitney Jefferson1L
> Me and my sister learnt fairly early on never to try the "not fair" argument. My mother would reply with a more or less identical speech of "You're pretty, that's not fair. We live in a big house, that's not fair. You're English, that's not fair. You'd better hope life doesn't get fair."	 6/24/11 12:14pm






> kenzingtonUWhitney Jefferson1L	U
> My dad would just start singing "You Can't Always Get What You Want" when I started whining about fairness. The Rolling Stones now provide the mental soundtrack of all my life's petty, bitter disappointments. 6/24/11 1:42pm





> Hazel-rahUWhitney Jefferson1L	U
> To quote from a good friend's very honest and intelligent mother, "There will always be someone who is richer, prettier, smarter and luckier than you." I have always remembered that quote and it has always done its job of keeping things in perspective &#8212; be happy for what you've got!	 6/24/11 12:26pm



http://jezebel.com/5815172/a-little-girls-lesson-in-fairness-courtesy-of-louis-ck


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You said this:
> "Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
> Remember?
> I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L*
> 
> "What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation  O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."
> 
> *Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey george, how does the Iraq War have anything to do with the subprime mortgage crisis? Sigh. Androw destroyed your premise, now you're throwing random points at him/her. Your arguments and rebuttals are textbook examples of ignoratio elenchi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *TK, where the hell you been?
> This thread began as an indictment of capitalism's contribution to rising economic inequality.
> 
> From my OP*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence.
> 
> "It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO
> 
> I did bring the Iraq War into the discussion because the same rich capitalists use war and the public debt and private profits it produces to bring about the same ends as control accounting fraud on Wall Street, namely an ever widening economic gap between the richest 1% and the majority of Americans.
> 
> Hardly an irrelevant conclusion, IMHO.*
Click to expand...


See george... other people who are not blinded by ideology, can see that your position has been thoroughly ruined time and time again.  And all you do is keep repeating opinion articles, as if they are facts.

Only you, and other ideologically blinded people, think you still have a point to make, even while you shift and flop around from topic to topic, in order to pretend you haven't lost every single argument you've tried to make.

You are turning into a cartoon at this point.    This is like a bad Roger Rabbit skit, hitting your own head with dishes, waiting for the Jessica to come make it better.   Honestly... I'm starting to pity you a little.


----------



## Andylusion

Rottweiler said:


> Actually, it's the Dumbocrats who love off-shoring. That's why they keep punishing business with high taxes, costly crushing regulations, and greedy extortion unions - to force business overseas.
> 
> It's not rocket science - whoever welcomes businesses gets the businesses. Whoever demonizes and punishes them, loses them. Sadly, Dumbocrats are just too fuck'n stupid to figure out even something _this_ basic....



Actually Democrats hate off-shoring..........  they are just too stupid to figure out they are causing it.

Hey Leftists...........   Which car companies declared bankruptcy?

GM and Chrysler?   Or was it Toyota and Honda?

Let me ask it another way....

Was it Unionized GM and Chrysler?   Or non-Union Toyota and Honda?

Funny how the first question get's an easy response, and the second get's blank stares.

The left is who is driving out business, with regulations, mandates, taxes, and red tape.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, once again, you couldn't even grasp my post.   You simply don't know enough about this topic, to answer anything I've written.   The fact you are now making up things I didn't say, while at the same time denying that defaults on mortgage caused the "mortgage crisis".... (seriously?), proves you just don't know enough about this to talk.   You should find another topic to discuss.  Hopefully one you know.... something.... anything... about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh I am sorry did I not use the word "imply" enough when describing your "understanding" of the crisis.
> 
> You don't know how MBS are created, rated, or priced. You think F&F can make decisions that they don't. You think the problem with a historic price bubble was not these high prices but default rates.
> 
> The only thing you have shown me is that you don't understand what you read. Even the article you posted doesn't actually say what you thought it said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you just don't know enough for me to debate with you.   The posts I made, the points I spelled out, the links I provided, all made the arguments with clear cut accuracy, and you simply haven't given a valid response.   You just don't know enough about the topic for me to discuss it with you.
> 
> You need to be more informed about the topic, in order to engage in intelligent conversation about it.   The fact that the only response you have it to claim others don't know what they are talking about, when they have shown numerous times they do, just goes to highlight the fact you really don't know what you are talking about.  You would have a more relevant, and accurate response if you did.
Click to expand...


LOL

OK please explain for the class what role Bears Stearns played in the creation of the mortgage backed securities referenced in your article and how they derived their price for those securities. Then please explain what it means when they said the implied rating was AAA.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but still don't know what you are talking about.  You could not grasp my posts, which in fact were very simplistic, and yet still not simple enough for you to come up with even a valid response.
> 
> Sorry, nothing personal, but you just simply don't know enough about this discussion, to make a logical intelligent answer.   It's been fun, but I'm looking for more informed people to talk to.  Thanks for stopping by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then logically explain why you are talking about income inequality between individuals in a thread about rising income inequality at the national level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't know the answer to that yourself.... then you just proved me right, that you don't know enough to comment on it.   How can you even ask that, and expect to be taken seriously by anyone, but other ignorant people?    Again, I outlined exactly how the comments fit with economic reality throughout the country, and even the world.    I spelled it out in such simple terms, that Forest Gump would have gotten it.    But you didn't...... that reflects more on you, than anyone else.
> 
> Go take a course in modern economics.  Hopefully if you go to a decent college, and at least pass, you'll be more intelligent in discussions like this.
Click to expand...


That does not explain rising inequality at the national level. That explains income inequality. I told you this multiple times already. Do you understand the difference between rising income inequality at the national level and income inequality between individuals? Do you understand that they are different things? I have explained the difference multiple times already. Go read some of my posts and learn something. 

This thread is over 130 pages. You should have grasped this concept before you even opened up the thread.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a single company controls the supply of crucial physical commodities and trades in complex financial products related to those markets, does that plant happy pennies in your pussy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What single company controls the supply of oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Goldman Sachs and/or Morgan Stanley seem a likely pair of suspects*
> 
> "...For nearly a decade, this obscure provision of Gramm-Leach-Bliley effectively applied to nobody.
> 
> "Then, in the third week of September 2008, while the economy was imploding after the collapses of Lehman and AIG, two of America's biggest investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, found themselves in desperate need of emergency financing.
> 
> "So late on a Sunday night, on September 21st, to be exact, the two banks announced they had applied to the Federal Reserve to become bank holding companies, which would give them lifesaving access to emergency cash from the Fed's discount window.
> 
> "The Fed granted the requests overnight.
> 
> "The move saved the bacon of both firms, and it had one additional benefit: It made Goldman and Morgan Stanley, which both had significant commodity-trading operations prior to 1997, *the first and last two companies to qualify for the grandfather exemption of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act*. 'Kind of convenient, isn't it?' says one congressional aide. 'It's almost like the law was written specifically for them.'"
> 
> "The irony was incredible.
> 
> "After fucking up so badly that the government had to give them federal bank charters and bottomless wells of free cash to save their necks, the feds gave Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley hall passes to *become cross-species monopolistic powers with almost limitless reach into any sectors of the economy.*
> 
> The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet | Politics News | Rolling Stone
Click to expand...


*After fucking up so badly that the government had to give them federal bank charters and bottomless wells of free cash to save their necks*

Free cash? LOL! Matt isn't very good at math.

*cross-species monopolistic powers with almost limitless reach*

Monopolistic? Almost limitless reach? 
Matt is as bad at economics as he is at math.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think majority rule allows people to decide their own fate? Do you understand that, for up to 49% of them, it actually denies their ability to decide their own fate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to come back to this...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the people coming together in classic town hall meeting, our problems could be resolved by ourselves. It's called compromise. Compromise isn't always possible but the IDEAL is that we can reach agreements on how to solve basic problems. Then the "government" or our representative simply enacts legislation based on our ability to agree on what solves a problem. I agree that majority rule based on 51% can cause serious problems--it's a recognition of the fallacy of popular opinion. You are making a fundamental point about logic.
> 
> Would this work in America today? FUCK NO. Our system depends on division and strife. People stick to their principles whether they have any relevance to solving a problem or not. I think once we overcome this and realize we are all humans with basic needs, that we must work together then we can genuinely solve our problems. The use of Democracy can lead to the resolution of many problems when humans seek solutions, not our ideologies.
> 
> In effect I'm saying the majority rule should only be reached when everyone agrees (of course there will be outliers and mental illness) but by being forced to unanimously agree we would hope that this requires serious thought instead of the current system of paying money to get "solutions" across. The problem is we don't live in a society that likes to work together in recognition of solidarity to solve our problems. We stick to ideals and slogans that prevent non-partisan ideas from flourishing. So no democracy can flourish when one side is always right, the other is always wrong, and the majority of Americans don't agree with either side!
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what point you're responding to here. I was asking about the equivocation between freedom and democracy. I've seen it evoked before, most often in response to calls for Constitutional limits on government. Unlimited democracy advocates often claim that the 'freedom' of the people to set their course is constrained by such limits. I find that an odd characterization of freedom, in as much as majority rule democracy is about coercing conformity - the exact opposite of freedom.

In regards to your general advocacy for democracy, you clearly see it as an all purpose tool for solving our problems as a society, and I definitely don't. It should only be used in the relatively rare cases were it is necessary to coerce conformity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> We like to think the private sector is based solely on merit and hard work. Indeed, I've read this a thousand times here but upon any scrutiny, one can see success and affluence centers around inheritance and proper networking or knowing the right people. This is diametrically opposed to a genuine meritocratic system, which is based on one's ability, not who you know or where you were born. A local commercial for employment at a hospital was proud to announce their general staff consisted of mostly relatives and family members. So if you want to work there fuck being the best, just know the right people and the job is yours.
> 
> Sounds all too familiar. I only receive call backs for jobs where I know a current employee. This has happened too many times to be simple coincidence. It has nothing to do with merit since the positions I've applied for I have over 3 years of paid experience.
> 
> The private sector _ideals_ are based in merit; however, we know how things are on paper are not how they operate in the real world (as with the government). So wake up and smell the corruption in the air. Of course not all businesses are corrupt, this is not my point, what I am saying is that the government and major businesses walk hand in hand to maintain their wealth and power in spite of aim for a meritocracy. No politician would deny we strive to be the most meritocratic system on earth but this is pure rhetoric and all you funky monkeys have bought it hook, line and banana. I know I don't live in a genuine meritocratic system.



*It has nothing to do with merit since the positions I've applied for I have over 3 years of paid experience.*

We need the government to force these companies to hire you.
Damn these companies for hiring who they'd like!!!! Damn them straight to hell!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we start on Wall Street and Hollywood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall St doesn't hypocritically claim to be in favor of socialism.   HollyWood does.   You people on the left, start practicing what you preach first.   Then if that works, maybe the rest of us will follow.  Otherwise.... just shut up.  Go preach at a Scientology church or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:*
> 
> "Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."
> 
> "Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.
> 
> "Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.
> 
> "*Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.*
> 
> "Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."
> 
> "Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."
> 
> Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
> You people on the right should learn to think logically.
> In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.*
Click to expand...


*Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG.*

Bull. Goldman received money from AIG for these CDS, not from the taxpayer.

*Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.*

What costs do you feel were socialized by Goldman? Be specific.


----------



## TemplarKormac

georgephillip said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You said this:
> "Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
> Remember?
> I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L*
> 
> "What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation  O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."
> 
> *Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey george, how does the Iraq War have anything to do with the subprime mortgage crisis? Sigh. Androw destroyed your premise, now you're throwing random points at him/her. Your arguments and rebuttals are textbook examples of ignoratio elenchi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *TK, where the hell you been?
> This thread began as an indictment of capitalism's contribution to rising economic inequality.
> 
> From my OP*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence.
> 
> "It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO
> 
> I did bring the Iraq War into the discussion because the same rich capitalists use war and the public debt and private profits it produces to bring about the same ends as control accounting fraud on Wall Street, namely an ever widening economic gap between the richest 1% and the majority of Americans.
> 
> Hardly an irrelevant conclusion, IMHO.*
Click to expand...


Uhhh, so what's wrong with being rich? And why do I care? You can't be bothered to address a given point, much less your own. You're jumping to irrelevant conclusions as well as linking one irrelevant event to another, a classic cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You said this:
> "Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
> Remember?
> I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L*
> 
> "What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation  O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."
> 
> *Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey george, how does the Iraq War have anything to do with the subprime mortgage crisis? Sigh. Androw destroyed your premise, now you're throwing random points at him/her. Your arguments and rebuttals are textbook examples of ignoratio elenchi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *TK, where the hell you been?
> This thread began as an indictment of capitalism's contribution to rising economic inequality.
> 
> From my OP*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence.
> 
> "It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO
> 
> I did bring the Iraq War into the discussion because the same rich capitalists use war and the public debt and private profits it produces to bring about the same ends as control accounting fraud on Wall Street, namely an ever widening economic gap between the richest 1% and the majority of Americans.
> 
> Hardly an irrelevant conclusion, IMHO.*
Click to expand...


*I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO*

Yes, banks planned the subprime crisis (in which they lost hundreds of billions), in order to redistribute income upward.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> I'm not sure what point you're responding to here. I was asking about the equivocation between freedom and democracy. I've seen it evoked before, most often in response to calls for Constitutional limits on government. Unlimited democracy advocates often claim that the 'freedom' of the people to set their course is constrained by such limits. I find that an odd characterization of freedom, in as much as majority rule democracy is about coercing conformity - the exact opposite of freedom.
> 
> In regards to your general advocacy for democracy, you clearly see it as an all purpose tool for solving our problems as a society, and I definitely don't. It should only be used in the relatively rare cases were it is necessary to coerce conformity.



We are suppose to live in a society that promotes Democracy as our tool for enacting better and more non-zero sum tactics. I thought this could be agreeable, assuming we use Democractic society.

Is Democratic society my ideal society? Probably not. It would be nice to see a variety of other government styles in operation with desirable results but we get few societies that are flourishing like we might imagine. But since we supposedly live in a Democracy, I offered my ideal version of it. This purported to also answer the question how freedom can be generated through Democratic Rule. 

I think it's clear one can maintain a variety of freedoms (like we purport to hold today) under "Democracy" and to a lesser extent under our Plutocracy. But I just read this quote and found it useful in understanding what government is:



			
				Robert Wright said:
			
		

> This, really, is the whole idea behind governance: the voluntary submission of individual players to an authority that, by solving non-zero-sum problems, can give out in benefits more than it exacts in costs.



If we are to have a government in the first place, isn't it the idea of to sacrifice some things for the greater good? I'm not saying we'd agree with them but this propels our compromise/submission. I'm all ears if your proposing an ungoverned populace, but I've yet to see it.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what point you're responding to here. I was asking about the equivocation between freedom and democracy. I've seen it evoked before, most often in response to calls for Constitutional limits on government. Unlimited democracy advocates often claim that the 'freedom' of the people to set their course is constrained by such limits. I find that an odd characterization of freedom, in as much as majority rule democracy is about coercing conformity - the exact opposite of freedom.
> 
> In regards to your general advocacy for democracy, you clearly see it as an all purpose tool for solving our problems as a society, and I definitely don't. It should only be used in the relatively rare cases were it is necessary to coerce conformity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are suppose to live in a society that promotes Democracy as our tool for enacting better and more non-zero sum tactics. I thought this could be agreeable, assuming we use Democractic society.
> 
> Is Democratic society my ideal society? Probably not. It would be nice to see a variety of other government styles in operation with desirable results but we get few societies that are flourishing like we might imagine. But since we supposedly live in a Democracy, I offered my ideal version of it. This purported to also answer the question how freedom can be generated through Democratic Rule.
> 
> I think it's clear one can maintain a variety of freedoms (like we purport to hold today) under "Democracy" and to a lesser extent under our Plutocracy. But I just read this quote and found it useful in understanding what government is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Wright said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, really, is the whole idea behind governance: the voluntary submission of individual players to an authority that, by solving non-zero-sum problems, can give out in benefits more than it exacts in costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are to have a government in the first place, isn't it the idea of to sacrifice some things for the greater good? I'm not saying we'd agree with them but this propels our compromise/submission. I'm all ears if your proposing an ungoverned populace, but I've yet to see it.
Click to expand...


I suppose we just have radically different understandings of the role of government and its relationship to society. Indeed, you seem to view government and society as the same thing, whereas I see government as a tool to deal with the relatively rare circumstances where we can't get along through voluntary cooperation.

You're not really acknowledging the point I keep alluding to, namely the fact that government (all government, democracy or otherwise) is fundamentally coercive in nature, and should be a last resort for solving problems that peaceful means can't resolve.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack, you are not hearing me very well. I said Democracy or any government for that matter is not my ideal. I thought I had established many pages ago a difference between my ideals and our concrete reality or in other words what we are working with. Have you read my signature that I've repeatedly alluded to? It describes my ideal form of society, which is one without external pressures or legistlation. You seem to have amnesia or haven't read it or something.

I'm well aware governments serve to resolve problems (or as you say "fundamentally corrective") and therefore set outside limits on humans. We should be guided by internal principles alone but when this doesn't work, we must resort to external legislation. Do you honestly think we should shut down governments worldwide right now in the conditions we are in? Or are you only alluding to these things as hypotheticals?


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack, you are not hearing me very well. I said Democracy or any government for that matter is not my ideal. I thought I had established many pages ago a difference between my ideals and our concrete reality or in other words what we are working with. Have you read my signature that I've repeatedly alluded to? It describes my ideal form of society, which is one without external pressures or legistlation. You seem to have amnesia or haven't read it or something.
> 
> I'm well aware governments serve to resolve problems (or as you say "fundamentally corrective") and therefore set outside limits on humans. We should be guided by internal principles alone but when this doesn't work, we must resort to external legislation. Do you honestly think we should shut down governments worldwide right now in the conditions we are in? Or are you only alluding to these things as hypotheticals?



FWIW, I got nabbed by auto-correct in that last post. "Corrective" should have read "coercive". Anyway, no, I don't think we could get by, any time in the foreseeable future, without government. But I do think it should be strictly limited in scope. It shouldn't be involved in our religion, in our economy, or any of the personal decisions we make on a daily basis. In short, I think government exists to protect us from bullies and thugs - not to BE bullies and thugs on behalf of those who would use it to force their will on others.


----------



## gnarlylove

I thought corrective was a benign and odd locution given our context. It sounds like your point or worry is the result of real world applications of power structures. They can help but they also can harm. This is not a matter of better rules or no rules (though that is a part), it's a fundamental matter of bettering ourselves so we participate in society with general empathy instead of our sole focus on the ego. A balance is much healthier. Ego unchecked always leads to excess, which is where it becomes unhealthy and corrosive for society.


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theoretically possible but your position is 100% speculation and does not compare well with other data dealing with changes in the US labor market.
> 
> Whether you like it or not Marx predicted our current problems and understood the nature of the labor market, even if his solution was naive and ignorant. Marx's biggest fear was that Democracy would be taken over by money. So you have more in common with him than you might think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marx predicted that capitalism would blow up 100 years ago, which is clearly wrong.  He also didn't understand diddly-squat about the U.S. labor market.  According to him, we should all be earning less than we did when he wrote Das Kapital.  The reality is that we are all earning fabulously more.  Economists have demonstrated the idiocy of the labor theory of value time and time again.  In short, you have to be a brain dead loser to believe Karl Marx said anything useful.
> 
> Your position is 100% horse manure.  It's all based on Marxist propaganda which we know to be dead wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalism _almost_ did implode on itself 100 years ago. Nothing like a massive labor shortage to undo a long term trend in wages and nothing like globalization and peace to undo those trends.
> 
> Who said he was perfectly right about everything?
> 
> Capitalism favors the capitalist, which is both capitalism's greatest strength and the biggest threat to capitalism in the long term.
> 
> I think it is wonderfully ironic that you complain about the corrupting influence of money on Democracy and then complain about Marx in the next breath.
> 
> The future of modern economics is finding a way to balance growth in production and growth in wages. China has demonstrated rather clearly just how fast productivity can increase but they have relied heavily on the US to provide them with a growing consumer market that is independent of their wage market.
Click to expand...


First of all, if your argument is "almost" - you have _no_ argument.

Second, nothing could be further from the truth.

Third, why is it that every liberal at this board to points to China in _every_ argument? If oppressive communism is so wonderful, go live there _stupid_.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey george, how does the Iraq War have anything to do with the subprime mortgage crisis? Sigh. Androw destroyed your premise, now you're throwing random points at him/her. Your arguments and rebuttals are textbook examples of ignoratio elenchi.
> 
> 
> 
> *TK, where the hell you been?
> This thread began as an indictment of capitalism's contribution to rising economic inequality.
> 
> From my OP*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence.
> 
> "It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO
> 
> I did bring the Iraq War into the discussion because the same rich capitalists use war and the public debt and private profits it produces to bring about the same ends as control accounting fraud on Wall Street, namely an ever widening economic gap between the richest 1% and the majority of Americans.
> 
> Hardly an irrelevant conclusion, IMHO.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO*
> 
> Yes, banks planned the subprime crisis (in which they lost hundreds of billions), in order to redistribute income upward.
Click to expand...

*Pity the poor rich, Bitch*

"All told, average inflation-adjusted income per family climbed 6% between 2009 and 2012, the first years of the economic recovery. 

"*During that period, the top 1% saw their incomes climb 31.4%  or, 95% of the total gain  while the bottom 99% saw growth of 0.4%.*

"Last year, the richest 10% received more than half of all income  50.5%, or the largest share since such record-keeping began in 1917. Here is how the top earners break down: Top 1%: incomes above $394,000 in 2012; Top 5%: incomes between $161,000 and $394,000; Top 10%: incomes between $114,000 and $161,000."

Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> *Pity the poor rich, Bitch*
> 
> "All told, average inflation-adjusted income per family climbed 6% between 2009 and 2012, the first years of the economic recovery.
> 
> "*During that period, the top 1% saw their incomes climb 31.4%  or, 95% of the total gain  while the bottom 99% saw growth of 0.4%.*
> 
> "Last year, the richest 10% received more than half of all income  50.5%, or the largest share since such record-keeping began in 1917. Here is how the top earners break down: Top 1%: incomes above $394,000 in 2012; Top 5%: incomes between $161,000 and $394,000; Top 10%: incomes between $114,000 and $161,000."
> 
> Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ



Good! This is _exactly_ what you want. Why in the world do you want to incentivize failure and punish success?!? 

The whole point it to strive for success and thus the wealth it provides. You want a system designed to make people strive for mediocrity and/or laziness.


----------



## Truthmatters

human beings having a decent life is what this country is about.

this country is NOT about owning the world through commerse.


its about people NOT money


----------



## P@triot

Truthmatters said:


> human beings having a decent life is what this country is about.
> 
> this country is NOT about owning the world through commerse.
> 
> 
> its about people NOT money



I agree with you 100%. But this raises the question - why do you and the rest on the left act so greedy then? Why do you demand what other people have earned? Why don't you focus on life and people rather than ranting like lunatics that wealthy people owe you something?


----------



## Truthmatters

here is the problem with your lie.


this country decided long long ago that helping is not hurting.

Your lies about that just don't fly


----------



## Truthmatters

tell me what you know about the Cumberland road?


----------



## Truthmatters

What do you know about the louisiana Purchase?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Truthmatters said:


> here is the problem with your lie.
> 
> 
> this country decided long long ago that helping is not hurting.
> 
> Your lies about that just don't fly



And it has been seen long long ago, that your arguments have zero substance. No, it's not when helping doesn't hurt, its when government makes it hurt to help.


----------



## georgephillip

Rottweiler said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true, the bigger government becomes, the greater the chance for corruption.
> 
> Shrink government now!
> 
> The Tea Party is glad you agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TP LOVES off-shoring and business visas.
> That's JUST what we need right now to boost employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it's the Dumbocrats who love off-shoring. That's why they keep punishing business with high taxes, costly crushing regulations, and greedy extortion unions - to force business overseas.
> 
> It's not rocket science - whoever welcomes businesses gets the businesses. Whoever demonizes and punishes them, loses them. Sadly, Dumbocrats are just too fuck'n stupid to figure out even something _this_ basic....
Click to expand...

*Whoever welcomes child labor, unrestricted working hours, and privatizing profit at the expense of our common environment deserves to lose every round at the polls.*

"In 2010, corporate tax revenue constituted about 9% of all federal revenues or 1.3% of GDP."

*How does today's corporate contribution to the US Treasury compare to fifty years ago, when the richest 1% of taxpayers earned 8% of US income compared to nearly 25% they "earn" today?*

Corporate tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dannyboys

georgephillip said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...

That's right pal. And in a few decades when China controls the entire worlds economy you better hope that none of your relatives are not capable of putting in 14 hour days to buy enough food to keep them alive until they go to work hand making brooms.
'Social Darwinism'. Two simple words to describe the future of man kind and his past.
Ever wonder why the words: "Utopian Dream" are always included in any sentence with the words 'Socialism/Communism'? B/c it's never been anything more then a "dream". 
Time to wake up pal. Every one else on the planet is having to.
The one and only reason millions of people can waddle off their shady porch to pick up their welfare cheque and food stamps is b/c some 'Maker's' money bought the 'free stuff' Obama's 'base' has become dependent on.


----------



## dannyboys

What the country really needs now is for Obama to unveil those "millions of good paying GREEN jobs" he promised.
Any one who voted for this BSer ought to hide their face in shame.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRpez4BtcQ4]In 2008, Obama Promised Five Million Green Jobs - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *TK, where the hell you been?
> This thread began as an indictment of capitalism's contribution to rising economic inequality.
> 
> From my OP*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence.
> 
> "It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO
> 
> I did bring the Iraq War into the discussion because the same rich capitalists use war and the public debt and private profits it produces to bring about the same ends as control accounting fraud on Wall Street, namely an ever widening economic gap between the richest 1% and the majority of Americans.
> 
> Hardly an irrelevant conclusion, IMHO.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO*
> 
> Yes, banks planned the subprime crisis (in which they lost hundreds of billions), in order to redistribute income upward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Pity the poor rich, Bitch*
> 
> "All told, average inflation-adjusted income per family climbed 6% between 2009 and 2012, the first years of the economic recovery.
> 
> "*During that period, the top 1% saw their incomes climb 31.4%  or, 95% of the total gain  while the bottom 99% saw growth of 0.4%.*
> 
> "Last year, the richest 10% received more than half of all income  50.5%, or the largest share since such record-keeping began in 1917. Here is how the top earners break down: Top 1%: incomes above $394,000 in 2012; Top 5%: incomes between $161,000 and $394,000; Top 10%: incomes between $114,000 and $161,000."
> 
> Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Click to expand...


I don't pity the poor rich, I ridicule your idiotic "arguments".


----------



## georgephillip

Rottweiler said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TP LOVES off-shoring and business visas.
> That's JUST what we need right now to boost employment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid liberals love to make it harder to hire people and then whine that not enough are hired.
> Now they want to reward criminal invaders with citizenship.
> Because that will help low-skill Americans earn more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Dumbocrats want to reward criminals - because there is nothing Dumbocrats love more than power. Why do you think - despite vehemently opposing ending slavery and the Civil Rights movement (and despite their deep and disgusting history of racism), they feign being the party of minorities? Why do you think they openly invite every and any deviant behavior into their party? And, why do you think they keep them all ignorant, poor, and dependent on government?
> 
> Answer: *power*
> 
> *"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." --Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957*
> 
> The Democrat Plantation: Top Racist Quotes by Notable Left Wingers
Click to expand...

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[4] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.[5] 

"It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as 'public accommodations')..."

"Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. 

"Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. 

"*The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964 at the White House."*

*Virtually all Democratic opposition came from southern conservative Dixicrats like the Sothern Bloc*

"When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the 'Southern Bloc' of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[13] 

"Said Russell: 'We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.'

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Conservatives of all political stripes have always been frightened by equality for all.*


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?   I didn't say Wall St hypocritically supported Socialism either.
> 
> Wall St is a just a bunch of people trying to earn money, just like you, just like me, just like Hollywood, just like everyone.
> 
> Hollywood, and the rest of the leftard hypocrites, are the people who claim to support socialism and equality.   You hypocrites go first.
> 
> Start with this.... how much do you make?   If you make just $30,000 a year, you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.
> 
> You go first.  Go for equality.  Give out your money, and cut your income to $10,000 a year.  That's what the world average income is.   You start first, and show us what a real Socialist is.  Show us what true income equality is.
> 
> But you won't, and neither will your Hollywood hypocrites.  You have no credibility to accuse Wall St of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance.
> You want to make this personal?
> I've never made twenty thousand dollars in a single year of my 45 years in the private work force.
> I currently earn $897.40 a month or $10,768.80 per year.
> Your turn, Stud.
> Your credibility is on the line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That explains a bunch.   If you are in fact earning that little, should I assume you are using all the government programs for people at your level?
> 
> And what exactly is it that you do?  What's your occupation?
Click to expand...

Your turn.
Remember?
Are you living with mommy and daddy or any other family members?
What government programs are you using?


----------



## RKMBrown

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance.
> You want to make this personal?
> I've never made twenty thousand dollars in a single year of my 45 years in the private work force.
> I currently earn $897.40 a month or $10,768.80 per year.
> Your turn, Stud.
> Your credibility is on the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That explains a bunch.   If you are in fact earning that little, should I assume you are using all the government programs for people at your level?
> 
> And what exactly is it that you do?  What's your occupation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your turn.
> Remember?
> Are you living with mommy and daddy or any other family members?
> What government programs are you using?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the libtarded nation of Georges that can't even earn a full time minimum wage salary


----------



## KNB

RKMBrown said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That explains a bunch.   If you are in fact earning that little, should I assume you are using all the government programs for people at your level?
> 
> And what exactly is it that you do?  What's your occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> Your turn.
> Remember?
> Are you living with mommy and daddy or any other family members?
> What government programs are you using?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welcome to the libtarded nation of Georges that can't even earn a full time minimum wage salary
Click to expand...

Do you ever consider that billionaire corporations can spend their collected DOZENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in cash and other assets to provide higher wages and better benefits for all humanity?


----------



## thereisnospoon

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *TK, where the hell you been?
> This thread began as an indictment of capitalism's contribution to rising economic inequality.
> 
> From my OP*
> 
> "We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence.
> 
> "It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.
> 
> "The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.
> 
> "Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO
> 
> I did bring the Iraq War into the discussion because the same rich capitalists use war and the public debt and private profits it produces to bring about the same ends as control accounting fraud on Wall Street, namely an ever widening economic gap between the richest 1% and the majority of Americans.
> 
> Hardly an irrelevant conclusion, IMHO.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO*
> 
> Yes, banks planned the subprime crisis (in which they lost hundreds of billions), in order to redistribute income upward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Pity the poor rich, Bitch*
> 
> "All told, average inflation-adjusted income per family climbed 6% between 2009 and 2012, the first years of the economic recovery.
> 
> "*During that period, the top 1% saw their incomes climb 31.4%  or, 95% of the total gain  while the bottom 99% saw growth of 0.4%.*
> 
> "Last year, the richest 10% received more than half of all income  50.5%, or the largest share since such record-keeping began in 1917. Here is how the top earners break down: Top 1%: incomes above $394,000 in 2012; Top 5%: incomes between $161,000 and $394,000; Top 10%: incomes between $114,000 and $161,000."
> 
> Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Click to expand...


Those stats are useless when not quantified.
Income is not 'received'. It is EARNED


----------



## KNB

Capital gains are not EARNED.  It's money made from having money.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> I thought corrective was a benign and odd locution given our context. It sounds like your point or worry is the result of real world applications of power structures. They can help but they also can harm. This is not a matter of better rules or no rules (though that is a part), it's a fundamental matter of bettering ourselves so we participate in society with general empathy instead of our sole focus on the ego. A balance is much healthier. Ego unchecked always leads to excess, which is where it becomes unhealthy and corrosive for society.



I totally agree with all this on a personal level. Just not sure how it applies to politics or government.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

KNB said:


> Capital gains are not EARNED.  It's money made from having money.



It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income.  If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At the very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work.  That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.


----------



## dblack

IlarMeilyr said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains are not EARNED.  It's money made from having money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income.  If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At he very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work.  That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.
Click to expand...


This is what critics of capitalism often overlook entirely. One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want. Capitalism delegates those decisions to individuals. If they do well, if they direct labor and resources toward goods and services that people really want, it gives them even more capital to work with. If they fail, they lose their money and someone else gets a chance.


----------



## RKMBrown

KNB said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your turn.
> Remember?
> Are you living with mommy and daddy or any other family members?
> What government programs are you using?
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the libtarded nation of Georges that can't even earn a full time minimum wage salary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you ever consider that billionaire corporations can spend their collected DOZENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in cash and other assets to provide higher wages and better benefits for all humanity?
Click to expand...


Corporations are nothing more than a piece of paper, a contract between a group of owners.  The owners are, in large part, the people of this nation, the 401k investors and such.

Just as your money is for you to spend as you wish, so to is the money owned by the owners of said corporations.  

Or are you trying to say it should be illegal for people to have more money than, say you? Is that where YOU draw the line on legal assets?  

Seriously, should anyone be allowed to have more income and assets than you?  If not why not?  If yes ok how much more than you should be legalized in your land of nirvana?


----------



## KNB

IlarMeilyr said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains are not EARNED.  It's money made from having money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income.  If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At the very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work.  That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.
Click to expand...

It isn't EARNED like a real paycheck is EARNED, by actually doing something other than already being rich.

And why aren't the 1% putting their money back to work?
Google Joins Apple Avoiding Taxes With Stateless Income - Bloomberg
Global super-rich hide $21 trillion in tax havens - CNN.com
The Real Problem With Offshore Tax Havens | TIME.com
http://tjn-usa.org/storage/documents/The_Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_-_22-07-2012.pdf
Piercing the secrecy of offshore tax havens - The Washington Post
BBC News - Tax havens: Super-rich 'hiding' at least $21tn
Offshore Tax Haven Money Could Save Us From the Fiscal Cliff | Mother Jones
A money 'black hole': rich hide at least $21 trillion in tax havens, study shows - Business
Super-Rich Hide $21 Trillion in Secret Tax Havens, Says Tax Justice Network - ABC News
Tax havens: The missing $20 trillion | The Economist
How Apple, Google And Microsoft Keep Profits Offshore To Avoid Taxes - Business Insider


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains are not EARNED.  It's money made from having money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income.  If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At he very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work.  That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what critics of capitalism often overlook entirely. One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want. Capitalism delegates those decisions to individuals. If they do well, if they direct labor and resources toward goods and services that people really want, it gives them even more capital to work with. If they fail, they lose their money and someone else gets a chance.
Click to expand...


Huh?


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income.  If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At he very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work.  That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what critics of capitalism often overlook entirely. One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want. Capitalism delegates those decisions to individuals. If they do well, if they direct labor and resources toward goods and services that people really want, it gives them even more capital to work with. If they fail, they lose their money and someone else gets a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
Click to expand...


Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.


----------



## bripat9643

KNB said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains are not EARNED.  It's money made from having money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income.  If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At the very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work.  That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't EARNED like a real paycheck is EARNED, by actually doing something other than already being rich.
> 
> And why aren't the 1% putting their money back to work?
> Google Joins Apple Avoiding Taxes With Stateless Income - Bloomberg
> Global super-rich hide $21 trillion in tax havens - CNN.com
> The Real Problem With Offshore Tax Havens | TIME.com
> http://tjn-usa.org/storage/documents/The_Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_-_22-07-2012.pdf
> Piercing the secrecy of offshore tax havens - The Washington Post
> BBC News - Tax havens: Super-rich 'hiding' at least $21tn
> Offshore Tax Haven Money Could Save Us From the Fiscal Cliff | Mother Jones
> A money 'black hole': rich hide at least $21 trillion in tax havens, study shows - Business
> Super-Rich Hide $21 Trillion in Secret Tax Havens, Says Tax Justice Network - ABC News
> Tax havens: The missing $20 trillion | The Economist
> How Apple, Google And Microsoft Keep Profits Offshore To Avoid Taxes - Business Insider
Click to expand...


If you think it's not earned, then I have a proposition for you:  send me all your money and I'll return it in 10 years with no interest or ROI.  That's a fair deal according to your theory of "earned," don't ya think?


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marx predicted that capitalism would blow up 100 years ago, which is clearly wrong.  He also didn't understand diddly-squat about the U.S. labor market.  According to him, we should all be earning less than we did when he wrote Das Kapital.  The reality is that we are all earning fabulously more.  Economists have demonstrated the idiocy of the labor theory of value time and time again.  In short, you have to be a brain dead loser to believe Karl Marx said anything useful.
> 
> Your position is 100% horse manure.  It's all based on Marxist propaganda which we know to be dead wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism _almost_ did implode on itself 100 years ago. Nothing like a massive labor shortage to undo a long term trend in wages and nothing like globalization and peace to undo those trends.
> 
> Who said he was perfectly right about everything?
> 
> Capitalism favors the capitalist, which is both capitalism's greatest strength and the biggest threat to capitalism in the long term.
> 
> I think it is wonderfully ironic that you complain about the corrupting influence of money on Democracy and then complain about Marx in the next breath.
> 
> The future of modern economics is finding a way to balance growth in production and growth in wages. China has demonstrated rather clearly just how fast productivity can increase but they have relied heavily on the US to provide them with a growing consumer market that is independent of their wage market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, if your argument is "almost" - you have _no_ argument.
> 
> Second, nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> Third, why is it that every liberal at this board to points to China in _every_ argument? If oppressive communism is so wonderful, go live there _stupid_.
Click to expand...


LOL

Trends matter in the real world.

China is not an example of communism at work in my argument. My comments were about the nature of productivity growth as it relates to wage growth.

Your "rebuttals" are not really on point. Maybe we need to re-start the discussion at a more basic level so you can keep up.


----------



## dblack

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what critics of capitalism often overlook entirely. One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want. Capitalism delegates those decisions to individuals. If they do well, if they direct labor and resources toward goods and services that people really want, it gives them even more capital to work with. If they fail, they lose their money and someone else gets a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.
Click to expand...



To clarify the work that capitalists do, let's imagine a hypothetical. Let's say we 'fired' all of them. We send them to the unemployment lines and have them turn in all their capital to the government. What do we do with it? Who decides? How?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

I oppose income equality.

I laugh at the current liberal meme trying to make political hay out of the insane contention that "income inequality" is (a) a bad thing in and of itself or (b) something the liberals or the government have any particular claim of right to even address.

But, even as I laugh at their new meme and their insane "logic," I have a concern that too many people actually buy in to even the ridiculous premise of their illogical argument.


----------



## KNB

bripat9643 said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income.  If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At the very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work.  That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't EARNED like a real paycheck is EARNED, by actually doing something other than already being rich.
> 
> And why aren't the 1% putting their money back to work?
> Google Joins Apple Avoiding Taxes With Stateless Income - Bloomberg
> Global super-rich hide $21 trillion in tax havens - CNN.com
> The Real Problem With Offshore Tax Havens | TIME.com
> http://tjn-usa.org/storage/documents/The_Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_-_22-07-2012.pdf
> Piercing the secrecy of offshore tax havens - The Washington Post
> BBC News - Tax havens: Super-rich 'hiding' at least $21tn
> Offshore Tax Haven Money Could Save Us From the Fiscal Cliff | Mother Jones
> A money 'black hole': rich hide at least $21 trillion in tax havens, study shows - Business
> Super-Rich Hide $21 Trillion in Secret Tax Havens, Says Tax Justice Network - ABC News
> Tax havens: The missing $20 trillion | The Economist
> How Apple, Google And Microsoft Keep Profits Offshore To Avoid Taxes - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think it's not earned, then I have a proposition for you:  send me all your money and I'll return it in 10 years with no interest or ROI.  That's a fair deal according to your theory of "earned," don't ya think?
Click to expand...





> Some have argued that reducing capital gains tax rates would increase short-run and long-run economic growth. The long-run level of output depends on the amount of saving and investment. Saving and investment increase the amount of capital in the economy and hence, aggregate supply (i.e., the amount of goods and services available in the economy). Many economists note that capital gains tax reductions appear to have little or even a negative effect on saving and investment (see above).
> 
> Consequently, capital gains tax rate reductions are unlikely to have much effect on the long-term level of output or the path to the long-run level of output (i.e., economic growth). Furthermore, it is argued that a temporary or permanent capital gains tax reduction is an effective economic stimulus measure. An effective short-term economic stimulus, however, will have to increase aggregate demand, which requires additional spending. A tax reduction on capital gains would mostly benefit very high income taxpayers who are likely to save most of any tax reduction.
> 
> Economists note that a temporary capital gains tax reduction possibly could have a negative impact on short-term economic growth. A temporary tax cut could induce investors to sell stock (i.e., realize capital gains by reducing the lock-in effect), but provides no incentive to invest since investors know they will face higher tax rates in the future. To the extent that the resulting sell-off depresses stock prices, consumer confidence, already low during recessions, could be further undermined thus reducing consumer spending.
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40411.pdf



*"A tax reduction on capital gains would mostly benefit very high income taxpayers who are likely to save most of any tax reduction."*

That sounds like what all of those links are reporting- the 1% are hoarding trillions in offshore tax shelters instead of reinvesting it.


----------



## Bombur

IlarMeilyr said:


> I oppose income equality.
> 
> I laugh at the current liberal meme trying to make political hay out of the insane contention that "income inequality" is (a) a bad thing in and of itself or (b) something the liberals or the government have any particular claim of right to even address.
> 
> But, even as I laugh at their new meme and their insane "logic," I have a concern that too many people actually buy in to even the ridiculous premise of their illogical argument.



Income equality is impossible.

The issue being discussed is the degree of income inequality and the fact that it is growing. Also being discussed is the cause for this national trend and the possible problems related to a higher level of income inequality and any problems associated with the cause of rising income inequality.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what critics of capitalism often overlook entirely. One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want. Capitalism delegates those decisions to individuals. If they do well, if they direct labor and resources toward goods and services that people really want, it gives them even more capital to work with. If they fail, they lose their money and someone else gets a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.
Click to expand...


>> One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want. 

Pure facist/marxist/totalitarian government centric straw-man BS. You are mixing the concept of an economic system, with the purpose of improving efficiency of resources and labor, more particularly you use the term allocating toward projects, with emphasis on what the [collective] people need and *want*. 

No.  The most important function of any economic system is voluntary production of goods, services, and voluntary allocations of resources to benefit said production of goods and services.

>> Capitalism delegates those decisions to individuals. 

Capitalism does not delegate.  Again you appear to have some sort of authoritarian government pov thing going in your speech.  

>> If they do well, if they direct labor and resources toward goods and services that people really want, it gives them even more capital to work with. 

Strawman.  Assumes doing well means capital growth.

>> If they fail, they lose their money and someone else gets a chance.

Strawman.  Assumes failure, means loosing money.  This sentence also assumes there's only room for one person to try at a time in capitalism.  This sentence further, ignores that even in capitalism the government can screw it up by creating competition that fights the capitalist efforts, using the capitalist's tax revenue against him.


----------



## dblack

IlarMeilyr said:


> I oppose income equality.
> 
> I laugh at the current liberal meme trying to make political hay out of the insane contention that "income inequality" is (a) a bad thing in and of itself or (b) something the liberals or the government have any particular claim of right to even address.
> 
> But, even as I laugh at their new meme and their insane "logic," I have a concern that too many people actually buy in to even the ridiculous premise of their illogical argument.



To be fair, it's not income inequality they're (usually) complaining about. It's _increasing_ income inequality, or perhaps _extreme_ income inequality. But I still find it a dubious concern. I also find it interesting that they focus on that, rather than increasing poverty. The reason they don't, is that there isn't increasing poverty. Relative to the past, the people at the bottom levels in our economy, are better of than they were, and their lot continues to improve. This they want to ignore, focusing instead on the gap between the poorest and the wealthiest. The presumption they're trying to slide in here is that limiting the wealth controlled by the top level will equate to increased wealth for the bottom levels - but I think that's a hard case to make directly. Maybe that's why they never do.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Bombur said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose income equality.
> 
> I laugh at the current liberal meme trying to make political hay out of the insane contention that "income inequality" is (a) a bad thing in and of itself or (b) something the liberals or the government have any particular claim of right to even address.
> 
> But, even as I laugh at their new meme and their insane "logic," I have a concern that too many people actually buy in to even the ridiculous premise of their illogical argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income equality is impossible.
> 
> The issue being discussed is the degree of income inequality and the fact that it is growing. Also being discussed is the cause for this national trend and the possible problems related to a higher level of income inequality and any problems associated with the cause of rising income inequality.
Click to expand...


HOW is the alleged high "degree" of income inequality any of YOUR business?

What do YOU propose can be (or even should be ) "done" to "correct" the alleged "problem" of "a high degree" of income inequality?


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want.
> 
> Pure facist/marxist/totalitarian government centric straw-man BS. You are mixing the concept of an economic system, with the purpose of improving efficiency of resources and labor, more particularly you use the term allocating toward projects, with emphasis on what the [collective] people need and *want*.
> 
> No.  The most important function of any economic system is voluntary production of goods, services, and voluntary allocations of resources to benefit said production of goods and services.
Click to expand...


You're really missing the point here - or perhaps I'm making it poorly. All I'm saying is that if you shut down the capitalists, what they do still needs to be done. If we moved to socialism, for example, we need to 'hire' a bunch of managers who would do essentially the same thing capitalists do now of their own accord - namely, 'allocating labor and resources toward projects'. Capitalists do this by investing in companies and ventures they believe will turn a profit. Government bureaucrats would have other, more political, priorities.


----------



## Bombur

IlarMeilyr said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose income equality.
> 
> I laugh at the current liberal meme trying to make political hay out of the insane contention that "income inequality" is (a) a bad thing in and of itself or (b) something the liberals or the government have any particular claim of right to even address.
> 
> But, even as I laugh at their new meme and their insane "logic," I have a concern that too many people actually buy in to even the ridiculous premise of their illogical argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income equality is impossible.
> 
> The issue being discussed is the degree of income inequality and the fact that it is growing. Also being discussed is the cause for this national trend and the possible problems related to a higher level of income inequality and any problems associated with the cause of rising income inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HOW is the alleged high "degree" of income inequality any of YOUR business?
> 
> What do YOU propose can be (or even should be ) "done" to "correct" the alleged "problem" of "a high degree" of income inequality?
Click to expand...


It is my business because it impact the entire country and is in part a product of government policy or the lack thereof. It is my business because it impacts the people of my nation and threatens the long term prosperity of my country. 

There are a lot of things that can be done that will help the US labor force regain their market leverage. We could address trade imbalances, tax policy, UHC, regulations as they relate to trade, and many other smaller issues.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify the work that capitalists do, let's imagine a hypothetical. Let's say we 'fired' all of them. We send them to the unemployment lines and have them turn in all their capital to the government. What do we do with it? Who decides? How?
Click to expand...


That's what we are doing now.  The President is deciding who wins and looses by assigning Czars, like the Car, Energy, and Banking Czars to distribute U.S. notes around like it was monopoly money to their cronies.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify the work that capitalists do, let's imagine a hypothetical. Let's say we 'fired' all of them. We send them to the unemployment lines and have them turn in all their capital to the government. What do we do with it? Who decides? How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what we are doing now.  The President is deciding who wins and looses by assigning Czars, like the Car, Energy, and Banking Czars to distribute U.S. notes around like it was monopoly money to their cronies.
Click to expand...


To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify the work that capitalists do, let's imagine a hypothetical. Let's say we 'fired' all of them. We send them to the unemployment lines and have them turn in all their capital to the government. What do we do with it? Who decides? How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we are doing now.  The President is deciding who wins and looses by assigning Czars, like the Car, Energy, and Banking Czars to distribute U.S. notes around like it was monopoly money to their cronies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.
Click to expand...


Who is suggesting more crony capitalism?


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we are doing now.  The President is deciding who wins and looses by assigning Czars, like the Car, Energy, and Banking Czars to distribute U.S. notes around like it was monopoly money to their cronies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is suggesting more crony capitalism?
Click to expand...


You are - from what I've read so far.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is suggesting more crony capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are - from what I've read so far.
Click to expand...


What did I say that made you think that?


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which part are you 'huh'ing? I'm describing the very real work that capitalists do by investing their money in worthwhile projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want.
> 
> Pure facist/marxist/totalitarian government centric straw-man BS. You are mixing the concept of an economic system, with the purpose of improving efficiency of resources and labor, more particularly you use the term allocating toward projects, with emphasis on what the [collective] people need and *want*.
> 
> No.  The most important function of any economic system is voluntary production of goods, services, and voluntary allocations of resources to benefit said production of goods and services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're really missing the point here - or perhaps I'm making it poorly. All I'm saying is that if you shut down the capitalists, what they do still needs to be done. If we moved to socialism, for example, we need to 'hire' a bunch of managers who would do essentially the same thing capitalists do now of their own accord - namely, 'allocating labor and resources toward projects'. Capitalists do this by investing in companies and ventures they believe will turn a profit. Government bureaucrats would have other, more political, priorities.
Click to expand...


If they shut down capitalists? I can't believe that anyone could have missed the whole War on Profit and capitalist assets by the progressives & greentards. 

Move to socialism?  I can't believe anyone could have missed the War on Poverty via socialist hand-outs.  60million+ Americans are on welfare twice that many benefit by not having to pay for federal services, welfare and progressive taxation is socialism. 

Capitalists are not against all public works projects.  Your statements appear to be making the statement that you can only have one or the other.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> One of the most important functions, in any economic system, is efficiently allocating resources and labor toward projects that people need and want.
> 
> Pure facist/marxist/totalitarian government centric straw-man BS. You are mixing the concept of an economic system, with the purpose of improving efficiency of resources and labor, more particularly you use the term allocating toward projects, with emphasis on what the [collective] people need and *want*.
> 
> No.  The most important function of any economic system is voluntary production of goods, services, and voluntary allocations of resources to benefit said production of goods and services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're really missing the point here - or perhaps I'm making it poorly. All I'm saying is that if you shut down the capitalists, what they do still needs to be done. If we moved to socialism, for example, we need to 'hire' a bunch of managers who would do essentially the same thing capitalists do now of their own accord - namely, 'allocating labor and resources toward projects'. Capitalists do this by investing in companies and ventures they believe will turn a profit. Government bureaucrats would have other, more political, priorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they shut down capitalists? I can't believe that anyone could have missed the whole War on Profit and capitalist assets by the progressives & greentards.
> 
> Move to socialism?  I can't believe anyone could have missed the War on Poverty via socialist hand-outs.  60million+ Americans are on welfare twice that many benefit by not having to pay for federal services, welfare and progressive taxation is socialism.
> 
> Capitalists are not against all public works projects.  Your statements appear to be making the statement that you can only have one or the other.
Click to expand...


I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. You seem to have radically missed the point I was trying to make, which, simply put, is just that capitalists do important work for the economy by investing to make a profit; work that would need to be done (by someone) regardless of the kind of economy we have.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is suggesting more crony capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are - from what I've read so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I say that made you think that?
Click to expand...


Well, to be fair, I haven't been following all of your posts, so I might just be flat-out wrong. But you seem to be arguing for active government intervention in the economy, which is the wellspring of crony capitalism.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify the work that capitalists do, let's imagine a hypothetical. Let's say we 'fired' all of them. We send them to the unemployment lines and have them turn in all their capital to the government. What do we do with it? Who decides? How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we are doing now.  The President is deciding who wins and looses by assigning Czars, like the Car, Energy, and Banking Czars to distribute U.S. notes around like it was monopoly money to their cronies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.
Click to expand...


I think we have to stop looking at things in broad scopes, and discuss specifics. But while discussing broadly,... I'll give my broad view:

I believe the critics argument against capitalists is essentially the same as the critics arguments against government management.  Both critics bemoan some rich guy (in DC or on Wall Street) being given the authority of a monopoly to control a large segment of an industry and use that monopoly to screw the consumer, owners, and/or workers.

IOW the issue is one of control.  The left believe the right wants the corporations to be in control and the right believes the left wants marxist czars to be in control.  To a certain degree both sides are correct in stating that absolute authority given in the form of monopoly control of markets is a bad thing that will be wielded in bad ways by bad people. 

The solution is more liberty within the law, but neither the democrats or republicans want any of that liberty thing.  

Govco's job is to break up monopolies not make themselves the monopoly or pick and choose their friends to be the monopoly owner of a sector.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're really missing the point here - or perhaps I'm making it poorly. All I'm saying is that if you shut down the capitalists, what they do still needs to be done. If we moved to socialism, for example, we need to 'hire' a bunch of managers who would do essentially the same thing capitalists do now of their own accord - namely, 'allocating labor and resources toward projects'. Capitalists do this by investing in companies and ventures they believe will turn a profit. Government bureaucrats would have other, more political, priorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they shut down capitalists? I can't believe that anyone could have missed the whole War on Profit and capitalist assets by the progressives & greentards.
> 
> Move to socialism?  I can't believe anyone could have missed the War on Poverty via socialist hand-outs.  60million+ Americans are on welfare twice that many benefit by not having to pay for federal services, welfare and progressive taxation is socialism.
> 
> Capitalists are not against all public works projects.  Your statements appear to be making the statement that you can only have one or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. You seem to have radically missed the point I was trying to make, which, simply put, is just that capitalists do important work for the economy by investing to make a profit; work that would need to be done (by someone) regardless of the kind of economy we have.
Click to expand...


My point, and I'm not sure how you missed it.  Is that capitalists do more than just invest to make profit.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what we are doing now.  The President is deciding who wins and looses by assigning Czars, like the Car, Energy, and Banking Czars to distribute U.S. notes around like it was monopoly money to their cronies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is suggesting more crony capitalism?
Click to expand...


If you're suggesting government management of the economy, then you're suggesting crony capitalism.  The two things go together like white on rice.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are - from what I've read so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did I say that made you think that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, to be fair, I haven't been following all of your posts, so I might just be flat-out wrong. But you seem to be arguing for active government intervention in the economy, which is the wellspring of crony capitalism.
Click to expand...


Government should only step in to make the market more efficient or based on some other objective like public safety or health. The government can also pursue long term goals that the private sector wouldn't.

The government is inherently impacting the economy when they have taxes or have a trade policy. In the modern global economy the lack of UHC also has a relative impact on the US labor market. So do our regulations. 

Something like the Federal Reserve is intervention which I am for. 

I don't see how any of that has anything to do with crony capitalism which is IMO just another version of supply side economics.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is suggesting more crony capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're suggesting government management of the economy, then you're suggesting crony capitalism.  The two things go together like white on rice.
Click to expand...


I addressed this point in my last post.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Bombur said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Income equality is impossible.
> 
> The issue being discussed is the degree of income inequality and the fact that it is growing. Also being discussed is the cause for this national trend and the possible problems related to a higher level of income inequality and any problems associated with the cause of rising income inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOW is the alleged high "degree" of income inequality any of YOUR business?
> 
> What do YOU propose can be (or even should be ) "done" to "correct" the alleged "problem" of "a high degree" of income inequality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is my business because it impact the entire country and is in part a product of government policy or the lack thereof. It is my business because it impacts the people of my nation and threatens the long term prosperity of my country.
> 
> There are a lot of things that can be done that will help the US labor force regain their market leverage. We could address trade imbalances, tax policy, UHC, regulations as they relate to trade, and many other smaller issues.
Click to expand...


There are MANY things in life that can be (fairly) said to have some degree of "impact" on the entire country even some things tht arise partly because of government policy.

That doesn't give you or the government any valid claim, necessarily, to meddle where you have not been granted permission to meddle.

Starting from the premise (as I do) that ours is a Constitutionally LIMITED Republic, before I would deign to grant you or the government permission to meddle in the "degree" of income inequality, I would demand that OU and the government demonstrate that your meddling is authorized by the Constitution itself.

If you like it or if you hate it, we live in a CAPITALIST society.  So let's ask, among other necessary questions, what role does the US Federal Government have (if any) in validly regulating Capitalist entities?  What is the grant of authority for assuming such alleged authority?

We clearly do have a government that attempts to insinuate itself into the markets and labor decisions and so forth.  That we have tolerated or permitted this up to now is not a terribly strong argument for the proposition that such interference is proper or legitimate.

I believe that there IS a proper role for government in addressing some problems associated with Capitalism.  But I also believe we have done a poor job of defining what that role properly is and what the basis for it is and what the parameters are for such an impressive power.  It is, in my estimation, way past the time to get that discussion going in a very robust manner.

For, if we fail to have that discussion, then we might end up tacitly approving (or worse yet, continuing to tacitly approve) an over-reaching government having undue power and we could end up permitting the encroachment of socialism where we never actually ok'd it.


----------



## gnarlylove

IlarMeilyr said:


> HOW is the alleged high "degree" of income inequality any of YOUR business?
> 
> What do YOU propose can be (or even should be ) "done" to "correct" the alleged "problem" of "a high degree" of income inequality?



You're asking the wrong question. To narrow income inequality to one person is to ignore the billions of folks around the globe who are exploited. They live in abject conditions you wouldn't let your dog live in because you have empathy for your dog but not your fellow man.

Why? Because you want everyone to be loyal to you like your dog is. If they aren't you dismiss them as having no right to life. This is a stupid social theory but you've never studied anything in depth as FOX provides all the specious idiocy you can digest leaving no room for unbiased facts.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.



You're obviously under the impression that the elite know how to run society and giving it up to the people is unthinkable.

It's unthinkable because we've never tried it. Do I think we could handle immediate power shifts of this magnitude? No. It would need to be gradual as in shock to a system is often damaging in the short term. But for if you're argument is "We don't know" that is pretty poor reasoning to think capitalists/elite are operating a society like it should. They are operating a society that mostly benefits them, this is an undeniable fact. What does that leave for the rest? Well, we have to put up with the eternal struggle and wage slavery...but we got a nice new car so I eases our pain. The material comforts are fucking worthless since 1 in 5 citizens are in need of serious mental health counseling. This is a joke society, not one intended to help humanity flourish like a good society should. It tramples underfoot the majority so the tiny minority can live in unprecedented and unthinkable abundance.


----------



## Bombur

IlarMeilyr said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> HOW is the alleged high "degree" of income inequality any of YOUR business?
> 
> What do YOU propose can be (or even should be ) "done" to "correct" the alleged "problem" of "a high degree" of income inequality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is my business because it impact the entire country and is in part a product of government policy or the lack thereof. It is my business because it impacts the people of my nation and threatens the long term prosperity of my country.
> 
> There are a lot of things that can be done that will help the US labor force regain their market leverage. We could address trade imbalances, tax policy, UHC, regulations as they relate to trade, and many other smaller issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are MANY things in life that can be (fairly) said to have some degree of "impact" on the entire country even some things tht arise partly because of government policy.
> 
> That doesn't give you or the government any valid claim, necessarily, to meddle where you have not been granted permission to meddle.
> 
> Starting from the premise (as I do) that ours is a Constitutionally LIMITED Republic, before I would deign to grant you or the government permission to meddle in the "degree" of income inequality, I would demand that OU and the government demonstrate that your meddling is authorized by the Constitution itself.
> 
> If you like it or if you hate it, we live in a CAPITALIST society.  So let's ask, among other necessary questions, what role does the US Federal Government have (if any) in validly regulating Capitalist entities?  What is the grant of authority for assuming such alleged authority?
> 
> We clearly do have a government that attempts to insinuate itself into the markets and labor decisions and so forth.  That we have tolerated or permitted this up to now is not a terribly strong argument for the proposition that such interference is proper or legitimate.
> 
> I believe that there IS a proper role for government in addressing some problems associated with Capitalism.  But I also believe we have done a poor job of defining what that role properly is and what the basis for it is and what the parameters are for such an impressive power.  It is, in my estimation, way past the time to get that discussion going in a very robust manner.
> 
> For, if we fail to have that discussion, then we might end up tacitly approving (or worse yet, continuing to tacitly approve) an over-reaching government having undue power and we could end up permitting the encroachment of socialism where we never actually ok'd it.
Click to expand...


Trade policy, tax policy, and healthcare policy are all within the government's authority. All impact income inequality through action and inaction.


----------



## gnarlylove

Bombur said:


> Government should only step in to make the market more efficient or based on some other objective like public safety or health. The government can also pursue long term goals that the private sector wouldn't.



Yep, without government we don't have collective pursuits unless it benefits the capitalist class, which usually just centers around generating profits instead of well being.

"Having a market society automatically carries with it an undermining of solidarity. For example, in the market system you have a choice: You can buy a Toyota or you can buy a Ford, but you cant buy a subway because thats not offered. Market systems dont offer common goods; they offer private consumption. If you want a subway, youre going to have to get together with other people and make a collective decision. Otherwise, its simply not an option within the market system, and as democracy is increasingly undermined, its less and less of an option within the public system. All of these things converge, and theyre all part of general class war."

Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet


----------



## IlarMeilyr

gnarlylove said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> HOW is the alleged high "degree" of income inequality any of YOUR business?
> 
> What do YOU propose can be (or even should be ) "done" to "correct" the alleged "problem" of "a high degree" of income inequality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking the wrong question. To narrow income inequality to one person is to ignore the billions of folks around the globe who are exploited. They live in abject conditions you wouldn't let your dog live in because you have empathy for your dog but not your fellow man.
> 
> Why? Because you want everyone to be loyal to you like your dog is. If they aren't you dismiss them as having no right to life. This is a stupid social theory but you've never studied anything in depth as FOX provides all the specious idiocy you can digest leaving no room for unbiased facts.
Click to expand...


No, gnarlylump.

YOU are guilty of deriving the wrong conclusion from the available evidence.  Your logic is piss poor and you are emotionally immature and lacking in any kind of sophistication.

IF you had the ability to be honest and objective, you dickweed,  even a lump as dull as you might be able to see that capitalism has worked wonders for human beings.

The solution to the fact that some folks in the world live in abject poverty would be obvious if you were not so blinded by your own plodding dim intellect.  It is not to get rid of capitalism.  It is to SPREAD it far and wide.

Capitalism has elevated the BASE where ever it has been permitted to flower.

*Our* poorest (in capitalist America) live in a condition which would be deemed almost unimaginable royal wealth, from not that far back in human history.

Do *our* poorest live in relatively rough conditions compared to the so-called middle "class" or the wealthy?  Sure.  And is that as things should be?  No.  but do things HAVE to remain that way?  Nope. Capitalism itself has historically provided the way out.

Of course it takes work and industry and effort and skill and time and talent.  But it does get rewarded.

What is NOT called for is the abandonment of the very engine that has improved the lot of even our poorest for so long.

Some fine tuning might be in order.  SOME government interference might even be necessary since men are not angels.  But the solution to the problems we have is not to jettison the very thing that has made us what we are.  It is to work on perfecting it.

By contrast, you offer (or propose) nothing but -- what?  Another example of historical failure?

You don't even "study" anything.  I don't watch FOX.  Your cartoonish stereotype thinking has no power over me.  You could LEARN from FOX if you had even the tiniest bit of an open mind.  But you don't.  You buy wholesale the crap "taught' to you by the jokes you revere:  lolberal "academics."  And twits like you merely parrot what you've been told (almost ordered) to "think."  

Sadly, thinking is not something you do.


----------



## KNB

You do know that cutting taxes for the richest people on Earth doesn't do anything for the billions of poor people all over the world, right?


----------



## History

KNB said:


> You do know that cutting taxes for the richest people on Earth doesn't do anything for the billions of poor people all over the world, right?



Why not cut taxes for all?? You think that raising taxes for Middle Class people helps the economy as well just because you want to fund the lazy?? Think again..

What government has created basically, Increased Debt, Increased Inflation,  Increased Taxation, More Dependency, and the Middle Class has been buried as a result.. The poor are living pretty good with all this redistribution of wealth and the rich aren't hurt.. Both Parties have caused all of this in the end..


----------



## gnarlylove

IlarMeilyr said:


> *Our* poorest (in capitalist America) live in a condition which would be deemed almost unimaginable royal wealth, from not that far back in human history.



I have lived homeless for months at a time.

Shut the fuck up if you haven't. You fucking think homeless and those in abject poverty live in some grand country?

When was the last time you turned off FOX propaganda and went down to your city mission?

Never? That's what I thought. Before you listen to people on TV in suits talk about what it's like to be homeless in America why don't you use your head for a second.

People on TV in suits are not Homeless. They are not Poor. They do not know the conditions of what it's like to be poor. I'm sure you'll keep repeating this categorical ignorance because you have heard it a hundred times on FOX but if you had ANY concern for facts, you wouldn't listen to idiots in suits who dress up as homeless people and beg for change, you'd listen to the actually homeless people WHICH ARE NEVER ON TV. Since they aren't on TV you wouldn't make the effort to understand it so you settle for sags and bags of suits telling you how life is for the homeless. Now that's lunacy.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> To a degree, yes. But the critics of capitalism seem to be suggesting we do much more of this, and give individuals much less control over the process. I think it will be a really bad mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously under the impression that the elite know how to run society and giving it up to the people is unthinkable.
Click to expand...


I think it's obvious that we want the best and brightest making the most important decisions. This is a truism and usually the argument against elitism isn't that we want its opposite (the worst and dumbest running things?) but rather, how we decide who are the best and brightest are, and how to ensure they're making the important decisions.

We'll face the same problem regardless of whether we have a capitalist or a socialist economy. Someone will have to make the decisions entailed in 'running' society. Our choice is between a free-form system, where we 'elect' these people by spending our money on the things we value, or a state mandated system where we literally elect the 'deciders' through the political process. I don't see any advantage to the latter. Political decisions limit diversity and mandate consensus. I don't see it addressing any of the human value problems you cite and will be even easier for ambitious people to manipulate to their own ends.


----------



## KNB

History said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that cutting taxes for the richest people on Earth doesn't do anything for the billions of poor people all over the world, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not cut taxes for all?? You think that raising taxes for Middle Class people helps the economy as well just because you want to fund the lazy?? Think again..
> 
> What government has created basically, Increased Debt, Increased Inflation,  Increased Taxation, More Dependency, and the Middle Class has been buried as a result.. The poor are living pretty good with all this redistribution of wealth and the rich aren't hurt.. Both Parties have caused all of this in the end..
Click to expand...

Did I say anything at all about raising taxes on the middle class?  I said "Cutting taxes for the richest corporations and their CEOs does absolutely nothing to help the billions of poor people all over the world."

Nothing about raising taxes on the working class.

"The poor are living pretty good with all this redistribution of wealth and the rich aren't hurt."  What does that even mean?  What "redistribution of wealth" are you referring to?  What are you talking about?  The richest 1% have made 95% of the financial gains during the economic "recovery" since 2009 and there are still high unemployment numbers across the country.  This means that "trickle down" theory is BULLSHIT.  There are 49 million Americans who can't afford enough to eat each week while corporations continue to rake in record profits.

We cut taxes to the upper class, giving them more disposable income with which to "trickle down", and that money is sitting in offshore tax shelters, not trickling down to anyone.  So as "good" as the world's poor are living with "all" of this "redistribution of wealth" going on, the world's poor would be living A FUCK LOT BETTER if these wealthy "job creators" spent their trillions of dollars on creating jobs with higher wages and better benefits.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Yep, without government we don't have collective pursuits unless it benefits the capitalist class, which usually just centers around generating profits instead of well being.



That's just not true. Economic transactions aren't the sum total of society. We come together, without government, to deal with all kinds of problems and pursue all kinds of goals in ways that have nothing to do with turning a profit.


----------



## History

Just taxing the rich more isnt going to help, all they are gonna do is leave your country and go to another and create jobs.. They are free and they can do what they want, moving is one of them.. Unless you want all the rich to leave this country, then so be it..


----------



## RKMBrown

History said:


> Just taxing the rich more isnt going to help, all they are gonna do is leave your country and go to another and create jobs.. They are free and they can do what they want, moving is one of them.. Unless you want all the rich to leave this country, then so be it..



The libtards would rather rule in hell than work in heaven.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> I think it's obvious that we want the best and brightest making the most important decisions.



The best and brightest people are almost never the wealthiest and most powerful, given our current society. The most powerful tend to inherit their fortunes and build upon that (while keeping the poor from having similar opportunities). The best and brightest are not corrupted by power and the influence of money because their goal is not more profit but a better society.

If we lived in a true meritocracy, one might be able to agree the best and brightest are indeed those ruling the government and private sector. But you and I both know corruption ruins authentic motivations--they focus on making themselves affluent first and foremost--and to hell with the rest for the most part.




dblack said:


> This is a truism...


Then you shore up your reasoning by making it unfalsifiable. Nice trick. Too bad its almost entirely false. More likley we have the greediest folks running society instead of the best and brightest. And even if they were the best and brightest, with such sums of money being given to our elites, no wonder they loose focus on the public good and cease being the best and brightest.

In fact, if you are the best and brightest, woulnd't that make you immune to issues of quarterly profit over the good of humanity, what best for society? Oh our current elites tell us they know what's best but I just can't seem to believe them. You seem to. I don't want to get into the rest of your post because it hinges on this first part, which is disputable.

Here is exactly the type of corruption that I'm talking about in an excerpt from "Money, Power, and Wall St."



> NARRATOR: Cathy O&#8217;Neil, a mathematician, came to Wall Street in 2007 after beginning her career in academia.
> 
> CATHY O&#8217;NEIL: I went to U.C. Berkeley as an undergrad. I went to Harvard for grad school. And then I was a post-doc for five years at MIT. And I applied to work at a hedge fund, D.E. Shaw, and I got the job. And I thought this was great.
> 
> I was a quant. A quant uses statistical methods to try to predict patterns in the market.
> 
> NARRATOR: Her work was used to predict when big pension funds would buy or sell, so the firm could jump in ahead of their trades.
> 
> CATHY O&#8217;NEIL: *I just felt like I was doing something immoral. I was taking advantage of people I don&#8217;t even know whose retirements were in these funds.*
> 
> We all put money into our 401(k)s. And Wall Street takes this money and just skims off, like, a certain percentage every quarter. At the very end of somebody&#8217;s career, they retire and they get some of that back. This is this person&#8217;s money, and it&#8217;s just basically going to&#8212; to Wall Street. This doesn&#8217;t seem right.
> 
> CAITLIN KLINE, Credit Suisse, 2004-10: Everybody kind of knows in their heart that something&#8217;s not right. But once you are making money for a while, you don&#8217;t ever want to stop making money.
> 
> NARRATOR: Caitlin Kline came to Wall Street in 2004. She says it was all very seductive.
> 
> CAITLIN KLINE: *Your whole first summer is taken up with things like golf lessons and negotiation classes, wine tastings, things to make sure you know how to handle yourself in a business environment.*
> 
> NARRATOR: Kline was a math major at New York University and considered becoming a teacher. But she remained on Wall Street for six years.
> 
> CAITLIN KLINE: *You have the sneaking suspicion that you&#8217;re not contributing to society. But it was always really easy to say, &#8220;I know the risks. They know the risks. None of this is our money. So you know, we can kind of do these things, and it&#8217;s all fair game.&#8221;*



It seems these genuine and educated people were being corrupted by the very nature of the system. They were indeed the best and brightest and that resulted in tons of money, not a contribution to society. I can't tell if you understand society or if you believe most of the bull shit fed through mass media...


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's obvious that we want the best and brightest making the most important decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best and brightest people are almost never the wealthiest and most powerful, given our current society. The most powerful tend to inherit their fortunes and build upon that (while keeping the poor from having similar opportunities). The best and brightest are not corrupted by power and the influence of money because their goal is not more profit but a better society.
> 
> If we lived in a true meritocracy, one might be able to agree the best and brightest are indeed those ruling the government and private sector. But you and I both know corruption ruins authentic motivations--they focus on making themselves affluent first and foremost--and to hell with the rest for the most part.
Click to expand...


We're talking about the relatively narrow realm of economics, and if creating wealth isn't a measure of skill when it comes to making economic decisions, I'm not sure what else would be.



> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a truism...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you shore up your reasoning by making it unfalsifiable. Nice trick. Too bad its almost entirely false. More likely we have the greediest folks running society instead of the best and brightest. And even if they were the best and brightest, with such sums of money being given to our elites, no wonder they loose focus on the public good and cease being the best and brightest.
> 
> In fact, if you are the best and brightest, woulnd't that make you immune to issues of quarterly profit over the good of humanity, what best for society? Oh our current elites tell us they know what's best but I just can't seem to believe them. You seem to. I don't want to get into the rest of your post because it hinges on this first part, which is disputable.
Click to expand...


First of all, you misread. I didn't say we _have_ the best and brightest making the most important decisions, I said that's what we _want_ - which I contend that, unless you're willing to disagree, _is_ a truism (it's plenty falsifiable if you do, in fact, disagree. But I can't imagine why you would.) The problem is in figuring out who the best and brightest are. We'll never be able to do that perfectly, but I contend that the free-form system will do that better, and be more responsive to the needs of consumers, than a state mandated system ever could. Again, we're talking about the narrow realm of economic decisions. I'm not suggesting rich people should run government, or society.



> Here is exactly the type of corruption that I'm talking about in an excerpt from "Money, Power, and Wall St."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NARRATOR: Cathy O&#8217;Neil, a mathematician, came to Wall Street in 2007 after beginning her career in academia.
> 
> CATHY O&#8217;NEIL: I went to U.C. Berkeley as an undergrad. I went to Harvard for grad school. And then I was a post-doc for five years at MIT. And I applied to work at a hedge fund, D.E. Shaw, and I got the job. And I thought this was great.
> 
> I was a quant. A quant uses statistical methods to try to predict patterns in the market.
> 
> NARRATOR: Her work was used to predict when big pension funds would buy or sell, so the firm could jump in ahead of their trades.
> 
> CATHY O&#8217;NEIL: *I just felt like I was doing something immoral. I was taking advantage of people I don&#8217;t even know whose retirements were in these funds.*
> 
> We all put money into our 401(k)s. And Wall Street takes this money and just skims off, like, a certain percentage every quarter. At the very end of somebody&#8217;s career, they retire and they get some of that back. This is this person&#8217;s money, and it&#8217;s just basically going to&#8212; to Wall Street. This doesn&#8217;t seem right.
> 
> CAITLIN KLINE, Credit Suisse, 2004-10: Everybody kind of knows in their heart that something&#8217;s not right. But once you are making money for a while, you don&#8217;t ever want to stop making money.
> 
> NARRATOR: Caitlin Kline came to Wall Street in 2004. She says it was all very seductive.
> 
> CAITLIN KLINE: *Your whole first summer is taken up with things like golf lessons and negotiation classes, wine tastings, things to make sure you know how to handle yourself in a business environment.*
> 
> NARRATOR: Kline was a math major at New York University and considered becoming a teacher. But she remained on Wall Street for six years.
> 
> CAITLIN KLINE: *You have the sneaking suspicion that you&#8217;re not contributing to society. But it was always really easy to say, &#8220;I know the risks. They know the risks. None of this is our money. So you know, we can kind of do these things, and it&#8217;s all fair game.&#8221;*
Click to expand...


It's not uncommon for gifted scientists and mathematicians to be clueless regarding how their work impacts society.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

KNB said:


> You do know that cutting taxes for the richest people on Earth doesn't do anything for the billions of poor people all over the world, right?



No.  And you don't "know" any such thing either.

You merely make the empty claim; and may believe it.  But you are wrong.

If you cut the taxes of the wealthy here in the United States, the thinking is that they will have more of what they earned to INVEST.  Investment leads to jobs and the production of goods and services.  This is one way in wich Capitalism spreads the wealth.  For with increased production, there often comes an increased demand for resources (like the stuff made or obtained from other lands and their peoples).

Are you following along yet, skippy?

So, it DOES do things -- very good things -- for the billions of poor people all over the globe.

Conversely, if we were silly enough to heed your ignorant words, the wealthy here might get taxed a bit (or a lot) more highly.  They would then NOT have the money to invest and the demand for goods and services, and the resultant jobs and demand for products would fail to materialize.  This would do the billions of poor all over the world not one damn bit of good.  

The system is not perfect.  But it need not be perfect to work.  and we know it does work.  World history and human progress have already proved as much, skippy.  So, the alarm you are beginning to hear ringing.  That's your wake up call.  Snap out of your coma.


----------



## History

What people fail to realize is the *Top 10% pay 70% of the US Tax Bill*, and still, they want more from them..


----------



## RKMBrown

History said:


> What people fail to realize is the *Top 10% pay 70% of the US Tax Bill*, and still, they want more from them..



Give a man a fish, instead of teaching him to fish, and he'll be back the next day yelling at you to provide him with two fish.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> First of all, you misread. I didn't say we _have_ the best and brightest making the most important decisions, I said that's what we _want_ - which I contend that, unless you're willing to disagree, _is_ a truism (it's plenty falsifiable if you do, in fact, disagree. But I can't imagine why you would.) The problem is in figuring out who the best and brightest are. We'll never be able to do that perfectly, but I contend that the free-form system will do that better, and be more responsive to the needs of consumers, than a state mandated system ever could. Again, we're talking about the narrow realm of economic decisions. I'm not suggesting rich people should run government, or society.



It is a truism and you are right to assume I agree.

But they way you describe the operation of society relies on current consumerism. This is different than the meeting of supply and demand, which is more hypothetical. I think if we aligned supply with demand ideally it would result in no inequality. Well, at least inequality that everyone is happy with--some people are satisfied naturally with less than others. So I see you conflating ideals with how society operates or the _a priori_ with the _a posteriori _

Consumerism (and Economics) asserts itself over the fact we don't only consider our own interests everytime. This is a result of the language of economics which sees people as agents who maximize their welfare, always. But we know this isn't how humanity tends to operate. We operate based on responding to our surroundings and our principles (which gets in the way of maximization of welfare, profit, whatever).

So this idea of keeping up consumerism is just a fad. At no time in history has society depended so crucially on the incessant exchange of goods. Don't you think our society ought to depend on the harmony between humanity and nature (instead of infinite consumption) for global stability?

Again, it seems you and I agree on the hypothetical scenarios. But we know these don't play out like we hope. So we need innovative technologies and policies overcoming mass human error (that results from lack of maximization) OR we need to have entrance exams into society. Those who fail the exam remain in the current system of cyclical consumption, those who pass enter the best and brightest society ever designed.

For this new society do we need 100% of policy figured out in advance? No. These things are impossible. Humans are extremely adaptive (we live in every possible oxygen-rich climate) and it's no different when it comes to cooperation and governance. I think having a general set of axioms can carry us into the applied ethics of society.


----------



## gnarlylove

You seem to have high hopes for humanity figuring out problems without interference from government. That a group of (elite) humans are capable of being responsible with entire economies. Are the elite born elite or is it purely training (or both and if so how do we determinate that)?

Until we take propaganda behind the barn and execute it, this can never be. Humans have become confused at every possible level in society due to promotion of ego and trillions spent in propaganda. A steady diet of silence and meditation will reveal this.

While I agree we should have the B&B making these decisions, I also contend that it's better for us all to become B&B instead of promoting a few humans to such an elite status. Unless of course you think B&B mostly comes from genetics. The ideas behind consensus government (unanimous cooperation) prevent elites from usurping control. Any person is capable of being corrupted and some argue its our nature to be entirely self interested. If that's the case, an elite group making national or global economic decisions will inevitably result in corruption. Corruption being defined by the fact they would make decisions based on their own profit maximization rather than a sustainable or just society. If the first group of B&B doesn't become corrupt, it's not hard to imagine corruption seeping in over the course of a few generations. Are they elected by the public or appointed via electoral college? Or by the previous elite (which enables greater levels of corruption to enter)?


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> You seem to have high hopes for humanity figuring out our own problems without interference from government. That a group of humans are capable of being responsible with entire economies. Until we take propaganda out back and execute it, this can never be. Humans have become confused at every possible level due to promotion of ego and propaganda.
> 
> While I agree we should have the best making these decisions, I also contend that it's better for us all to become the best and brightest instead of promoting a few humans to such an elite status. The ideas behind consensus government (unanimous) prevent elites from taking control. Any person is capable of being corrupted and some argue its our nature to be entirely self interested. If that's the case, an elite group making national or global economic decisions will eventually result in corruption. Corruption being defined by the fact they would almost inevitably make decisions based on their own profit maximization rather than a sustainable or just society. If the first group doesn't become corrupt (are they appointed like electoral college?), it's not hard to imagine corruption seeping in over the course of a few generations.



*"You seem to have high hopes for humanity figuring out our own problems without interference from government. That a group of humans are capable of being responsible with entire economies."*

A government IS a group of humans. And in as much as there can never be unanimous consensus government, they will always be an elite group making the decisions. But government has the power to coerce us, to use violent force if we don't agree with their agenda. Private capitalists do not.

My main thing is to keep power from becoming centralized in too few hands. We learned the hard way that merging religion and government was a bad idea, and separating them was a huge leap forward for freedom and civilized society. We're learning the same lesson now with economic power.


----------



## gnarlylove

Private capitalists have the ability to crush labor unions, which advocate safer working conditions, among other positive attributes. Are unions always good? No. But to think capitalists simply don't engage in violence and coercion is a lie. Some accuse coca-cola of murdering people in Africa, hence the term "Killer Coke." I know you won't believe them because Coke has spent trillions of dollars to shore up their image over the years. Do I believe it? I certainly believe it's a possibility, whereas you clearly think private capitalists don't wield powers like that of the government. Anyone as powerful or in control of governments will do what's necessary to maintain their status. In modern times though power has increased for the capitalists, they have also become adept at covert manipulation and legal coercion because of their B&B crackpot lawyers. Is their technically legal (and possibly illegal) coercion going to be challenged by breadwinner who needs to support his family? You can answer that one.

In fact, capitalists seems to almost inevitably imply corruption leading to forms of coercion or manipulation to get their way. Where do you stand on capitalists? Do you buy their image of charitable philanthropists or can you seem them for who they are (which includes charity but has darkness too)?

When you say you want to avoid centralized power, how do you reconcile an elite class making economic decisions? Are these elite decisions voted on or are they exempt from criticism where we submit voluntarily to them?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

gnarlylump:

There is a reason you spew your verbose blather in a series of incoherent posts without ever being able to persuade anybody of anything,

You lack logic.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> When you say you want to avoid centralized power, how do you reconcile an elite class making economic decisions? Are these elite decisions voted on or are they exempt from criticism where we submit voluntarily to them?



It's not a class - everyone who earns and spends money participates in economic decisions. If we combine this with the coercive power of government it will be more concentrated, not less. In a free market, we can ignore the decisions of any capitalists we don't like. We don't have to do business with them. Merging business and government - as we're doing with ACA - takes away the right to say no. We're faced with economic decisions we're forced to follow.


----------



## gnarlylove

IlarMeilyr said:


> You lack logic.



Logic helps dispel fundamental flaws in thinking like the ones you use. Like thinking what you believe is necessarily how the world is. In other words, you can't imagine your beliefs being false.

But you can shove your claim back in your pocket Mr. Happy-Go-Lucky-Hater. I graduated with a 2 Baccalaureates. One was in Philosophy with a specialization in analytical philosophy AND LOGIC from Ohio Wesleyan. In logic 380 you don't make stupid assertions, you use deductive or inductive logic to gauge the legitimacy of claims while converting them into essentially mathematics iff p>q). The iff is not typo, I included it because I know you don't know what the hell it is--yet you pretend to know logic. 

The text books in introductory logic and advanced logic alike use FOX news examples to point out flawed logic. Indeed, the first page of this introductory text points out a fallacy often found on FOX. I don't have to ask you whether you studied logic at this level because when people say dumb shit they are hiding behind their massive and phony egos. Why don't you get off somewhere else and leave the logic to those who study it.


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> Private capitalists have the ability to crush labor unions, which advocate safer working conditions, among other positive attributes. Are unions always good? No. But to think capitalists simply don't engage in violence and coercion is a lie. Some accuse coca-cola of murdering people in Africa, hence the term "Killer Coke." I know you won't believe them because Coke has spent trillions of dollars to shore up their image over the years. Do I believe it? I certainly believe it's a possibility, whereas you clearly think private capitalists don't wield powers like that of the government. Anyone as powerful or in control of governments will do what's necessary to maintain their status. In modern times though power has increased for the capitalists, they have also become adept at covert manipulation and legal coercion because of their B&B crackpot lawyers. Is their technically legal (and possibly illegal) coercion going to be challenged by breadwinner who needs to support his family? You can answer that one.
> 
> In fact, capitalists seems to almost inevitably imply corruption leading to forms of coercion or manipulation to get their way. Where do you stand on capitalists? Do you buy their image of charitable philanthropists or can you seem them for who they are (which includes charity but has darkness too)?
> 
> When you say you want to avoid centralized power, how do you reconcile an elite class making economic decisions? Are these elite decisions voted on or are they exempt from criticism where we submit voluntarily to them?


*It's hard to imagine a more pathological version of centralized power than private corporations:*

"All centralized power carries the same pathology: those with the authority are never exposed to the consequences of their authority, nor do they have any responsibility for the consequences. 

"The president who launches an unwinnable war that chews up the nation's youth and treasure leaves office to fund-raise for his self-glorification, i.e. a presidential library. 

"The CEO whose strategies fail to revive the corporation and indeed send it to the brink of insolvency leaves with a 'golden parachute' worth tens of millions of dollars. 

"This pathology is not the result of individual psychology or character; it is the result of centralized, concentrated power itself."

Guest Post: The Dark Heart Of Centralized Power | Zero Hedge 

*Unlike emperors, dictators, and CEOs, a "democratically" elected president would seem to offer some measure of protection for the majority of citizens from the many sociopaths who end up in positions of power.*


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> *It's hard to imagine a more pathological version of centralized power than private corporations*



Seriously?

Then I'd suggest you have limited imagination. Or perhaps no knowledge of history. Consider a fascist government in action.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

georgephillip said:


> * * * *
> *It's hard to imagine a more pathological version of centralized power than private corporations:* * * * *



^ precisely why nobody can take old georgie porgie seriously.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost yet again!  LOL.   That didn't address anything I said.  It makes no valid points at all.   Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.
> 
> You lose again sir.
> 
> Pro-Debating Hint:   Posting stuff that doesn't have anything at all to do with the topic, proves you lost the argument.  Because if you had a point, you would make it.  The fact you are just spewing random crap, proves you can't make a point.
> 
> Every single time you post random crap, that doesn't contradict, address, or make any kind of a counter point, I'm going to call you out on it, and let you know you lost the argument.  Because that's what you are proving, by making pointless unrelated posts.
> 
> 
> 
> *You said this:
> "Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
> Remember?
> I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L*
> 
> "What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation  O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."
> 
> *Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I just tell you?  If you have to change topics because you can't make a valid point, that only proves you lost the argument.
> 
> Do you want to talk about oil?  Or do you want to talk about war?   Two different topics.   We didn't go to Iraq for oil.  Name one oil field we own, in Iraq?   Name the oil tanker of oil from Iraq, that we didn't buy from them on the market?
> 
> In fact it was because of people like you, that Iraq signed servicing contracts with China, instead of the US.   China richer, US poorer, and all thanks to people like you, saying we went there for oil.  Now US companies, with US employees, paying US taxes, are NOT working in Iraqi oil fields.
> 
> If we didn't buy their legally sold resources, they would simply be poorer.
> 
> You want to talk about Operation Iraqi Liberation, a war?  Fine.  War sucks.  People die.  Avoid it as much as possible, but not when a madman in Iraq gives us no choice.
> 
> Nevertheless, that topic, is not the topic we were talking about, meaning you lost the argument again.    You lost again man.     If you can't argue the points brought up, and have no valid counter points, and all you can do is change topics.... that shows you lost the argument.
Click to expand...

The topic has always been how capitalism guarantees rising inequality.
If you can't connect the dots between war and oil in the capitalist universe, get help with your learning disabilities or find another thread to troll.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's hard to imagine a more pathological version of centralized power than private corporations*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Then I'd suggest you have limited imagination. Or perhaps no knowledge of history. Consider a fascist government in action.
Click to expand...

"Italian Fascism promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.[3] 

"It promoted corporatism as an alternative to capitalism and Marxism, which it regarded as 'obsolete doctrines'".[citation needed]

*How do you imagine we can limit the power of today's corporate fascists in the US by diminishing the power of democratically elected state representatives?*

Italian Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's hard to imagine a more pathological version of centralized power than private corporations*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Then I'd suggest you have limited imagination. Or perhaps no knowledge of history. Consider a fascist government in action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Italian Fascism promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.[3]
> 
> "It promoted corporatism as an alternative to capitalism and Marxism, which it regarded as 'obsolete doctrines'".[citation needed]
> 
> *How do you imagine we can limit the power of today's corporate fascists in the US by diminishing the power of democratically elected state representatives?*
> 
> Italian Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Diminishing the power of government is the only way we _*can*_ limit fascist corporatism.

You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Diminishing the power of government is the only way we _*can*_ limit fascist corporatism.
> 
> You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.


Since you're clearly opposed to "government" then how do you explain your idea of economic decisions being decided by an elite group of the B&B?

The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.

What I mean is that governments and corporations/private sector business exercise authority. The only difference is how much. Our government has less influence than international businesses like Google and JP Morgan except when it comes genuine combat. The difference is we tend to think the military is an outgrowth of government (and it was originally). What happens when government is in cahoots with corporations? A secret alliance where corporations can pressure the US into certain military campaigns for profit. We saw this in the last decade very openly.

According to George's link to the blog, this tangled web of private sector and the government are ontological necessities born from such massive concentrations of power and wealth.

When action arises from government, you say it's coercive.

When action arises out of the private sector, you call it reality.

They are hardly different in our 21st century yet you insist government is bad and private sector is natural and desirable. And I tend to agree with the blog: when you allow elites to make decisions with such centralized wealth, corruption is a necessary result. Regardless of how bright one is, absolute power (exemplified by the Kochs) is absolutely corrupting.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Then I'd suggest you have limited imagination. Or perhaps no knowledge of history. Consider a fascist government in action.
> 
> 
> 
> "Italian Fascism promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.[3]
> 
> "It promoted corporatism as an alternative to capitalism and Marxism, which it regarded as 'obsolete doctrines'".[citation needed]
> 
> *How do you imagine we can limit the power of today's corporate fascists in the US by diminishing the power of democratically elected state representatives?*
> 
> Italian Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diminishing the power of government is the only way we _*can*_ limit fascist corporatism.
> 
> You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.
Click to expand...

Why can it not exist without the coercive power of the state?
If you shrink the state sufficiently to drown it in Grover's bathtub, will Goldman Sachs or Blackwater or Lockheed Martin magically disappear?


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Diminishing the power of government is the only way we _*can*_ limit fascist corporatism.
> 
> You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Since you're clearly opposed to "government" then how do you explain your idea of economic decisions being decided by an elite group of the B&B?
> 
> The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is. Quite radically. That's what I've been trying to communicate to you. The government operates by brute force. Private corporations don't. That's a huge difference, and the failure to recognize that is the great failure of modern liberalism.



> What happens when government is in major cahoots with corporations? An secret alliance where corporations can pressure the US into certain military campaigns for profit.
> 
> According to George's link to the blog, this tangled web of private sector and the government are ontological necessities born from such massive concentrations of power and wealth.



I tend to agree. Much of the excessive concentration of wealth today is a result of corporate/government collusion. That collusion depends on the misguided attempts of reformers to 'regulate' markets with government. Unscrupulous players step in an steer that to their own ends. Witness ACA.



> When action arises from government, you say it's coercive.
> 
> When action arises out of the private sector, you call it reality.



That's a fact. Private business can only coerce their customers by getting in bed with government.

FWIW, I don't think government is bad - I think government government that fails to provide equal protection is bad.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Italian Fascism promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.[3]
> 
> "It promoted corporatism as an alternative to capitalism and Marxism, which it regarded as 'obsolete doctrines'".[citation needed]
> 
> *How do you imagine we can limit the power of today's corporate fascists in the US by diminishing the power of democratically elected state representatives?*
> 
> Italian Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diminishing the power of government is the only way we _*can*_ limit fascist corporatism.
> 
> You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can it not exist without the coercive power of the state?
> If you shrink the state sufficiently to drown it in Grover's bathtub, will Goldman Sachs or Blackwater or Lockheed Martin magically disappear?
Click to expand...


Yes. The corporate charter is a government decree. Corporations (businesses) have exactly no coercive power of their own. 

In any case, you're conflating corporatism with incorporated business colluding with government. It's not the same thing. Read the wiki article. Corporatism is a form of government. You're probably thinking of 'Corporatocracy'.


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> "This pathology is not the result of individual psychology or character; it is the result of centralized, concentrated power itself."
> 
> Guest Post: The Dark Heart Of Centralized Power | Zero Hedge
> 
> *Unlike emperors, dictators, and CEOs, a "democratically" elected president would seem to offer some measure of protection for the majority of citizens from the many sociopaths who end up in positions of power.*



*"[T]hose with the authority are never exposed to the consequences of their authority, nor do they have any responsibility for the consequences."*

This is a eloquent summary of why current rates of inequality have become tolerable, nay, necessary.

Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans and so are entirely unaware any American is doing so.  Like myself, a large population of homeless have marketable skills or at least can work in fast food but cannot do so because of the consequences closing low income housing for condos and trickle down policies that simply don't work. I know the consequences because I lived them myself and talked with those suffering from them.


----------



## RKMBrown

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This pathology is not the result of individual psychology or character; it is the result of centralized, concentrated power itself."
> 
> Guest Post: The Dark Heart Of Centralized Power | Zero Hedge
> 
> *Unlike emperors, dictators, and CEOs, a "democratically" elected president would seem to offer some measure of protection for the majority of citizens from the many sociopaths who end up in positions of power.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"[T]hose with the authority are never exposed to the consequences of their authority, nor do they have any responsibility for the consequences."*
> 
> This is a eloquent summary of why current rates of inequality have become tolerable, nay, necessary.
> 
> Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans and so are entirely unaware any American is doing so.  Like myself, a large population of homeless have marketable skills or at least can work in fast food but cannot do so because of the consequences closing low income housing for condos and trickle down policies that simply don't work. I know the consequences because I lived them myself and talked with those suffering from them.
Click to expand...


Yet here you are on the internet on a computer...


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's the Dumbocrats who love off-shoring. That's why they keep punishing business with high taxes, costly crushing regulations, and greedy extortion unions - to force business overseas.
> 
> It's not rocket science - whoever welcomes businesses gets the businesses. Whoever demonizes and punishes them, loses them. Sadly, Dumbocrats are just too fuck'n stupid to figure out even something _this_ basic....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Democrats hate off-shoring..........  they are just too stupid to figure out they are causing it.
> 
> Hey Leftists...........   Which car companies declared bankruptcy?
> 
> GM and Chrysler?   Or was it Toyota and Honda?
> 
> Let me ask it another way....
> 
> Was it Unionized GM and Chrysler?   Or non-Union Toyota and Honda?
> 
> Funny how the first question get's an easy response, and the second get's blank stares.
> 
> The left is who is driving out business, with regulations, mandates, taxes, and red tape.
Click to expand...

*Actually US capitalists hate democracy and embrace a race to the bottom in order to maintain increasing economic inequality in America.

Ask Roger (and Me) and Jessica about how German labor unions with voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for reverse that effect:*

"In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. 

"At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. 

"Yet Germanys big three car companiesBMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagenare very profitable.

"There are 'two overlapping sets of institutions' in Germany that guarantee high wages and good working conditions for autoworkers. 

"The first is IG Metall, the countrys equivalent of the United Automobile Workers. 

"Virtually all Germanys car workers are members, and though they have the right to strike, they 'hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,' according to Horst Mund, an IG Metall executive. 

"The second institution is the German constitution, which allows for 'works councils' in every factory, where management and employees work together on matters like shop floor conditions and work life. 

"Mund says this guarantees cooperation, 'where you dont always wear your management pin or your union pin.'

How Germany Builds Twice As Many Cars As The U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice As Much - Forbes

*See, only those totally blinded by the ideology of American Exceptionalism fail to see how corrupt union officials and Wall Street parasites, like Mitt, destroyed much of the US auto industry.*


----------



## gnarlylove

RKMBrown said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are on the internet on a computer...
Click to expand...


What's your point?

Let me take a stab at it: you want to distract attention away from the fact that you have no point.

Much of 2012 I have had to eat from dumpsters during the night out of necessity. Yet your Republican friends think they know what's its like to be poor in America. They think it's some smorgasbord of indulgence and no responsibility despite the fact they've never once even driven by the city mission let alone spent a night there. I can tell you there is nothing to be considered "comforting" or great about being in America and being homeless. I preferred to sleep on the street when it was snowing instead of spending a night in the city mission for good reason.

I want to be clear, I don't give a fuck about having been homeless myself and I know I will be again (hopefully sooner than later). MY point is no one living on the street or in city mission is thinking to themselves, "Boy America sure is grand! I'm so glad to be homeless in America." The conditions they live are by no standards well-off. It's just some idiotic wishful thinking that the homeless in America are like the middle class in some foreign country.


----------



## LibertyLemming

lol people think corporatism is capitalism lol


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall St doesn't hypocritically claim to be in favor of socialism.   HollyWood does.   You people on the left, start practicing what you preach first.   Then if that works, maybe the rest of us will follow.  Otherwise.... just shut up.  Go preach at a Scientology church or something.
> 
> 
> 
> *Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:*
> 
> "Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."
> 
> "Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.
> 
> "Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.
> 
> "*Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.*
> 
> "Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."
> 
> "Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."
> 
> Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
> You people on the right should learn to think logically.
> In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG.*
> 
> Bull. Goldman received money from AIG for these CDS, not from the taxpayer.
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.*
> 
> What costs do you feel were socialized by Goldman? Be specific.
Click to expand...

Right after you start supplying links for your Bull.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's the Dumbocrats who love off-shoring. That's why they keep punishing business with high taxes, costly crushing regulations, and greedy extortion unions - to force business overseas.
> 
> It's not rocket science - whoever welcomes businesses gets the businesses. Whoever demonizes and punishes them, loses them. Sadly, Dumbocrats are just too fuck'n stupid to figure out even something _this_ basic....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Democrats hate off-shoring..........  they are just too stupid to figure out they are causing it.
> 
> Hey Leftists...........   Which car companies declared bankruptcy?
> 
> GM and Chrysler?   Or was it Toyota and Honda?
> 
> Let me ask it another way....
> 
> Was it Unionized GM and Chrysler?   Or non-Union Toyota and Honda?
> 
> Funny how the first question get's an easy response, and the second get's blank stares.
> 
> The left is who is driving out business, with regulations, mandates, taxes, and red tape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually US capitalists hate democracy and embrace a race to the bottom in order to maintain increasing economic inequality in America.
> 
> *
Click to expand...

*

Really?

Identify one such "capitalist".

.*


----------



## LibertyLemming

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:*
> 
> "Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."
> 
> "Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.
> 
> "Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.
> 
> "*Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.*
> 
> "Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."
> 
> "Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."
> 
> Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
> You people on the right should learn to think logically.
> In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG.*
> 
> Bull. Goldman received money from AIG for these CDS, not from the taxpayer.
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.*
> 
> What costs do you feel were socialized by Goldman? Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right after you start supplying links for your Bull.
Click to expand...



Are people citing Goldman Sachs as examples of capitalism ? Because if so that is RETARDED. Do you understand how regulations and licensing and zoning and shit like that works? It all benefits certain corporations. This is corporatism or cronyism, not capitalism. Capitalism is free markets not arbitrarily regulated markets. You should be complaining about the government not capitalism.


----------



## gnarlylove

The only free market approach was allowing Lehman Bros to collapse. The rest was socialism for the wealthy upon the backs of taxpayers. That includes Goldman, AIG, and a host of some 20 banks that flubbed up the international market and brought systemic risk to the WHOLE SYSTEM. Indeed, if it wasn't for socialism, we wouldn't be talking about a puny recession, we'd be talking about an overhaul of the global economy.


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This pathology is not the result of individual psychology or character; it is the result of centralized, concentrated power itself."
> 
> Guest Post: The Dark Heart Of Centralized Power | Zero Hedge
> 
> *Unlike emperors, dictators, and CEOs, a "democratically" elected president would seem to offer some measure of protection for the majority of citizens from the many sociopaths who end up in positions of power.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"[T]hose with the authority are never exposed to the consequences of their authority, nor do they have any responsibility for the consequences."*
> 
> This is a eloquent summary of why current rates of inequality have become tolerable, nay, necessary.
> 
> Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans and so are entirely unaware any American is doing so.  Like myself, a large population of homeless have marketable skills or at least can work in fast food but cannot do so because of the consequences closing low income housing for condos and trickle down policies that simply don't work. I know the consequences because I lived them myself and talked with those suffering from them.
Click to expand...

There are "retired" seniors working part-time at the non-profit Senior Center where I volunteer who can not afford to work full time because of the losses they would suffer from losing Medicaid and affordable housing benefits.  

Since Los Angeles is one of eight counties in California scheduled for a Medicaid "reform" experiment, it's likely many of the seniors will see the quality of their medical care decline when HMOs get involved.

I'm sure the investor class appreciates the sacrifice.


----------



## History

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This pathology is not the result of individual psychology or character; it is the result of centralized, concentrated power itself."
> 
> Guest Post: The Dark Heart Of Centralized Power | Zero Hedge
> 
> *Unlike emperors, dictators, and CEOs, a "democratically" elected president would seem to offer some measure of protection for the majority of citizens from the many sociopaths who end up in positions of power.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"[T]hose with the authority are never exposed to the consequences of their authority, nor do they have any responsibility for the consequences."*
> 
> This is a eloquent summary of why current rates of inequality have become tolerable, nay, necessary.
> 
> Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans and so are entirely unaware any American is doing so.  Like myself, a large population of homeless have marketable skills or at least can work in fast food but cannot do so because of the consequences closing low income housing for condos and trickle down policies that simply don't work. I know the consequences because I lived them myself and talked with those suffering from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are "retired" seniors working part-time at the non-profit Senior Center where I volunteer who can not afford to work full time because of the losses they would suffer from losing Medicaid and affordable housing benefits.
> 
> Since Los Angeles is one of eight counties in California scheduled for a Medicaid "reform" experiment, it's likely many of the seniors will see the quality of their medical care decline when HMOs get involved.
> 
> I'm sure the investor class appreciates the sacrifice.
Click to expand...


Okay, so if they knew that they would have to eventually retire, the question is why didn't they save enough Money for Retirement??


----------



## thereisnospoon

gnarlylove said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government should only step in to make the market more efficient or based on some other objective like public safety or health. The government can also pursue long term goals that the private sector wouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, without government we don't have collective pursuits unless it benefits the capitalist class, which usually just centers around generating profits instead of well being.
> 
> "Having a market society automatically carries with it an undermining of solidarity. For example, in the market system you have a choice: You can buy a Toyota or you can buy a Ford, but you cant buy a subway because thats not offered. Market systems dont offer common goods; they offer private consumption. If you want a subway, youre going to have to get together with other people and make a collective decision. Otherwise, its simply not an option within the market system, and as democracy is increasingly undermined, its less and less of an option within the public system. All of these things converge, and theyre all part of general class war."
> 
> Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet
Click to expand...


Market systems dont offer common goods; they offer private consumption. 
Why should they?
This is all very fascinating. But it's just one guy's theory. If you want to hang your hat on that, fine.


----------



## thereisnospoon

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you misread. I didn't say we _have_ the best and brightest making the most important decisions, I said that's what we _want_ - which I contend that, unless you're willing to disagree, _is_ a truism (it's plenty falsifiable if you do, in fact, disagree. But I can't imagine why you would.) The problem is in figuring out who the best and brightest are. We'll never be able to do that perfectly, but I contend that the free-form system will do that better, and be more responsive to the needs of consumers, than a state mandated system ever could. Again, we're talking about the narrow realm of economic decisions. I'm not suggesting rich people should run government, or society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a truism and you are right to assume I agree.
> 
> But they way you describe the operation of society relies on current consumerism. This is different than the meeting of supply and demand, which is more hypothetical. I think if we aligned supply with demand ideally it would result in no inequality. Well, at least inequality that everyone is happy with--some people are satisfied naturally with less than others. So I see you conflating ideals with how society operates or the _a priori_ with the _a posteriori _
> 
> Consumerism (and Economics) asserts itself over the fact we don't only consider our own interests everytime. This is a result of the language of economics which sees people as agents who maximize their welfare, always. But we know this isn't how humanity tends to operate. We operate based on responding to our surroundings and our principles (which gets in the way of maximization of welfare, profit, whatever).
> 
> So this idea of keeping up consumerism is just a fad. At no time in history has society depended so crucially on the incessant exchange of goods. Don't you think our society ought to depend on the harmony between humanity and nature (instead of infinite consumption) for global stability?
> 
> Again, it seems you and I agree on the hypothetical scenarios. But we know these don't play out like we hope. So we need innovative technologies and policies overcoming mass human error (that results from lack of maximization) OR we need to have entrance exams into society. Those who fail the exam remain in the current system of cyclical consumption, those who pass enter the best and brightest society ever designed.
> 
> For this new society do we need 100% of policy figured out in advance? No. These things are impossible. Humans are extremely adaptive (we live in every possible oxygen-rich climate) and it's no different when it comes to cooperation and governance. I think having a general set of axioms can carry us into the applied ethics of society.
Click to expand...


 "Don't you think our society ought to depend on the harmony between humanity and nature"?
No....Our economy is built on commerce.
In the future, please reference the material you are posting on here.
Now....What is YOUR solution.
Use you own words. No blogs. No opinion pieces. No regurgitation of lessons from leftist professors.
Because I for one and getting sick and tired of reading the incessant complaining. yet nary a solution from any of you.
One thing is clear.You have whining down pat.


----------



## gnarlylove

History said:


> ...the question is why didn't they save enough Money for Retirement??



Why? Inflation. Taxes. Underpaid. Underemployed. Rising price of goods. Change is standards of living. Maybe he didn't give a fuck about his own needs and wanted the best for his grand kids and supported their endeavors at the cost of his final years. Many reasons can explain it.

Your point is that this old man deserves to suffer for something he couldn't afford to do. This is all well and good in a society with robust charity. We don't live in that society. We live in this one:


----------



## thereisnospoon

gnarlylove said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are on the internet on a computer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Let me take a stab at it: you want to distract attention away from the fact that you have no point.
> 
> Much of 2012 I have had to eat from dumpsters during the night out of necessity. Yet your Republican friends think they know what's its like to be poor in America. They think it's some smorgasbord of indulgence and no responsibility despite the fact they've never once even driven by the city mission let alone spent a night there. I can tell you there is nothing to be considered "comforting" or great about being in America and being homeless. I preferred to sleep on the street when it was snowing instead of spending a night in the city mission for good reason.
> 
> I want to be clear, I don't give a fuck about having been homeless myself and I know I will be again (hopefully sooner than later). MY point is no one living on the street or in city mission is thinking to themselves, "Boy America sure is grand! I'm so glad to be homeless in America." The conditions they live are by no standards well-off. It's just some idiotic wishful thinking that the homeless in America are like the middle class in some foreign country.
Click to expand...

Right. Another lib wallowing in self pity who attempts to further the notion that there are no rich liberals.
BTW, there is no nobility in poverty.
So please do not offend us with your righteous indignation. 
If you don't give a flying fuck about having been homeless, then why bring it into the debate?
You don't get to have it both ways.


----------



## georgephillip

History said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"[T]hose with the authority are never exposed to the consequences of their authority, nor do they have any responsibility for the consequences."*
> 
> This is a eloquent summary of why current rates of inequality have become tolerable, nay, necessary.
> 
> Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans and so are entirely unaware any American is doing so.  Like myself, a large population of homeless have marketable skills or at least can work in fast food but cannot do so because of the consequences closing low income housing for condos and trickle down policies that simply don't work. I know the consequences because I lived them myself and talked with those suffering from them.
> 
> 
> 
> There are "retired" seniors working part-time at the non-profit Senior Center where I volunteer who can not afford to work full time because of the losses they would suffer from losing Medicaid and affordable housing benefits.
> 
> Since Los Angeles is one of eight counties in California scheduled for a Medicaid "reform" experiment, it's likely many of the seniors will see the quality of their medical care decline when HMOs get involved.
> 
> I'm sure the investor class appreciates the sacrifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so if they knew that they would have to eventually retire, the question is why didn't they save enough Money for Retirement??
Click to expand...

Because they weren't paid enough money every month for their labor to support their family and save for retirement.


----------



## History

But what about social security??


----------



## gnarlylove

thereisnospoon said:


> Right. Another lib wallowing in self pity who attempts to further the notion that there are no rich liberals.
> BTW, there is no nobility in poverty.
> So please do not offend us with your righteous indignation.
> If you don't give a flying fuck about having been homeless, then why bring it into the debate?
> You don't get to have it both ways.



I've never seen such a brain dead group of people. I said this is not a personal complaint. You are too stupid to understand this. If you had the ability to read English then you would have gathered the fact that I said this was not a plea for pity. You must be completely brain dead. 100%.

My point is conservatives tend to dismiss the fact people are left to exist in total shit hole circumstances because somehow being homeless in America is just awesome--or even acceptable.

Just because they live in America doesn't mean shit. Why did I bring up the fact I had been among them? Because idiots like yourself never have and yet tout lies about how great it is to be homeless in America.

Brain dead people like you make me so throttled because you have no interest in discussing the issue at hand. THIS IS ABOUT those suffering as a result of bad policies. Policies that are supported by both sides of the isle.

This isn't about liberals or conservatives. I full well know Obama has accepted more corporate money than any president in history. You glib about stupid shit like liberals being rich (no duh, it's not a secret). That's the problem, both parties couldn't give two shits about my friends and enemies on the street. We know full well they don't have a voice and so I intend to make their concerns heard when I hear  Illiamyer say it was grand to be homeless in America. Reality Check: IT'S NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. I don't doubt its better here than in Thailand but you are ignorant if you think that makes this acceptable.

And so if you have any respect for the existence of homeless you would realize policies that keep them down is bad for not just them but for the economy. I don't know why I typed, this, you don't give two shits about this. You just want to assert Democrats are stupid. Finally, we agree on something though it's not that their stupid, it's that they tend to make bad policy (just like conservatives).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Diminishing the power of government is the only way we _*can*_ limit fascist corporatism.
> 
> You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Since you're clearly opposed to "government" then how do you explain your idea of economic decisions being decided by an elite group of the B&B?
> 
> The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.
> 
> What I mean is that governments and corporations/private sector business exercise authority. The only difference is how much. Our government has less influence than international businesses like Google and JP Morgan except when it comes genuine combat. The difference is we tend to think the military is an outgrowth of government (and it was originally). What happens when government is in cahoots with corporations? A secret alliance where corporations can pressure the US into certain military campaigns for profit. We saw this in the last decade very openly.
> 
> According to George's link to the blog, this tangled web of private sector and the government are ontological necessities born from such massive concentrations of power and wealth.
> 
> When action arises from government, you say it's coercive.
> 
> When action arises out of the private sector, you call it reality.
> 
> They are hardly different in our 21st century yet you insist government is bad and private sector is natural and desirable. And I tend to agree with the blog: when you allow elites to make decisions with such centralized wealth, corruption is a necessary result. Regardless of how bright one is, absolute power (exemplified by the Kochs) is absolutely corrupting.
Click to expand...


*The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.*

Corporations can't force you to buy anything.
Government can.
Corporations can't force you to give them money.
Government does that everyday.


----------



## LibertyLemming

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Diminishing the power of government is the only way we _*can*_ limit fascist corporatism.
> 
> You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> Since you're clearly opposed to "government" then how do you explain your idea of economic decisions being decided by an elite group of the B&B?
> 
> The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.
> 
> What I mean is that governments and corporations/private sector business exercise authority. The only difference is how much. Our government has less influence than international businesses like Google and JP Morgan except when it comes genuine combat. The difference is we tend to think the military is an outgrowth of government (and it was originally). What happens when government is in cahoots with corporations? A secret alliance where corporations can pressure the US into certain military campaigns for profit. We saw this in the last decade very openly.
> 
> According to George's link to the blog, this tangled web of private sector and the government are ontological necessities born from such massive concentrations of power and wealth.
> 
> When action arises from government, you say it's coercive.
> 
> When action arises out of the private sector, you call it reality.
> 
> They are hardly different in our 21st century yet you insist government is bad and private sector is natural and desirable. And I tend to agree with the blog: when you allow elites to make decisions with such centralized wealth, corruption is a necessary result. Regardless of how bright one is, absolute power (exemplified by the Kochs) is absolutely corrupting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.*
> 
> Corporations can't force you to buy anything.
> Government can.
> Corporations can't force you to give them money.
> Government does that everyday.
Click to expand...


Better yet, _corporations are government creations._ They simply exist to shield executives from liability.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Corporations can't force you to buy anything.
> Government can.
> Corporations can't force you to give them money.
> Government does that everyday.



Look around you in a downtown area, especially places like Times Square. Do you tend to buy the products you see advertised? I know the majority of consumers do. I'm not saying you bought a product because you saw it advertised, no, it's more subtle than that.

The fact that most major corporations spend more money on advertisement than the production of their products clues us in. This is in the multiple trillions worldwide. And companies wouldn't continue spending that kind of money  year after year, decade after deacde if it didn't pay off.


----------



## LibertyLemming

You do realize most businesses have single digit profit margins right?


----------



## georgephillip

History said:


> But what about social security??


SSA and SSI which includes Medical benefits generate most of their incomes.
Part time jobs increase the amount of money they have to spend every month; however, too many hours will require sacrificing either medical coverage or their low income housing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's the Dumbocrats who love off-shoring. That's why they keep punishing business with high taxes, costly crushing regulations, and greedy extortion unions - to force business overseas.
> 
> It's not rocket science - whoever welcomes businesses gets the businesses. Whoever demonizes and punishes them, loses them. Sadly, Dumbocrats are just too fuck'n stupid to figure out even something _this_ basic....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Democrats hate off-shoring..........  they are just too stupid to figure out they are causing it.
> 
> Hey Leftists...........   Which car companies declared bankruptcy?
> 
> GM and Chrysler?   Or was it Toyota and Honda?
> 
> Let me ask it another way....
> 
> Was it Unionized GM and Chrysler?   Or non-Union Toyota and Honda?
> 
> Funny how the first question get's an easy response, and the second get's blank stares.
> 
> The left is who is driving out business, with regulations, mandates, taxes, and red tape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually US capitalists hate democracy and embrace a race to the bottom in order to maintain increasing economic inequality in America.
> 
> Ask Roger (and Me) and Jessica about how German labor unions with voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for reverse that effect:*
> 
> "In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million.
> 
> "At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour.
> 
> "Yet Germanys big three car companiesBMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagenare very profitable.
> 
> "There are 'two overlapping sets of institutions' in Germany that guarantee high wages and good working conditions for autoworkers.
> 
> "The first is IG Metall, the countrys equivalent of the United Automobile Workers.
> 
> "Virtually all Germanys car workers are members, and though they have the right to strike, they 'hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,' according to Horst Mund, an IG Metall executive.
> 
> "The second institution is the German constitution, which allows for 'works councils' in every factory, where management and employees work together on matters like shop floor conditions and work life.
> 
> "Mund says this guarantees cooperation, 'where you dont always wear your management pin or your union pin.'
> 
> How Germany Builds Twice As Many Cars As The U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice As Much - Forbes
> 
> *See, only those totally blinded by the ideology of American Exceptionalism fail to see how corrupt union officials and Wall Street parasites, like Mitt, destroyed much of the US auto industry.*
Click to expand...







Your post appears to be a fail from start to finish.

2010 Statistics | OICA


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:*
> 
> "Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."
> 
> "Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.
> 
> "Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.
> 
> "Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.
> 
> "*Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.*
> 
> "Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."
> 
> "Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."
> 
> Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
> You people on the right should learn to think logically.
> In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG.*
> 
> Bull. Goldman received money from AIG for these CDS, not from the taxpayer.
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.*
> 
> What costs do you feel were socialized by Goldman? Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right after you start supplying links for your Bull.
Click to expand...


AIG was the counterparty for Goldman's CDOs, not the government.

You need a link to understand the difference? LOL!

Let me know when you find the costs socialized by Goldman.

I'll be waiting, ready to mock you further.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> The only free market approach was allowing Lehman Bros to collapse. The rest was socialism for the wealthy upon the backs of taxpayers. That includes Goldman, AIG, and a host of some 20 banks that flubbed up the international market and brought systemic risk to the WHOLE SYSTEM. Indeed, if it wasn't for socialism, we wouldn't be talking about a puny recession, we'd be talking about an overhaul of the global economy.



*The rest was socialism for the wealthy upon the backs of taxpayers.*

Upon the backs of taxpayers? LOL!
The Treasury made a huge profit off the bank portion of TARP.

And as a bonus, the banking system didn't collapse.
10s of millions of Americans didn't have to live like you.
That's a good thing, even if mean rich people also benefit from a viable banking system.


----------



## LibertyLemming

toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only free market approach was allowing lehman bros to collapse. The rest was socialism for the wealthy upon the backs of taxpayers. That includes goldman, aig, and a host of some 20 banks that flubbed up the international market and brought systemic risk to the whole system. Indeed, if it wasn't for socialism, we wouldn't be talking about a puny recession, we'd be talking about an overhaul of the global economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *the rest was socialism for the wealthy upon the backs of taxpayers.*
> 
> upon the backs of taxpayers? Lol!
> The treasury made a huge profit off the bank portion of tarp.
> 
> And as a bonus, the banking system didn't collapse.
> 10s of millions of americans didn't have to live like you.
> That's a good thing, even if mean rich people also benefit from a viable banking system.
Click to expand...


its not capitalism if there is fucking government involved in the market


----------



## gnarlylove

LibertyLemming said:


> You do realize most businesses have single digit profit margins right?



What are you talking about?
U.S. Small Businesses Don't Create Jobs Like They Used To - Businessweek






Most employees work for large companies that do not make single digit profit margins.


----------



## History

georgephillip said:


> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what about social security??
> 
> 
> 
> SSA and SSI which includes Medical benefits generate most of their incomes.
> Part time jobs increase the amount of money they have to spend every month; however, too many hours will require sacrificing either medical coverage or their low income housing.
Click to expand...


And who is to blame for the higher inflation and higher costs of living??
Both Republicans and Democrats alike.. Thanks for looking out for our seniors.. Now y'all want them to pay even higher premiums for healthcare that they *May or May Not Have Access *to because of the government wanting to take control over the people..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are "retired" seniors working part-time at the non-profit Senior Center where I volunteer who can not afford to work full time because of the losses they would suffer from losing Medicaid and affordable housing benefits.
> 
> Since Los Angeles is one of eight counties in California scheduled for a Medicaid "reform" experiment, it's likely many of the seniors will see the quality of their medical care decline when HMOs get involved.
> 
> I'm sure the investor class appreciates the sacrifice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so if they knew that they would have to eventually retire, the question is why didn't they save enough Money for Retirement??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they weren't paid enough money every month for their labor to support their family and save for retirement.
Click to expand...


The government took 12.4% of their income, for decades, and that's not enough for retirement?
I put less than that in my 401K and have hundreds of thousands saved.


----------



## LibertyLemming

gnarlylove said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize most businesses have single digit profit margins right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> U.S. Small Businesses Don't Create Jobs Like They Used To - Businessweek
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most employees work for large companies that do not make single digit profit margins.
Click to expand...


uh large companies have single digit profit margins? 

Exxon 7.99%
PepsiCo	 8.66%
Wal-Mart Stores	 3.23%

and this is with the massive regulations and other laws the government pass to make these large companies even more profitable by stifling competition


----------



## History

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so if they knew that they would have to eventually retire, the question is why didn't they save enough Money for Retirement??
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't paid enough money every month for their labor to support their family and save for retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government took 12.4% of their income, for decades, and that's not enough for retirement?
> I put less than that in my 401K and have hundreds of thousands saved.
Click to expand...


But you know the Leftists beliefs, they believe in No Personal Responsibility for one's self.. Government is the only option that people should have, because without government controlling the lives of people, the people are powerless to think for themselves..


----------



## LibertyLemming

History said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't paid enough money every month for their labor to support their family and save for retirement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government took 12.4% of their income, for decades, and that's not enough for retirement?
> I put less than that in my 401K and have hundreds of thousands saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you know the Leftists beliefs, they believe in No Personal Responsibility for one's self.. Government is the only option that people should have, because without government controlling the lives of people, the people are powerless to think for themselves..
Click to expand...


you're an anarchist too?!?!!?!? oh you just want the government to control people how you think it should


----------



## thereisnospoon

georgephillip said:


> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are "retired" seniors working part-time at the non-profit Senior Center where I volunteer who can not afford to work full time because of the losses they would suffer from losing Medicaid and affordable housing benefits.
> 
> Since Los Angeles is one of eight counties in California scheduled for a Medicaid "reform" experiment, it's likely many of the seniors will see the quality of their medical care decline when HMOs get involved.
> 
> I'm sure the investor class appreciates the sacrifice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so if they knew that they would have to eventually retire, the question is why didn't they save enough Money for Retirement??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they weren't paid enough money every month for their labor to support their family and save for retirement.
Click to expand...


Wrong...They did not save enough.

Most consumer debt is discretionary.
Discretionary spending is a choice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations can't force you to buy anything.
> Government can.
> Corporations can't force you to give them money.
> Government does that everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look around you in a downtown area, especially places like Times Square. Do you tend to buy the products you see advertised? I know the majority of consumers do. I'm not saying you bought a product because you saw it advertised, no, it's more subtle than that.
> 
> The fact that most major corporations spend more money on advertisement than the production of their products clues us in. This is in the multiple trillions worldwide. And companies wouldn't continue spending that kind of money  year after year, decade after deacde if it didn't pay off.
Click to expand...


*Do you tend to buy the products you see advertised?*

I'm not forced to buy any product, advertised or not.
Unless, of course, government forces me.

*The fact that most major corporations spend more money on advertisement than the production of their products clues us in.*

Link?


----------



## History

LibertyLemming said:


> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government took 12.4% of their income, for decades, and that's not enough for retirement?
> I put less than that in my 401K and have hundreds of thousands saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you know the Leftists beliefs, they believe in No Personal Responsibility for one's self.. Government is the only option that people should have, because without government controlling the lives of people, the people are powerless to think for themselves..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're an anarchist too?!?!!?!? oh you just want the government to control people how you think it should
Click to expand...


No, I was being sarcastic about the Far Left(Well maybe that wasn't sarcasm)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize most businesses have single digit profit margins right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> U.S. Small Businesses Don't Create Jobs Like They Used To - Businessweek
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most employees work for large companies that do not make single digit profit margins.
Click to expand...


Your charts do not include profit margins.
Try again?


----------



## bripat9643

X m
...rdd77q

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## gnarlylove

Low Wages Costing the Public Hundreds of Millions Report Says

"Researchers say taxpayers are doling out nearly $900 million a year to supplement the wages of bank tellers, which amounts to a public subsidy for multibillion-dollar banks.

"Profits at the nation&#8217;s banks topped $141.3 billion last year, with the median chief executive pay hovering around $552,000, according to SNL Financial. In contrast, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs the median annual income of a bank teller at $24,100, or $11.59 an hour.

"Another common complaint among bank workers was the intense pressure to meet sales quotas. One Wells Fargo employee, Victoria, who would only give researchers her first name, claimed she received more than 50 e-mails a day from managers pushing sales goals. Employees, she said, had to aggressively peddle products &#8220;just to be able to keep our jobs.&#8221;

Glad we think the rich don't need to pay their workers a fair share. But when poor citizens stand up for better pay Conservatives view it as greedy workers. Just surprised to hear it from Banks, the Richest MFers in the World. What's the response?

"Wells Fargo spokeswoman Richele Messick said: &#8220;Wells Fargo works hard to create a positive work environment for our team members and a culture of doing what is best for our customers.&#8221;"

While I admit Wells Fargo had better books than some of the leading banks (JP Morgan, Citigroup etc) it doesn't excuse them from following through with their "We work hard' BS. So you know when some business says "We are trying/We work hard/We do X" then you can put your bottom dollar that it is a fucking lie. It means they treat their essential employees like a door mat. Thank God for social stratification cause I don't think I can stomach brushing shoulders with elites who lie as their common denominator. But they get away with it because of their elite status outside the system. They create jobs and rule the brains of Americans. Congratulations, the system works (for the 2% only)!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Low Wages Costing the Public Hundreds of Millions Report Says
> 
> "Researchers say taxpayers are doling out nearly $900 million a year to supplement the wages of bank tellers, which amounts to a public subsidy for multibillion-dollar banks.
> 
> "Profits at the nations banks topped $141.3 billion last year, with the median chief executive pay hovering around $552,000, according to SNL Financial. In contrast, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs the median annual income of a bank teller at $24,100, or $11.59 an hour.
> 
> "Another common complaint among bank workers was the intense pressure to meet sales quotas. One Wells Fargo employee, Victoria, who would only give researchers her first name, claimed she received more than 50 e-mails a day from managers pushing sales goals. Employees, she said, had to aggressively peddle products just to be able to keep our jobs.
> 
> Glad we think the rich don't need to pay their workers a fair share. But when poor citizens stand up for better pay Conservatives view it as greedy workers. Just surprised to hear it from Banks, the Richest MFers in the World. What's the response?
> 
> "Wells Fargo spokeswoman Richele Messick said: Wells Fargo works hard to create a positive work environment for our team members and a culture of doing what is best for our customers."
> 
> While I admit Wells Fargo had better books than some of the leading banks (JP Morgan, Citigroup etc) it doesn't excuse them from following through with their "We work hard' BS. So you know when some business says "We are trying/We work hard/We do X" then you can put your bottom dollar that it is a fucking lie. It means they treat their essential employees like a door mat. Thank God for social stratification cause I don't think I can stomach brushing shoulders with elites who lie as their common denominator. But they get away with it because of their elite status outside the system. They create jobs and rule the brains of Americans. Congratulations, the system works (for the 2% only)!



*"Researchers say taxpayers are doling out nearly $900 million a year to supplement the wages of bank tellers, which amounts to a public subsidy for multibillion-dollar banks.*

And if those jobs did not exist, how much would the taxpayers dole out?


----------



## KNB

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Low Wages Costing the Public Hundreds of Millions Report Says
> 
> "Researchers say taxpayers are doling out nearly $900 million a year to supplement the wages of bank tellers, which amounts to a public subsidy for multibillion-dollar banks.
> 
> "Profits at the nations banks topped $141.3 billion last year, with the median chief executive pay hovering around $552,000, according to SNL Financial. In contrast, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs the median annual income of a bank teller at $24,100, or $11.59 an hour.
> 
> "Another common complaint among bank workers was the intense pressure to meet sales quotas. One Wells Fargo employee, Victoria, who would only give researchers her first name, claimed she received more than 50 e-mails a day from managers pushing sales goals. Employees, she said, had to aggressively peddle products just to be able to keep our jobs.
> 
> Glad we think the rich don't need to pay their workers a fair share. But when poor citizens stand up for better pay Conservatives view it as greedy workers. Just surprised to hear it from Banks, the Richest MFers in the World. What's the response?
> 
> "Wells Fargo spokeswoman Richele Messick said: Wells Fargo works hard to create a positive work environment for our team members and a culture of doing what is best for our customers."
> 
> While I admit Wells Fargo had better books than some of the leading banks (JP Morgan, Citigroup etc) it doesn't excuse them from following through with their "We work hard' BS. So you know when some business says "We are trying/We work hard/We do X" then you can put your bottom dollar that it is a fucking lie. It means they treat their essential employees like a door mat. Thank God for social stratification cause I don't think I can stomach brushing shoulders with elites who lie as their common denominator. But they get away with it because of their elite status outside the system. They create jobs and rule the brains of Americans. Congratulations, the system works (for the 2% only)!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Researchers say taxpayers are doling out nearly $900 million a year to supplement the wages of bank tellers, which amounts to a public subsidy for multibillion-dollar banks.*
> 
> And if those jobs did not exist, how much would the taxpayers dole out?
Click to expand...

Are you actually suggesting that full-time workers who get paid jack shit so that they still need government assistance should be grateful that they aren't unemployed, while the company that they work for profits over a hundred billion dollars?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KNB said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Low Wages Costing the Public Hundreds of Millions Report Says
> 
> "Researchers say taxpayers are doling out nearly $900 million a year to supplement the wages of bank tellers, which amounts to a public subsidy for multibillion-dollar banks.
> 
> "Profits at the nations banks topped $141.3 billion last year, with the median chief executive pay hovering around $552,000, according to SNL Financial. In contrast, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs the median annual income of a bank teller at $24,100, or $11.59 an hour.
> 
> "Another common complaint among bank workers was the intense pressure to meet sales quotas. One Wells Fargo employee, Victoria, who would only give researchers her first name, claimed she received more than 50 e-mails a day from managers pushing sales goals. Employees, she said, had to aggressively peddle products just to be able to keep our jobs.
> 
> Glad we think the rich don't need to pay their workers a fair share. But when poor citizens stand up for better pay Conservatives view it as greedy workers. Just surprised to hear it from Banks, the Richest MFers in the World. What's the response?
> 
> "Wells Fargo spokeswoman Richele Messick said: Wells Fargo works hard to create a positive work environment for our team members and a culture of doing what is best for our customers."
> 
> While I admit Wells Fargo had better books than some of the leading banks (JP Morgan, Citigroup etc) it doesn't excuse them from following through with their "We work hard' BS. So you know when some business says "We are trying/We work hard/We do X" then you can put your bottom dollar that it is a fucking lie. It means they treat their essential employees like a door mat. Thank God for social stratification cause I don't think I can stomach brushing shoulders with elites who lie as their common denominator. But they get away with it because of their elite status outside the system. They create jobs and rule the brains of Americans. Congratulations, the system works (for the 2% only)!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Researchers say taxpayers are doling out nearly $900 million a year to supplement the wages of bank tellers, which amounts to a public subsidy for multibillion-dollar banks.*
> 
> And if those jobs did not exist, how much would the taxpayers dole out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you actually suggesting that full-time workers who get paid jack shit so that they still need government assistance should be grateful that they aren't unemployed, while the company that they work for profits over a hundred billion dollars?
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that a welfare check is better than a job? More money than a job?


----------



## History

KNB said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Low Wages Costing the Public Hundreds of Millions Report Says
> 
> "Researchers say taxpayers are doling out nearly $900 million a year to supplement the wages of bank tellers, which amounts to a public subsidy for multibillion-dollar banks.
> 
> "Profits at the nations banks topped $141.3 billion last year, with the median chief executive pay hovering around $552,000, according to SNL Financial. In contrast, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs the median annual income of a bank teller at $24,100, or $11.59 an hour.
> 
> "Another common complaint among bank workers was the intense pressure to meet sales quotas. One Wells Fargo employee, Victoria, who would only give researchers her first name, claimed she received more than 50 e-mails a day from managers pushing sales goals. Employees, she said, had to aggressively peddle products just to be able to keep our jobs.
> 
> Glad we think the rich don't need to pay their workers a fair share. But when poor citizens stand up for better pay Conservatives view it as greedy workers. Just surprised to hear it from Banks, the Richest MFers in the World. What's the response?
> 
> "Wells Fargo spokeswoman Richele Messick said: Wells Fargo works hard to create a positive work environment for our team members and a culture of doing what is best for our customers."
> 
> While I admit Wells Fargo had better books than some of the leading banks (JP Morgan, Citigroup etc) it doesn't excuse them from following through with their "We work hard' BS. So you know when some business says "We are trying/We work hard/We do X" then you can put your bottom dollar that it is a fucking lie. It means they treat their essential employees like a door mat. Thank God for social stratification cause I don't think I can stomach brushing shoulders with elites who lie as their common denominator. But they get away with it because of their elite status outside the system. They create jobs and rule the brains of Americans. Congratulations, the system works (for the 2% only)!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Researchers say taxpayers are doling out nearly $900 million a year to supplement the wages of bank tellers, which amounts to a public subsidy for multibillion-dollar banks.*
> 
> And if those jobs did not exist, how much would the taxpayers dole out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you actually suggesting that full-time workers who get paid jack shit so that they still need government assistance should be grateful that they aren't unemployed, _while the company that they work for profits over a hundred billion dollars_?
Click to expand...


Yeah KNB , I am sure there was only One Bank in America that Profited a total of $141.3 Billion..


----------



## KNB

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Researchers say taxpayers are doling out nearly $900 million a year to supplement the wages of bank tellers, which amounts to a public subsidy for multibillion-dollar banks.*
> 
> And if those jobs did not exist, how much would the taxpayers dole out?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually suggesting that full-time workers who get paid jack shit so that they still need government assistance should be grateful that they aren't unemployed, while the company that they work for profits over a hundred billion dollars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that a welfare check is better than a job? More money than a job?
Click to expand...

Where do you even come up with that from what I asked?  On what planet does anyone get more money from welfare than from a full-time job?  And if people get more money from welfare than from a full-time job, then that means that we need to raise the minimum wage.

The bank profits over $100b and the employees are on public assistance.  Are those employees supposed to thank the company for their low-wage jobs that make the company over $100b?


----------



## History

KNB said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually suggesting that full-time workers who get paid jack shit so that they still need government assistance should be grateful that they aren't unemployed, while the company that they work for profits over a hundred billion dollars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that a welfare check is better than a job? More money than a job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you even come up with that from what I asked?  On what planet does anyone get more money from welfare than from a full-time job?  And if people get more money from welfare than from a full-time job, then that means that we need to raise the minimum wage.
> 
> The bank profits over $100b and the employees are on public assistance.  Are those employees supposed to thank the company for their low-wage jobs that make the company over $100b?
Click to expand...


Which Bank by itself profited over $100 Billion??

Please let me know..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KNB said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually suggesting that full-time workers who get paid jack shit so that they still need government assistance should be grateful that they aren't unemployed, while the company that they work for profits over a hundred billion dollars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that a welfare check is better than a job? More money than a job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you even come up with that from what I asked?  On what planet does anyone get more money from welfare than from a full-time job?  And if people get more money from welfare than from a full-time job, then that means that we need to raise the minimum wage.
> 
> The bank profits over $100b and the employees are on public assistance.  Are those employees supposed to thank the company for their low-wage jobs that make the company over $100b?
Click to expand...


Why don't we help those low-wage workers, by legalizing 20 million low-skill illegals? 
That must be your position.

Or we could deport them, and raise the wages of our own citizens?

Let me know when you get on the right side of the issue. I'll be here, waiting.


----------



## KNB

History said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that a welfare check is better than a job? More money than a job?
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you even come up with that from what I asked?  On what planet does anyone get more money from welfare than from a full-time job?  And if people get more money from welfare than from a full-time job, then that means that we need to raise the minimum wage.
> 
> The bank profits over $100b and the employees are on public assistance.  Are those employees supposed to thank the company for their low-wage jobs that make the company over $100b?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Bank by itself profited over $100 Billion??
> 
> Please let me know..
Click to expand...

I apologize, fuckstick.  Compan_ies_ profit over $100b.  More than one company.  I forgot that everything has to be spelled out for Republicans.

"Profits at the nation&#8217;s banks topped $141.3 billion last year..."

So employees at these banks are on public assistance while their compan_ies_ profit over $100b, further proving that "trickle down" Reaganomics is a festering pile of bullshit.


----------



## KNB

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that a welfare check is better than a job? More money than a job?
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you even come up with that from what I asked?  On what planet does anyone get more money from welfare than from a full-time job?  And if people get more money from welfare than from a full-time job, then that means that we need to raise the minimum wage.
> 
> The bank profits over $100b and the employees are on public assistance.  Are those employees supposed to thank the company for their low-wage jobs that make the company over $100b?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't we help those low-wage workers, by legalizing 20 million low-skill illegals?
> That must be your position.
> 
> Or we could deport them, and raise the wages of our own citizens?
> 
> Let me know when you get on the right side of the issue. I'll be here, waiting.
Click to expand...

Again, where in the fucking hell do you come up with this shit?  Who said anything at all about illegal aliens?  How does deporting anyone raise the Federal minimum wage?

What the fuck is wrong with you?  Do you even have a point in any of this?


----------



## History

KNB said:


> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you even come up with that from what I asked?  On what planet does anyone get more money from welfare than from a full-time job?  And if people get more money from welfare than from a full-time job, then that means that we need to raise the minimum wage.
> 
> The bank profits over $100b and the employees are on public assistance.  Are those employees supposed to thank the company for their low-wage jobs that make the company over $100b?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which Bank by itself profited over $100 Billion??
> 
> Please let me know..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologize, fuckstick.  Compan_ies_ profit over $100b.  More than one company.  I forgot that everything has to be spelled out for Republicans.
> 
> "Profits at the nation&#8217;s banks topped $141.3 billion last year..."
> 
> So employees at these banks are on public assistance while their compan_ies_ profit over $100b, further proving that "trickle down" Reaganomics is a festering pile of bullshit.
Click to expand...


If the government didn't Tax and Regulate Business so much, 
then turn right around and Tax the hell out of an individual,
then turn right around and increase the National Debt by a Large Sum to increase Inflation, 
then turn right around and Tax the individual EVEN more for things they buy,
then turn right around and spill Obamacare on them on top of everything else

Well you Wonder Why..

And yet the worker still takes the job for that company right?? 

By the way, I appreciate you admitting you were wrong.. I mean if a bank made that much profit by itself, then there'd obviously be a big problem.. You should have known that before posting


----------



## KNB

History said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Bank by itself profited over $100 Billion??
> 
> Please let me know..
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize, fuckstick.  Compan_ies_ profit over $100b.  More than one company.  I forgot that everything has to be spelled out for Republicans.
> 
> "Profits at the nations banks topped $141.3 billion last year..."
> 
> So employees at these banks are on public assistance while their compan_ies_ profit over $100b, further proving that "trickle down" Reaganomics is a festering pile of bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the government didn't Tax and Regulate Business so much,
> then turn right around and Tax the hell out of an individual,
> then turn right around and increase the National Debt by a Large Sum to increase Inflation,
> then turn right around and Tax the individual EVEN more for things they buy,
> then turn right around and spill Obamacare on them on top of everything else
> 
> Well you Wonder Why..
> 
> And yet the worker still takes the job for that company right??
> 
> By the way, I appreciate you admitting you were wrong.. I mean if a bank made that much profit by itself, then there'd obviously be a big problem.. You should have known that before posting
Click to expand...

What does any of that mean?  Businesses aren't being taxed enough if they're profiting over $100b a year and their employees still need government assistance.  When do those record corporate profits trickle down to the employees who made the company so rich?

"And yet the worker still takes the job for that company right??"  Well, yeah, dipshit.  The alternative is far worse, but it still doesn't excuse the banks from profiting over $100b and leaving their workers scrounging on public assistance.  Again, do record corporate profits ever trickle down?

Why do Conservatives keep touting trickle-down theory as infallible when it doesn't work at all like we're told?


----------



## History

And how many Banks are in America?? Banks need to have that kind of profit in case we get somebody like Clinton who wants to try and *Allow people who can't afford a house buy a house anyways*, plus they have to have money to give out loans..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KNB said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you even come up with that from what I asked?  On what planet does anyone get more money from welfare than from a full-time job?  And if people get more money from welfare than from a full-time job, then that means that we need to raise the minimum wage.
> 
> The bank profits over $100b and the employees are on public assistance.  Are those employees supposed to thank the company for their low-wage jobs that make the company over $100b?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we help those low-wage workers, by legalizing 20 million low-skill illegals?
> That must be your position.
> 
> Or we could deport them, and raise the wages of our own citizens?
> 
> Let me know when you get on the right side of the issue. I'll be here, waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, where in the fucking hell do you come up with this shit?  Who said anything at all about illegal aliens?  How does deporting anyone raise the Federal minimum wage?
> 
> What the fuck is wrong with you?  Do you even have a point in any of this?
Click to expand...


*How does deporting anyone raise the Federal minimum wage?*

It doesn't raise the minimum wage.
If we deport 20 million illegals who compete with low skilled Americans, low skilled Americans will make more money.

It's called supply and demand. It was covered the day you skipped class. 
*
Do you even have a point in any of this?*

Just mocking your ignorance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KNB said:


> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize, fuckstick.  Compan_ies_ profit over $100b.  More than one company.  I forgot that everything has to be spelled out for Republicans.
> 
> "Profits at the nations banks topped $141.3 billion last year..."
> 
> So employees at these banks are on public assistance while their compan_ies_ profit over $100b, further proving that "trickle down" Reaganomics is a festering pile of bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government didn't Tax and Regulate Business so much,
> then turn right around and Tax the hell out of an individual,
> then turn right around and increase the National Debt by a Large Sum to increase Inflation,
> then turn right around and Tax the individual EVEN more for things they buy,
> then turn right around and spill Obamacare on them on top of everything else
> 
> Well you Wonder Why..
> 
> And yet the worker still takes the job for that company right??
> 
> By the way, I appreciate you admitting you were wrong.. I mean if a bank made that much profit by itself, then there'd obviously be a big problem.. You should have known that before posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does any of that mean?  Businesses aren't being taxed enough if they're profiting over $100b a year and their employees still need government assistance.  When do those record corporate profits trickle down to the employees who made the company so rich?
> 
> "And yet the worker still takes the job for that company right??"  Well, yeah, dipshit.  The alternative is far worse, but it still doesn't excuse the banks from profiting over $100b and leaving their workers scrounging on public assistance.  Again, do record corporate profits ever trickle down?
> 
> Why do Conservatives keep touting trickle-down theory as infallible when it doesn't work at all like we're told?
Click to expand...


"And yet the worker still takes the job for that company right??" 

*Well, yeah, dipshit. The alternative is far worse, *

And there you have it, a worker and an employer freely agreeing on terms that you don't like.
Typical lib, just too much freedom going on for you.


----------



## gnarlylove

KNB said:


> Are those employees supposed to thank the company for their low-wage jobs that make the company over $100b?



Don't forget those same employees are partly responsible for their extreme "earnings." It's not like their asking for money, they deserve that damn money! But the banks' Board of D(icks) prefers to keep that money and then claim they earned it in the first place so their workers don't deserve it. What non sense! What pure unadulterated egos these elite dicks must have!

Then we have people like TOdders who thinks Welfare is an easy "sit on the couch and eat cheetos all day long" kind of affair. Boy, we can tell Todders has never stepped into a welfare office let alone actually learned how benefits are distributed.


----------



## KNB

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the government didn't Tax and Regulate Business so much,
> then turn right around and Tax the hell out of an individual,
> then turn right around and increase the National Debt by a Large Sum to increase Inflation,
> then turn right around and Tax the individual EVEN more for things they buy,
> then turn right around and spill Obamacare on them on top of everything else
> 
> Well you Wonder Why..
> 
> And yet the worker still takes the job for that company right??
> 
> By the way, I appreciate you admitting you were wrong.. I mean if a bank made that much profit by itself, then there'd obviously be a big problem.. You should have known that before posting
> 
> 
> 
> What does any of that mean?  Businesses aren't being taxed enough if they're profiting over $100b a year and their employees still need government assistance.  When do those record corporate profits trickle down to the employees who made the company so rich?
> 
> "And yet the worker still takes the job for that company right??"  Well, yeah, dipshit.  The alternative is far worse, but it still doesn't excuse the banks from profiting over $100b and leaving their workers scrounging on public assistance.  Again, do record corporate profits ever trickle down?
> 
> Why do Conservatives keep touting trickle-down theory as infallible when it doesn't work at all like we're told?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "And yet the worker still takes the job for that company right??"
> 
> *Well, yeah, dipshit. The alternative is far worse, *
> 
> And there you have it, a worker and an employer freely agreeing on terms that you don't like.
> Typical lib, just too much freedom going on for you.
Click to expand...

Actually, Teabagger, the workers don't have any say in anything.  They need work.  They go for what they can get.  The banks on the other hand only give out what they want, not what they can afford.


----------



## History

gnarlylove said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are those employees supposed to thank the company for their low-wage jobs that make the company over $100b?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget those same employees are partly responsible for their extreme "earnings." It's not like their asking for money, they deserve that damn money! But the banks' Board of D(icks) prefers to keep that money and then claim they earned it in the first place so their workers don't deserve it. What non sense! What pure unadulterated egos these elite dicks must have!
> 
> Then we have people like TOdders who thinks Welfare is an easy "sit on the couch and eat cheetos all day long" kind of affair. Boy, we can tell Todders has never stepped into a welfare office let alone actually learned how benefits are distributed.
Click to expand...


Maybe because myself, Todders, along with a lot of others believe we shouldn't steal from the tax payers, for the greater good of society.. Instead, we are the tax payers paying for that person sitting on the couch watching looney tunes and eating doritos


----------



## gnarlylove

History said:


> By the way, I appreciate you admitting you were wrong..



This must be the 5th time I've heard a conservative or climate change denier say this. I'm beginning to understand why. ALLLLLLLLLLLL THEY CARE ABOUT is that precious moment when they are validated. When all their nonsensical posts result in an opponent admiring their error even if it's the tiniest of errors like misspelling or foible. In fact, it's always been a foible which means it has nothing to do with the essence of the argument but boy does it make their black hearts sing to hear their mortal enemy made a small mistake. They eat that shit up.

BTW KNB, "fuckstick" had me laughing hard and still. OMG LOL


----------



## History

I am more libertarian than anything gnarly, I don't agree with Leftists or Far Right for the most part


----------



## KNB

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How does deporting anyone raise the Federal minimum wage?*
> 
> It doesn't raise the minimum wage.
> If we deport 20 million illegals who compete with low skilled Americans, low skilled Americans will make more money.
> 
> It's called supply and demand. It was covered the day you skipped class.
> *
> Do you even have a point in any of this?*
> 
> Just mocking your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> You're mocking _my_ ignorance after saying some dumbass shit like that?  So if Mexicans are deported, then unemployed Americans will have more freedom to stand around outside of Home Depot hoping to get some shit job that pays cash and no benefits at $5/hr?  This is your valid point?  Really?
> 
> You understand that Americans hire undocumented workers so they can pay those workers less which decreases expenses in order to maximize profits.  You do know that right?  That's why jobs are outsourced to other countries where workers' rights laws are much less stringent.  Companies can pay those employees less and maximize profits.
> 
> It's more of that "trickle down" theory that doesn't work.
Click to expand...


----------



## gnarlylove

History said:


> Maybe because myself, Todders, along with a lot of others believe we shouldn't steal from the tax payers, for the greater good of society.. Instead, we are the tax payers paying for that person sitting on the couch watching looney tunes and eating doritos



What you heard from fox news has convinced you this (which is precisely what you said, I happened to recall it incorrectly. it definitely was doritos instead of cheetos). It turns out people in suits who have never been on welfare telling other people who have never been on welfare what welfare is like is hollow and devoid of meaning. But it clearly served its purpose of convincing you that you know what the lives of welfare recipients are like.

Welfare doesn't afford one the chance to watch cartoons all day. You go so far as to believe one big nanny drives to the store and picks up a bag of doritos and pop for you. If only you had the slightest clue what poverty entails. Firstly it entails you regret living even if you don't admit it. I come from a community of low income people (median income is 29,000/yr).

I could dispel the myth of welfare for you but I'd be wasting my time. You are so heavily fixated on conservative talking points that opposing information just makes you less inclined to listen. It's evident you are firmly in favor of endlessly promoting your well being over your fellow countrymen. I feel sad for all those people you refer to who think life is all about the acquisition of requisition of money. What a narrow and pathetic life. I guess that's what America's geared towards though, cyclical consumption by drones like you. You are pretty adept at repeating slogans taught to you. 3 Cheers for propaganda.


----------



## gnarlylove

Libertarian is the following:


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KNB said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How does deporting anyone raise the Federal minimum wage?*
> 
> It doesn't raise the minimum wage.
> If we deport 20 million illegals who compete with low skilled Americans, low skilled Americans will make more money.
> 
> It's called supply and demand. It was covered the day you skipped class.
> *
> Do you even have a point in any of this?*
> 
> Just mocking your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> You're mocking _my_ ignorance after saying some dumbass shit like that?  So if Mexicans are deported, then unemployed Americans will have more freedom to stand around outside of Home Depot hoping to get some shit job that pays cash and no benefits at $5/hr?  This is your valid point?  Really?
> 
> You understand that Americans hire undocumented workers so they can pay those workers less which decreases expenses in order to maximize profits.  You do know that right?  That's why jobs are outsourced to other countries where workers' rights laws are much less stringent.  Companies can pay those employees less and maximize profits.
> 
> It's more of that "trickle down" theory that doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You understand that Americans hire undocumented workers so they can pay those workers less which decreases expenses in order to maximize profits.*
> 
> You understand that if we deported those 20 million illegals, those employers would have to hire Americans and pay them more? Fuckstick.
Click to expand...


----------



## gnarlylove

what you are is a neo-libertarian ready to take down the government without having a fucking clue what that would mean (i.e. total power usurped by the elite and capitalist class). Classical libertarianism is founded on the principle of total freedom in our private lives UNTIL it harms another human, whether indirect or direct.

With policies like you espouse we are guaranteed to harm our fellow man indirectly and directly.

I don't mean to be rude so I apologize. Sometimes I get confused who is making the point. People like Todders have few if any respectable beliefs (as well as asks the most unhelpful questions) and certainly respects no one who disagrees with him. It seems you are respecting me and I want to acknowledge that. Respectful dialogue is few and far between and needs to be encouraged when possible!


----------



## History

gnarlylove said:


> what you are is a neo-libertarian ready to take down the government without having a fucking clue what that would mean (i.e. total power usurped by the elite and capitalist class). Classical libertarianism is founded on the principle of total freedom in our private lives UNTIL it harms another human, whether indirect or direct.
> 
> With policies like you espouse we are guaranteed to harm our fellow man indirectly and directly.
> 
> I don't mean to be rude so I apologize. Sometimes I get confused who is making the point. People like Todders have few if any respectable beliefs (as well as asks the most unhelpful questions) and certainly respects no one who disagrees with him. It seems you are respecting me and I want to acknowledge that. Respectful dialogue is few and far between and needs to be encouraged when possible!



You don't know anything about me.. I want to stop the Gridlock in Washington and create a Third party that is able to bring together liberals(Not Leftists) and conservatives(Not Far Right) and make America a better place where the people is the first priority, not the government and their next elections..

Go ahead and let loose, I am use to it by now..


----------



## KNB

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You understand that if we deported those 20 million illegals, those employers would have to hire Americans and pay them more? Fuckstick.


By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?  Because that option of exploiting cheap labor won't be available, right?

Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right?  The MASSIVELY HUGE TAXES that corporations have to pay force those poor international conglomerates to pay foreign workers slave wages in order to make those record-breaking quarterly profits, right?  Those poor, poor multibillion-dollar multinational corporations.

They're the real victims in all of this, right?


----------



## History

KNB said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You understand that if we deported those 20 million illegals, those employers would have to hire Americans and pay them more? Fuckstick.
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?  Because that option of exploiting cheap labor won't be available, right?
> 
> Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right?  The MASSIVELY HUGE TAXES that corporations have to pay force those poor international conglomerates to pay foreign workers slave wages in order to make those record-breaking quarterly profits, right?  Those poor, poor multibillion-dollar multinational corporations.
> 
> They're the real victims in all of this, right?
Click to expand...


Do we recall who passed NAFTA?


----------



## gnarlylove

Work has long been associated with mental and phsyical illness. See Neurasthenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, just work harder to overcome neurasthenia and poverty, says the Conservative. "Some day you too can be (like) me." Which is to say a white middle class slob/consumerist who bitches about the poor not succeeding because they don't work hard.


----------



## KNB

History said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You understand that if we deported those 20 million illegals, those employers would have to hire Americans and pay them more? Fuckstick.
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?  Because that option of exploiting cheap labor won't be available, right?
> 
> Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right?  The MASSIVELY HUGE TAXES that corporations have to pay force those poor international conglomerates to pay foreign workers slave wages in order to make those record-breaking quarterly profits, right?  Those poor, poor multibillion-dollar multinational corporations.
> 
> They're the real victims in all of this, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we recall who passed NAFTA?
Click to expand...

You think outsourcing started with NAFTA?  NAFTA just made it easier.  Don't try to say that you think NAFTA is a bad thing.  The only reason you hate it is because Clinton signed it.  Had it been Bush 1 or Bush 2 that signed it, you'd say that it creates jobs and encourages economic growth.  Like how you loved the USAPATRIOT Act and NSA spying when Bush was doing it but as soon as a black man had that power, you Teabaggers started shitting yourselves and haven't stopped for six years.


----------



## History

KNB said:


> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?  Because that option of exploiting cheap labor won't be available, right?
> 
> Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right?  The MASSIVELY HUGE TAXES that corporations have to pay force those poor international conglomerates to pay foreign workers slave wages in order to make those record-breaking quarterly profits, right?  Those poor, poor multibillion-dollar multinational corporations.
> 
> They're the real victims in all of this, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we recall who passed NAFTA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think outsourcing started with NAFTA?  NAFTA just made it easier.  Don't try to say that you think NAFTA is a bad thing.  The only reason you hate it is because Clinton signed it.  Had it been Bush 1 or Bush 2 that signed it, you'd say that it creates jobs and encourages economic growth.  Like how you loved the USAPATRIOT Act and NSA spying when Bush was doing it but as soon as a black man had that power, you Teabaggers started shitting yourselves and haven't stopped for six years.
Click to expand...


Teabagger?? Nope, try again..

Your answered should have been:
The Republicans in Congress allowed passage in the Legislature and Clinton agreed with it and signed it into law.

Simple enough, both parties are guilty..
Same for the Iraq war when the Democratic led Senate voted for the War in Iraq(29 out of the 50)

Patriot Act huh?? You mean the one that Obama said he would get rid of and hasn't?? Hahaha Far Left and Far Right look more like each other every day..


----------



## KNB

History said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we recall who passed NAFTA?
> 
> 
> 
> You think outsourcing started with NAFTA?  NAFTA just made it easier.  Don't try to say that you think NAFTA is a bad thing.  The only reason you hate it is because Clinton signed it.  Had it been Bush 1 or Bush 2 that signed it, you'd say that it creates jobs and encourages economic growth.  Like how you loved the USAPATRIOT Act and NSA spying when Bush was doing it but as soon as a black man had that power, you Teabaggers started shitting yourselves and haven't stopped for six years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Teabagger?? Nope, try again..
> 
> Your answered should have been:
> The Republicans in Congress allowed passage in the Legislature and Clinton agreed with it and signed it into law.
> 
> Simple enough, both parties are guilty..
> Same for the Iraq war when the Democratic led Senate voted for the War in Iraq(29 out of the 50)
> 
> Patriot Act huh?? You mean the one that Obama said he would get rid of and hasn't?? Hahaha Far Left and Far Right look more like each other every day..
Click to expand...

Oh, so sorry for calling you a Teabagger.  How could I get that confused with "Libertarian", whatever that means?  "Libertarian" sounds like the political equivalent of "Scientologist".  Your response is going to be, "You're stupid and you don't know anything," so don't bother.  One of the last things that I wasted time reading about Libertarians was billionaire Peter Thiel's stupid idea to build man-made floating island city-states that could travel in international waters.  Like mobile offshore tax havens.

If Libertarians think that's a good idea then Libertarians don't have any good ideas.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations can't force you to buy anything.
> Government can.
> Corporations can't force you to give them money.
> Government does that everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look around you in a downtown area, especially places like Times Square. Do you tend to buy the products you see advertised? I know the majority of consumers do. I'm not saying you bought a product because you saw it advertised, no, it's more subtle than that.
> 
> The fact that most major corporations spend more money on advertisement than the production of their products clues us in. This is in the multiple trillions worldwide. And companies wouldn't continue spending that kind of money  year after year, decade after deacde if it didn't pay off.
Click to expand...


But that's still not force.   Which is a problem in your world:  Me suggesting and advocating a particular product, or me forcing you with the power of government, to buy something you don't want, or may not even know about?

Now I get it, there are some things that are required.  You may not like police, but the fact is they are a valuable and necessary requirement for any civilized society.

But there are thousands of things that are simply not required, and we should not enforce that people pay for things they don't believe in, when they are not required.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.  - Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## TemplarKormac

KNB said:


> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think outsourcing started with NAFTA?  NAFTA just made it easier.  Don't try to say that you think NAFTA is a bad thing.  The only reason you hate it is because Clinton signed it.  Had it been Bush 1 or Bush 2 that signed it, you'd say that it creates jobs and encourages economic growth.  Like how you loved the USAPATRIOT Act and NSA spying when Bush was doing it but as soon as a black man had that power, you Teabaggers started shitting yourselves and haven't stopped for six years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teabagger?? Nope, try again..
> 
> Your answered should have been:
> The Republicans in Congress allowed passage in the Legislature and Clinton agreed with it and signed it into law.
> 
> Simple enough, both parties are guilty..
> Same for the Iraq war when the Democratic led Senate voted for the War in Iraq(29 out of the 50)
> 
> Patriot Act huh?? You mean the one that Obama said he would get rid of and hasn't?? Hahaha Far Left and Far Right look more like each other every day..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so sorry for calling you a Teabagger.  How could I get that confused with "Libertarian", whatever that means?  "Libertarian" sounds like the political equivalent of "Scientologist".  Your response is going to be, "You're stupid and you don't know anything," so don't bother.  One of the last things that I wasted time reading about Libertarians was billionaire Peter Thiel's stupid idea to build man-made floating island city-states that could travel in international waters.  Like mobile offshore tax havens.
> 
> If Libertarians think that's a good idea then Libertarians don't have any good ideas.
Click to expand...


----------



## Andylusion

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're mocking _my_ ignorance after saying some dumbass shit like that?  So if Mexicans are deported, then unemployed Americans will have more freedom to stand around outside of Home Depot hoping to get some shit job that pays cash and no benefits at $5/hr?  This is your valid point?  Really?
> 
> You understand that Americans hire undocumented workers so they can pay those workers less which decreases expenses in order to maximize profits.  You do know that right?  That's why jobs are outsourced to other countries where workers' rights laws are much less stringent.  Companies can pay those employees less and maximize profits.
> 
> It's more of that "trickle down" theory that doesn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You understand that Americans hire undocumented workers so they can pay those workers less which decreases expenses in order to maximize profits.*
> 
> You understand that if we deported those 20 million illegals, those employers would have to hire Americans and pay them more? Fuckstick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you constantly claim to support the poor, and here you are advocating the poorest among us.
> 
> Now I happen to be in favor of deporting illegals, not because of some mindless theory that it will be an economic boon for Americans, but because I believe in having laws, and enforcing laws.
> 
> Illegal, is illegal.  We should punish those who break the law.  Period.
> 
> But if we made legal immigration, what reason do you have to hold down the poorest in our country?   Why should Americans benefit, at the expense of the poor immigrant?    Because that is what you are advocating.   We should harm those people, for our benefit.   I don't believe that.
> 
> And lastly, your entire premise is simply not true.
> 
> The $210,000 Cow-Milking Robot - Businessweek
> 
> This is what you people on the left, never seem to grasp.
> 
> Every time that you drive up the cost of labor, regardless of method, the end result is people purchase less labor.
> 
> You grasp this is any other situation.  If the cost of a burger at Wendy's was to go up to $30 a burger, you wouldn't buy very many.
> 
> But the same is true of employers and labor.   If you drive up the cost of labor, the amount of labor bought will decline.
> 
> In this case, Dairy Farmers in Wisconsin, have started buying these milking robots.    Unlike even robots in Auto manufacturing, where you still need human labor to work with the robots, this system is completely automated.   The cows are lured into the milking cage with food.  They are scanned, to determine which cow it is, and then fed and milked automatically, then released.     No human is required at any point.
> 
> In an interview, the company selling the robot, said the entire reason they even conceived of the robot, was because farmers were worried about what will happen if a shortage of cheap labor comes about.   This was their solution.
> 
> NO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PAY PEOPLE HIGH WAGES JUST BECAUSE YOU DEPORTED IMMIGRANTS.
> 
> Just like higher wages in Europe have resulted in McDonald's cashiers being replaced by kiosks.
> 
> McDonald's hires 7,000 touch-screen cashiers | Crave - CNET
> 
> Why do you people keep repeating these false claims?
> 
> The value of the labor determines the wage of the labor.   The value doesn't change because of minimum wage laws, or health care mandates, or labor laws, or deporting immigrants, or anything.   The value of the labor is determined by the customer.
> 
> I'm not going to pay $20 for a cheap Wendy's burger, just because you people demand people get paid $20/hr or whatever dumb "livable wage" you come up with.
> 
> Wendy's knows this.  McDonald's knows this.   Thus if you raise up the cost of labor, you end up earning ZERO, and replaced with robots.   Which is worse $7/hr, or $0/hr?
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You understand that Americans hire undocumented workers so they can pay those workers less which decreases expenses in order to maximize profits.*
> 
> You understand that if we deported those 20 million illegals, those employers would have to hire Americans and pay them more? Fuckstick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you constantly claim to support the poor, and here you are advocating the poorest among us.
> 
> Now I happen to be in favor of deporting illegals, not because of some mindless theory that it will be an economic boon for Americans, but because I believe in having laws, and enforcing laws.
> 
> Illegal, is illegal.  We should punish those who break the law.  Period.
> 
> But if we made legal immigration, what reason do you have to hold down the poorest in our country?   Why should Americans benefit, at the expense of the poor immigrant?    Because that is what you are advocating.   We should harm those people, for our benefit.   I don't believe that.
> 
> And lastly, your entire premise is simply not true.
> 
> The $210,000 Cow-Milking Robot - Businessweek
> 
> This is what you people on the left, never seem to grasp.
> 
> Every time that you drive up the cost of labor, regardless of method, the end result is people purchase less labor.
> 
> You grasp this is any other situation.  If the cost of a burger at Wendy's was to go up to $30 a burger, you wouldn't buy very many.
> 
> But the same is true of employers and labor.   If you drive up the cost of labor, the amount of labor bought will decline.
> 
> In this case, Dairy Farmers in Wisconsin, have started buying these milking robots.    Unlike even robots in Auto manufacturing, where you still need human labor to work with the robots, this system is completely automated.   The cows are lured into the milking cage with food.  They are scanned, to determine which cow it is, and then fed and milked automatically, then released.     No human is required at any point.
> 
> In an interview, the company selling the robot, said the entire reason they even conceived of the robot, was because farmers were worried about what will happen if a shortage of cheap labor comes about.   This was their solution.
> 
> NO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PAY PEOPLE HIGH WAGES JUST BECAUSE YOU DEPORTED IMMIGRANTS.
> 
> Just like higher wages in Europe have resulted in McDonald's cashiers being replaced by kiosks.
> 
> McDonald's hires 7,000 touch-screen cashiers | Crave - CNET
> 
> Why do you people keep repeating these false claims?
> 
> The value of the labor determines the wage of the labor.   The value doesn't change because of minimum wage laws, or health care mandates, or labor laws, or deporting immigrants, or anything.   The value of the labor is determined by the customer.
> 
> I'm not going to pay $20 for a cheap Wendy's burger, just because you people demand people get paid $20/hr or whatever dumb "livable wage" you come up with.
> 
> Wendy's knows this.  McDonald's knows this.   Thus if you raise up the cost of labor, you end up earning ZERO, and replaced with robots.   Which is worse $7/hr, or $0/hr?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *McDonald's also knows how much corporate revenues and profits increase at labor's expense.*
> 
> "Key financials	$ millions	% change
> from 2010
> Revenues	27,006.0	12.2
> Profits	5,503.1	11.3
> Assets	32,989.9	
> Stockholders' equity	14,390.2	
> Market value (3/29/2012)	99,451.8"
> 
> McDonald's - Fortune 500 - MCD
> 
> *The most recent third quarter numbers reveal McDonald's true cost to US consumers and taxpayers, something conservative robots have trouble grasping:*
> 
> "McDonald's announced Monday that it raked in $1.5 billion in profits in the third quarter, up 5 percent from last year.
> 
> "The number is strikingly close to the $1.2 billion taxpayers are shelling out each year to help pay public assistance to the McDonald's workforce, according to a report released last week by the National Employment Law Project."
> 
> *Privatize profit; Socialize cost.
> The key to how capitalism concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation, thereby increasing economic inequality in the US.*
> 
> McDonald's Billion-Dollar Profit Is Awkwardly Close To The Amount It Costs Taxpayers Every Year
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

LibertyLemming said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you're clearly opposed to "government" then how do you explain your idea of economic decisions being decided by an elite group of the B&B?
> 
> The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.
> 
> What I mean is that governments and corporations/private sector business exercise authority. The only difference is how much. Our government has less influence than international businesses like Google and JP Morgan except when it comes genuine combat. The difference is we tend to think the military is an outgrowth of government (and it was originally). What happens when government is in cahoots with corporations? A secret alliance where corporations can pressure the US into certain military campaigns for profit. We saw this in the last decade very openly.
> 
> According to George's link to the blog, this tangled web of private sector and the government are ontological necessities born from such massive concentrations of power and wealth.
> 
> When action arises from government, you say it's coercive.
> 
> When action arises out of the private sector, you call it reality.
> 
> They are hardly different in our 21st century yet you insist government is bad and private sector is natural and desirable. And I tend to agree with the blog: when you allow elites to make decisions with such centralized wealth, corruption is a necessary result. Regardless of how bright one is, absolute power (exemplified by the Kochs) is absolutely corrupting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.*
> 
> Corporations can't force you to buy anything.
> Government can.
> Corporations can't force you to give them money.
> Government does that everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better yet, _corporations are government creations._ They simply exist to shield executives from liability.
Click to expand...

*Executives and shareholders, as the good citizens around Elk River are in the process of discovering:*

"The Elk River chemical spill occurred on January 9, 2014 when crude 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) was released from a Freedom Industries facility into the Elk River, a tributary of the Kanawha River, in Charleston in the U.S. state of West Virginia."

2014 Elk River chemical spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Democrats hate off-shoring..........  they are just too stupid to figure out they are causing it.
> 
> Hey Leftists...........   Which car companies declared bankruptcy?
> 
> GM and Chrysler?   Or was it Toyota and Honda?
> 
> Let me ask it another way....
> 
> Was it Unionized GM and Chrysler?   Or non-Union Toyota and Honda?
> 
> Funny how the first question get's an easy response, and the second get's blank stares.
> 
> The left is who is driving out business, with regulations, mandates, taxes, and red tape.
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually US capitalists hate democracy and embrace a race to the bottom in order to maintain increasing economic inequality in America.
> 
> Ask Roger (and Me) and Jessica about how German labor unions with voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for reverse that effect:*
> 
> "In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million.
> 
> "At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour.
> 
> "Yet Germanys big three car companiesBMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagenare very profitable.
> 
> "There are 'two overlapping sets of institutions' in Germany that guarantee high wages and good working conditions for autoworkers.
> 
> "The first is IG Metall, the countrys equivalent of the United Automobile Workers.
> 
> "Virtually all Germanys car workers are members, and though they have the right to strike, they 'hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,' according to Horst Mund, an IG Metall executive.
> 
> "The second institution is the German constitution, which allows for 'works councils' in every factory, where management and employees work together on matters like shop floor conditions and work life.
> 
> "Mund says this guarantees cooperation, 'where you dont always wear your management pin or your union pin.'
> 
> How Germany Builds Twice As Many Cars As The U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice As Much - Forbes
> 
> *See, only those totally blinded by the ideology of American Exceptionalism fail to see how corrupt union officials and Wall Street parasites, like Mitt, destroyed much of the US auto industry.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post appears to be a fail from start to finish.
> 
> 2010 Statistics | OICA
Click to expand...

Your link:

Germany produced 5,552,409 cars.
The US produced 2,731,105 cars.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so if they knew that they would have to eventually retire, the question is why didn't they save enough Money for Retirement??
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't paid enough money every month for their labor to support their family and save for retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government took 12.4% of their income, for decades, and that's not enough for retirement?
> I put less than that in my 401K and have hundreds of thousands saved.
Click to expand...

Different income levels, you think?
Most seniors I know saw their income stagnate over the past four decades.
How about you?


----------



## LibertyLemming

georgephillip said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.*
> 
> Corporations can't force you to buy anything.
> Government can.
> Corporations can't force you to give them money.
> Government does that everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet, _corporations are government creations._ They simply exist to shield executives from liability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Executives and shareholders, as the good citizens around Elk River are in the process of discovering:*
> 
> "The Elk River chemical spill occurred on January 9, 2014 when crude 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) was released from a Freedom Industries facility into the Elk River, a tributary of the Kanawha River, in Charleston in the U.S. state of West Virginia."
> 
> 2014 Elk River chemical spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Everyone blames the evil corporations but still cheers for having a government, its retarded


----------



## dblack

LibertyLemming said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet, _corporations are government creations._ They simply exist to shield executives from liability.
> 
> 
> 
> *Executives and shareholders, as the good citizens around Elk River are in the process of discovering:*
> 
> "The Elk River chemical spill occurred on January 9, 2014 when crude 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) was released from a Freedom Industries facility into the Elk River, a tributary of the Kanawha River, in Charleston in the U.S. state of West Virginia."
> 
> 2014 Elk River chemical spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone blames the evil corporations but still cheers for having a government, its retarded
Click to expand...


And cheers for it actively supporting corporations. ACA is the perfect case study for their hypocrisy. They complain about corporate dominance, and then support a law that forces us to buy their products. WTF??


----------



## LibertyLemming

dblack said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Executives and shareholders, as the good citizens around Elk River are in the process of discovering:*
> 
> "The Elk River chemical spill occurred on January 9, 2014 when crude 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) was released from a Freedom Industries facility into the Elk River, a tributary of the Kanawha River, in Charleston in the U.S. state of West Virginia."
> 
> 2014 Elk River chemical spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone blames the evil corporations but still cheers for having a government, its retarded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And cheers for it actively supporting corporations. ACA is the perfect case study for their hypocrisy. They complain about corporate dominance, and then support a law that forces us to buy their products. WTF??
Click to expand...


It doesn't just support corporations, _it creates them._

Novel idea people, govern yourselves


----------



## dblack

LibertyLemming said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone blames the evil corporations but still cheers for having a government, its retarded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And cheers for it actively supporting corporations. ACA is the perfect case study for their hypocrisy. They complain about corporate dominance, and then support a law that forces us to buy their products. WTF??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't just support corporations, _it creates them._
> 
> Novel idea people, govern yourselves
Click to expand...


Indeed. I wonder if we'll ever wake up...


----------



## georgephillip

History said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what about social security??
> 
> 
> 
> SSA and SSI which includes Medical benefits generate most of their incomes.
> Part time jobs increase the amount of money they have to spend every month; however, too many hours will require sacrificing either medical coverage or their low income housing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who is to blame for the higher inflation and higher costs of living??
> Both Republicans and Democrats alike.. Thanks for looking out for our seniors.. Now y'all want them to pay even higher premiums for healthcare that they *May or May Not Have Access *to because of the government wanting to take control over the people..
Click to expand...

As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the ACA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana. 

You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.

If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.

Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.

By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.

Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> SSA and SSI which includes Medical benefits generate most of their incomes.
> Part time jobs increase the amount of money they have to spend every month; however, too many hours will require sacrificing either medical coverage or their low income housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who is to blame for the higher inflation and higher costs of living??
> Both Republicans and Democrats alike.. Thanks for looking out for our seniors.. Now y'all want them to pay even higher premiums for healthcare that they *May or May Not Have Access *to because of the government wanting to take control over the people..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the HCA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana.
> 
> You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.
> 
> If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.
> 
> Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.
> 
> By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.
> 
> Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.
Click to expand...


Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is to blame for the higher inflation and higher costs of living??
> Both Republicans and Democrats alike.. Thanks for looking out for our seniors.. Now y'all want them to pay even higher premiums for healthcare that they *May or May Not Have Access *to because of the government wanting to take control over the people..
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the HCA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana.
> 
> You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.
> 
> If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.
> 
> Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.
> 
> By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.
> 
> Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.
Click to expand...


All socialists are lying scum bag crooks by definition.  You really thought he was there to distribute just to you?


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the HCA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana.
> 
> You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.
> 
> If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.
> 
> Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.
> 
> By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.
> 
> Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All socialists are lying scum bag crooks by definition.  You really thought he was there to distribute just to you?
Click to expand...


What?


----------



## gipper

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is to blame for the higher inflation and higher costs of living??
> Both Republicans and Democrats alike.. Thanks for looking out for our seniors.. Now y'all want them to pay even higher premiums for healthcare that they *May or May Not Have Access *to because of the government wanting to take control over the people..
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the HCA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana.
> 
> You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.
> 
> If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.
> 
> Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.
> 
> By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.
> 
> Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.
Click to expand...


Agreed...I think one could make a strong argument that Obama is a soft Fascist.  He has done all he could to protect the big banks and Wall Street...making them even more powerful and wealthy.  At the same time, he is making sure they provide lots of cash for the D party.  But also his policies hurt small business with overwhelming regulations, that cost small business dearly.  

He has done all he could to make government bigger, while also centralizing the private sector.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All socialists are lying scum bag crooks by definition.  You really thought he was there to distribute just to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
Click to expand...


It's entirely possible to be both a socialist, and a corporatist.  They are not mutually exclusive.  All socialists are lying crooks by definition because, re-distributing assets is theft by definition.  Once you have established "what" they are, why then would you be surprised that the crooks are also liars who distribute our assets to their cronies first before throwing bread crumbs over the castle walls to the wailing peasants?


----------



## RKMBrown

gipper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the HCA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana.
> 
> You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.
> 
> If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.
> 
> Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.
> 
> By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.
> 
> Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed...I think one could make a strong argument that Obama is a soft Fascist.  He has done all he could to protect the big banks and Wall Street...making them even more powerful and wealthy.  At the same time, he is making sure they provide lots of cash for the D party.  But also his policies hurt small business with overwhelming regulations, that cost small business dearly.
> 
> He has done all he could to make government bigger, while also centralizing the private sector.
Click to expand...


Obama's a drug using, drug dealing, bastard son of a communist anti-colonialist father, raised by communists, who buddies up with convicted domestic terrorists, and convicted felons who took money for the poor to line their own pockets.  The guy is really just a piece of shit, and that's being nice.


----------



## LibertyLemming

RKMBrown said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed...I think one could make a strong argument that Obama is a soft Fascist.  He has done all he could to protect the big banks and Wall Street...making them even more powerful and wealthy.  At the same time, he is making sure they provide lots of cash for the D party.  But also his policies hurt small business with overwhelming regulations, that cost small business dearly.
> 
> He has done all he could to make government bigger, while also centralizing the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's a drug using, drug dealing, bastard son of a communist anti-colonialist father, raised by communists, who buddies up with convicted domestic terrorists, and convicted felons who took money for the poor to line their own pockets.  The guy is really just a piece of shit, and that's being nice.
Click to expand...


Anyone who works for the government is either a) a piece of shit or b) really ignorant


----------



## dblack

LibertyLemming said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed...I think one could make a strong argument that Obama is a soft Fascist.  He has done all he could to protect the big banks and Wall Street...making them even more powerful and wealthy.  At the same time, he is making sure they provide lots of cash for the D party.  But also his policies hurt small business with overwhelming regulations, that cost small business dearly.
> 
> He has done all he could to make government bigger, while also centralizing the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's a drug using, drug dealing, bastard son of a communist anti-colonialist father, raised by communists, who buddies up with convicted domestic terrorists, and convicted felons who took money for the poor to line their own pockets.  The guy is really just a piece of shit, and that's being nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who works for the government is either a) a piece of shit or b) really ignorant
Click to expand...


? C'mon...


----------



## LibertyLemming

dblack said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's a drug using, drug dealing, bastard son of a communist anti-colonialist father, raised by communists, who buddies up with convicted domestic terrorists, and convicted felons who took money for the poor to line their own pockets.  The guy is really just a piece of shit, and that's being nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who works for the government is either a) a piece of shit or b) really ignorant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ? C'mon...
Click to expand...


I stand by it. Government is about as evil and enterprise as has ever existed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KNB said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You understand that if we deported those 20 million illegals, those employers would have to hire Americans and pay them more? Fuckstick.
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?  Because that option of exploiting cheap labor won't be available, right?
> 
> Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right?  The MASSIVELY HUGE TAXES that corporations have to pay force those poor international conglomerates to pay foreign workers slave wages in order to make those record-breaking quarterly profits, right?  Those poor, poor multibillion-dollar multinational corporations.
> 
> They're the real victims in all of this, right?
Click to expand...


*By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?*

How do you stop Ford from building a factory in Ireland or Kuwait?

*Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right? *

We do have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. And regulations continue to cost jobs.

But you keep supporting importing competition for our workers, cause that'll help.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Androw said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You understand that Americans hire undocumented workers so they can pay those workers less which decreases expenses in order to maximize profits.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You understand that if we deported those 20 million illegals, those employers would have to hire Americans and pay them more? Fuckstick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you constantly claim to support the poor, and here you are advocating the poorest among us.
> 
> Now I happen to be in favor of deporting illegals, not because of some mindless theory that it will be an economic boon for Americans, but because I believe in having laws, and enforcing laws.
> 
> Illegal, is illegal.  We should punish those who break the law.  Period.
> 
> But if we made legal immigration, what reason do you have to hold down the poorest in our country?   Why should Americans benefit, at the expense of the poor immigrant?    Because that is what you are advocating.   We should harm those people, for our benefit.   I don't believe that.
> 
> And lastly, your entire premise is simply not true.
> 
> The $210,000 Cow-Milking Robot - Businessweek
> 
> This is what you people on the left, never seem to grasp.
> 
> Every time that you drive up the cost of labor, regardless of method, the end result is people purchase less labor.
> 
> You grasp this is any other situation.  If the cost of a burger at Wendy's was to go up to $30 a burger, you wouldn't buy very many.
> 
> But the same is true of employers and labor.   If you drive up the cost of labor, the amount of labor bought will decline.
> 
> In this case, Dairy Farmers in Wisconsin, have started buying these milking robots.    Unlike even robots in Auto manufacturing, where you still need human labor to work with the robots, this system is completely automated.   The cows are lured into the milking cage with food.  They are scanned, to determine which cow it is, and then fed and milked automatically, then released.     No human is required at any point.
> 
> In an interview, the company selling the robot, said the entire reason they even conceived of the robot, was because farmers were worried about what will happen if a shortage of cheap labor comes about.   This was their solution.
> 
> NO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PAY PEOPLE HIGH WAGES JUST BECAUSE YOU DEPORTED IMMIGRANTS.
> 
> Just like higher wages in Europe have resulted in McDonald's cashiers being replaced by kiosks.
> 
> McDonald's hires 7,000 touch-screen cashiers | Crave - CNET
> 
> Why do you people keep repeating these false claims?
> 
> The value of the labor determines the wage of the labor.   The value doesn't change because of minimum wage laws, or health care mandates, or labor laws, or deporting immigrants, or anything.   The value of the labor is determined by the customer.
> 
> I'm not going to pay $20 for a cheap Wendy's burger, just because you people demand people get paid $20/hr or whatever dumb "livable wage" you come up with.
> 
> Wendy's knows this.  McDonald's knows this.   Thus if you raise up the cost of labor, you end up earning ZERO, and replaced with robots.   Which is worse $7/hr, or $0/hr?
Click to expand...


*NO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PAY PEOPLE HIGH WAGES JUST BECAUSE YOU DEPORTED IMMIGRANTS.*

You want to bet?
Let's deport 20 million and look at wages a year later.


----------



## KevinWestern

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *NO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PAY PEOPLE HIGH WAGES JUST BECAUSE YOU DEPORTED IMMIGRANTS.*
> 
> You want to bet?
> Let's deport 20 million and look at wages a year later.



I'm not really too involved in the immigration debate, but I think you're right. A company sourcing from a pool of 2,000 people for 50 jobs will pay much less for labor than a company sourcing from a pool of 200 people for 50 jobs.

Companies compete for labor just as they compete for resources, customers, etc. 

Econ 101.


----------



## gnarlylove

LibertyLemming said:


> Anyone who works for the government is either a) a piece of shit or b) really ignorant



I keep reading the same old worn out templates. The government is full of corruption but the private sector isn't? That the blame solely relies on government. So what, do we need to bow down to the market and enjoy our participation in the private sector--most likely selling my body and time for survival? Is your claim that we need more freedom in the private sector and less government thereby reducing the restrictions and multiplying freedom.

Our concept of freedom is irresponsible at best.

Reducing restrictions is not a guarantee desirable freedom, it only reduces responsibility companies must take for their actions, like dumping waste. Freedom from responsibility is a poor way to advocate for freedom. Refusing to accept responsibility tends to lead to greater problems down the road. Like eating a poor diet may feel like freedom at first but in the long run it's guaranteed to make you sick, less productive and likely obese. Accepting restrictions or taking responsibility can reflect a good character because it ultimately lend itself to greater freedoms--by eating healthy one can do more and feel better doing it.

I'm not saying the government functions like it should by any means and many laws or restrictions have been gutted so they don't really serve the public interest. But who gutted it? Special interests and powerful lobbyists.

But is anyone aware that those in government are of the same ilk that operates over half the private sector/global economy? Why do we think the government is the only problem when government officials, after serving their purpose, are hired onto the board of directors of major corporations? Doesn't this sound fishy to anyone?


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You understand that if we deported those 20 million illegals, those employers would have to hire Americans and pay them more? Fuckstick.
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?  Because that option of exploiting cheap labor won't be available, right?
> 
> Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right?  The MASSIVELY HUGE TAXES that corporations have to pay force those poor international conglomerates to pay foreign workers slave wages in order to make those record-breaking quarterly profits, right?  Those poor, poor multibillion-dollar multinational corporations.
> 
> They're the real victims in all of this, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?*
> 
> How do you stop Ford from building a factory in Ireland or Kuwait?
> 
> *Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right? *
> 
> We do have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. And regulations continue to cost jobs.
> 
> But you keep supporting importing competition for our workers, cause that'll help.
Click to expand...


We stopped manufacturing televisions in this country because EPA regulations made it impossible.  We haven't built a new oil refinery since 1970, also because of EPA regulations.  There's two industries right there that have been decimated by government regulations.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is to blame for the higher inflation and higher costs of living??
> Both Republicans and Democrats alike.. Thanks for looking out for our seniors.. Now y'all want them to pay even higher premiums for healthcare that they *May or May Not Have Access *to because of the government wanting to take control over the people..
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the HCA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana.
> 
> You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.
> 
> If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.
> 
> Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.
> 
> By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.
> 
> Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.
Click to expand...


You're confusing what Obama would do it he had a totally free hand and what he does because of political expediency.  The only reason we don't have healthcare totally run by the government is the fact that he knew he couldn't get it approved by his own party, let alone the entire Congress.


----------



## LibertyLemming

gnarlylove said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who works for the government is either a) a piece of shit or b) really ignorant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep reading the same old worn out templates. The government is full of corruption but the private sector isn't? That the blame solely relies on government. So what, do we need to bow down to the market and enjoy our participation in the private sector--most likely selling my body and time for survival? Is your claim that we need more freedom in the private sector and less government thereby reducing the restrictions and multiplying freedom.
> 
> Our concept of freedom is irresponsible at best.
> 
> Reducing restrictions is not a guarantee desirable freedom, it only reduces responsibility companies must take for their actions, like dumping waste. Freedom from responsibility is a poor way to advocate for freedom. Refusing to accept responsibility tends to lead to greater problems down the road. Like eating a poor diet may feel like freedom at first but in the long run it's guaranteed to make you sick, less productive and likely obese. Accepting restrictions or taking responsibility can reflect a good character because it ultimately lend itself to greater freedoms--by eating healthy one can do more and feel better doing it.
> 
> I'm not saying the government functions like it should by any means and many laws or restrictions have been gutted so they don't really serve the public interest. But who gutted it? Special interests and powerful lobbyists.
> 
> But is anyone aware that those in government are of the same ilk that operates over half the private sector/global economy? Why do we think the government is the only problem when government officials, after serving their purpose, are hired onto the board of directors of major corporations? Doesn't this sound fishy to anyone?
Click to expand...


Because government has no responsibility to its consumer. If a company behaved poorly without government shielding it would lose its client base and go under, but that clearly isn't the case (see BOFA/JP MORGAN/AIG/ETC). Corporations are creations of government and literally the government exists to serve private interests not the people.

I advocate pure freedom, no government, no laws, no regulations, free markets. There is no way that restrictions on freedom lead to more freedom.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the HCA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana.
> 
> You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.
> 
> If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.
> 
> Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.
> 
> By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.
> 
> Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing what Obama would do it he had a totally free hand and what he does because of political expediency.  The only reason we don't have healthcare totally run by the government is the fact that he knew he couldn't get it approved by his own party, let alone the entire Congress.
Click to expand...


I don't think that's true. I could be wrong, of course, but I think Obama is a genuine corporatist, in the mold of FDR. He sees the role of government as the 'manager' of society, treating it as a set of competing interest groups. He's more than eager to cater to business interests as long as the are willing to collude with government in kind.


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You understand that if we deported those 20 million illegals, those employers would have to hire Americans and pay them more? Fuckstick.
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?  Because that option of exploiting cheap labor won't be available, right?
> 
> Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right?  The MASSIVELY HUGE TAXES that corporations have to pay force those poor international conglomerates to pay foreign workers slave wages in order to make those record-breaking quarterly profits, right?  Those poor, poor multibillion-dollar multinational corporations.
> 
> They're the real victims in all of this, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?*
> 
> How do you stop Ford from building a factory in Ireland or Kuwait?
> 
> *Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right? *
> 
> We do have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. And regulations continue to cost jobs.
> 
> But you keep supporting importing competition for our workers, cause that'll help.
Click to expand...


You should try reading an interview with a CEO once in a while.
The entire interview.
Companies off-shore due to wages.
But that would be presuming you can read an article as opposed to simply shooting off your virtual mouth.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing what Obama would do it he had a totally free hand and what he does because of political expediency.  The only reason we don't have healthcare totally run by the government is the fact that he knew he couldn't get it approved by his own party, let alone the entire Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that's true. I could be wrong, of course, but I think Obama is a genuine corporatist, in the mold of FDR. He sees the role of government as the 'manager' of society, treating it as a set of competing interest groups. He's more than eager to cater to business interests as long as the are willing to collude with government in kind.
Click to expand...


I think, like FDR, that Obama will do whatever he thinks he needs to do to maintain his power and the power of the Democrat Party.  One of the main reasons for passing the ACA was to insure Democrat control of the government for the next 100 years.  It obviously had nothing to do with making insurance cheaper or even insuring people who couldn't previously afford it.  It was about control and making people dependent on government bureaucrats.


----------



## KevinWestern

Indeependent said:


> You should try reading an interview with a CEO once in a while.
> The entire interview.
> Companies off-shore due to wages.
> But that would be presuming you can read an article as opposed to simply shooting off your virtual mouth.



Now that seems just a little bit oversimplified to me. Sure, heavy manufacturing companies who produce cheap goods (socks, t-shirts) will probably go offshore for the cheaper wages; however, are you aware that there are other sorts of companies out there who don't care as much about the cost of low-skilled labor and would very much consider setting up shop in a country that is more friendly when it comes to taxes?


----------



## gnarlylove

LibertyLemming said:


> Because government has no responsibility to its consumer. If a company behaved poorly without government shielding it would lose its client base and go under, but that clearly isn't the case (see BOFA/JP MORGAN/AIG/ETC). Corporations are creations of government and literally the government exists to serve private interests not the people.
> 
> I advocate pure freedom, no government, no laws, no regulations, free markets. There is no way that restrictions on freedom lead to more freedom.



First off, people under government are not called consumers, they are people. Reducing the human to a consumer is not a healthy form of governance. Secondly, the responsibility of a functioning government to its people is very tangible. Voting, if the public is well-informed, is a effective way to keep politicians serving the needs of the people. In other words, responsibility. 

However, our government is very dysfunctional. I would like to draw a distinction between how our government IS functioning and how it is SUPPOSE to function. I agree the government serves the private interests. If these interests are broadly represented, we have a functioning government.. Unfortunately, our government has gone very foul by allowing narrow interests to vastly outweigh the masses. Would you agree?

In fact, this is precisely why you are upset at government...the corporations have spent trillions of dollars to elect the "right" politicians. The government has become a craps shoot for the wealthy. If the people weren't so full of lying rhetoric from politicians and propaganda from mass media we could vote them out of office. But sadly our citizenry views voting as a waste of time, including myself. But if we all worked to oust propaganda and Public Relations campaigns, we could get something done in gov't. Do I have hope in this approach (i.e. working within the system)? Hell NO! But am I going to try? Yes. Why not? It doesn't hurt my other campaign to work from outside the system to create a more free society.

You have mistakenly burdened government with all the executive screw ups and do not realize these narrow interests are largely responsible for the extreme corruption and dysfunction in our present government. If we could pinpoint the *SOURCE of this corruption*, it is the *Federal Reserve*. Is that a government agency? No. It is a private central bank that literally operates the government as well as the rest of the private sector.

Without money we have no government (given our modern age relying solely on fiat currency). It's that simple. There were many attempts to prevent a private establishment from controlling the American money supply, but, after 2 unsuccessful attempts, powerful bankers were able to deceive Woodrow Wilson into making the one regret he had in his presidency. Signing into law the central and private Federal Reserve. Before he died, he said "I am a most unhappy man--*unwittingly I have ruined my country*."

This video is massively entertaining but doubly informative. If you only want the important stuff, skip to 14:30. I recommend watching it all. It's not a bad use of your time if your spending it on USMB.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM[/ame]



			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> They [the people], and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude...
> This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.


Letter to Samuel Kercheval | Teaching American History



			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the *banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered*...*I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies..*. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.



Long before we had this gay discussion about governments gone sour, Thomas Jefferson was dutifully aware. He foresaw what private central banking does to the public and the government, as well as leading to extravagance by the gov't and private bankers. At no other time in history have so few men dominated entire continents and resources. Their extravagance will either ruin the world or we will wake up and prohibit such wealth concentration.

To point fingers at the government is a small part of the problem--it is not the source! The real power isn't in Armies, it's in who controls the world and its resources. "*Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws*." -Nathan Rothschild to Rockerfeller.


----------



## LibertyLemming

gnarlylove said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because government has no responsibility to its consumer. If a company behaved poorly without government shielding it would lose its client base and go under, but that clearly isn't the case (see BOFA/JP MORGAN/AIG/ETC). Corporations are creations of government and literally the government exists to serve private interests not the people.
> 
> I advocate pure freedom, no government, no laws, no regulations, free markets. There is no way that restrictions on freedom lead to more freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, people under government are not called consumers, they are people. Reducing the human to a consumer is not a healthy form of governance. Secondly, the responsibility of a functioning government to its people is very tangible. Voting, if the public is well-informed, is a effective way to keep politicians serving the needs of the people. In other words, responsibility.
> 
> However, our government is very dysfunctional. I would like to draw a distinction between how our government IS functioning and how it is SUPPOSE to function. I agree the government serves the private interests. If these interests are broadly represented, we have a functioning government.. Unfortunately, our government has gone very foul by allowing narrow interests to vastly outweigh the masses. Would you agree?
> 
> In fact, this is precisely why you are upset at government...the corporations have spent trillions of dollars to elect the "right" politicians. The government has become a craps shoot for the wealthy. If the people weren't so full of lying rhetoric from politicians and propaganda from mass media we could vote them out of office. But sadly our citizenry views voting as a waste of time, including myself. But if we all worked to oust propaganda and Public Relations campaigns, we could get something done in gov't. Do I have hope in this approach (i.e. working within the system)? Hell NO! But am I going to try? Yes. Why not? It doesn't hurt my other campaign to work from outside the system to create a more free society.
> 
> You have mistakenly burdened government with all the executive screw ups and refuse to admit these narrow interests are largely responsible for the extreme corruption in the government. If we could pinpoint the SOURCE of this corruption, I would identify it with the Federal Reserve. Are the government agency? No. This is a private central bank that operates the government as well as the rest of the private sector.
> 
> Without money we have no government (given our modern age relying solely on fiat currency). It's that simple. There were many attempts to prevent a private establishment from controlling the American money supply, but, after 2 unsuccessful attempts, powerful bankers were able to deceive Woodrow Wilson into making the one regret he had in his presidency. Signing into law the central and private Federal Reserve.
> 
> This video is massively entertaining but doubly informative. If you only want the important stuff, skip to 14:30. I recommend watching it all. It's not a bad use of your time if your spending it on USMB.
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They [the people], and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude...
> This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Letter to Samuel Kercheval | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Long before we had this gay discussion about governments gone sour, Thomas Jefferson was dutifully aware. He foresaw what private central banking does to the public and the government, as well as leading to extravagance by the gov't and private bankers. At no other time in history have so few men dominated entire continents and resources. Their extravagance will either ruin the world or we will wake up and prohibit such wealth concentration.
> 
> To point fingers at the government is a small part of the problem--it is not the source! The real power isn't in Armies, it's in who controls the world and its resources. "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws." -Nathan Rothschild to Rockerfeller.
Click to expand...


I've seen that video. 

My point was that governments has no regard for profit/loss etc. Things like war, which is only possible through taxation, can happen because the government has no need to worry about how much it spends as it has a constant source of tax cattle that will keep its coffers full regardless of how they feel about the performance of the agency. Corporations are creations of the government. They advantages they have are because of their access to legislation.

 Government is the problem and the source of the problem. The only reason the central banks and the rothchilds and the rest can control the currency is because of the governments support. Trust me I am 100% against central banks but they can't exist without a government and even if they were gone, which we have had periods without them, the government is still evil and needs to be ended.


----------



## gnarlylove

Your aim seems to be "End gov't now." Am I reading you right? I'm all for a government-less world but this is not possible in today's world--we need a bridge to take us there. The effect of dismantling gov't now would be disastrous without also dismantling mass concentrations of wealth (e.g. corporations etc.). Otherwise we'd likely be further enslaved by power structures than  we already are.

So while I agree with you, I think such an approach is unwise given our current climate.


----------



## LibertyLemming

gnarlylove said:


> Your aim seems to be "End gov't now." Am I reading you right? I'm all for a government-less world but this is not possible in today's world--we need a bridge to take us there. The effect of dismantling gov't now would be disastrous without also dismantling mass concentrations of wealth (e.g. corporations etc.). Otherwise we'd likely be further enslaved by power structures than  we already are.
> 
> So while I agree with you I think such an approach is unwise given our current climate.



Well it is hard to dismantle corporations when they are created and protected by the government without dismantling the government first. 

When would the time be right in your opinion? I can't imagine a greater power structure replacing the one we currently have.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Your aim seems to be "End gov't now." Am I reading you right? I'm all for a government-less world but this is not possible in today's world--we need a bridge to take us there. The effect of dismantling gov't now would be disastrous without also dismantling mass concentrations of wealth (e.g. corporations etc.). Otherwise we'd likely be further enslaved by power structures than  we already are.
> 
> So while I agree with you, I think such an approach is unwise given our current climate.



The key is to constrain the government to its Constitutional obligations.


----------



## LibertyLemming

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your aim seems to be "End gov't now." Am I reading you right? I'm all for a government-less world but this is not possible in today's world--we need a bridge to take us there. The effect of dismantling gov't now would be disastrous without also dismantling mass concentrations of wealth (e.g. corporations etc.). Otherwise we'd likely be further enslaved by power structures than  we already are.
> 
> So while I agree with you, I think such an approach is unwise given our current climate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The key is to constrain the government to its Constitutional obligations.
Click to expand...


the constitution sucks man why


----------



## georgephillip

LibertyLemming said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet, _corporations are government creations._ They simply exist to shield executives from liability.
> 
> 
> 
> *Executives and shareholders, as the good citizens around Elk River are in the process of discovering:*
> 
> "The Elk River chemical spill occurred on January 9, 2014 when crude 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) was released from a Freedom Industries facility into the Elk River, a tributary of the Kanawha River, in Charleston in the U.S. state of West Virginia."
> 
> 2014 Elk River chemical spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone blames the evil corporations but still cheers for having a government, its retarded
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's because every government yet conceived has existed to serve the interests of its richest citizens above those of its majorities? Theoretically, a government could be created behind a wall of separation from all affects of private wealth; however, that's highly unlikely to happen in the US if a majority of voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when selecting their House and Senate representatives.


----------



## gnarlylove

That's why I said we need a bridge social theory/government structure to take us to genuine liberty. Returning back to our constitution would be a fine start although there are plenty of other avenues. It likely starts with ending the dichotomy of Republican and Democrat (since they are the same). Is it our ultimate goal? No way. But we need to be reasonable in what we can accomplish or we will continue complaining without accomplishing real change.

Marx perceived socialism as a bridge to a more empathetic society (to communism). Although I don't agree with Marx on many of his points, he is right that as long as man is what capitalism made him (profit maximizer) we have no hope of genuine liberty. With egos swelled and self-interest the only game in town, why do we think we can create a just society for all when considerations start and stop with the self? Capitalism has brought self-interest to the fore and removed compassion. I don't know if socialism is the route we should take but I know this much: no modern society has genuinely tried it. Maybe that's the point--those half-socialist countries are working towards a fuller socialism. Change doesn't have to be slow but in our interconnected global economy rapid change tends to negatively effect us in the short term.

In order to exist without government we must "see strange people as fellow sufferers. Solidarity is not discovered by reflection but created." (Richard Rorty). A government-less society will either perceive each individual as having basic needs that must be met (but not the same wants) or it will trample certain folks underfoot for the sake of others.

Encouraging altruism (or an ego check) is essential if we wish to have a flourishing society. Otherwise it will always have  "the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest." This is not the emblem of a free society and can never be.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Executives and shareholders, as the good citizens around Elk River are in the process of discovering:*
> 
> "The Elk River chemical spill occurred on January 9, 2014 when crude 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) was released from a Freedom Industries facility into the Elk River, a tributary of the Kanawha River, in Charleston in the U.S. state of West Virginia."
> 
> 2014 Elk River chemical spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone blames the evil corporations but still cheers for having a government, its retarded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or maybe it's because every government yet conceived has existed to serve the interests of its richest citizens above those of its majorities? Theoretically, a government could be created behind a wall of separation from all affects of private wealth; h*owever, that's highly unlikely to happen in the US if a majority of voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when selecting their House and Senate representatives*.
Click to expand...



That is correct.

Reason I believe that Taxpayers and producers will vote using different means:






*Da' Mossberg 590*

.


----------



## Erand7899

LibertyLemming said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your aim seems to be "End gov't now." Am I reading you right? I'm all for a government-less world but this is not possible in today's world--we need a bridge to take us there. The effect of dismantling gov't now would be disastrous without also dismantling mass concentrations of wealth (e.g. corporations etc.). Otherwise we'd likely be further enslaved by power structures than  we already are.
> 
> So while I agree with you I think such an approach is unwise given our current climate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is hard to dismantle corporations when they are created and protected by the government without dismantling the government first.
> 
> When would the time be right in your opinion? I can't imagine a greater power structure replacing the one we currently have.
Click to expand...


Without government, there can be no private property rights, and without private property rights, there can be no economic freedom.  Without economic freedom, there is no personal freedom.  

Government is necessary to protect individuals from other individuals or groups of individuals.  Without government, we are back to the stone age attempting to protect our cave from those who desire to take it.


----------



## Contumacious

Erand7899 said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your aim seems to be "End gov't now." Am I reading you right? I'm all for a government-less world but this is not possible in today's world--we need a bridge to take us there. The effect of dismantling gov't now would be disastrous without also dismantling mass concentrations of wealth (e.g. corporations etc.). Otherwise we'd likely be further enslaved by power structures than  we already are.
> 
> So while I agree with you I think such an approach is unwise given our current climate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is hard to dismantle corporations when they are created and protected by the government without dismantling the government first.
> 
> When would the time be right in your opinion? I can't imagine a greater power structure replacing the one we currently have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without government, there can be no private property rights, and without private property rights, there can be no economic freedom.  Without economic freedom, there is no personal freedom.
> 
> *Government is necessary to protect individuals from other individuals or groups of individuals.  Without government, we are back to the stone age attempting to protect our cave from those who desire to take it.*
Click to expand...



1- US prisoners 2,400,000 inmates , more than in North Korea

2-
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




3- ad nauseam


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who is to blame for the higher inflation and higher costs of living??
> Both Republicans and Democrats alike.. Thanks for looking out for our seniors.. Now y'all want them to pay even higher premiums for healthcare that they *May or May Not Have Access *to because of the government wanting to take control over the people..
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the HCA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana.
> 
> You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.
> 
> If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.
> 
> Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.
> 
> By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.
> 
> Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.
Click to expand...

*He's obviously for sale to the highest bidder; however, corporatization may be a more accurate account of why he was Goldman Sach's pick in 2008:*

"Corporatization is the process of transforming state assets, government agencies or municipal organizations into corporations. It refers to a restructuring of government and public organizations into joint-stock, publicly listed companies in order to introduce corporate and business management techniques to their administration.[1] 

"The result of corporatization is the creation of state-owned corporations where the government retains a majority ownership of the corporation's stock. 

"However, in many cases, corporatization is a precursor to partial or full privatization, which involves a process where formerly public functions and public enterprises are sold to private business entities by listing their shares on publicly traded stock exchanges."

*Whatever label we choose to apply to Obama's politics doesn't change the threat he poses to civil rights in this country. Once the 2014 mid-terms are behind him, we may all get a glimpse of just how far down the rabbit hole we've gone.*


----------



## LibertyLemming

Contumacious said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is hard to dismantle corporations when they are created and protected by the government without dismantling the government first.
> 
> When would the time be right in your opinion? I can't imagine a greater power structure replacing the one we currently have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without government, there can be no private property rights, and without private property rights, there can be no economic freedom.  Without economic freedom, there is no personal freedom.
> 
> *Government is necessary to protect individuals from other individuals or groups of individuals.  Without government, we are back to the stone age attempting to protect our cave from those who desire to take it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.


----------



## Contumacious

LibertyLemming said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without government, there can be no private property rights, and without private property rights, there can be no economic freedom.  Without economic freedom, there is no personal freedom.
> 
> *Government is necessary to protect individuals from other individuals or groups of individuals.  Without government, we are back to the stone age attempting to protect our cave from those who desire to take it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.
Click to expand...


I agree 1000%

I believe you meant to respond to post 1999.

.


----------



## LibertyLemming

Contumacious said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/SIZE][/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree 1000%
> 
> I believe you meant to respond to post 1999.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yeah I deleted all your text but forgot the quote brackets lol


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone blames the evil corporations but still cheers for having a government, its retarded
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe it's because every government yet conceived has existed to serve the interests of its richest citizens above those of its majorities? Theoretically, a government could be created behind a wall of separation from all affects of private wealth; h*owever, that's highly unlikely to happen in the US if a majority of voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when selecting their House and Senate representatives*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> Reason I believe that Taxpayers and producers will vote using different means:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Da' Mossberg 590*
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Isn't that a fairly expensive ballot?


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe it's because every government yet conceived has existed to serve the interests of its richest citizens above those of its majorities? Theoretically, a government could be created behind a wall of separation from all affects of private wealth; h*owever, that's highly unlikely to happen in the US if a majority of voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when selecting their House and Senate representatives*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> Reason I believe that Taxpayers and producers will vote using different means:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Da' Mossberg 590*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that a fairly expensive ballot?
Click to expand...


So is slavery and tyranny.

.


----------



## georgephillip

gipper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the HCA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana.
> 
> You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.
> 
> If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.
> 
> Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.
> 
> By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.
> 
> Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed...I think one could make a strong argument that Obama is a soft Fascist.  He has done all he could to protect the big banks and Wall Street...making them even more powerful and wealthy.  At the same time, he is making sure they provide lots of cash for the D party.  But also his policies hurt small business with overwhelming regulations, that cost small business dearly.
> 
> He has done all he could to make government bigger, while also centralizing the private sector.
Click to expand...

*And it seems very likely whoever follows him into the Oval Office will continue the US Dual State:*

"We live in what the German political scientist Ernst Fraenkel called 'the dual state.'

"*Totalitarian states are always dual states.* 

"In the dual state civil liberties are abolished in the name of national security. 

"The political sphere becomes a vacuum 'as far as the law is concerned,' Fraenkel wrote. 

"There is no legal check on power. 

"Official bodies operate with impunity outside the law. 

"In the dual state the government can convict citizens on secret evidence in secret courts. 

"It can strip citizens of due process and detain, torture or assassinate them, serving as judge, jury and executioner. 

"It rules according to its own arbitrary whims and prerogatives. 

"The outward forms of democratic participationvoting, competing political parties, judicial oversight and legislationare hollow, political stagecraft. 

"Fraenkel called those who wield this unchecked power over the citizenry 'the prerogative state.'

Chris Hedges: Our Sinister Dual State - Chris Hedges - Truthdig


----------



## Erand7899

LibertyLemming said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without government, there can be no private property rights, and without private property rights, there can be no economic freedom.  Without economic freedom, there is no personal freedom.
> 
> *Government is necessary to protect individuals from other individuals or groups of individuals.  Without government, we are back to the stone age attempting to protect our cave from those who desire to take it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.
Click to expand...


How is a free market going to protect you from the thug that throws you out of your home or your business?  How is the free market going to deal with thugs?

Every society must have an entity that has the authority to determine what property belongs to whom, and the power to enforce that determination.  That entity is the governing entity, and hence, government.


----------



## Contumacious

Erand7899 said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/SIZE][/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is a free market going to protect you from the thug that throws you out of your home or your business?  How is the free market going to deal with thugs?
> 
> *Every society must have an entity that has the authority to determine what property belongs to whom, and the power to enforce that determination.  That entity is the governing entity, and hence, government*.
Click to expand...


HUH?

Are you an invalid? Mentally retarded?

Buy a Mossberg 590. 

.


----------



## Erand7899

Contumacious said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a free market going to protect you from the thug that throws you out of your home or your business?  How is the free market going to deal with thugs?
> 
> *Every society must have an entity that has the authority to determine what property belongs to whom, and the power to enforce that determination.  That entity is the governing entity, and hence, government*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> Are you an invalid? Mentally retarded?
> 
> Buy a Mossberg 590.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So, might makes right?  Is that your argument?  He who has the biggest guns, or the most guns, gets the property?

Try to stay focused.  In your world, who determines the rightful ownership of property, and how is that rightful ownership enforced?  Who has the authority to put the thugs into confinement to prevent them from preying on the weak?


----------



## Contumacious

Erand7899 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is a free market going to protect you from the thug that throws you out of your home or your business?  How is the free market going to deal with thugs?
> 
> *Every society must have an entity that has the authority to determine what property belongs to whom, and the power to enforce that determination.  That entity is the governing entity, and hence, government*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> Are you an invalid? Mentally retarded?
> 
> Buy a Mossberg 590.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, might makes right?  Is that your argument?  He who has the biggest guns, or the most guns, gets the property?
> 
> Try to stay focused.  In your world, who determines the rightful ownership of property, and how is that rightful ownership enforced?  Who has the authority to put the thugs into confinement to prevent them from preying on the weak?
Click to expand...


Back in 1787 they thought that by adopting a CONSTITUTION that government would be confined to protecting our liberties. Well they were wrong - we now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state. 

Since we no longer have an Article III Judiciary we are on our own.

So quit dreaming.

.


----------



## Erand7899

Contumacious said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> Are you an invalid? Mentally retarded?
> 
> Buy a Mossberg 590.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, might makes right?  Is that your argument?  He who has the biggest guns, or the most guns, gets the property?
> 
> Try to stay focused.  In your world, who determines the rightful ownership of property, and how is that rightful ownership enforced?  Who has the authority to put the thugs into confinement to prevent them from preying on the weak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back in 1787 they thought that by adopting a CONSTITUTION that government would be confined to protecting our liberties. Well they were wrong - we now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state.
> 
> Since we no longer have an Article III Judiciary we are on our own.
> 
> So quit dreaming.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Apparently, you don't have an answer to the question, so you punt to the question of whether, or not, our government is still constitutional.  

I am no fan of big government, and would love to be able to put our federal government back into the box it climbed out of.  However, that does not lead me to conclude that we would be better off without government.  A limited government is necessary to protect private property, protect citizens from one another, and protect the society from other societies.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed...I think one could make a strong argument that Obama is a soft Fascist.  He has done all he could to protect the big banks and Wall Street...making them even more powerful and wealthy.  At the same time, he is making sure they provide lots of cash for the D party.  But also his policies hurt small business with overwhelming regulations, that cost small business dearly.
> 
> He has done all he could to make government bigger, while also centralizing the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And it seems very likely whoever follows him into the Oval Office will continue the US Dual State:*
> 
> "We live in what the German political scientist Ernst Fraenkel called 'the dual state.'
> 
> "*Totalitarian states are always dual states.*
> 
> "In the dual state civil liberties are abolished in the name of national security.
> 
> "The political sphere becomes a vacuum 'as far as the law is concerned,' Fraenkel wrote.
> 
> "There is no legal check on power.
> 
> "Official bodies operate with impunity outside the law.
> 
> "In the dual state the government can convict citizens on secret evidence in secret courts.
> 
> "It can strip citizens of due process and detain, torture or assassinate them, serving as judge, jury and executioner.
> 
> "It rules according to its own arbitrary whims and prerogatives.
> 
> "The outward forms of democratic participationvoting, competing political parties, judicial oversight and legislationare hollow, political stagecraft.
> 
> "Fraenkel called those who wield this unchecked power over the citizenry 'the prerogative state.'
> 
> Chris Hedges: Our Sinister Dual State - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
Click to expand...


What makes it a "dual" state?  None of the items you listed have any connection with duality.


----------



## LibertyLemming

Erand7899 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, might makes right?  Is that your argument?  He who has the biggest guns, or the most guns, gets the property?
> 
> Try to stay focused.  In your world, who determines the rightful ownership of property, and how is that rightful ownership enforced?  Who has the authority to put the thugs into confinement to prevent them from preying on the weak?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back in 1787 they thought that by adopting a CONSTITUTION that government would be confined to protecting our liberties. Well they were wrong - we now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state.
> 
> Since we no longer have an Article III Judiciary we are on our own.
> 
> So quit dreaming.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you don't have an answer to the question, so you punt to the question of whether, or not, our government is still constitutional.
> 
> I am no fan of big government, and would love to be able to put our federal government back into the box it climbed out of.  However, that does not lead me to conclude that we would be better off without government.  A limited government is necessary to protect private property, protect citizens from one another, and protect the society from other societies.
Click to expand...


That is your position my man. The government has the most might, the most weapons, and the biggest weapons and they determine who gets what and how much of it they get. They also de facto own every single piece of property in the USA since I have to pay tribute to them in order to pseudo-own a piece of property. 

Strange you advocate the same thing you cry as foul


----------



## Contumacious

Erand7899 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, might makes right?  Is that your argument?  He who has the biggest guns, or the most guns, gets the property?
> 
> Try to stay focused.  In your world, who determines the rightful ownership of property, and how is that rightful ownership enforced?  Who has the authority to put the thugs into confinement to prevent them from preying on the weak?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back in 1787 they thought that by adopting a CONSTITUTION that government would be confined to protecting our liberties. Well they were wrong - we now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state.
> 
> Since we no longer have an Article III Judiciary we are on our own.
> 
> So quit dreaming.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you don't have an answer to the question, so you punt to the question of whether, or not, our government is still constitutional.
> 
> I am no fan of big government, and would love to be able to put our federal government back into the box it climbed out of.  However, that does not lead me to conclude that we would be better off without government.  A limited government is necessary to protect private property, protect citizens from one another, and protect the society from other societies.
Click to expand...




"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

Thomas Jefferson

Well history has answered the question. Actually it answered the question while he was still alive.

.


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> Obama's a drug using, drug dealing, bastard son of a communist anti-colonialist father, raised by communists, who buddies up with convicted domestic terrorists, and convicted felons who took money for the poor to line their own pockets.  The guy is really just a piece of shit, and that's being nice.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who works for the government is either a) a piece of shit or b) really ignorant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep reading the same old worn out templates. The government is full of corruption but the private sector isn't?
Click to expand...


The difference is the private sector has *zero* power over me. The government (unfortunately) now has nearly unlimited power over me. And that is the difference chief.

If I don't like the way McDonald's conducts their business, I can tell them to go fuck themselves. Think I can do that with the IRS? Why don't you try it and let me know how it works out...


----------



## P@triot

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing what Obama would do it he had a totally free hand and what he does because of political expediency.  The only reason we don't have healthcare totally run by the government is the fact that he knew he couldn't get it approved by his own party, let alone the entire Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that's true. I could be wrong, of course, but I think Obama is a genuine corporatist, in the mold of FDR. He sees the role of government as the 'manager' of society, treating it as a set of competing interest groups. He's more than eager to cater to business interests as long as the are willing to collude with government in kind.
Click to expand...


Which is just a kind way of saying _marxist_..... If they "collude" then he controls all resources and distributes as he sees fit. He's a marxist. Make no mistake about it. And what's fall-down hilarious is that he's a proud marxist and yet his own base denies it. The man has screamed "I'm a marxist" as loud as he could as many chances as he could.

Remember "Joe the plumber"? What did Barack say to him? "I think the way you do that is to *spread the wealth*". Verbatim. That's not an accident. He's repeated that theme over and over and over. How dumb does the left have to be to not understand his favorite phrase - "my brothers keeper"? It means, _literally_, marxism.


----------



## bripat9643

Erand7899 said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/SIZE][/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is absurd. There is nothing that the government provides that could not be provided in a free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is a free market going to protect you from the thug that throws you out of your home or your business?  How is the free market going to deal with thugs?
> 
> Every society must have an entity that has the authority to determine what property belongs to whom, and the power to enforce that determination.  That entity is the governing entity, and hence, government.
Click to expand...


The free market already provides protection against thugs.  Haven't you ever heard of private security?  Haven't you every heard of gated communities?   The belief that the police protect you from thugs is the ultimate in naiveté.  They spend most of their time engaged in activities that generate revenue, like giving people speeding tickets and busting people for consuming substances that those in power don't approve of.

Under what Hans Herman Hoppe calls the "private law society," insurance companies would provide security and arrest thugs.  After all, if thugs steal your stuff or break your bones, the insurance company is liable.  

BTW, you are aware of the fact that protection rackets only exist in places like New Jersey because the police there are utterly corrupt.  You think they don't know where the local Guido lives and what he does for a living?  Don't you think there's a reason they don't get him off the streets?

So much for government protecting your property rights.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> You have mistakenly burdened government with all the executive screw ups and do not realize these narrow interests are largely responsible for the extreme corruption and dysfunction in our present government. If we could pinpoint the *SOURCE of this corruption*, it is the *Federal Reserve*. Is that a government agency? No. It is a private central bank that literally operates the government as well as the rest of the private sector.



O...M...G.... only the left-wing wackadoo's on USMB could claim the *Federal* Reserve is "private"... 

Son, there is nothing "private" about the Federal Reserve. It was established by an act of Congress. It is under complete and total control of the federal government. It answers to the federal government. It reports to the federal government. It operates under the direction of the federal government.

The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the *central banking system* of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.

Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Its unique structure includes

*a federal government agency*, the Board of Governors, in Washington, D.C., and
12 regional Reserve Banks.

Federal Reserve System


----------



## gnarlylove

Disclaimer: this post is intended to apply to a genuinely free society, not the one we are currently in. Such principles would be too great a shock in our current system to be viable.

Private property and violence must effectively cease for genuine liberty to exist. If violence, which is a form of coercion is tolerable between humans, then there simply is limited/no genuine freedom for that society. Some would be free while others would not. This isn't genuine liberty or we would be right back to needing laws and government. We all agree government tends to allow certain freedoms but terminates others. Hence, not a genuinely free society.

By agreeing to set aside violent/coercive tendencies we can create a just and free society. That would mean getting all of humanity to put down and destroy our weapons. I know idiots will take this as pussyville but so what? Use of weapons always harms both sides and does not create liberty. Anyway, like I said, this is not meant as policy for today. It's to get us to understand what genuine liberty actually is. It certainly does not involve coercion in ANY FORM. The "freedom" to create weapons is not a freedom worth having since it limits freedom, ultimately.

Secondly, we must remove private property in order to move forward to an ideal state of affairs where genuine liberty exists for each person. I admit this idea untenable today but if anyone thinks a genuinely free society can exist with private property _at its foundation_, you are mistaken.

Sharing the limited bounty on this planet is crucial for survival. Claiming ownership creates strife and conflict. For example, "This is mine and you must stay away." While I'm not saying we must each take one bite of food and pass it to our neighbor to ensure freedom for all, we will need to openly share without hesitation. This wouldn't work in our society since people have under-developed concepts of sharing.

Freedom is not defined by our ability to claim ownership or our ability to mass personal economic wealth. Although massing fortunes does not immediately conflict with liberty, once it begins to encroach on the ability of others to get _what they *need*_, then it is a problem to genuine liberty.

Our modern tautology of private property=freedom makes progress towards real freedom stunted. We must reduce our egos and fan our altruistic side. This will likely take centuries given our current circumstances. Otherwise, we will always have society based on the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest. If you own something AND it prevents me from having access to what I NEED, then this is a problem. If I merely WANT what you have, then the point is moot and freedom still exists. NEEDS are very different from WANTS.

Capitalism has created private property thugs who think property is the be all end all of humanity. What makes us think private property is essential? The idea of private property has only been around since John Locke just under 200 years ago. Private property is just a baby as far as human societies have been concerned. What makes us think this concept gives liberty it wings? Maybe it would if we lived on an infinite planet but we all know our resources are finite and must be shared.

The only reason we think private property is essential is our gigantic egos that ALWAYS WANT MORE STUFF. To own is to feed our ego and every single person including myself on this thread wants more than what we've got. But to OWN not share. To share is to NOT OWN. Hence, private property gets us into trouble on a finite world.

I'm sure many will quip and say "humanity is naturally inclined to be thugs and try to steal." This is true in our current society but I strongly believe this is not our nature. We are not required to want more than we need. The only mechanism to do that is the ego and the ego is our problem.

Although initial bands of humans were marauders and this continued into the modern era, we only become such because we are encouraged to "take what's 'ours'." Well, what's ours is equally everyone elses. To think we actually own something is insane. No one carries possessions into or out of this world and so private property is fleeting at best. 

When we get more, we want even more. This is either encouraged by society or discouraged--it is not a part of our fundamental essence. We can choose to be satisfied with what we have AS LONG AS ITS MEETING OUR NEEDS. This viscous cycle of wanting more must cease in a society that boasts genuine liberty. Otherwise one will always take more than their fair share and we will require governments or power structures OUTSIDE ourselves to make sure its fair and everyone is getting their NEEDS (not wants) met.

Conclusion: Our current society has warped our understanding so bad that we cannot create a society with genuine liberty. Until we recognize this we will flounder and many needs will be trampled underfoot so that we can attain our fleeting desires. From birth Christmas instills this idea.

I know people will be up in arms about my post but if you are don't just respond with disingenuous glibs. I want some genuine challenges to my basic two premises: Violence/Coercion must be removed from all as well as private property as its conceived of today. Maybe there will be a different version of property in this ideal world but not like the one we have today.


----------



## RKMBrown

The issue is unchecked power. 

It does not matter if the person or group committing a crime is an authority figure or not. Unchecked power will almost always result in corruption. 

Take away a corrupt government's power and the same people that corrupted the government will be back the next day with a different title. 

Thus the issue is not government, the issue is unchecked power to take people's liberty away from them.  Thus the issue really is authoritarians who desire to force others to bend to their will.


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> "In the dual state civil liberties are abolished in the name of national security.
> 
> "Official bodies operate with impunity outside the law.
> 
> "In the dual state the government can convict citizens on secret evidence in secret courts.
> 
> "It can strip citizens of due process and detain, torture or assassinate them, serving as judge, jury and executioner.
> 
> "It rules according to its own arbitrary whims and prerogatives.
> 
> "The outward forms of democratic participationvoting, competing political parties, judicial oversight and legislationare hollow, political stagecraft.
> 
> Chris Hedges: Our Sinister Dual State - Chris Hedges - Truthdig



Indeed, Benjamin Franklin said "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

In other words, Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.


----------



## bripat9643

Rottweiler said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who works for the government is either a) a piece of shit or b) really ignorant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep reading the same old worn out templates. The government is full of corruption but the private sector isn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is the private sector has *zero* power over me. The government (unfortunately) now has nearly unlimited power over me. And that is the difference chief.
> 
> If I don't like the way McDonald's conducts their business, I can tell them to go fuck themselves. Think I can do that with the IRS? Why don't you try it and let me know how it works out...
Click to expand...


The clearest and simplest way to say it is that government can use guns, private companies can only offer you money.  That's a fundamental difference in the kind of "power" each has.  Exxon can't kill you, but the government can and often does.


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have mistakenly burdened government with all the executive screw ups and do not realize these narrow interests are largely responsible for the extreme corruption and dysfunction in our present government. If we could pinpoint the *SOURCE of this corruption*, it is the *Federal Reserve*. Is that a government agency? No. It is a private central bank that literally operates the government as well as the rest of the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O...M...G.... only the left-wing wackadoo's on USMB could claim the *Federal* Reserve is "private"...
> 
> Son, there is nothing "private" about the Federal Reserve. It was established by an act of Congress. It is under complete and total control of the federal government. It answers to the federal government. It reports to the federal government. It operates under the direction of the federal government.
> 
> The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the *central banking system* of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.
> 
> Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Its unique structure includes
> 
> *a federal government agency*, the Board of Governors, in Washington, D.C., and
> 12 regional Reserve Banks.
> 
> Federal Reserve System
Click to expand...


The fed is a private organization. The board of governors are selected by the US Government and report to the dept of treasury.  The banks are not run by the board of governors. The fed is not a federal government agency.  But it is supposed to report to the US Treasury.  Reporting to the treasury has amounted to summary reports. They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities, because Congress and the Treasury refuse to do their constitutionally directed job.  They abdicated their job to the fed and cartel.

The link you provided to the Wikipedia is talking about a system.  Which is like a diagram or a model of what happens.  It's just a drawing explaining how the parts are supposed to work together.


----------



## Erand7899

LibertyLemming said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in 1787 they thought that by adopting a CONSTITUTION that government would be confined to protecting our liberties. Well they were wrong - we now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state.
> 
> Since we no longer have an Article III Judiciary we are on our own.
> 
> So quit dreaming.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you don't have an answer to the question, so you punt to the question of whether, or not, our government is still constitutional.
> 
> I am no fan of big government, and would love to be able to put our federal government back into the box it climbed out of.  However, that does not lead me to conclude that we would be better off without government.  A limited government is necessary to protect private property, protect citizens from one another, and protect the society from other societies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your position my man. The government has the most might, the most weapons, and the biggest weapons and they determine who gets what and how much of it they get. They also de facto own every single piece of property in the USA since I have to pay tribute to them in order to pseudo-own a piece of property.
> 
> Strange you advocate the same thing you cry as foul
Click to expand...


Stranger still, is the inability of any of you to explain, how your governmentless society can protect private property, or protect citizens from each other, or from other societies.  

As I stated, I am not fond of a lot of government, but are we really in a situation where we only have a choice between overpowering government, and no government at all?  

Perhaps you should all learn Russian or Chinese before you put this no government idea to the test.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Disclaimer: this post is intended to apply to a genuinely free society, not the one we are currently in. Such principles would be too great a shock in our current system to be viable.
> 
> Private property and violence must effectively cease for genuine liberty to exist. If violence, which is a form of coercion is tolerable between humans, then there simply is limited/no genuine freedom for that society. Some would be free while others would not. This isn't genuine liberty or we would be right back to needing laws and government. We all agree government tends to allow certain freedoms but terminates others. Hence, not a genuinely free society.
> 
> By agreeing to set aside violent/coercive tendencies we can create a just and free society. That would mean getting all of humanity to put down and destroy our weapons. I know idiots will take this as pussyville but so what? Use of weapons always harms both sides and does not create liberty. Anyway, like I said, this is not meant as policy for today. It's to get us to understand what genuine liberty actually is. It certainly does not involve coercion in ANY FORM. The "freedom" to create weapons is not a freedom worth having since it limits freedom, ultimately.
> 
> Secondly, we must remove private property in order to move forward to an ideal state of affairs where genuine liberty exists for each person. I admit this idea untenable today but if anyone thinks a genuinely free society can exist with private property _at its foundation_, you are mistaken.
> 
> Sharing the limited bounty on this planet is crucial for survival. Claiming ownership creates strife and conflict. For example, "This is mine and you must stay away." While I'm not saying we must each take one bite of food and pass it to our neighbor to ensure freedom for all, we will need to openly share without hesitation. This wouldn't work in our society since people have under-developed concepts of sharing.
> 
> Freedom is not defined by our ability to claim ownership or our ability to mass personal economic wealth. Although massing fortunes does not immediately conflict with liberty, once it begins to encroach on the ability of others to get _what they *need*_, then it is a problem to genuine liberty.
> 
> Our modern tautology of private property=freedom makes progress towards real freedom stunted. We must reduce our egos and fan our altruistic side. This will likely take centuries given our current circumstances. Otherwise, we will always have society based on the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest. If you own something AND it prevents me from having access to what I NEED, then this is a problem. If I merely WANT what you have, then the point is moot and freedom still exists. NEEDS are very different from WANTS.
> 
> Capitalism has created private property thugs who think property is the be all end all of humanity. What makes us think private property is essential? The idea of private property has only been around since John Locke just under 200 years ago. Private property is just a baby as far as human societies have been concerned. What makes us think this concept gives liberty it wings? Maybe it would if we lived on an infinite planet but we all know our resources are finite and must be shared.
> 
> The only reason we think private property is essential is our gigantic egos that ALWAYS WANT MORE STUFF. To own is to feed our ego and every single person including myself on this thread wants more than what we've got. But to OWN not share. To share is to NOT OWN. Hence, private property gets us into trouble on a finite world.
> 
> I'm sure many will quip and say "humanity is naturally inclined to be thugs and try to steal." This is true in our current society but I strongly believe this is not our nature. We are not required to want more than we need. The only mechanism to do that is the ego and the ego is our problem.
> 
> Although initial bands of humans were marauders and this continued into the modern era, we only become such because we are encouraged to "take what's 'ours'." Well, what's ours is equally everyone elses. To think we actually own something is insane. No one carries possessions into or out of this world and so private property is fleeting at best.
> 
> When we get more, we want even more. This is either encouraged by society or discouraged--it is not a part of our fundamental essence. We can choose to be satisfied with what we have AS LONG AS ITS MEETING OUR NEEDS. This viscous cycle of wanting more must cease in a society that boasts genuine liberty. Otherwise one will always take more than their fair share and we will require governments or power structures OUTSIDE ourselves to make sure its fair and everyone is getting their NEEDS (not wants) met.
> 
> Conclusion: Our current society has warped our understanding so bad that we cannot create a society with genuine liberty. Until we recognize this we will flounder and many needs will be trampled underfoot so that we can attain our fleeting desires. From birth Christmas instills this idea.
> 
> I know people will be up in arms about my post but if you are don't just respond with disingenuous glibs. I want some genuine challenges to my basic two premises: Violence/Coercion must be removed from all as well as private property as its conceived of today. Maybe there will be a different version of property in this ideal world but not like the one we have today.



There is only _one_ way to respond to something _this_ fuck'n stupid...

[ame=http://youtu.be/g4bftQ4xxFc]Everything That Guy Just Said is Bullshit - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have mistakenly burdened government with all the executive screw ups and do not realize these narrow interests are largely responsible for the extreme corruption and dysfunction in our present government. If we could pinpoint the *SOURCE of this corruption*, it is the *Federal Reserve*. Is that a government agency? No. It is a private central bank that literally operates the government as well as the rest of the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O...M...G.... only the left-wing wackadoo's on USMB could claim the *Federal* Reserve is "private"...
> 
> Son, there is nothing "private" about the Federal Reserve. It was established by an act of Congress. It is under complete and total control of the federal government. It answers to the federal government. It reports to the federal government. It operates under the direction of the federal government.
> 
> The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the *central banking system* of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.
> 
> Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Its unique structure includes
> 
> *a federal government agency*, the Board of Governors, in Washington, D.C., and
> 12 regional Reserve Banks.
> 
> Federal Reserve System
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fed is a private organization. The board of governors are selected by the US Government and report to the dept of treasury.  The banks are not run by the board of governors. The fed is not a federal government agency.  But it is supposed to report to the US Treasury.  Reporting to the treasury has amounted to summary reports. *They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities, because Congress and the Treasury refuse to do their constitutionally directed job*.  They abdicated their job to the fed and cartel.
Click to expand...


This is akin to saying the IRS is "private" because Congress doesn't do their job and allows them to harass Tea Party members. Or Congress itself is "private" because they don't do their constitutional responsibility of passing a budget.

The fact that anyone thinks the *federal* (key word) reserve is "private" is fall-down hilarious.

It is fully owned and fully operated by the federal government. Period. Because the federal government doesn't do their job does not make something magically "private". If that were the case, nobody is more "private" than Barack Obama.


----------



## gnarlylove

Rottweiler said:


> The difference is the private sector has *zero* power over me. The government (unfortunately) now has nearly unlimited power over me. And that is the difference chief.
> 
> If I don't like the way McDonald's conducts their business, I can tell them to go fuck themselves. Think I can do that with the IRS? Why don't you try it and let me know how it works out...



I don't know why the rule of thumb is something doesn't have power over you if it doesn't hold a gun to your head.

Apparently no one has studied forms of coercion. They can be entirely subtle and out of reach. Hence you think you're free from the private sector since they don't have a gun to your head but you're not.

You have given up your liberty for the private corporations to produce your food and chop your wood for the convenience of paying someone else to do it and even deliver it to your door step.

You accept convenience in exchange for your utter dependence on them. HMMM. Doesn't sound very free to me. I know you can go buy a piece of land and create independence but you won't do that. Why? Because the private sector corporations have convinced you their authority over resources is convenient, too convenient to ever give up. So when you are in a downtown area what do you see? And endless sea of ads. If those ads weren't there do you think you'd buy those same products? This is a study that cannot be done since all areas of commerce are inundated with ads.

So you can say "I'm free" but you've never not depended 100% on their provisions. As for me I have lived in a barn outside corporate advertising influence for months at a time and you know what, I experienced a freedom that does not exist in your world (or my current world).

Do we really think companies would continue to spend trillions of dollars on advertising if it didn't work? The fact that you DO buy all those products advertised is sufficient reason to think it plays a coercive role in your life. Is there a gun to your head? NO. Does there need to be to get you to do something? Ever heard of peer pressure? Non-violent coercion? These are perhaps more effective than holding a gun to your head BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU ARE FREE!


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is the private sector has *zero* power over me. The government (unfortunately) now has nearly unlimited power over me. And that is the difference chief.
> 
> If I don't like the way McDonald's conducts their business, I can tell them to go fuck themselves. Think I can do that with the IRS? Why don't you try it and let me know how it works out...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why the rule of thumb is something doesn't have power over you if it doesn't hold a gun to your head.
> 
> Apparently no one has studied forms of coercion.
Click to expand...


There's a radical, qualitative difference between physical violence and all other "forms" of coercion. 



> They can be entirely subtle and out of reach. Hence you think you're free from the private sector since they don't have a gun to your head but you're not.



Ultimately, yes, in the most meaningful way, I am. 



> You have given up your liberty to produce you food and chop your own wood for the convenience of paying someone else to do it and even deliver it to your door step.
> 
> You accept convenience in exchange for your utter dependence on them. HMMM. Doesn't sound very free to me. I know you can go buy a piece of land and create independence but you won't do that. Why? Because the private sector corporations have convinced you their authority over resources is convenient, too convenient to every give up. So when you are in a downtown area what do you see? And endless sea of ads. If those ads were there do you think you'd buy those same products? This is a study that cannot be done since all areas of commerce are inundated with ads.
> 
> So you can say "I'm free" but you've never not depended 100% on their provisions. As for me I have lived in a barn outside corporate advertising influence for months at a time and you know what, I experienced a freedom that does not exist in your world (or my current world).
> 
> Do we really think companies would continue to spend trillions of dollars on advertising if it didn't work? The fact that you DO buy all those products advertised is sufficient reason to think it plays a coercive role in your life. Is there a gun to your head? NO. Does there need to be to get you to do something? Ever heard of peer pressure? Non-violent coercion? These are perhaps more effective than holding a gun to your head BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU ARE FREE!



In a free society, all of these conveniences can be rejected at any time. People do it more frequently than, perhaps, you are aware of. It's not impossible. It might be inconvenient, it might involve work and sacrifices most of us aren't willing to make, but you won't be shot, and you won't go to jail for going your own way. That's a fundamental difference that you can't simply deny.


----------



## gnarlylove

Of course you can reject those conveniences on principle. Will you ever? The answer is no.
I already responded to this objection (I know you can go buy a piece of land and create independence but you won't do that. Why? Because the private sector corporations have convinced you their authority over resources is convenient, too convenient to every give up). The fact you just repeat the mantra that most everyone believes means nothing. Unless something radically different happened in global society, you are hooked 100% on those products. GO ahead and repeat it again but ti doesn't change the fact that your truly operational self is not free (although your theoretical self is).


----------



## Contumacious

Erand7899 said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you don't have an answer to the question, so you punt to the question of whether, or not, our government is still constitutional.
> 
> I am no fan of big government, and would love to be able to put our federal government back into the box it climbed out of.  However, that does not lead me to conclude that we would be better off without government.  A limited government is necessary to protect private property, protect citizens from one another, and protect the society from other societies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is your position my man. The government has the most might, the most weapons, and the biggest weapons and they determine who gets what and how much of it they get. They also de facto own every single piece of property in the USA since I have to pay tribute to them in order to pseudo-own a piece of property.
> 
> Strange you advocate the same thing you cry as foul
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Stranger still, is the inability of any of you to explain, how your governmentless society can protect private property, or protect citizens from each other, or from other societies.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Even more stranger still, is your  inability  to explain, how is it that you can not buy a firearm and defend yourself and yours.

Even more more more stranger still, is your inability  to explain, what you intend to do different in order to prevent the government from again  becoming  a  continuing criminal  enterprise.

.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Of course you can reject those conveniences on principle. Will you ever? The answer is no.



I already have, in many ways. I haven't watched television in fifteen years. I limit my exposure to most popular advertising to probably less than five percent what the average person experiences. I don't use credit cards. I don't maintain debt. Seriously, it's not as hard as you seem to think.

As an aside, have you ever seen the movie "Off the Map"?


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> O...M...G.... only the left-wing wackadoo's on USMB could claim the *Federal* Reserve is "private"...
> 
> Son, there is nothing "private" about the Federal Reserve. It was established by an act of Congress. It is under complete and total control of the federal government. It answers to the federal government. It reports to the federal government. It operates under the direction of the federal government.
> 
> The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the *central banking system* of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.
> 
> Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Its unique structure includes
> 
> *a federal government agency*, the Board of Governors, in Washington, D.C., and
> 12 regional Reserve Banks.
> 
> Federal Reserve System
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fed is a private organization. The board of governors are selected by the US Government and report to the dept of treasury.  The banks are not run by the board of governors. The fed is not a federal government agency.  But it is supposed to report to the US Treasury.  Reporting to the treasury has amounted to summary reports. *They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities, because Congress and the Treasury refuse to do their constitutionally directed job*.  They abdicated their job to the fed and cartel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is akin to saying the IRS is "private" because Congress doesn't do their job and allows them to harass Tea Party members. Or Congress itself is "private" because they don't do their constitutional responsibility of passing a budget.
> 
> The fact that anyone thinks the *federal* (key word) reserve is "private" is fall-down hilarious.
> 
> It is fully owned and fully operated by the federal government. Period. Because the federal government doesn't do their job does not make something magically "private". If that were the case, nobody is more "private" than Barack Obama.
Click to expand...


They named it "fed" to confuse you.  It's apparently working.  You are not listening to me big guy.  It is a private organization that they decided to give the name fed to make it sound all official like.  The U.S. Department of Treasury prints and destroys the reserve notes in your wallet.  The Fed, which I repeat, is a private organization goes about the process of lending money to central banks that are members of the cartel aka. the central bank.. All of which are private.  The board of governors is just a group of guys that we pay a lot to set policy regarding what the fed is supposed to be doing. That does not mean the fed is not private.  

Is federal ammo a part of the federal government? I think not.


----------



## gnarlylove

For a moderately educated person, its not. But is that education easy to obtain? It is. Do people tend to seek it out? The answer is around you. Everyone in my family and everyone I know participates in buying advertised products on a daily basis. Whether its because they were advertised or not is hard to say. We'd like to think we have control over ourselves but we aren't in control of our entire body. We don't control our nervous system, our heart, or even much of what we think about. Thoughts tend to appear and disappear sometimes disconnected from the apropos situation.

All I'm looking for is for you to admit advertising is significant on society. Whether it affects you as much as everyone else is not my point. You and I are not the only ones that constitute American society. We are outliers.

Off the Map, I haven't. Sounds relevant.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Disclaimer: this post is intended to apply to a genuinely free society, not the one we are currently in. Such principles would be too great a shock in our current system to be viable.



Disclaimer: GL's absurd is actually intended to sell communism in a "softer" light.



gnarlylove said:


> Private property and violence must effectively cease for genuine liberty to exist. If violence, which is a form of coercion is tolerable between humans, then there simply is limited/no genuine freedom for that society. Some would be free while others would not. This isn't genuine liberty or we would be right back to needing laws and government. We all agree government tends to allow certain freedoms but terminates others. Hence, not a genuinely free society.



Quite the contrary, liberty can _only_ exist where private property exists. I have no freedom when I'm standing on someone else's land. I'm only truly free when it's my land and nobody else has _any_ rights to it.



gnarlylove said:


> By agreeing to set aside violent/coercive tendencies we can create a just and free society. That would mean getting all of humanity to put down and destroy our weapons. I know idiots will take this as pussyville but so what? Use of weapons always harms both sides and does not create liberty. Anyway, like I said, this is not meant as policy for today. It's to get us to understand what genuine liberty actually is. It certainly does not involve coercion in ANY FORM. The "freedom" to create weapons is not a freedom worth having since it limits freedom, ultimately.



Once again, pure stupidity. I only have liberty when I have the means to defend myself. Once I "put down my weapons" I'm at the mercy of someone who wasn't dumb enough to set theirs down.



gnarlylove said:


> Secondly, we must remove private property in order to move forward to an ideal state of affairs where genuine liberty exists for each person. I admit this idea untenable today but if anyone thinks a genuinely free society can exist with private property _at its foundation_, you are mistaken.



We already addressed this above. All you're doing here is trying to push asinine communism by using a different pitch. This is so far beyond the bounds of logic or reason that there really is no proper adjective for it. Fuck'n stupid just doesn't quite cover something this fuck'n stupid.



gnarlylove said:


> Sharing the limited bounty on this planet is crucial for survival. Claiming ownership creates strife and conflict. For example, "This is mine and you must stay away." While I'm not saying we must each take one bite of food and pass it to our neighbor to ensure freedom for all, we will need to openly share without hesitation. This wouldn't work in our society since people have under-developed concepts of sharing.



There is no "strife" or "conflict". The U.S. is sovereign property and _nobody_ disputes that. My land is my land - I have all of the documents to prove it. And _nobody_ disputes that as well.



gnarlylove said:


> Freedom is not defined by our ability to claim ownership or our ability to mass personal economic wealth. Although massing fortunes does not immediately conflict with liberty, once it begins to encroach on the ability of others to get _what they *need*_, then it is a problem to genuine liberty.



No - freedom is defined by not allowing idiots like you to tell me I don't have the right to purse "ownership", or "wealth", or anything else I choose to purse which is in conflict with your pot-smoking, kumbaya form of communism.



gnarlylove said:


> Our modern tautology of private property=freedom makes progress towards real freedom stunted. We must reduce our egos and fan our altruistic side. This will likely take centuries given our current circumstances. Otherwise, we will always have society based on the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest. If you own something AND it prevents me from having access to what I NEED, then this is a problem. If I merely WANT what you have, then the point is moot and freedom still exists. NEEDS are very different from WANTS.



In short - you want what other people have but you're too lazy to work for it. So instead, you're going to claim that "true freedom" means you are entitled to what everyone else has (including their property, wealth, etc.)? You're a special kind of imbecile. You're the warped "leader" who tries to convince his followers that God wants you to fuck their wives. Sadly, there are a few that are going to follow you're special form of insanity. Thankfully, it is a _very_ few. The rest of us laugh at your buffoonery.



gnarlylove said:


> Capitalism has created private property thugs who think property is the be all end all of humanity. What makes us think private property is essential? The idea of private property has only been around since John Locke just under 200 years ago. Private property is just a baby as far as human societies have been concerned. What makes us think this concept gives liberty it wings? Maybe it would if we lived on an infinite planet but we all know our resources are finite and must be shared.



The fact that you just acknowledged that the time frame of liberty coincides with the time frame of private property pretty much proves what I said at the beginning - that liberty is literally _impossible_ without private property.



gnarlylove said:


> The only reason we think private property is essential is our gigantic egos that ALWAYS WANT MORE STUFF. To own is to feed our ego and every single person including myself on this thread wants more than what we've got. But to OWN not share. To share is to NOT OWN. Hence, private property gets us into trouble on a finite world.



No asshole - I want private property to ensure that I have unfettered space between myself & my family and assholes like _you_. It has nothing to do with "ego" and everything to do with privacy. We all need a place to get away from people like _you_.



gnarlylove said:


> I'm sure many will quip and say "humanity is naturally inclined to be thugs and try to steal." This is true in our current society but I strongly believe this is not our nature. We are not required to want more than we need. The only mechanism to do that is the ego and the ego is our problem.



The only ego here is yours and your arrogant belief that you know best for everyone and you know why people want what they want and do what they do. Check your ego first chief before you preach to others about theirs.



gnarlylove said:


> Although initial bands of humans were marauders and this continued into the modern era, we only become such because we are encouraged to "take what's 'ours'." Well, what's ours is equally everyone elses. To think we actually own something is insane. No one carries possessions into or out of this world and so private property is fleeting at best.



So my children are not mine? Really _stupid_? And the things that I labored for are not mine? And my property - which I purchased and have the legal documents proving it is mine - is not mine?

Once again, this is just you wanting what others have but being far too lazy and too deviant to pursue it through honest means. You want to play David Koresh and hope to convince everyone that you can fuck their wives since they aren't really their wives to begin with... 



gnarlylove said:


> When we get more, we want even more. This is either encouraged by society or discouraged--it is not a part of our fundamental essence. We can choose to be satisfied with what we have AS LONG AS ITS MEETING OUR NEEDS. This viscous cycle of wanting more must cease in a society that boasts genuine liberty. Otherwise one will always take more than their fair share and we will require governments or power structures OUTSIDE ourselves to make sure its fair and everyone is getting their NEEDS (not wants) met.



Ok - then immediately surrender every possession you have to me. And I mean everything. Even your food. Even your clothes. After all, they aren't yours and the only reason you want either is for your absurd ego. So I want you standing outside my door naked and possessionless in 45 minutes....

(Wait a second, I better rethink that with this wackadoo)



gnarlylove said:


> Conclusion: Our current society has warped our understanding so bad that we cannot create a society with genuine liberty. Until we recognize this we will flounder and many needs will be trampled underfoot so that we can attain our fleeting desires. From birth Christmas instills this idea.
> 
> I know people will be up in arms about my post but if you are don't just respond with disingenuous glibs. I want some genuine challenges to my basic two premises: Violence/Coercion must be removed from all as well as private property as its conceived of today. Maybe there will be a different version of property in this ideal world but not like the one we have today.



Conclusion: you're a typical snake-oil salesman who thinks he can sell the people on communism through kumbaya. Sorry chief, America is not buying what you're sellling.


----------



## RKMBrown

Federal Reserve Bank Ownership


----------



## Erand7899

Contumacious said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your position my man. The government has the most might, the most weapons, and the biggest weapons and they determine who gets what and how much of it they get. They also de facto own every single piece of property in the USA since I have to pay tribute to them in order to pseudo-own a piece of property.
> 
> Strange you advocate the same thing you cry as foul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Stranger still, is the inability of any of you to explain, how your governmentless society can protect private property, or protect citizens from each other, or from other societies.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even more stranger still, is your  inability  to explain, how is it that you can not buy a firearm and defend yourself and yours.
> 
> Even more more more stranger still, is your inability  to explain, what you intend to do different in order to prevent the government from again  becoming  a  continuing criminal  enterprise.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I am fairly adequately prepared to defend myself and my family from normal threats, but I am not prepared to defend my property from organized crime, a gang of thugs, or an invading army.  

Now that we have done away with the strawman, why don't you explain how your desired world would protect your private property from those who would not hesitate to kill you and your family to take it?

Government will always become just as corrupt as the society that puts it in power and keeps it in power.  Fifty years ago, Obama would already have been impeached and removed from office.  Today, few seem to really care that the administration is corrupt.

Government is like fire, necessary and beneficial when carefully controlled, but cruel and highly destructive when out of control.  That does not mean that we can do without government, any more than we can do without fire.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> For a moderately educated person, its not. But is that education easy to obtain? It is. Do people tend to seek it out? The answer is around you. Everyone in my family and everyone I know participates in buying advertised products on a daily basis. Whether its because they were advertised or not is hard to say. We'd like to think we have control over ourselves but we aren't in control of our entire body. We don't control our nervous system, our heart, or even much of what we think about. Thoughts tend to appear and disappear sometimes disconnected from the apropos situation.
> 
> All I'm looking for is for you to admit advertising is significant on society. Whether it affects you as much as everyone else is not my point. You and I are not the only ones that constitute American society. We are outliers.
> 
> Off the Map, I haven't. Sounds relevant.



I've been talking about political freedom, not the subtle ins and outs of existential freedom. Anyway, yeah, advertising has a profound effect on society - that's one of the reasons I avoid it. But ultimately, people are (politically) free to turn off their televisions and live on their own terms. It's not a freedom we should give up simply because most people don't exercise it.


----------



## gnarlylove

Rottweiler said:


> Quite the contrary, liberty can _only_ exist where private property exists. I have no freedom when I'm standing on someone else's land. I'm only truly free when it's my land and nobody else has _any_ rights to it.



You have justified private property to yourself and I give you that. But saying your standing on someone elses land ASSUMES private property is INHERENT. So I guess before John Locke wrote Two Treatises on Government people simply did not have freedom?

You are using tautology to justify your belief. Indeed, if we assume private property is real, it is indeed real. I'm not arguing for that. I know private property is "real" but you are committing the fallacy of reification if you think private property has always existed and exists independent of humanity. Private property depends on humans agreeing on private property.




Rottweiler said:


> Conclusion: you're a typical snake-oil salesman who thinks he can sell the people on communism through kumbaya. Sorry chief, America is not buying what you're sellling.



Let me refer you back to the disclaimer. I said this doesn't work for us today. I agree with you but you want to assert your dominance. So what do you do? Spray names and actually agree with me by saying you disagree. I know this won't work. why? Because of egos like yours. So instead we are stuck with government to defend against your gun touting megalomania.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is the private sector has *zero* power over me. The government (unfortunately) now has nearly unlimited power over me. And that is the difference chief.
> 
> If I don't like the way McDonald's conducts their business, I can tell them to go fuck themselves. Think I can do that with the IRS? Why don't you try it and let me know how it works out...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why the rule of thumb is something doesn't have power over you if it doesn't hold a gun to your head.
Click to expand...


Because it doesn't.... 



gnarlylove said:


> Apparently no one has studied forms of coercion. They can be entirely subtle and out of reach. Hence you think you're free from the private sector since they don't have a gun to your head but you're not.



No, weak-minded lap-dogs like you are prone to "coercion". Strong-willed, strong-minded people like myself and my fellow conservatives are not coerced.



gnarlylove said:


> You have given up your liberty for the private corporations to produce your food and chop your wood for the convenience of paying someone else to do it and even deliver it to your door step.



Uh, no I haven't. I've surrendered no liberty because I choose to purchase my firewood as oppose to chopping it myself. I know this because there have been times when I chose not to purchase my firewood and did in fact chop it myself. Can you choose not to pay the IRS junior?



gnarlylove said:


> You accept convenience in exchange for your utter dependence on them. HMMM. Doesn't sound very free to me. I know you can go buy a piece of land and create independence but you won't do that. Why? Because the private sector corporations have convinced you their authority over resources is convenient, too convenient to ever give up. So when you are in a downtown area what do you see? And endless sea of ads. If those ads weren't there do you think you'd buy those same products? This is a study that cannot be done since all areas of commerce are inundated with ads.



Sure, on weak-minded people like you. As far as the private sector, they haven't "convinced" me of shit and they have no "authority" over me junior. They might over you, but they don't over me. I have decided for myself what is convenient and at no time do I surrender my liberty for it. When I buy a cheeseburger from McDonald's, my liberty is *not* compromised. The fact that you think it is proves just what an unhinged wackadoo you are....



gnarlylove said:


> So you can say "I'm free" but you've never not depended 100% on their provisions. As for me I have lived in a barn outside corporate advertising influence for months at a time and you know what, I experienced a freedom that does not exist in your world (or my current world).



Yeah - it's called LSD junior. And it's not "freedom" - it's a terrible reaction to a powerful drug. You're the only one not free due to your addiction. Now smoke another one, maaaaaaaaan....



gnarlylove said:


> Do we really think companies would continue to spend trillions of dollars on advertising if it didn't work? The fact that you DO buy all those products advertised is sufficient reason to think it plays a coercive role in your life. Is there a gun to your head? NO. Does there need to be to get you to do something? Ever heard of peer pressure? Non-violent coercion? These are perhaps more effective than holding a gun to your head BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU ARE FREE!



Hey junior, if a product is not advertised, how would I know about it? I never heard of an iPad until Apple created it and then advertised it.

How ironic that the LSD hippie thinks he's the only free one when in fact, he's the only one with a master (and sadly, the master is just a chemical).


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the contrary, liberty can _only_ exist where private property exists. I have no freedom when I'm standing on someone else's land. I'm only truly free when it's my land and nobody else has _any_ rights to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have justified private property to yourself and I give you that. But saying your standing on someone elses land ASSUMES private property is INHERENT. So I guess before John Locke wrote Two Treatises on Government people simply did not have freedom?
> 
> You are using tautology to justify your belief. Indeed, if we assume private property is real, it is indeed real. I'm not arguing for that. I know private property is "real" but you are committing the fallacy of reification if you think private property has always existed and exists independent of humanity. Private property depends on humans agreeing on private property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusion: you're a typical snake-oil salesman who thinks he can sell the people on communism through kumbaya. Sorry chief, America is not buying what you're sellling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me refer you back to the disclaimer. I said this doesn't work for us today. I agree with you but you want to assert your dominance. So what do you do? Spray names and actually agree with me by saying you disagree. I know this won't work. why? Because of egos like yours. So instead we are stuck with government to defend against your gun touting megalomania.
Click to expand...


Again, you're the one who is so arrogant, you're declaring what others need.

There is nothing "megalomania" about me. I'm simply not an LSD-dropping hippie like you. I realize that evil exists in this world and the way I defeat it is by having a gun on me. Why is that "arrogant"?

One last thing - I have *no* "dominance" over you to assert. You're sitting safely somewhere else in the world chief. Calling your bullshit out for the bullshit that it is is not "asserting dominance". You're telling me my children don't belong to me. Sorry, I'm going to speak up when someone as arrogant as you tells me that my children don't belong to me.


----------



## gnarlylove

Your ego is larger than I could imagine. You are unaffected by any external forces. My god I bet bullets can't hurt you either the way you talk. Boy IFF only I could be as strong and determined as you. Maybe if I believe your nonsense I too can pull the wool over my face and believe coercion only happens when guns are involved.

You keep saying I'm wrong when I had no intention of that post applying to our current circumstances. In fact, it was the very first thing I said. Can you read or do you just refuse to understand I agree with you?


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> Federal Reserve Bank Ownership



You probably should have read it before posting it.... 

But the banks *dont* necessarily run the show. Nationally, the Federal Reserve System is *led by a Board of Governors whose seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate*.

It was created by an act of Congress, it's run by people appointed by the president (and confirmed by the Senate), and it's "central". This can't be anymore clear.


----------



## Contumacious

Erand7899 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Stranger still, is the inability of any of you to explain, how your governmentless society can protect private property, or protect citizens from each other, or from other societies.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more stranger still, is your  inability  to explain, how is it that you can not buy a firearm and defend yourself and yours.
> 
> Even more more more stranger still, is your inability  to explain, what you intend to do different in order to prevent the government from again  becoming  a  continuing criminal  enterprise.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am fairly adequately prepared to defend myself and my family from normal threats, but I am not prepared to defend my property from organized crime, a gang of thugs, or an invading army.
> 
> Now that we have done away with the strawman, why don't you explain how your desired world would protect your private property from those who would not hesitate to kill you and your family to take it?
> 
> Government will always become just as corrupt as the society that puts it in power and keeps it in power.  Fifty years ago, Obama would already have been impeached and removed from office.  Today, few seem to really care that the administration is corrupt.
> 
> Government is like fire, necessary and beneficial when carefully controlled, but cruel and highly destructive when out of control.  That does not mean that we can do without government, any more than we can do without fire.
Click to expand...


As a welfare/warfare state , at least 50% of the electorate is dependent on government largesse  and those folks will look the other way when government bureaucrats are victimizing as happened to the Davidians.

09/11 occurred because the government has been all over creation meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and subsidizing genocide.

So we need government like we need a heart attack.

.


----------



## KNB

What happens without government?


----------



## gnarlylove

We don't know. But if we ended gov't today tis likely new power structures would take its place and probably dominate us worse than before. We need steady transition.


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal Reserve Bank Ownership
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You probably should have read it before posting it....
> 
> But the banks *don&#8217;t* necessarily run the show. Nationally, the Federal Reserve System is *led by a Board of Governors whose seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate*.
> 
> It was created by an act of Congress, it's run by people appointed by the president (and confirmed by the Senate), and it's "central". This can't be anymore clear.
Click to expand...


Not only did I read it, but I also recognize that it supports everything I said.

Again, your confusion is based the terms federal and system.  Is there a "system" yes. Just as with our system of taxes, there's a system that's supposed to be managed by the federal government.  In the case of our tax system the IRS collects, and enforces the system.  In the case of our central banking system, the fed is a private (non-profit) company that leads/runs the system we call the federal reserve system. You'll note when they try to deny it's private they say it's not a for profit private company. But it is most certainly a private company, with profits that they distribute to themselves and sometimes to the U.S. Treasury.

Again note the word system.  Just as you would not call the IRS a "system" the fed is not a system either. Members of the federal reserve system are all private. Every single one of them.

All banks are subject to regulations.  The banks in the banking cartel, aka. central banking cartel, aka federal reserve banks, are again all private, and are partially subject to regulations regarding the federal reserve banking system. Which BTW we are not auditing at all.  We audit bank loans but not federal reserve banking system loans.

The board of governors is nothing more than a good ole boy club that acts as dignitaries for the banking cartel.


----------



## bripat9643

Erand7899 said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you don't have an answer to the question, so you punt to the question of whether, or not, our government is still constitutional.
> 
> I am no fan of big government, and would love to be able to put our federal government back into the box it climbed out of.  However, that does not lead me to conclude that we would be better off without government.  A limited government is necessary to protect private property, protect citizens from one another, and protect the society from other societies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is your position my man. The government has the most might, the most weapons, and the biggest weapons and they determine who gets what and how much of it they get. They also de facto own every single piece of property in the USA since I have to pay tribute to them in order to pseudo-own a piece of property.
> 
> Strange you advocate the same thing you cry as foul
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stranger still, is the inability of any of you to explain, how your governmentless society can protect private property, or protect citizens from each other, or from other societies.
> 
> As I stated, I am not fond of a lot of government, but are we really in a situation where we only have a choice between overpowering government, and no government at all?
> 
> Perhaps you should all learn Russian or Chinese before you put this no government idea to the test.
Click to expand...


I already explained it.  Try reading the thread before spewing your ignorance into the forum.


----------



## P@triot

KNB said:


> What happens without government?



You know what is worse than no government? Unconstitutional government...

I've yet to meet a conservative who didn't want government. We just want constitutional government (or the complete opposite of the oppressive, wasteful monstrosity Dumbocrats have created)


----------



## bripat9643

KNB said:


> What happens without government?



Freedom and prosperity.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Your ego is larger than I could imagine. You are unaffected by any external forces. My god I bet bullets can't hurt you either the way you talk. Boy IFF only I could be as strong and determined as you. Maybe if I believe your nonsense I too can pull the wool over my face and believe coercion only happens when guns are involved.
> 
> You keep saying I'm wrong when I had no intention of that post applying to our current circumstances. In fact, it was the very first thing I said. Can you read or do you just refuse to understand I agree with you?



Again, how is it "arrogant" to recognize that evil exists in the world and take the proper precautions to protect one's self against it? How is it "arrogant" to tell you that you can't tell me my children don't belong to me?

Only one of us has had the appalling arrogance to stand up and tell the world in a long winded diatribe what the world "needs" and it sure as hell wasn't me chief.

I advocate freedom. You advocate a communist utopia where you get to take from everyone else. Now tell me again how I'm "asserting dominance" over you....


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens without government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom and prosperity.
Click to expand...


ROFL Who's gonna force your neighbor to take care of his trash?  Who's gonna put your neighbor on trial when he shoots you for trying to force him to take care of the trash?


----------



## Indeependent

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens without government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom and prosperity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL Who's gonna force your neighbor to take care of his trash?
Click to expand...


Ayn Rand comes back from the dead and everybody become noble.


----------



## RKMBrown

Indeependent said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom and prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Who's gonna force your neighbor to take care of his trash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand comes back from the dead and everybody become noble.
Click to expand...


Trust but verify... give authority to government, but keep a check on their authority that they don't exceed or abuse the authority provided.  This is not hard.


----------



## gnarlylove

Rottweiler said:


> I advocate freedom. You advocate a communist utopia where you get to take from everyone else. Now tell me again how I'm "asserting dominance" over you....



The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory and you are some HS grad on a message board.  I'm not on USMB to deal with tautologists like you, we were having a theoretical discussion about complete and genuine liberty in an ideal society. Though my degrees have nothing to do with whose a better person, when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of society I know what I'm talking about and you spout TV ads. Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem.

There is yet another difference in what's possible in America and what's ideal. Apparently you cannot conceive of there being a difference since you are so sure of yourself.

If you want a debate about liberty, my sig is the official definition of genuine liberty:
I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State, an eternal lie which represents the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic liberty extolled by Rousseau and bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all represented by the State, which limits the rights of each. No, I mean the only kind of liberty worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator above us, but are inherent, forming the basis of our material, intellectual & moral being&#8212;they are the real & immediate conditions of our freedom.


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens without government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom and prosperity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL Who's gonna force your neighbor to take care of his trash?  Who's gonna put your neighbor on trial when he shoots you for trying to force him to take care of the trash?
Click to expand...


Why do you feel the need to force you neighbor to take care of his trash? His trash is his trash. As long as it's not in _your_ yard, what do you care?


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate freedom. You advocate a communist utopia where you get to take from everyone else. Now tell me again how I'm "asserting dominance" over you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory and you are some HS grad on a message board.  I'm not on USMB to deal with tautologists like you, we were having a theoretical discussion about complete and genuine liberty in an ideal society. Though my degrees have nothing to do with whose a better person, when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of society I know what I'm talking about and you spout TV ads. Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem.
> 
> There is yet another difference in what's possible in America and what's ideal. Apparently you cannot conceive of there being a difference since you are so sure of yourself.
> 
> If you want a debate about liberty, my sig is the official definition of genuine liberty:
> I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State, an eternal lie which represents the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic liberty extolled by Rousseau and bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all represented by the State, which limits the rights of each. No, I mean the only kind of liberty worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator above us, but are inherent, forming the basis of our material, intellectual & moral beingthey are the real & immediate conditions of our freedom.
Click to expand...


First of all, I _graduated_ from college junior.

Second, you continue to display your appalling arrogance. So you paid some institution to hand you a piece of paper. You really believe that makes you authorized to tell the world what it needs and what it doesn't need? _Really_?

Third, I'd be willing to bet I've read _significantly_ more than you have in your life time junior.

Fourth, I do enjoy tv. Are you so arrogant in your liberal ideology that you believe there is no accurate and valuable information on television? Really? Because I've seen tons of very accurate documentaries, new "shows" (like 60 Minutes), and interviews which were chocked full of accurate information.

But hey, you smoked pot on a liberal campus with a bunch of other immature asshats and discussed the two pages you read of Karl Marx, so you are clearly qualified to rule the world....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?  Because that option of exploiting cheap labor won't be available, right?
> 
> Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right?  The MASSIVELY HUGE TAXES that corporations have to pay force those poor international conglomerates to pay foreign workers slave wages in order to make those record-breaking quarterly profits, right?  Those poor, poor multibillion-dollar multinational corporations.
> 
> They're the real victims in all of this, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?*
> 
> How do you stop Ford from building a factory in Ireland or Kuwait?
> 
> *Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right? *
> 
> We do have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. And regulations continue to cost jobs.
> 
> But you keep supporting importing competition for our workers, cause that'll help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should try reading an interview with a CEO once in a while.
> The entire interview.
> Companies off-shore due to wages.
> But that would be presuming you can read an article as opposed to simply shooting off your virtual mouth.
Click to expand...


Wages are a part, just as taxes and idiotic (Obamacare-type) regulations are a part.


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom and prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Who's gonna force your neighbor to take care of his trash?  Who's gonna put your neighbor on trial when he shoots you for trying to force him to take care of the trash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to force you neighbor to take care of his trash? His trash is his trash. As long as it's not in _your_ yard, what do you care?
Click to expand...


Glad you asked.

One of my neighbors sets off dynamite to dig for Austin stone.  If he gets close to my creek he will fracture the creek bed.  Too close and the rock frags could kill my kids.  Govco limits his use of explosives.

If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.  

We have contracts called property agreements regarding use of land.  Throw out government and all property agreements are moot.  There would be no point in buying property.  You would just take what you can defend.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because government has no responsibility to its consumer. If a company behaved poorly without government shielding it would lose its client base and go under, but that clearly isn't the case (see BOFA/JP MORGAN/AIG/ETC). Corporations are creations of government and literally the government exists to serve private interests not the people.
> 
> I advocate pure freedom, no government, no laws, no regulations, free markets. There is no way that restrictions on freedom lead to more freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, people under government are not called consumers, they are people. Reducing the human to a consumer is not a healthy form of governance. Secondly, the responsibility of a functioning government to its people is very tangible. Voting, if the public is well-informed, is a effective way to keep politicians serving the needs of the people. In other words, responsibility.
> 
> However, our government is very dysfunctional. I would like to draw a distinction between how our government IS functioning and how it is SUPPOSE to function. I agree the government serves the private interests. If these interests are broadly represented, we have a functioning government.. Unfortunately, our government has gone very foul by allowing narrow interests to vastly outweigh the masses. Would you agree?
> 
> In fact, this is precisely why you are upset at government...the corporations have spent trillions of dollars to elect the "right" politicians. The government has become a craps shoot for the wealthy. If the people weren't so full of lying rhetoric from politicians and propaganda from mass media we could vote them out of office. But sadly our citizenry views voting as a waste of time, including myself. But if we all worked to oust propaganda and Public Relations campaigns, we could get something done in gov't. Do I have hope in this approach (i.e. working within the system)? Hell NO! But am I going to try? Yes. Why not? It doesn't hurt my other campaign to work from outside the system to create a more free society.
> 
> You have mistakenly burdened government with all the executive screw ups and do not realize these narrow interests are largely responsible for the extreme corruption and dysfunction in our present government. If we could pinpoint the *SOURCE of this corruption*, it is the *Federal Reserve*. Is that a government agency? No. It is a private central bank that literally operates the government as well as the rest of the private sector.
> 
> Without money we have no government (given our modern age relying solely on fiat currency). It's that simple. There were many attempts to prevent a private establishment from controlling the American money supply, but, after 2 unsuccessful attempts, powerful bankers were able to deceive Woodrow Wilson into making the one regret he had in his presidency. Signing into law the central and private Federal Reserve. Before he died, he said "I am a most unhappy man--*unwittingly I have ruined my country*."
> 
> This video is massively entertaining but doubly informative. If you only want the important stuff, skip to 14:30. I recommend watching it all. It's not a bad use of your time if your spending it on USMB.
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They [the people], and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude...
> This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Letter to Samuel Kercheval | Teaching American History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the *banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered*...*I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies..*. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Long before we had this gay discussion about governments gone sour, Thomas Jefferson was dutifully aware. He foresaw what private central banking does to the public and the government, as well as leading to extravagance by the gov't and private bankers. At no other time in history have so few men dominated entire continents and resources. Their extravagance will either ruin the world or we will wake up and prohibit such wealth concentration.
> 
> To point fingers at the government is a small part of the problem--it is not the source! The real power isn't in Armies, it's in who controls the world and its resources. "*Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws*." -Nathan Rothschild to Rockerfeller.
Click to expand...


If* we could pinpoint the SOURCE of this corruption, it is the Federal Reserve. Is that a government agency? No. *

Yes, the Fed is part of the government.



			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the *banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered*..



Love that fake Jefferson quote.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Who's gonna force your neighbor to take care of his trash?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand comes back from the dead and everybody become noble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust but verify... give authority to government, but keep a check on their authority that they don't exceed or abuse the authority provided.  This is not hard.
Click to expand...


Really?  Then why didn't it work when the Founding Fathers tried it?

Here's the bottom line:  The term "limited government" is an oxymoron.  You can't limit government.  Government has unconstrainable compulsion to grow.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Who's gonna force your neighbor to take care of his trash?  Who's gonna put your neighbor on trial when he shoots you for trying to force him to take care of the trash?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to force you neighbor to take care of his trash? His trash is his trash. As long as it's not in _your_ yard, what do you care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you asked.
> 
> One of my neighbors sets off dynamite to dig for Austin stone.  If he gets close to my creek he will fracture the creek bed.  Too close and the rock frags could kill my kids.  Govco limits his use of explosives.
> 
> If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.
> 
> We have contracts called property agreements regarding use of land.  Throw out government and all property agreements are moot.  There would be no point in buying property.  You would just take what you can defend.
Click to expand...


Well that's just plain horseshit.  Private property existed long before government came into the picture.  As I explained to you already, insurance companies would take responsibility for protecting your property rights.  If your neighbor has a different insurance company, then binding arbitration would resolve any disputes. Many disputes in this day and age are settled by binding arbitration.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand comes back from the dead and everybody become noble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust but verify... give authority to government, but keep a check on their authority that they don't exceed or abuse the authority provided.  This is not hard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why didn't it work when the Founding Fathers tried it?
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  The term "limited government" is an oxymoron.  You can't limit government.  Government has unconstrainable compulsion to grow.
Click to expand...


At different levels it does work today. It works where I live in my local government.  It works in my state to a degree sufficient to my liking. 

At the federal level.. yeah we need to hang some people, and put the checks and balances back in.  Liberty is only good for as long as you are willing to defend it.  We lost our liberty to the last two administrations.  It's time to take our liberty back.


----------



## Indeependent

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to force you neighbor to take care of his trash? His trash is his trash. As long as it's not in _your_ yard, what do you care?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you asked.
> 
> One of my neighbors sets off dynamite to dig for Austin stone.  If he gets close to my creek he will fracture the creek bed.  Too close and the rock frags could kill my kids.  Govco limits his use of explosives.
> 
> If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.
> 
> We have contracts called property agreements regarding use of land.  Throw out government and all property agreements are moot.  There would be no point in buying property.  You would just take what you can defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's just plain horseshit.  Private property existed long before government came into the picture.  As I explained to you already, insurance companies would take responsibility for protecting your property rights.  If your neighbor has a different insurance company, then binding arbitration would resolve any disputes. Many disputes in this day and age are settled by binding arbitration.
Click to expand...


Rodents have also existed for a long time and since they don't come with a built in GPS they will not "Keep off private property".
Are you truly that naive?


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to force you neighbor to take care of his trash? His trash is his trash. As long as it's not in _your_ yard, what do you care?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you asked.
> 
> One of my neighbors sets off dynamite to dig for Austin stone.  If he gets close to my creek he will fracture the creek bed.  Too close and the rock frags could kill my kids.  Govco limits his use of explosives.
> 
> If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.
> 
> We have contracts called property agreements regarding use of land.  Throw out government and all property agreements are moot.  There would be no point in buying property.  You would just take what you can defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's just plain horseshit.  Private property existed long before government came into the picture.  As I explained to you already, insurance companies would take responsibility for protecting your property rights.  If your neighbor has a different insurance company, then binding arbitration would resolve any disputes. Many disputes in this day and age are settled by binding arbitration.
Click to expand...


Ok shirlock, why don't you tell the class what private property existed prior to government coming into the picture.  When did this happen?  On what planet was there a place with no means of control of private property whatsoever. No government.  ROFL what a dumb ass you are making yourself out to be.  Put 10kids in a group and they will come up with their own system of government in a matter of days.  Your completely full of shit on this one.

How the eff is binding arbitration between corporations not government owned and run by the corporations?  WTF are you talking about?  You think changing the title of governing from govco to Apple Computers is gonna make a whoot of a difference?  ROFL


----------



## Indeependent

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you asked.
> 
> One of my neighbors sets off dynamite to dig for Austin stone.  If he gets close to my creek he will fracture the creek bed.  Too close and the rock frags could kill my kids.  Govco limits his use of explosives.
> 
> If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.
> 
> We have contracts called property agreements regarding use of land.  Throw out government and all property agreements are moot.  There would be no point in buying property.  You would just take what you can defend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's just plain horseshit.  Private property existed long before government came into the picture.  As I explained to you already, insurance companies would take responsibility for protecting your property rights.  If your neighbor has a different insurance company, then binding arbitration would resolve any disputes. Many disputes in this day and age are settled by binding arbitration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok shirlock, why don't you tell the class what private property existed prior to government coming into the picture.  When did this happen?  On what planet was there a place with no means of control of private property whatsoever. No government.  ROFL what a dumb ass you are making yourself out to be.  Put 10kids in a group and they will come up with their own system of government in a matter of days.  Your completely full of shit on this one.
> 
> How the eff is binding arbitration between corporations not government owned and run by the corporations?  WTF are you talking about?  You think changing the title of governing from govco to Apple Computers is gonna make a whoot of a difference?  ROFL
Click to expand...


There is no moderation in the mind of an extremist.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens without government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom and prosperity.
Click to expand...


Examples?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have mistakenly burdened government with all the executive screw ups and do not realize these narrow interests are largely responsible for the extreme corruption and dysfunction in our present government. If we could pinpoint the *SOURCE of this corruption*, it is the *Federal Reserve*. Is that a government agency? No. It is a private central bank that literally operates the government as well as the rest of the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O...M...G.... only the left-wing wackadoo's on USMB could claim the *Federal* Reserve is "private"...
> 
> Son, there is nothing "private" about the Federal Reserve. It was established by an act of Congress. It is under complete and total control of the federal government. It answers to the federal government. It reports to the federal government. It operates under the direction of the federal government.
> 
> The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the *central banking system* of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.
> 
> Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Its unique structure includes
> 
> *a federal government agency*, the Board of Governors, in Washington, D.C., and
> 12 regional Reserve Banks.
> 
> Federal Reserve System
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fed is a private organization. The board of governors are selected by the US Government and report to the dept of treasury.  The banks are not run by the board of governors. The fed is not a federal government agency.  But it is supposed to report to the US Treasury.  Reporting to the treasury has amounted to summary reports. They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities, because Congress and the Treasury refuse to do their constitutionally directed job.  They abdicated their job to the fed and cartel.
> 
> The link you provided to the Wikipedia is talking about a system.  Which is like a diagram or a model of what happens.  It's just a drawing explaining how the parts are supposed to work together.
Click to expand...


*The fed is a private organization.*

Not so much.

*They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities*

They are audited annually. They turn over an absurd portion of their profit to the Treasury. In 2012 it was about $89 billion out of $91 billion.


----------



## Contumacious

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> O...M...G.... only the left-wing wackadoo's on USMB could claim the *Federal* Reserve is "private"...
> 
> Son, there is nothing "private" about the Federal Reserve. It was established by an act of Congress. It is under complete and total control of the federal government. It answers to the federal government. It reports to the federal government. It operates under the direction of the federal government.
> 
> The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the *central banking system* of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.
> 
> Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Its unique structure includes
> 
> *a federal government agency*, the Board of Governors, in Washington, D.C., and
> 12 regional Reserve Banks.
> 
> Federal Reserve System
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fed is a private organization. The board of governors are selected by the US Government and report to the dept of treasury.  The banks are not run by the board of governors. The fed is not a federal government agency.  But it is supposed to report to the US Treasury.  Reporting to the treasury has amounted to summary reports. They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities, because Congress and the Treasury refuse to do their constitutionally directed job.  They abdicated their job to the fed and cartel.
> 
> The link you provided to the Wikipedia is talking about a system.  Which is like a diagram or a model of what happens.  It's just a drawing explaining how the parts are supposed to work together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The fed is a private organization.*
> 
> Not so much.
> 
> *They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities*
> 
> They are audited annually. They turn over an absurd portion of their profit to the Treasury. In 2012 it was about $89 billion out of $91 billion.
Click to expand...


They are a private entity. And have never been audited. 

Even if true that they "91 billion in taxes all they have to do is print them.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Of course you can reject those conveniences on principle. Will you ever? The answer is no.
> I already responded to this objection (I know you can go buy a piece of land and create independence but you won't do that. Why? Because the private sector corporations have convinced you their authority over resources is convenient, too convenient to every give up). The fact you just repeat the mantra that most everyone believes means nothing. Unless something radically different happened in global society, you are hooked 100% on those products. GO ahead and repeat it again but ti doesn't change the fact that your truly operational self is not free (although your theoretical self is).



You claimed yesterday that corporations spend more on advertising than on producing their products. You never provided proof.

Were you wrong?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Contumacious said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fed is a private organization. The board of governors are selected by the US Government and report to the dept of treasury.  The banks are not run by the board of governors. The fed is not a federal government agency.  But it is supposed to report to the US Treasury.  Reporting to the treasury has amounted to summary reports. They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities, because Congress and the Treasury refuse to do their constitutionally directed job.  They abdicated their job to the fed and cartel.
> 
> The link you provided to the Wikipedia is talking about a system.  Which is like a diagram or a model of what happens.  It's just a drawing explaining how the parts are supposed to work together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The fed is a private organization.*
> 
> Not so much.
> 
> *They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities*
> 
> They are audited annually. They turn over an absurd portion of their profit to the Treasury. In 2012 it was about $89 billion out of $91 billion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are a private entity. And have never been audited.
> 
> Even if true that they "91 billion in taxes all they have to do is print them.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


FRB: Annual Report 2012 - Federal Reserve System Audits


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Federal Reserve Bank Ownership



*The concept of "ownership" needs some explaining here, however. The member banks must by law invest 3 percent of their capital as stock in the Reserve Banks, and they cannot sell or trade their stock or even use that stock as collateral to borrow money. They do receive dividends of 6 percent per year from the Reserve Banks and get to elect each Reserve Banks board of directors.*

In 2012, that "ownership dividend" totaled $1.6 billion. 
While the US Treasury received $89 billion.

That tells you all you need to know about who really owns the Fed.


----------



## gnarlylove

Rottweiler said:


> First of all, I _graduated_ from college junior.



Some _relevant_ degree on social theory, huh? My apologies for inducing from your continual ad hominem attacks that you lack formal academic education.



Rottweiler said:


> Second, you continue to display your appalling arrogance. So you paid some institution to hand you a piece of paper. You really believe that makes you authorized to tell the world what it needs and what it doesn't need? _Really_?



Show me where I said I know what the world needs. I was discussing theories that I specifically said did not apply to our current state of affairs.

I have two BAs (Sociology and Philosophy with a minor in History at OWU).  I meant to emphasize the education I received, not the degrees. Pardon my poor language choice, but your unwarranted odium towards me (not my beliefs) incites anger, so I react naturally. I'll remain more calm from here on out when addressing your Alpha Dog Ego. If only you _could _do the same we might get somewhere. But you can't, it feels to good to your ego to sacrifice name calling for genuine exchange of ideas.

Ah but here lies yet another key difference. You aren't here to discuss ideas, as evinced by your incessant ad hominems. You are here to feel like a big man--what kind of name is Rotw.... if it isn't an attempt to subconsciously assert dominance? Well, don't let my fucking stupid ideas (which is to say they don't appear on TV) prevent you from feeling like the big man you are, Senior Alpha Dog. I don't want to attract your vitriol so let me say plainly, you are better than me. You are smarter than me.

Now that wasn't so hard was it? Do you feel better? Good. Because only inflated egos are receptive to such praise, which proves my point.



Rottweiler said:


> Third, I'd be willing to bet I've read _significantly_ more than you have in your life time junior.



I won't dispute you have read more than me. That wasn't my point--of course you took it personally as egos tend to do instead of realizing it as a legitimate question about your background. Having graduate college doesn't tell me you have rigorously studied the relevant concepts.

My point is regarding the topics of liberty, private property, justice, government, the state, etc. etc. I am almost guaranteed to have read more, wrote more essays, anaylzed and took more notes on those subjects than you. End of story. And I'm not talking about some contemporary partisan horse shit. I mean really getting into the nitty gritty of what these terms mean and how they function. SO I'll ask again, have you read Hegel? Marx? Webber? Durkheim? Locke? Bertrand Russell? Hume? (not Brit Hume but David Hume). Those people broke the door of its hinges when it comes to understanding society and the relevant concepts. You probably have never even heard of half of them let alone read their texts like I have.



Rottweiler said:


> Fourth, I do enjoy tv. ..tons of very accurate documentaries, new "shows" (like 60 Minutes), and interviews which were chocked full of accurate information.



60 minutes was informative a decade ago until it sold out to sensationalist journalism. Remember their apology for bad reporting over a year ago? IT was due to pathetic superficial journalism that focused on grabbing your attention rather than doing one iota of homework on _their own story_. Of course there's information on TV, but there's way more shit to shift through than truth. It sounds like you care far more about having men in suits confirm your ideology than report the truth. Am I right? When I was a toddler in HS I also loved Fox and the Mass Media. I know where you are coming from and I have since left that camp.



Rottweiler said:


> But hey, you smoked pot on a liberal campus with a bunch of other immature asshats and discussed the two pages you read of Karl Marx, so you are clearly qualified to rule the world....



Actually, I didn't smoke pot until the last 3 months of my senior year. So if you think that somehow affected my education you are mistaken. But pot has nothing to do with this, it's a red herring for you to feel like your ego made a point. "Score another for me" it says even though it has no fucking relevancy.

For some reason you think I'm trying to control the world. Are you that fucking stupid to think I think I have all the answers? "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." I am merely trying to stimulate discussion to reach better conclusions. You are not here for that. Try toning down your ego and you might see more clearly. I respect you as a person and apologize for clearly hurting your massive ego--of course you won't see it that way. You'll of course conclude you were just "putting me in my place, little fagot junior" (as if your repeated and stupid personal attack posts demonstrate any wisdom on your part). But that's because you don't read your own posts. Your replies are way overkill in trying discredit _me _ instead of my beliefs.

When someone slings personal attacks constantly, it's not because they disagree, you can be sure of that. It's because their ego has been damaged and to restore balance they can't contain their ego from lashing out in all kinds of unwarranted ways. In fact, it felt so good to type your replies you end it with a "bang." Boy you sound like one of the most noble humans ever. This must also mean you have all the bright ideas on liberty and justice.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You claimed yesterday that corporations spend more on advertising than on producing their products. You never provided proof.
> 
> Were you wrong?



You tend to produce mental backwash rather than ideas so I tend to ignore you after trying to carry a conversation w/ you on other threads. Nothing personal but your ideas lack credibility. Plus assuming your opponents are dumber than you--as evinced by your signature--is a good way to ensure you view yourself as right. Too bad real world academics doesn't work out that way but when you shelter yourself I guess you found a way around it.

But I want to thank you for pointing out the Jefferson Quote. However, he made similar remarks and so while the quote likely isn't his, we know where he stood on the banks. You just detract rather than add to discussion. You mostly ask red herring questions and refuse to do your own research.

Coca-Cola spends X on Ads
Big Pharma spends X on Ads

I ask that you to click those links so you can begin to put a picture together of advertisement.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate freedom. You advocate a communist utopia where you get to take from everyone else. Now tell me again how I'm "asserting dominance" over you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory and you are some HS grad on a message board.  I'm not on USMB to deal with tautologists like you, we were having a theoretical discussion about complete and genuine liberty in an ideal society. Though my degrees have nothing to do with whose a better person, when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of society I know what I'm talking about and you spout TV ads. Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem.
> 
> There is yet another difference in what's possible in America and what's ideal. Apparently you cannot conceive of there being a difference since you are so sure of yourself.
> 
> If you want a debate about liberty, my sig is the official definition of genuine liberty:
> I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State, an eternal lie which represents the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic liberty extolled by Rousseau and bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all represented by the State, which limits the rights of each. No, I mean the only kind of liberty worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator above us, but are inherent, forming the basis of our material, intellectual & moral beingthey are the real & immediate conditions of our freedom.
Click to expand...


*The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory *

That explains why you are often (always?) unemployed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I _graduated_ from college junior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some _relevant_ degree on social theory, huh? My apologies for inducing from your continual ad hominem attacks that you lack formal academic education.
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you continue to display your appalling arrogance. So you paid some institution to hand you a piece of paper. You really believe that makes you authorized to tell the world what it needs and what it doesn't need? _Really_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where I said I know what the world needs. I was discussing theories that I specifically said did not apply to our current state of affairs.
> 
> I have two BAs (Sociology and Philosophy with a minor in History at OWU).  I meant to emphasize the education I received, not the degrees. Pardon my poor language choice, but your unwarranted odium towards me (not my beliefs) incites anger, so I react naturally. I'll remain more calm from here on out when addressing your Alpha Dog Ego. If only you _could _do the same we might get somewhere. But you can't, it feels to good to your ego to sacrifice name calling for genuine exchange of ideas.
> 
> Ah but here lies yet another key difference. You aren't here to discuss ideas, as evinced by your incessant ad hominems. You are here to feel like a big man--what kind of name is Rotw.... if it isn't an attempt to subconsciously assert dominance? Well, don't let my fucking stupid ideas (which is to say they don't appear on TV) prevent you from feeling like the big man you are, Senior Alpha Dog. I don't want to attract your vitriol so let me say plainly, you are better than me. You are smarter than me.
> 
> Now that wasn't so hard was it? Do you feel better? Good. Because only inflated egos are receptive to such praise, which proves my point.
> 
> 
> 
> I won't dispute you have read more than me. That wasn't my point--of course you took it personally as egos tend to do instead of realizing it as a legitimate question about your background. Having graduate college doesn't tell me you have rigorously studied the relevant concepts.
> 
> My point is regarding the topics of liberty, private property, justice, government, the state, etc. etc. I am almost guaranteed to have read more, wrote more essays, anaylzed and took more notes on those subjects than you. End of story. And I'm not talking about some contemporary partisan horse shit. I mean really getting into the nitty gritty of what these terms mean and how they function. SO I'll ask again, have you read Hegel? Marx? Webber? Durkheim? Locke? Bertrand Russell? Hume? (not Brit Hume but David Hume). Those people broke the door of its hinges when it comes to understanding society and the relevant concepts. You probably have never even heard of half of them let alone read their texts like I have.
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth, I do enjoy tv. ..tons of very accurate documentaries, new "shows" (like 60 Minutes), and interviews which were chocked full of accurate information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 60 minutes was informative a decade ago until it sold out to sensationalist journalism. Remember their apology for bad reporting over a year ago? IT was due to pathetic superficial journalism that focused on grabbing your attention rather than doing one iota of homework on _their own story_. Of course there's information on TV, but there's way more shit to shift through than truth. It sounds like you care far more about having men in suits confirm your ideology than report the truth. Am I right? When I was a toddler in HS I also loved Fox and the Mass Media. I know where you are coming from and I have since left that camp.
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> But hey, you smoked pot on a liberal campus with a bunch of other immature asshats and discussed the two pages you read of Karl Marx, so you are clearly qualified to rule the world....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I didn't smoke pot until the last 3 months of my senior year. So if you think that somehow affected my education you are mistaken. But pot has nothing to do with this, it's a red herring for you to feel like your ego made a point. "Score another for me" it says even though it has no fucking relevancy.
> 
> For some reason you think I'm trying to control the world. Are you that fucking stupid to think I think I have all the answers? "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." I am merely trying to stimulate discussion to reach better conclusions. You are not here for that. Try toning down your ego and you might see more clearly. I respect you as a person and apologize for clearly hurting your massive ego--of course you won't see it that way. You'll of course conclude you were just "putting me in my place, little fagot junior" (as if your repeated and stupid personal attack posts demonstrate any wisdom on your part). But that's because you don't read your own posts. Your replies are way overkill in trying discredit _me _ instead of my beliefs.
> 
> When someone slings personal attacks constantly, it's not because they disagree, you can be sure of that. It's because their ego has been damaged and to restore balance they can't contain their ego from lashing out in all kinds of unwarranted ways. In fact, it felt so good to type your replies you end it with a "bang." Boy you sound like one of the most noble humans ever. This must also mean you have all the bright ideas on liberty and justice.
Click to expand...


*My apologies for inducing from your continual ad hominem attacks that you lack formal academic education.*

Two degrees and you don't know what induce means?


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.



Oh well.... it's not your neighbors job to make sure your property increases in value.

(P.S. - that is a bullshit control-freak fallacy by the way. There is nothing your neighbor can do that will _ever_ effect the price of your property. Your property value is controlled by two things and two things _only_ - the size of the house/land and the location - ie beach front property on the ocean is more in demand than Nebraska farmland).


----------



## gnarlylove

inductive logic means to gather particular examples and make the general conclusion. it's the basis of scientific reasoning like gravity.


----------



## KNB

Rottweiler said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well.... it's not your neighbors job to make sure your property increases in value.
> 
> (P.S. - that is a bullshit control-freak fallacy by the way. There is nothing your neighbor can do that will _ever_ effect the price of your property. Your property value is controlled by two things and two things _only_ - the size of the house/land and the location - ie beach front property on the ocean is more in demand than Nebraska farmland).
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to test that theory by buying a mansion in Beverly Hills and turning it into a homeless shelter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed yesterday that corporations spend more on advertising than on producing their products. You never provided proof.
> 
> Were you wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tend to produce mental backwash rather than ideas so I tend to ignore you after trying to carry a conversation w/ you on other threads. Nothing personal but your ideas lack credibility. Plus assuming your opponents are dumber than you--as evinced by your signature--is a good way to ensure you view yourself as right. Too bad real world academics doesn't work out that way but when you shelter yourself I guess you found a way around it.
> 
> But I want to thank you for pointing out the Jefferson Quote. However, he made similar remarks and so while the quote likely isn't his, we know where he stood on the banks. You just detract rather than add to discussion. You mostly ask red herring questions and refuse to do your own research.
> 
> Coca-Cola spends X on Ads
> Big Pharma spends X on Ads
> 
> I ask that you to click those links so you can begin to put a picture together of advertisement.
Click to expand...


*You tend to produce mental backwash rather than ideas*

Yeah, I tend to call you out on your bullshit claims, and then you tend to run away.

*Nothing personal but your ideas lack credibility.*

Nothing personal, but pointing out your errors (lies?) makes me more credible than you.

*Plus assuming your opponents are dumber than you*

That's a safe assumption, when you're my opponent.

*You mostly ask red herring questions and refuse to do your own research.*

When you make ridiculous claims, with no proof, where am I supposed to research?
Thanks for providing a few links.
Your actual claim was:

The fact that* most major corporations *spend more money on advertisement than the production of their products clues us in.

Were you wrong?


----------



## Antares

Wealth inequality.

Fuck you people.

You want more, earn more.

It is just that simple you dumbshits.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed yesterday that corporations spend more on advertising than on producing their products. You never provided proof.
> 
> Were you wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tend to produce mental backwash rather than ideas so I tend to ignore you after trying to carry a conversation w/ you on other threads. Nothing personal but your ideas lack credibility. Plus assuming your opponents are dumber than you--as evinced by your signature--is a good way to ensure you view yourself as right. Too bad real world academics doesn't work out that way but when you shelter yourself I guess you found a way around it.
> 
> But I want to thank you for pointing out the Jefferson Quote. However, he made similar remarks and so while the quote likely isn't his, we know where he stood on the banks. You just detract rather than add to discussion. You mostly ask red herring questions and refuse to do your own research.
> 
> Coca-Cola spends X on Ads
> Big Pharma spends X on Ads
> 
> I ask that you to click those links so you can begin to put a picture together of advertisement.
Click to expand...




*Coca-Cola advertising budget (2010): $2.9 billion*

In 2010, their "Cost of Revenue" was almost $12.7 billion.

KO Income Statement | Coca-Cola Company (The) Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

I know that's math, which is a weak spot for you.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate freedom. You advocate a communist utopia where you get to take from everyone else. Now tell me again how I'm "asserting dominance" over you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory and you are some HS grad on a message board.  I'm not on USMB to deal with tautologists like you, we were having a theoretical discussion about complete and genuine liberty in an ideal society. Though my degrees have nothing to do with whose a better person, when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of society I know what I'm talking about and you spout TV ads. Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem.
> 
> There is yet another difference in what's possible in America and what's ideal. Apparently you cannot conceive of there being a difference since you are so sure of yourself.
> 
> If you want a debate about liberty, my sig is the official definition of genuine liberty:
> I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State, an eternal lie which represents the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic liberty extolled by Rousseau and bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all represented by the State, which limits the rights of each. No, I mean the only kind of liberty worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator above us, but are inherent, forming the basis of our material, intellectual & moral beingthey are the real & immediate conditions of our freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory *
> 
> That explains why you are often (always?) unemployed.
Click to expand...


It also explains why he is always wrong.  He's been pumped full of statist propaganda.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed yesterday that corporations spend more on advertising than on producing their products. You never provided proof.
> 
> Were you wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tend to produce mental backwash rather than ideas so I tend to ignore you after trying to carry a conversation w/ you on other threads. Nothing personal but your ideas lack credibility. Plus assuming your opponents are dumber than you--as evinced by your signature--is a good way to ensure you view yourself as right. Too bad real world academics doesn't work out that way but when you shelter yourself I guess you found a way around it.
> 
> But I want to thank you for pointing out the Jefferson Quote. However, he made similar remarks and so while the quote likely isn't his, we know where he stood on the banks. You just detract rather than add to discussion. You mostly ask red herring questions and refuse to do your own research.
> 
> Coca-Cola spends X on Ads
> Big Pharma spends X on Ads
> 
> I ask that you to click those links so you can begin to put a picture together of advertisement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Coca-Cola advertising budget (2010): $2.9 billion*
> 
> In 2010, their "Cost of Revenue" was almost $12.7 billion.
> 
> KO Income Statement | Coca-Cola Company (The) Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> I know that's math, which is a weak spot for you.
Click to expand...


The soda market is one with an exceptionally high cost of advertising.  Since all sodas are little more than sugar and carbonated water, it takes a lot of advertising to make your brand stand out.   On the other hand, products such as automobiles have a relatively low cost of advertising.  Housing is probably the lowest cost of all.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I _graduated_ from college junior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some _relevant_ degree on social theory, huh? My apologies for inducing from your continual ad hominem attacks that you lack formal academic education.
Click to expand...


No sir. I would not waste my time on a degree like that with no practical applications. I know this is shocking to liberal students, but in the real world you do not get paid for philosophizing while stoned.



gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, you continue to display your appalling arrogance. So you paid some institution to hand you a piece of paper. You really believe that makes you authorized to tell the world what it needs and what it doesn't need? _Really_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where I said I know what the world needs. I was discussing theories that I specifically said did not apply to our current state of affairs.
Click to expand...


They weren't "theories" chief. When you tell people they are (and I quote) "mistaken" if they believe that they can have liberty and private property at the same time, you are making an arrogant and authoritative claim.



gnarlylove said:


> I have two BAs (Sociology and Philosophy with a minor in History at OWU).  I meant to emphasize the education I received, not the degrees. Pardon my poor language choice, but your unwarranted odium towards me (not my beliefs) incites anger, so I react naturally. I'll remain more calm from here on out when addressing your Alpha Dog Ego. If only you _could _do the same we might get somewhere. But you can't, it feels to good to your ego to sacrifice name calling for genuine exchange of ideas.



With all due respect, your beliefs are pretty appalling. If I told you that I believe it is ok to molest and murder small children, would you respect that? There are something that are just too appalling to accept. Telling the world that nobody deserves, has a right to, or should have private property is just sick. I'm sorry, go liberal stoned philosopher all you want, but that is _really_ sick.

All you're doing is trying to sell communism in a different way than it has been sold before. But it is still communism. Just like a pig with lipstick on is still a pig.



gnarlylove said:


> Ah but here lies yet another key difference. You aren't here to discuss ideas, as evinced by your incessant ad hominems. You are here to feel like a big man--what kind of name is Rotw.... if it isn't an attempt to subconsciously assert dominance? Well, don't let my fucking stupid ideas (which is to say they don't appear on TV) prevent you from feeling like the big man you are, Senior Alpha Dog. I don't want to attract your vitriol so let me say plainly, you are better than me. You are smarter than me.



Communism is not "an idea". It is a failed ideology. It has been tried (many times) and it has failed (many times). It always ends the same - with mass murder.

And I must repeat again and again - I'm not the one telling the world they are (and again I quote) "mistaken" if they believe they can have private property, weapons for security, etc. I advocate that nobody has a right to tell others what they should do or how they should do it - thus freedom is the only answer. Leave people the fuck alone to live their lives (and no, I'm not a despicable anarchist so I don't believe that people are free to rape and murder).

No matter what you think, you did not pitch that entire diatribe as an "idea". It was an authoritative "I know best and fuck you if you don't agree with me". You never once said "here is an idea", "what do you think about this", etc.



gnarlylove said:


> Now that wasn't so hard was it? Do you feel better? Good. Because only inflated egos are receptive to such praise, which proves my point.



Unfortunately you believe you have a deep insight into my psyche and you don't. Probably because you are left-wing, you just can't imagine someone not wanting to control/dominate others. Well, I don't. I want freedom. I want you to be able to do whatever the fuck you want, and I want to be left alone to do whatever the fuck I want.



gnarlylove said:


> I won't dispute you have read more than me. That wasn't my point--of course you took it personally as egos tend to do instead of realizing it as a legitimate question about your background. Having graduate college doesn't tell me you have rigorously studied the relevant concepts.



But I don't need to study "social theory" to understand that "everyone needs to share everything (ie communism) is a fuck'n nightmare. I just need a basic overview of history. It's well documented and it's full of human horrors.



gnarlylove said:


> My point is regarding the topics of liberty, private property, justice, government, the state, etc. etc. I am almost guaranteed to have read more, wrote more essays, anaylzed and took more notes on those subjects than you. End of story. And I'm not talking about some contemporary partisan horse shit. I mean really getting into the nitty gritty of what these terms mean and how they function. SO I'll ask again, have you read Hegel? Marx? Webber? Durkheim? Locke? Bertrand Russell? Hume? (not Brit Hume but David Hume). Those people broke the door of its hinges when it comes to understanding society and the relevant concepts. You probably have never even heard of half of them let alone read their texts like I have.



And herein lies your problems. You're so caught up in the very immature and idealistic liberal "philosophy" that you can't see the forest for the trees. I don't need to read Marx. All I need to do is read history to know that the man didn't have a fuck'n clue and his entire philosophy is a failed one. Now, do I blame Marx? No. At the time, he had an original idea that on paper does sound good. Everyone is cared for, everyone has food, shelter, etc. But then it goes from on paper into "production" and it is an epic fuck'n disaster that ends with mass murder.

Since you're so into writing and philosophy, I've got a few for you that far exceeds anything these people ever wrote and which you should really think about:

"Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive" - William F. Buckley Jr.

"Some ideas are so preposterous only an intellectual could believe them" - George Orwell

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."  --Winston Churchill

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" - Margaret Thatcher

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." -Frédéric Bastiat


----------



## gnarlylove

bri says I am full of "statist propaganda" when I am as anti-Obama as he is. The sad thing is he thinks conservatives have the answer. News Flash: both sides are stuffed to the brim of lying rhetoric. If you think either party has the answer, you are selecting propaganda that fits your pre-conceived ideas.


----------



## freedombecki

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory and you are some HS grad on a message board. I'm not on USMB to deal with tautologists like you, we were having a theoretical discussion about complete and genuine liberty in an ideal society. Though my degrees have nothing to do with whose a better person, when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of society I know what I'm talking about and you spout TV ads. Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem.
> 
> There is yet another difference in what's possible in America and what's ideal. Apparently you cannot conceive of there being a difference since you are so sure of yourself.
> 
> If you want a debate about liberty, my sig is the official definition of genuine liberty:
> I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State, an eternal lie which represents the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic liberty extolled by Rousseau and bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all represented by the State, which limits the rights of each. No, I mean the only kind of liberty worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator above us, but are inherent, forming the basis of our material, intellectual & moral beingthey are the real & immediate conditions of our freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory *
> 
> That explains why you are often (always?) unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also explains why he is always wrong. He's been pumped full of statist propaganda.
Click to expand...

That's really sad.


----------



## freedombecki

gnarlylove said:


> bri says I am full of "statist propaganda" when I am as anti-Obama as he is. The sad thing is he thinks conservatives have the answer. News Flash: both sides are stuffed to the brim of lying rhetoric. If you think either party has the answer, you are selecting propaganda that fits your pre-conceived ideas.



I don't think so, gnarlylove. Some people base their posts on facts that are in accordance with accepted accounting principles and not on which way the political winds are blowing. You seem to think that unimportant when it is the basis of sound business practice. If you had read Toddsterpatriot's link to the low down on Coca-Cola, you'd realize he is in accordance with business principles on the highest level. Bri Pat more than holds his own. I hope you have a change of heart and go with principled business scholarship. You will not be sorry in the long run.


----------



## gnarlylove

Rottweiler said:


> No sir. I would not waste my time on a degree like that with no practical applications. I know this is shocking to liberal students, but in the real world you do not get paid for philosophizing while stoned.



I swear it's impossible to exchange ideas without you multiplying in red herrings. I suggest you look up red herring if you don't know what it means.

Fact: I did not sit around philosophizing in college stoned. In fact, I was an obsessed Christian Philosopher at the age of 16 till 21. Philosophy preceded any of my adult experiments. I have been a lover of philosophy and critical thinking skills before I turned 18. Logic and philosohpy teaches you how to think properly.

By the fact of you thinking other people are wrong you are subtly acknowledging some ideas are better than others. But how do we determine this? By trusting you that you're telling me the truth? How do we evaluate one anothers claims?

The only genuine evaluative tools for thinking is found in logic primarily and the discipline of philosophy. Although you assume it has no real world applications (and indeed, it isn't directly marketable w/o a PhD) philosophy is meant to solve problems. Critical thinking skills are essential to weeding through the BS rhetoric made by humans and understanding what they are saying and being able to determine whether it is valid or not, whether it's true or not.

No other discipline is so finely tunes to address our questions of who is right and who is wrong than philosophy. Science was born out of philosophy in Greek society. Indeed, science back then was called "Natural Philosophy." Fucking look it up if you want to say I'm wrong.

But I see you refuse to respect the fact that I didn't use pot as part of my education and decide to embellish you narrative so you still feel like a champ. Are you going to continue being childish in your approach or are we going to discuss ideas?

I learned a long time ago those who act like you are virtually incapable of cutting through their own BS to simply discuss the merit of ideas. SO I don't have much hope for us.



Rottweiler said:


> They weren't "theories" chief. When you tell people they are (and I quote) "mistaken" if they believe that they can have liberty and private property at the same time, you are making an arrogant and authoritative claim.



You take the word "mistaken" to mean I know what's needed in this world? That is a stretch if I ever saw one.

For fucks sake, I'm not even saying we should take away private property in today's world. Such is functionally impossible. My point was that if we truly wish to live in a 100% COMPLETELY FREE SOCIETY the idea of private property tends to encroach on the liberty of others because it takes away available resources and gives it to others WHETHER THEY NEED IT OR NOT. In order to have a 100% free society, it must be based in meeting the needs of every human, not meeting the greed of a few humans.

The fact I've had to repeat this over the past 5 pages points to the fact you don't want to listen to what I'm saying. If you don't want to genuinely discuss ideas, let me know so I can stop so we can get out of the kitchen.

But hold on a second. Before you go saying I'm totally wrong about private property please heed these words: We do not live in a completely free society. Would you agree?

We would like to increase liberty for all (except those who wish to take away our liberty). Would you agree?

In order to achieve 100% liberty, we need to remove all barriers to liberty. Would you agree?

Private property is a barrier to liberty IF and ONLY IF it prevents others from realizing their own complete liberty.

Private property as it exists today is based upon the liberty of some founded upon the lack of liberty (slavery) of the rest. So it does indeed prevent others from realizing their own liberty (the quenching of Maslow's 1st and 2nd Hierarchy of Needs). Would you agree?

How can we consider a society 100% free that treats some individuals with liberty and excludes others. The reason so many are excluded from being able to meet their basic needs (fundamental component of exercising liberty) is we live on a finite planet with limited resources. So when all those resources are "owned" by a few wealthy folks then it prevents other humans from exercising liberty.

I know you want to insert the concept having to "earn" the right to property, I'll stipulate that with you. But on one condition: we make opportunities available equally across the board so that each human being has the ability to choose liberty or not. If those who own property prevent others from basic needs, then how do we expect them to earn anything? Plus, inheritance muddles the idea of earning since you become rich simply by being born into a rich family. So you can buy property without having to earn it. Seems foul.

In no way does our society offer opportunity all-across-the-board. Our society is based more on inheritance than merit. Please don't read this to mean 1) that I'm complaining (b/c I'm merely making a point); 2) that it's impossible to attain better status despite being poor. My point is that even though _some can in fact earn their way out of poverty_, a majority of those in poverty MUST remain there because _opportunities are not sufficiently offered to them_. Opportunities abound among the rich whether they earned them or not. But a significant portion of the population cannot climb out of poverty because the requisite of adequate opportunity to earn one's way out of poverty is lacking.




Rottweiler said:


> With all due respect, your beliefs are pretty appalling.



Show me where I made an appalling claim.

I know when I say "in order to have a 100% free society we must totally eradicate violence" I am making *appalling claims*. How is that appalling?

You can't because I am very sincere in ensuring EACH AND EVERY human being has their needs met. And you call this appalling? Where do you get off calling my beliefs appalling when my entire aim is to create a free society for each and every human being?

According to you, that is communism. But using the fallacy of equivocation, you sneak another definiton in the back door and define communism as the mass murdering done by Stalin. Which is it? Am I aiming to create a free society for each human being or am I saying I wish to murder everyone?

Actually your ideas are rather appalling. You think that people should be allowed to die from starvation if they can't pay for the food. This is the society we live in today and it's not changing for the better. More and more people are suffering each year at the hands of excessive greed. And yet you go along with this and call my ideals appalling? WTF?!

I know you somehow attempt to justify the fact these people deserve to die because they didn't earn their share but if you think a human only has rights when they have a job that is appalling. You honestly have no soul. No empathy. No sympathy. No care.

I'm NOT saying everyone should be taken care of and do nothing. That is fucking stupid too. It's a strawman version of my argument, which is yet another fallacy common on media networks.

No, what I'm saying is that we must offer these people adequate opportunities so they can afford the food they need. Currently greed virtually controls half the planet (1% own 40% of global wealth) and this in turn prevents poor people from accessing the education, love, opportunity and proper nutrition which are all essential if you want them to be productive members of a free society.

But if our aim is not a free society, than fine. Let them die as they will.

And I'm the one that has appalling beliefs?





Rottweiler said:


> All you're doing is trying to sell communism in a different way than it has been sold before....
> Communism is not "an idea". It is a failed ideology.


When you define an idea as necessarily impossible, I have no choice but to agree with you.

However, this is the fallacy of the loaded question. So now that's two fallacies you've committed regarding communism. The only reason you think my idea is like communism is because communism is the attempt to create a just society. Take a look at this link if you have any concern for hearing about communism from a source other than fox news.

You are the mass media news specialist. I am the social theory specialist. I know what I'm talking about and if you refuse to think communism is anything but mass murder than you are simply shutting down discussion and making debate impossible. 



Rottweiler said:


> It has been tried (many times) and it has failed (many times). It always ends the same - with mass murder....But I don't need to study "social theory" to understand...



It has never been tried before. Stalin was aiming to industrialize and win wars, these are not part of communist ideals. The fact you think communism requires no reading means you have no concern for what communism really is. You want to win a debate so you define communism how you like. Communism was not invented by you and it was not followed by Stalin.



Rottweiler said:


> ...that "everyone needs to share everything (ie communism) is a fuck'n nightmare.



WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?

We live on ONE planet. If we do not share it, how do we survive? If one persons owns it, where do we turn for life?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Rottweiler said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disclaimer: this post is intended to apply to a genuinely free society, not the one we are currently in. Such principles would be too great a shock in our current system to be viable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disclaimer: GL's absurd is actually intended to sell communism in a "softer" light.
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private property and violence must effectively cease for genuine liberty to exist. If violence, which is a form of coercion is tolerable between humans, then there simply is limited/no genuine freedom for that society. Some would be free while others would not. This isn't genuine liberty or we would be right back to needing laws and government. We all agree government tends to allow certain freedoms but terminates others. Hence, not a genuinely free society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the contrary, liberty can _only_ exist where private property exists. I have no freedom when I'm standing on someone else's land. I'm only truly free when it's my land and nobody else has _any_ rights to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, pure stupidity. I only have liberty when I have the means to defend myself. Once I "put down my weapons" I'm at the mercy of someone who wasn't dumb enough to set theirs down.
> 
> 
> 
> We already addressed this above. All you're doing here is trying to push asinine communism by using a different pitch. This is so far beyond the bounds of logic or reason that there really is no proper adjective for it. Fuck'n stupid just doesn't quite cover something this fuck'n stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "strife" or "conflict". The U.S. is sovereign property and _nobody_ disputes that. My land is my land - I have all of the documents to prove it. And _nobody_ disputes that as well.
> 
> 
> 
> No - freedom is defined by not allowing idiots like you to tell me I don't have the right to purse "ownership", or "wealth", or anything else I choose to purse which is in conflict with your pot-smoking, kumbaya form of communism.
> 
> 
> 
> In short - you want what other people have but you're too lazy to work for it. So instead, you're going to claim that "true freedom" means you are entitled to what everyone else has (including their property, wealth, etc.)? You're a special kind of imbecile. You're the warped "leader" who tries to convince his followers that God wants you to fuck their wives. Sadly, there are a few that are going to follow you're special form of insanity. Thankfully, it is a _very_ few. The rest of us laugh at your buffoonery.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you just acknowledged that the time frame of liberty coincides with the time frame of private property pretty much proves what I said at the beginning - that liberty is literally _impossible_ without private property.
> 
> 
> 
> No asshole - I want private property to ensure that I have unfettered space between myself & my family and assholes like _you_. It has nothing to do with "ego" and everything to do with privacy. We all need a place to get away from people like _you_.
> 
> 
> 
> The only ego here is yours and your arrogant belief that you know best for everyone and you know why people want what they want and do what they do. Check your ego first chief before you preach to others about theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> So my children are not mine? Really _stupid_? And the things that I labored for are not mine? And my property - which I purchased and have the legal documents proving it is mine - is not mine?
> 
> Once again, this is just you wanting what others have but being far too lazy and too deviant to pursue it through honest means. You want to play David Koresh and hope to convince everyone that you can fuck their wives since they aren't really their wives to begin with...
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we get more, we want even more. This is either encouraged by society or discouraged--it is not a part of our fundamental essence. We can choose to be satisfied with what we have AS LONG AS ITS MEETING OUR NEEDS. This viscous cycle of wanting more must cease in a society that boasts genuine liberty. Otherwise one will always take more than their fair share and we will require governments or power structures OUTSIDE ourselves to make sure its fair and everyone is getting their NEEDS (not wants) met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok - then immediately surrender every possession you have to me. And I mean everything. Even your food. Even your clothes. After all, they aren't yours and the only reason you want either is for your absurd ego. So I want you standing outside my door naked and possessionless in 45 minutes....
> 
> (Wait a second, I better rethink that with this wackadoo)
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conclusion: Our current society has warped our understanding so bad that we cannot create a society with genuine liberty. Until we recognize this we will flounder and many needs will be trampled underfoot so that we can attain our fleeting desires. From birth Christmas instills this idea.
> 
> I know people will be up in arms about my post but if you are don't just respond with disingenuous glibs. I want some genuine challenges to my basic two premises: Violence/Coercion must be removed from all as well as private property as its conceived of today. Maybe there will be a different version of property in this ideal world but not like the one we have today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conclusion: you're a typical snake-oil salesman who thinks he can sell the people on communism through kumbaya. Sorry chief, America is not buying what you're sellling.
Click to expand...


GL is an example of a farleft wing extremist. It is imperative that he and those like him be marginalized.
Or, more fun would be to give a person with those ideas "the count of three to run"...
If ya know what I mean. Wink wink. Nudge nudge.


----------



## thereisnospoon

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens without government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom and prosperity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL Who's gonna force your neighbor to take care of his trash?  Who's gonna put your neighbor on trial when he shoots you for trying to force him to take care of the trash?
Click to expand...


Ok Strawman. Let's not be naive.
No one is claiming "no government"...
The focus here is limit government to its essential functions.


----------



## thereisnospoon

gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate freedom. You advocate a communist utopia where you get to take from everyone else. Now tell me again how I'm "asserting dominance" over you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory and you are some HS grad on a message board.  I'm not on USMB to deal with tautologists like you, we were having a theoretical discussion about complete and genuine liberty in an ideal society. Though my degrees have nothing to do with whose a better person, when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of society I know what I'm talking about and you spout TV ads. Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem.
> 
> There is yet another difference in what's possible in America and what's ideal. Apparently you cannot conceive of there being a difference since you are so sure of yourself.
> 
> If you want a debate about liberty, my sig is the official definition of genuine liberty:
> I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State, an eternal lie which represents the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic liberty extolled by Rousseau and bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all represented by the State, which limits the rights of each. No, I mean the only kind of liberty worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator above us, but are inherent, forming the basis of our material, intellectual & moral beingthey are the real & immediate conditions of our freedom.
Click to expand...

"I hold two degrees in social theory"..
Yeah...THEORY. good thing that spew you've been regurgitating on this forum will never come to fruition. 
So back the fuck off. You useless elitist slob.
People like you are a drain on society. 
You have two degrees, neither of which is of any use in the real world. 
BTW, what kind of person gets TWO degrees in the SAME discipline? 
Perhaps you are not as bright as you lead others to believe.
From here, I see a person who believes they have accomplished all they have to and now it is time to cash in. And you are willing to change the rules to benefit yourself. 
You are full of shit. 
Get a job, you bum.


----------



## gnarlylove

freedombecki said:


> I don't think so, gnarlylove....



I take out the rest because it's really superfluous. You don't know the communication trail of Todders and I. So I'd ask you to step off my toes. Everyone on this message board is about saying to one another, "nope, you are wrong. Turns out, I know reality better and you are a sad excuse for a human being."

I use to solely function in that realm and still struggle with it today but recognize its ultimate futility-we are all made of the same material and all die just the same. But you know what....pretending to be the better human being does nothing but causes strife and division among humanity. The reason it's so prevalent is people are so assured of themselves and do not give a shit about other human beings. They want to feel superior and assume anything about some screen name post just to feel better.

Great job on accomplishing your need to feel superior. Few people come here to discuss genuine matters. I admit I falter at times too but my aim to is create a flowing dialogue of respect. Instead, nearly everyone is out to gain something for themselves at they aren't happy if it isn't at the expense of someone else.

maybe instead of acting like we have a clue who each other are, maybe we can re-introduce common decency to debate?

Naw. That would mean turning off the ego and treating each other with respect. That was tossed out the window some odd years ago. I'm glad America and indeed the global economy has helped produce such colorful haters. Without any aim for unity or mutual understanding, we lambaste one another like we have some special insight to the eternal secrets of life.

News Flash: No one understands this world. What we do understand should not be taken as how reality is. All our sources reveal is a tiny part of reality, and just like the feeling a small section of a gigantic elephant in a dark room, our sources do not reveal the total picture. The only thing we can be sure of about the Big Picture is that we don't know. So why don't we quit our incessant domination of one another and be a bit more respectful? is it that hard? Why yees it is because capitalism has taught us to either eat or be eaten. Maybe that lesson is harmful for communities (and ultimately society) since it leaves us divided without a hope of any reconciliation. If we toss out logic and philosophy as our guides to understanding our the particular details of this world, we are also tossing out the hope of common ground and being able to reach conclusions cooperatively. holding tight to our egos means we push others away, as if our brains have rewired to intentionally distant ourselves from others so that we may feel superior. Our brain rewards us for spiting another human being (not based on calling out ideas but based on hurling insults at one another)

Count me out. What's the point if no one cares to listen to each other? For the third time I admit I'm not perfect but at least I make an effort, most everyone else is lost in their superiority complex. Good luck creating a society for liberty and justice for all. It isn't possible if we start with our current assumptions of irreconcilable strife. Especially when we feel good when we do it. Never in my decades of living have I noticed such incessant division for the sake of division.


----------



## gnarlylove

Todders, the point I made about more money spent on advertising was heard from TV. I spent 3 seconds googling it trying to find additional evidence and I found pharma spends more money on ads than research. I also found Coke spends more money on ads than Apple and Microsoft combine, which you clearly didn't read my links.
Coca-Cola advertising budget (2010): $2.9 billion

Microsoft advertising budget (2010): $1.6 billion

Apple advertising budget (2010): $691 million



Read more: 15 Facts About Coca-Cola That Will Blow Your Mind - Business Insider

That's why I was saying your ideas have no credibility, you don't do basic reading; notice i said your ideas were without credibility. However, when you reply it's natural for you to flip that and say that *I* have no credibility. That is different from saying ideas. It's a lore more hostile and is a personal attack rather than an dispute about ideas. You probably didn't even notice the difference but it is a big one. it's the difference between respect and total disrespect. you gladly admitted every opponent is way dumb/that you are smarter than every opponent. these are extraordinary statements that would require extraordinary support. i know you believe them deep down in the deepest core of your being but can you ever prove that? no. but you stop at no lengths to make opponents seem stupid for no other reason but smearing. This is not genuine debate.

my point was advertising is a massive portion of spending on behalf of corporations. the fact that only big pharma is technically the only source I could find to support this doesnt mean I'm completely wrong. My point about advertising being a sizable portion of the profits of a company means it is valuable to them to spend literally billions each year. this supports the idea that I promoted saying advertising affects us in subtle ways otherwise they would discontinue such extreme spending. it doesn't _prove _it, but it does _support _it.

but you do give a fuck about that; you're seemingly on concern on this thread is to attack your opponents saying they are stupid rather than discussing the ideas and actively participating in the larger issues. that's why i don't really find your posts helpful, they focus on more hostile concerns about feeling superior.


----------



## thereisnospoon

gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate freedom. You advocate a communist utopia where you get to take from everyone else. Now tell me again how I'm "asserting dominance" over you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory and you are some HS grad on a message board.  I'm not on USMB to deal with tautologists like you, we were having a theoretical discussion about complete and genuine liberty in an ideal society. Though my degrees have nothing to do with whose a better person, when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of society I know what I'm talking about and you spout TV ads. Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem.
> 
> There is yet another difference in what's possible in America and what's ideal. Apparently you cannot conceive of there being a difference since you are so sure of yourself.
> 
> If you want a debate about liberty, my sig is the official definition of genuine liberty:
> I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State, an eternal lie which represents the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic liberty extolled by Rousseau and bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all represented by the State, which limits the rights of each. No, I mean the only kind of liberty worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator above us, but are inherent, forming the basis of our material, intellectual & moral beingthey are the real & immediate conditions of our freedom.
Click to expand...


" Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem."

No. That is YOUR problem. You sought out those who agree with your line of thinking and your political agenda, read books and you decided to regurgitate that which you have read.
Only thing is, you are unable to think for yourself. You took these authors and decided THEY are correct and everyone else be damned.
You may believe you are the smartest most enlightened person in the room, but i have news for ya, those who are able to think outside the box are far more intelligent than those who believe intelligence lies in a book.
You are not interested in debate. You are telling us what you believe we should think.
I'm disappointed. Someone with as much time as you've spent throwing cash at some ivy wall covered institution and all you have are theories. 
Great.
Oh, i can see you collecting your thoughts. Just drooling at the opportunity to strike back at one who tyou believe less human than you. You can stand down. We're done.
I have stated my piece. I'm not interested in anything with which you may reply.
Now you may have the last word...Go ahead. You cannot help yourself.


----------



## gnarlylove

You've never read those folks so you can say they all agree with each other. Big Hint: They all have opposed each other as one proceeds the next. Hegel opposed Kant. Marx opposed Hegel. Locke opposed those guys who debated Hume and Russell came after these guys accepting some of what they say and opposing other things. Durkehim and Webber are sociologists who conducted research at the turn of the century. The most famous of Durkheim is his writings on suicide. Ah but what do I know? "They all confirm my ideology" despite they oppose one another in serious fundamental ways. And they do not confirm my ideas, I used their ideas to formulate my own. Why? Because those men have dedicated their lives to understanding these concepts. You seem to think that has no value.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Todders, the point I made about more money spent on advertising was heard from TV. I spent 3 seconds googling it trying to find additional evidence and I found pharma spends more money on ads than research. I also found Coke spends more money on ads than Apple and Microsoft combine, which you clearly didn't read my links.
> Coca-Cola advertising budget (2010): $2.9 billion
> 
> Microsoft advertising budget (2010): $1.6 billion
> 
> Apple advertising budget (2010): $691 million
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: 15 Facts About Coca-Cola That Will Blow Your Mind - Business Insider
> 
> That's why I was saying your ideas have no credibility, you don't do basic reading; notice i said your ideas were without credibility. However, when you reply it's natural for you to flip that and say that *I* have no credibility. That is different from saying ideas. It's a lore more hostile and is a personal attack rather than an dispute about ideas. You probably didn't even notice the difference but it is a big one. it's the difference between respect and total disrespect. you gladly admitted every opponent is way dumb/that you are smarter than every opponent. these are extraordinary statements that would require extraordinary support. i know you believe them deep down in the deepest core of your being but can you ever prove that? no. but you stop at no lengths to make opponents seem stupid for no other reason but smearing. This is not genuine debate.
> 
> my point was advertising is a massive portion of spending on behalf of corporations. the fact that only big pharma is technically the only source I could find to support this doesnt mean I'm completely wrong. My point about advertising being a sizable portion of the profits of a company means it is valuable to them to spend literally billions each year. this supports the idea that I promoted saying advertising affects us in subtle ways otherwise they would discontinue such extreme spending. it doesn't _prove _it, but it does _support _it.
> 
> but you do give a fuck about that; you're seemingly on concern on this thread is to attack your opponents saying they are stupid rather than discussing the ideas and actively participating in the larger issues. that's why i don't really find your posts helpful, they focus on more hostile concerns about feeling superior.



*Todders, the point I made about more money spent on advertising was heard from TV.* 

Typical lib. Mishear something on TV and misrepresent it here.

* I also found Coke spends more money on ads than Apple and Microsoft combine, which you clearly didn't read my links.*

I read your silly link, that's why I was able to show it didn't prove your claim, with my link to Coke's financials. Math, I know.

*That's why I was saying your ideas have no credibility*

Says the guy who makes silly claims that I refute in minutes. With actual facts.

*you gladly admitted every opponent is way dumb*

At this point, just you.  As shown on this very thread.

*my point was advertising is a massive portion of spending on behalf of corporations. *

You should have stopped there, instead of lying about the amount of that spending.
And then claiming that somehow makes consumers unable to resist.

*but you do give a fuck about that; you're seemingly on concern on this thread is to attack your opponents saying they are stupid rather than discussing the ideas *

I just attack the stupid ones, after showing their claims and "ideas" are stupid.
There you are!

*that's why i don't really find your posts helpful*

Of course they don't help you, because I puncture your claims and make you sad.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?   I didn't say Wall St hypocritically supported Socialism either.
> 
> Wall St is a just a bunch of people trying to earn money, just like you, just like me, just like Hollywood, just like everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Wall St. is like you in ANY WAY they MUST oppose socialism tooth and nail. But why don't they?
> 
> Because only Wall St acts as profit-maximizers on the planet--they have no allegiance to policy and ideology, they follow where the money flows--and money flows with financial arbitrage. They don't care where they get the money, the fact is all they care about is making more of it.
> 
> This is not a positive contribution to society. This is arbitrage seeking ever increasing profits without the concern for how it effects society. Yet you shovel me complete BS about the ideals of the stock market.
> 
> Wall St. and the stock market were established under the pretense that it would help society, but in reality, there's a fair amount of harm resulting from this system. Many on Wall St. are money machines who only benefit those within the money business. The rest of society is left to pay for its negative contribution to society--its vacuum cleaner of money.
> 
> What you are doing is trying to have your cake and eat it too. Wall St. should deny socialism if they are to be exemplary capitalists. But like you said, they are just trying to make money and so they have no allegiance to principles, they have allegiance to money.
> 
> This damages the integrity of society. This is made worse by the fact those with an allegiance to money often harm rather than contribute to society. Some do make valuable contributions to society but they aren't the ones making the most money. The Stock Market is broken by the fact that egotistical shit holes seek profits above humanity. profits over the advancement of society. TO them the advancement of society is growing their wealth. This is by no means sustainable model for growth--infinite growth is not possible with a finite earth/resources.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollywood, and the rest of the leftard hypocrites, are the people who claim to support socialism and equality.   You hypocrites go first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You throw your hands up when it comes to explaining Wall St. motives but are so quick to put blame on lefttards. You are so hypocritical in your analysis you can't even see it because it's so dang obvious. I know you don't care but god you're posts are completely ignoble in the context of genuine debate. I guess that's not what we are trying to accomplish here anyway.
Click to expand...


You like to make up stuff, and then attack what you made up.

*If Wall St. is like you in ANY WAY they MUST oppose socialism tooth and nail. But why don't they?*

They are like EVERYONE in that EVERYONE wants to make money.   Socialists want more wealth and money, like everyone else.   So logically, being on Wall St doesn't change that, nor must they oppose socialism.

In fact, in many ways socialism benefits the wealthy.

*Because only Wall St acts as profit-maximizers on the planet--they have no allegiance to policy and ideology*

There are many people on Wall St that are in fact very loyal to policy and ideology.   You are lumping everyone into a group, and assuming that none of them have particular view point, because the group as a whole doesn't.

But very few large groups that are loyal to a specific belief system.  The low-income people are not all devoted to a single ideology.  Nor is the middle income people, nor the high income people.   Nor even the top 1%.

And there is nothing wrong with 'profit maximizers" anymore than there is something wrong with *YOU* wanting a higher wage, to maximize your profit from working.

*Wall St. and the stock market were established under the pretense that it would help society, but in reality, there's a fair amount of harm resulting from this system.*

Two completely different things.   The stock market, is a market where stocks are sold.   The Fish Market, is a market where fish are sold.  The fruit market is a market where fruit are sold.    There is nothing wrong, and there no harm to society from the stock market, but many benefits.

Wall St, is a physical street, where there are a bunch of banks.   I'm no fan of banks.   But the fact is, our government, and it's invasive policies, are the reason we have a banking problem.    If you look at Canada where they have a tiny faction of the bank controls, regulations, and mandates that we do, they have a far more stable system.   Less control... less regulations.... less mandates....  more stable.   They didn't have bank crashes during the great depression, nor did they in the sub-prime melt down.  We did.    And we have far more controls than they do.

Socialism is the cause.  Not the solution.

*Wall St. should deny socialism if they are to be exemplary capitalists*

Where did I say that Wall St was, or even should be, exemplary capitalists?   You just like to make up stuff?    Wall St is made up of people, and people like to earn money.   Some like to earn money by being productive.   Others like to earn money by collecting money from tax payers.... whether that's through green-energy grants, or welfare.

Socialism often benefits the super wealthy.   There's no reason to suspect that they would be entirely capitalist ideologues, any more than anyone else.   There's a reason Warren Buffet supports the leftists belief system.  It benefits him.

*Some do make valuable contributions to society but they aren't the ones making the most money*

Prove that.   You prove that all the ones making the most money, are not benefiting society.

*You throw your hands up when it comes to explaining Wall St. motives but are so quick to put blame on lefttards. You are so hypocritical in your analysis you can't even see it because it's so dang obvious. I know you don't care but god you're posts are completely ignoble in the context of genuine debate. I guess that's not what we are trying to accomplish here anyway.*

Nah, you just have your head shoved so far up your politics you can't see.

I never made a claim either way, in regards to Wall St, because there are thousands of people there, and they are all over the political spectrum.     Nor have the companies on Wall St ever made open claims to their support of a ideology.  You are the one that wants to paint everyone with a broad brush, and then claim hypocrisy. 

Hollywood on the other hand, has... and done so many many times.   To list all the quotes from all the hundreds of actors and movie execs, and directors, all proclaiming the virtues of socialism, would take pages on pages on pages to cover.

This is a group that gave an Academy Award for a Documentary, to Michael Moore, who has consistently throughout ALL of his 'doc' films, lied and fabricated footage.... because he was a leftist.  We're talking about a guy who in his very first film, Roger & Me, completely lied.  The entire premise of the whole film was a lie.

They directly promote this equality, and socialism view point, and yet do they live that way?  Do they practice ANYTHING AT ALL THAT THEY PREACH?    No.   Tell Chevy Chase, who said 'sometimes socialism works, and Cuba is proof', that he should have been paid the same as the movie extras.    See how that goes.

They are hypocrites.    Wall St is not.  In order to be a hypocrite you have to first advocate a view point, and then do the opposite there of.   Hollywood has, Wall St has not.

Now if you want to deny that, then you are admitting that you have your head shoved so far up your own politics, that you can't see out your own hole.   Just a fact dude.   If you can come up with a real counter point, let's hear it.   But you can't, and we both know it.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Capitalism almost did implode on itself 100 years ago. Nothing like a massive labor shortage to undo a long term trend in wages and nothing like globalization and peace to undo those trends.
> 
> Who said he was perfectly right about everything?
> 
> Capitalism favors the capitalist, which is both capitalism's greatest strength and the biggest threat to capitalism in the long term.
> 
> I think it is wonderfully ironic that you complain about the corrupting influence of money on Democracy and then complain about Marx in the next breath.
> 
> The future of modern economics is finding a way to balance growth in production and growth in wages. China has demonstrated rather clearly just how fast productivity can increase but they have relied heavily on the US to provide them with a growing consumer market that is independent of their wage market.



Nah.  It didn't almost blow up, or anything of the sort.

Capitalism favors the capitalist, but in Free-market capitalism, everyone is a capitalist.    I own my labor.    I can choose who to sell my labor to.   I can do with my capital, whatever I want.

I have sold my labor (my personal capital) to a company, which pays me an agreed amount.  Of that money capital, I place some of it into investments, which have grown by 26% last year.

I'm a capitalist.   I earned $18,000 taxable income last year.

Yes capitalism favors me.   The biggest problem with capitalism, is that it allows the freedom to be stupid with your own capital.

If you blow all your money, you'll be poor.   If you choose to not advance the value of your labor, you'll be poor.   If you choose to work for the lowest bidder, you'll be poor.

An example of this just happened at my company.   It's a small company.  We don't have tons of money to pay high wages, even to trained engineers.

We had an engineer who decided to go work for a larger corporations.    Double their income.   Doubled.        But... long hours, less flexibility in the scheduled.    At our company, she worked 4 days a week, and only 8 hours a day.

The other company wanted 45 hours a week, and some Saturday work when required.       But they paid DOUBLE her income at our company.  Over six figures.

She decided to come back, and work for less.

Was it capitalism that cut her wage?   No it was choice.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed...I think one could make a strong argument that Obama is a soft Fascist.  He has done all he could to protect the big banks and Wall Street...making them even more powerful and wealthy.  At the same time, he is making sure they provide lots of cash for the D party.  But also his policies hurt small business with overwhelming regulations, that cost small business dearly.
> 
> He has done all he could to make government bigger, while also centralizing the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> *And it seems very likely whoever follows him into the Oval Office will continue the US Dual State:*
> 
> "We live in what the German political scientist Ernst Fraenkel called 'the dual state.'
> 
> "*Totalitarian states are always dual states.*
> 
> "In the dual state civil liberties are abolished in the name of national security.
> 
> "The political sphere becomes a vacuum 'as far as the law is concerned,' Fraenkel wrote.
> 
> "There is no legal check on power.
> 
> "Official bodies operate with impunity outside the law.
> 
> "In the dual state the government can convict citizens on secret evidence in secret courts.
> 
> "It can strip citizens of due process and detain, torture or assassinate them, serving as judge, jury and executioner.
> 
> "It rules according to its own arbitrary whims and prerogatives.
> 
> "The outward forms of democratic participationvoting, competing political parties, judicial oversight and legislationare hollow, political stagecraft.
> 
> "Fraenkel called those who wield this unchecked power over the citizenry 'the prerogative state.'
> 
> Chris Hedges: Our Sinister Dual State - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes it a "dual" state?  None of the items you listed have any connection with duality.
Click to expand...

"du·al·i·ty
d(y)o&#862;o&#712;alit&#275;/Submit
noun
1.
the quality or condition of being dual.
'the novel's deep duality about human motive'
2.
*an instance of opposition or contrast between two concepts* or two aspects of something; a dualism.
'the photographs capitalize on the dualities of light and dark, stillness and movement'"

*There's a growing opposition or contrast between civil liberties and national security in the US that reminds many of what occurred in Germany during Hitler's rise.

Ernst Fraenkel was a German Jew who probably saw the dual state more clearly than either you or I do:*

"After studying American law Fraenkel lectured at the New School for Social Research. In 1941 he published The Dual State in which he analysed the political system of the Nazi state. 

"For Fraenkel it was a 'normative state' (Normenstaat) which secured the *continuation of capitalist society* for those Germans not threatened by Nazism coexisted alongside a 'prerogative state' (Maßnahmenstaat) that used legal sanctions as well as brutal violence against people considered to be enemies of Nazism and Nazi Germany."

Ernst Fraenkel (political scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Email Edward Snowden or Glenn Greenwald if you're still in denial about what's coming .*


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> You take the word "mistaken" to mean I know what's needed in this world? That is a stretch if I ever saw one.
> 
> Show me where I made an appalling claim. I know when I say "in order to have a 100% free society we must totally eradicate violence" I am making *appalling claims*. How is that appalling?



It amazes me that you "see" arrogance (which doesn't exist) in others but are completely blind to your own. Furthermore, you keep acting like "violence" is the _only_ thing you said we need to get rid of (probably because you realize now what an ass you sounded like). Because of this, I have put together your "greatest hits" below. Still want to pretend like you didn't say these things and weren't being arrogant that you know what the world needs? 

Red = appalling
Dark Red = arrogant



gnarlylove said:


> *Private property and violence must effectively cease for genuine liberty to exist*.





gnarlylove said:


> *The "freedom" to create weapons is not a freedom worth having since it limits freedom, ultimately*.





gnarlylove said:


> *Secondly, we must remove private property* in order to move forward to an ideal state of affairs where genuine liberty exists for each person. I admit this idea untenable today but *if anyone thinks a genuinely free society can exist with private property at its foundation, you are mistaken*.



Arrogant and appalling. "We must remove private property"? _Must_? Who the fuck are you to make that decision for society. I don't care what you say - that is *not* an "idea". You did _not_ say "what about this thought". You made an appalling _and_ authoritative (arrogant) statement.



gnarlylove said:


> *Claiming ownership creates strife and conflict*... *we will need to openly share without hesitation*.





gnarlylove said:


> *Our modern tautology of private property=freedom makes progress towards real freedom stunted*.





gnarlylove said:


> *We must reduce our egos and fan our altruistic side*.



Telling the world what we *must* do _again_.... But hey, you don't have an ego and don't think you know what's best for the world. Everyone else does because you have "analyzed" their avatar.... 



gnarlylove said:


> *If you own something AND it prevents me from having access to what I NEED, then this is a problem*.



If I own something, I own it. It is not a problem. And the thing you need I cannot own. I cannot own air. I cannot own water. I cannot own animals (like deer) roaming the world which are readily available as your food supply.



gnarlylove said:


> *Capitalism has created private property thugs who think property is the be all end all of humanity. What makes us think private property is essential?*



Ironically enough, posts like yours. There are people I simply must keep away from myself and my family. I need a place I can go to get away from bizarre cultists like you who want to tell me I have no property and my wife is "communal" for your sick enjoyment. 



gnarlylove said:


> *The only reason we think private property is essential is our gigantic egos that ALWAYS WANT MORE STUFF*.



You have no idea what I want or why I want it. But you think you do because you're arrogant. Very arrogant. You think reading Marx and Hegel has qualified you to rule the world and decide for the rest of us what we need and don't need.



gnarlylove said:


> *Hence, private property gets us into trouble on a finite world*.



The exact opposite. People like you, Adolf Hitler, etc. not respecting private property and wanting what other people have is what has gotten us into trouble.



gnarlylove said:


> *To think we actually own something is insane*. No one carries possessions into or out of this world and so private property is fleeting at best.



The only thing insane is your "thinking" (and I use that term lightly).


----------



## freedombecki

gnarlylove said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so, gnarlylove....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take out the rest because it's really superfluous. You don't know the communication trail of Todders and I. So I'd ask you to step off my toes. Everyone on this message board is about saying to one another, "nope, you are wrong. Turns out, I know reality better and you are a sad excuse for a human being."
> 
> *Yes, I do know the 'communication trail.'*
> 
> I use to solely function in that realm and still struggle with it today but recognize its ultimate futility-we are all made of the same material and all die just the same. But you know what....pretending to be the better human being does nothing but causes strife and division among humanity. The reason it's so prevalent is people are so assured of themselves and do not give a shit about other human beings. They want to feel superior and assume anything about some screen name post just to feel better.
> 
> *Some men are superior to others. They base their activities on fact and not on fiction. They are personally conscientious and generous. They are desirable team players in business and their families and do not depart from the teachings of their youth. They check their numbers twice, and if the numbers don't come out right, they check twice again.*
> 
> Great job on accomplishing your need to feel superior. Few people come here to discuss genuine matters. I admit I falter at times too but my aim to is create a flowing dialogue of respect. Instead, nearly everyone is out to gain something for themselves at they aren't happy if it isn't at the expense of someone else.
> 
> *Is there the slightest possibility your deja vu has failed you? Getting to the bottom line of truth is complex. I might have been an astute statistical typist whose services were coveted by CPAs, but I also know what sets them off--great pretenders who do not understand how diabolical it is to break with the facts and go on gut notions that are not in the acceptable realm they know comes up with the truth about a business' viability, which requires checking the facts, and they know just how to do that. I watched the most highly respected CPA in the state I lived in, shout a criminal to the front door and out of his office for suggesting that he put his signature on falsified documentation of the business' viability. You have received far better treatment than that, and I know that for an absolute fact.*
> 
> maybe instead of acting like we have a clue who each other are, maybe we can re-introduce common decency to debate?
> 
> *That's up to people who have the illusion that math doesn't work, who may not acknowledge that correct and morally straight decisions based on the bare bones math is factual, or other hopey changey fallacies  that endanger the structure of a good and decent society that tries its best to see to it that no one gets left behind, even when they humanly fail, and can encourage others to deal as well as they can with what they have to deal with. Some people confuse a trillion dollars with the value of a billion, a million, or even a hundred dollars. They cannot wrap their minds around numbers that high. Our math scholars here can wrap their minds around a current debt to the penny of $17,258,795,000,703.07, and you can count on it they are not happy nor derelict in their opinion on the issue. You'd be wise to take it slow and easy about telling them to ignore the writing on the wall. I'm not seeing you do that. *
> 
> Naw. That would mean turning off the ego and treating each other with respect. That was tossed out the window some odd years ago. I'm glad America and indeed the global economy has helped produce such colorful haters. Without any aim for unity or mutual understanding, we lambaste one another like we have some special insight to the eternal secrets of life.
> 
> *Sorry, respect is earned when the math sends you a message on how to proceed or withhold. Following the correct figures that are above board with the laws on the book leaves no mutual understanding for those who lack respect for the special insight correct figuring does. There's no secrets with correct numbers arrived through sundry accounting practices that arrive at conclusions based on the very numbers some view as 'eternal secrets'. There's no such thing in the accountability world. Some people aren't used to the rigid correction that numbers point toward without those accepted principles that have made America a reliable trust to this world in times of hunger and starvation. Our money men have seen to it to the best of their ability we can be the one who extends a helping hand in times of calamity, and not those of us who think that by some magic out-of-the-blue serendipity is going to help us help others.*
> 
> News Flash: No one understands this world. What we do understand should not be taken as how reality is. All our sources reveal is a tiny part of reality, and just like the feeling a small section of a gigantic elephant in a dark room, our sources do not reveal the total picture. The only thing we can be sure of about the Big Picture is that we don't know. So why don't we quit our incessant domination of one another and be a bit more respectful? is it that hard? Why yees it is because capitalism has taught us to either eat or be eaten. Maybe that lesson is harmful for communities (and ultimately society) since it leaves us divided without a hope of any reconciliation. If we toss out logic and philosophy as our guides to understanding our the particular details of this world, we are also tossing out the hope of common ground and being able to reach conclusions cooperatively. holding tight to our egos means we push others away, as if our brains have rewired to intentionally distant ourselves from others so that we may feel superior. Our brain rewards us for spiting another human being (not based on calling out ideas but based on hurling insults at one another)
> 
> *Yes, some people do understand the world.*
> 
> Count me out. What's the point if no one cares to listen to each other? For the third time I admit I'm not perfect but at least I make an effort, most everyone else is lost in their superiority complex. Good luck creating a society for liberty and justice for all. It isn't possible if we start with our current assumptions of irreconcilable strife. Especially when we feel good when we do it. Never in my decades of living have I noticed such incessant division for the sake of division.
Click to expand...


*If you want to be heard when you are speaking to men of impeccable math and accounting practices, you'd better learn what that is. Just saying. *

*Best wishes as you think what I have said through.*


----------



## bripat9643

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism almost did implode on itself 100 years ago. Nothing like a massive labor shortage to undo a long term trend in wages and nothing like globalization and peace to undo those trends.
> 
> Who said he was perfectly right about everything?
> 
> Capitalism favors the capitalist, which is both capitalism's greatest strength and the biggest threat to capitalism in the long term.
> 
> I think it is wonderfully ironic that you complain about the corrupting influence of money on Democracy and then complain about Marx in the next breath.
> 
> The future of modern economics is finding a way to balance growth in production and growth in wages. China has demonstrated rather clearly just how fast productivity can increase but they have relied heavily on the US to provide them with a growing consumer market that is independent of their wage market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.  It didn't almost blow up, or anything of the sort.
> 
> Capitalism favors the capitalist, but in Free-market capitalism, everyone is a capitalist.    I own my labor.    I can choose who to sell my labor to.   I can do with my capital, whatever I want.
> 
> I have sold my labor (my personal capital) to a company, which pays me an agreed amount.  Of that money capital, I place some of it into investments, which have grown by 26% last year.
> 
> I'm a capitalist.   I earned $18,000 taxable income last year.
> 
> Yes capitalism favors me.   The biggest problem with capitalism, is that it allows the freedom to be stupid with your own capital.
> 
> If you blow all your money, you'll be poor.   If you choose to not advance the value of your labor, you'll be poor.   If you choose to work for the lowest bidder, you'll be poor.
> 
> An example of this just happened at my company.   It's a small company.  We don't have tons of money to pay high wages, even to trained engineers.
> 
> We had an engineer who decided to go work for a larger corporations.    Double their income.   Doubled.        But... long hours, less flexibility in the scheduled.    At our company, she worked 4 days a week, and only 8 hours a day.
> 
> The other company wanted 45 hours a week, and some Saturday work when required.       But they paid DOUBLE her income at our company.  Over six figures.
> 
> She decided to come back, and work for less.
> 
> Was it capitalism that cut her wage?   No it was choice.
Click to expand...


That still sounds like a light schedule to me.  I easily work 60-70 hours a week, especially when you count all the time I spend educating myself about new technologies and products.  This isn't optional.  My company requires you to become certified in something every year.

However, the reward is that I make a lot of money, and I have excellent benefits.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And it seems very likely whoever follows him into the Oval Office will continue the US Dual State:*
> 
> "We live in what the German political scientist Ernst Fraenkel called 'the dual state.'
> 
> "*Totalitarian states are always dual states.*
> 
> "In the dual state civil liberties are abolished in the name of national security.
> 
> "The political sphere becomes a vacuum 'as far as the law is concerned,' Fraenkel wrote.
> 
> "There is no legal check on power.
> 
> "Official bodies operate with impunity outside the law.
> 
> "In the dual state the government can convict citizens on secret evidence in secret courts.
> 
> "It can strip citizens of due process and detain, torture or assassinate them, serving as judge, jury and executioner.
> 
> "It rules according to its own arbitrary whims and prerogatives.
> 
> "The outward forms of democratic participationvoting, competing political parties, judicial oversight and legislationare hollow, political stagecraft.
> 
> "Fraenkel called those who wield this unchecked power over the citizenry 'the prerogative state.'
> 
> Chris Hedges: Our Sinister Dual State - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes it a "dual" state?  None of the items you listed have any connection with duality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "du·al·i·ty
> d(y)o&#862;o&#712;alit&#275;/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> the quality or condition of being dual.
> 'the novel's deep duality about human motive'
> 2.
> *an instance of opposition or contrast between two concepts* or two aspects of something; a dualism.
> 'the photographs capitalize on the dualities of light and dark, stillness and movement'"
> 
> *There's a growing opposition or contrast between civil liberties and national security in the US that reminds many of what occurred in Germany during Hitler's rise.
> 
> Ernst Fraenkel was a German Jew who probably saw the dual state more clearly than either you or I do:*
> 
> "After studying American law Fraenkel lectured at the New School for Social Research. In 1941 he published The Dual State in which he analysed the political system of the Nazi state.
> 
> "For Fraenkel it was a 'normative state' (Normenstaat) which secured the *continuation of capitalist society* for those Germans not threatened by Nazism coexisted alongside a 'prerogative state' (Maßnahmenstaat) that used legal sanctions as well as brutal violence against people considered to be enemies of Nazism and Nazi Germany."
> 
> Ernst Fraenkel (political scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Email Edward Snowden or Glenn Greenwald if you're still in denial about what's coming .*
Click to expand...


Apparently this supposed "duality" is based on the theory that a state can't do two things at the same time.  In other words, it can't chew gum and walk at the same time.  It can't persecute Jews and maintain capitalism at the same time.  It can't have social programs and pursue a drug war at the same times.

That's obvious horseshit, but sociology professors make a name for themselves by coming up with new buzzwords, not by getting the facts right.


----------



## RKMBrown

thereisnospoon said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom and prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Who's gonna force your neighbor to take care of his trash?  Who's gonna put your neighbor on trial when he shoots you for trying to force him to take care of the trash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok Strawman. Let's not be naive.
> No one is claiming "no government"...
> The focus here is limit government to its essential functions.
Click to expand...

Must be a new definition of "without" that I'm not familiar with :-|


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism almost did implode on itself 100 years ago. Nothing like a massive labor shortage to undo a long term trend in wages and nothing like globalization and peace to undo those trends.
> 
> Who said he was perfectly right about everything?
> 
> Capitalism favors the capitalist, which is both capitalism's greatest strength and the biggest threat to capitalism in the long term.
> 
> I think it is wonderfully ironic that you complain about the corrupting influence of money on Democracy and then complain about Marx in the next breath.
> 
> The future of modern economics is finding a way to balance growth in production and growth in wages. China has demonstrated rather clearly just how fast productivity can increase but they have relied heavily on the US to provide them with a growing consumer market that is independent of their wage market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.  It didn't almost blow up, or anything of the sort.
> 
> Capitalism favors the capitalist, but in Free-market capitalism, everyone is a capitalist.    I own my labor.    I can choose who to sell my labor to.   I can do with my capital, whatever I want.
> 
> I have sold my labor (my personal capital) to a company, which pays me an agreed amount.  Of that money capital, I place some of it into investments, which have grown by 26% last year.
> 
> I'm a capitalist.   I earned $18,000 taxable income last year.
> 
> Yes capitalism favors me.   The biggest problem with capitalism, is that it allows the freedom to be stupid with your own capital.
> 
> If you blow all your money, you'll be poor.   If you choose to not advance the value of your labor, you'll be poor.   If you choose to work for the lowest bidder, you'll be poor.
> 
> An example of this just happened at my company.   It's a small company.  We don't have tons of money to pay high wages, even to trained engineers.
> 
> We had an engineer who decided to go work for a larger corporations.    Double their income.   Doubled.        But... long hours, less flexibility in the scheduled.    At our company, she worked 4 days a week, and only 8 hours a day.
> 
> The other company wanted 45 hours a week, and some Saturday work when required.       But they paid DOUBLE her income at our company.  Over six figures.
> 
> She decided to come back, and work for less.
> 
> Was it capitalism that cut her wage?   No it was choice.
Click to expand...


Way to reduce entire market trends to meaningless and irrelevant actions of individuals. 

Also...

Capitalist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal Reserve Bank Ownership
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The concept of "ownership" needs some explaining here, however. The member banks must by law invest 3 percent of their capital as stock in the Reserve Banks, and they cannot sell or trade their stock or even use that stock as collateral to borrow money. They do receive dividends of 6 percent per year from the Reserve Banks and get to elect each Reserve Banks board of directors.*
> 
> In 2012, that "ownership dividend" totaled $1.6 billion.
> While the US Treasury received $89 billion.
> 
> That tells you all you need to know about who really owns the Fed.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends what you mean by own.  I pay taxes to the fed.. I suppose you could say that means they own me too.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal Reserve Bank Ownership
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The concept of "ownership" needs some explaining here, however. The member banks must by law invest 3 percent of their capital as stock in the Reserve Banks, and they cannot sell or trade their stock or even use that stock as collateral to borrow money. They do receive dividends of 6 percent per year from the Reserve Banks and get to elect each Reserve Banks board of directors.*
> 
> In 2012, that "ownership dividend" totaled $1.6 billion.
> While the US Treasury received $89 billion.
> 
> That tells you all you need to know about who really owns the Fed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess it depends what you mean by own.  I pay taxes to the fed.. I suppose you could say that means they own me too.
Click to expand...


Do they get 97% of your earnings?


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well.... it's not your neighbors job to make sure your property increases in value.
> 
> (P.S. - that is a bullshit control-freak fallacy by the way. There is nothing your neighbor can do that will _ever_ effect the price of your property. Your property value is controlled by two things and two things _only_ - the size of the house/land and the location - ie beach front property on the ocean is more in demand than Nebraska farmland).
Click to expand...


ROFL put down the mug!

If someone builds a nuclear waste facility on their property, their neighbor's property will no longer habitable.   If someone turns their home into a crack house, the neighborhood is gonna turn to shit as the folks with families sell out for the lowest bid.  If someone diverts a dry creek bed into your garage they will flood your home.  If someone sets up a target range aiming at your bedroom, overshots will hit your sleeping wife.

There is a reason we have laws, and property use restrictions.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The concept of "ownership" needs some explaining here, however. The member banks must by law invest 3 percent of their capital as stock in the Reserve Banks, and they cannot sell or trade their stock or even use that stock as collateral to borrow money. They do receive dividends of 6 percent per year from the Reserve Banks and get to elect each Reserve Banks board of directors.*
> 
> In 2012, that "ownership dividend" totaled $1.6 billion.
> While the US Treasury received $89 billion.
> 
> That tells you all you need to know about who really owns the Fed.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it depends what you mean by own.  I pay taxes to the fed.. I suppose you could say that means they own me too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they get 97% of your earnings?
Click to expand...


I figure the federal government is responsible for the taking of about 55% of my earnings at the moment. What is significant about 97%?


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand comes back from the dead and everybody become noble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust but verify... give authority to government, but keep a check on their authority that they don't exceed or abuse the authority provided.  This is not hard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why didn't it work when the Founding Fathers tried it?
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  The term "limited government" is an oxymoron.  You can't limit government.  Government has unconstrainable compulsion to grow.
Click to expand...


Yes, you can limit government.  It's not that hard, been done before, and will be done again.  Just requires people to stop being cowards.


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism almost did implode on itself 100 years ago. Nothing like a massive labor shortage to undo a long term trend in wages and nothing like globalization and peace to undo those trends.
> 
> Who said he was perfectly right about everything?
> 
> Capitalism favors the capitalist, which is both capitalism's greatest strength and the biggest threat to capitalism in the long term.
> 
> I think it is wonderfully ironic that you complain about the corrupting influence of money on Democracy and then complain about Marx in the next breath.
> 
> The future of modern economics is finding a way to balance growth in production and growth in wages. China has demonstrated rather clearly just how fast productivity can increase but they have relied heavily on the US to provide them with a growing consumer market that is independent of their wage market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.  It didn't almost blow up, or anything of the sort.
> 
> Capitalism favors the capitalist, but in Free-market capitalism, everyone is a capitalist.    I own my labor.    I can choose who to sell my labor to.   I can do with my capital, whatever I want.
> 
> I have sold my labor (my personal capital) to a company, which pays me an agreed amount.  Of that money capital, I place some of it into investments, which have grown by 26% last year.
> 
> I'm a capitalist.   I earned $18,000 taxable income last year.
> 
> Yes capitalism favors me.   The biggest problem with capitalism, is that it allows the freedom to be stupid with your own capital.
> 
> If you blow all your money, you'll be poor.   If you choose to not advance the value of your labor, you'll be poor.   If you choose to work for the lowest bidder, you'll be poor.
> 
> An example of this just happened at my company.   It's a small company.  We don't have tons of money to pay high wages, even to trained engineers.
> 
> We had an engineer who decided to go work for a larger corporations.    Double their income.   Doubled.        But... long hours, less flexibility in the scheduled.    At our company, she worked 4 days a week, and only 8 hours a day.
> 
> The other company wanted 45 hours a week, and some Saturday work when required.       But they paid DOUBLE her income at our company.  Over six figures.
> 
> She decided to come back, and work for less.
> 
> Was it capitalism that cut her wage?   No it was choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to reduce entire market trends to meaningless and irrelevant actions of individuals.
> 
> Also...
> 
> Capitalist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...


In other words - he provided real world situations that don't jive with your liberal theories.

Only a liberal could dismiss actual instances as "meaningless and irrelevant" while crowing about "trends" (ie false theories build on false data)


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.  It didn't almost blow up, or anything of the sort.
> 
> Capitalism favors the capitalist, but in Free-market capitalism, everyone is a capitalist.    I own my labor.    I can choose who to sell my labor to.   I can do with my capital, whatever I want.
> 
> I have sold my labor (my personal capital) to a company, which pays me an agreed amount.  Of that money capital, I place some of it into investments, which have grown by 26% last year.
> 
> I'm a capitalist.   I earned $18,000 taxable income last year.
> 
> Yes capitalism favors me.   The biggest problem with capitalism, is that it allows the freedom to be stupid with your own capital.
> 
> If you blow all your money, you'll be poor.   If you choose to not advance the value of your labor, you'll be poor.   If you choose to work for the lowest bidder, you'll be poor.
> 
> An example of this just happened at my company.   It's a small company.  We don't have tons of money to pay high wages, even to trained engineers.
> 
> We had an engineer who decided to go work for a larger corporations.    Double their income.   Doubled.        But... long hours, less flexibility in the scheduled.    At our company, she worked 4 days a week, and only 8 hours a day.
> 
> The other company wanted 45 hours a week, and some Saturday work when required.       But they paid DOUBLE her income at our company.  Over six figures.
> 
> She decided to come back, and work for less.
> 
> Was it capitalism that cut her wage?   No it was choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to reduce entire market trends to meaningless and irrelevant actions of individuals.
> 
> Also...
> 
> Capitalist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words - he provided real world situations that don't jive with your liberal theories.
> 
> Only a liberal could dismiss actual instances as "meaningless and irrelevant" while crowing about "trends" (ie false theories build on false data)
Click to expand...


Only liberals consider anecdotal evidence that contradicts national trends to be meaningless?

Tell me more about these liberals you speak of because you seem to be suggesting they are the only ones that are not brain dead.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trust but verify... give authority to government, but keep a check on their authority that they don't exceed or abuse the authority provided.  This is not hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why didn't it work when the Founding Fathers tried it?
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  The term "limited government" is an oxymoron.  You can't limit government.  Government has unconstrainable compulsion to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you can limit government.  It's not that hard, been done before, and will be done again.  Just requires people to stop being cowards.
Click to expand...


When has it been done?


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one of my neighbors decides to become a trash collector my property value will go to shit based on the view and smell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well.... it's not your neighbors job to make sure your property increases in value.
> 
> (P.S. - that is a bullshit control-freak fallacy by the way. There is nothing your neighbor can do that will _ever_ effect the price of your property. Your property value is controlled by two things and two things _only_ - the size of the house/land and the location - ie beach front property on the ocean is more in demand than Nebraska farmland).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL put down the mug!
> 
> If someone builds a nuclear waste facility on their property, their neighbor's property will no longer habitable.   If someone turns their home into a crack house, the neighborhood is gonna turn to shit as the folks with families sell out for the lowest bid.  If someone diverts a dry creek bed into your garage they will flood your home.  If someone sets up a target range aiming at your bedroom, overshots will hit your sleeping wife.
> 
> There is a reason we have laws, and property use restrictions.
Click to expand...


Your belief that only government can handle these situations lacks any visible means of support.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well.... it's not your neighbors job to make sure your property increases in value.
> 
> (P.S. - that is a bullshit control-freak fallacy by the way. There is nothing your neighbor can do that will _ever_ effect the price of your property. Your property value is controlled by two things and two things _only_ - the size of the house/land and the location - ie beach front property on the ocean is more in demand than Nebraska farmland).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL put down the mug!
> 
> If someone builds a nuclear waste facility on their property, their neighbor's property will no longer habitable.   If someone turns their home into a crack house, the neighborhood is gonna turn to shit as the folks with families sell out for the lowest bid.  If someone diverts a dry creek bed into your garage they will flood your home.  If someone sets up a target range aiming at your bedroom, overshots will hit your sleeping wife.
> 
> There is a reason we have laws, and property use restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your belief that only government can handle these situations lacks any visible means of support.
Click to expand...


Where did I say "only government can handle these situations?"

My point, which was apparently to subtle, was that (1) the situations do exist; and (2) some means is necessary to civilly resolve disputes.  I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you said as well.

Thus the issue is one of who does the dispute resolution.  Correct?

Removing one government will only result in some other form of governance being used to fill the void.  While you may believe change is good, history has shown that change for change sake is not likely to resolve outstanding issues. 

The issue we have is "over governance" by our government employees.  One solution is to fire them and reset the checks and balances to a level we prefer.  Unfortunately for you and me, there are many folks who are quite happy with having no liberty whatsoever.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why didn't it work when the Founding Fathers tried it?
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  The term "limited government" is an oxymoron.  You can't limit government.  Government has unconstrainable compulsion to grow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can limit government.  It's not that hard, been done before, and will be done again.  Just requires people to stop being cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When has it been done?
Click to expand...


How many examples do you want?

For generations, Texas leaned left in a serious way.  Then the state saw the light so to speak under Reagan and never looked back.


----------



## LibertyLemming

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can limit government.  It's not that hard, been done before, and will be done again.  Just requires people to stop being cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When has it been done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many examples do you want?
> 
> For generations, Texas leaned left in a serious way.  Then the state saw the light so to speak under Reagan and never looked back.
Click to expand...


This guy thinks Reagan made government smaller?


----------



## P@triot

Bombur said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to reduce entire market trends to meaningless and irrelevant actions of individuals.
> 
> Also...
> 
> Capitalist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words - he provided real world situations that don't jive with your liberal theories.
> 
> Only a liberal could dismiss actual instances as "meaningless and irrelevant" while crowing about "trends" (ie false theories build on false data)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only liberals consider anecdotal evidence that contradicts national trends to be meaningless?
> 
> Tell me more about these liberals you speak of because you seem to be suggesting they are the only ones that are not brain dead.
Click to expand...


You mean like the national "trends" Obama provides. Where unemployment magically dips below 8% for the first time in his entire presidency just before the election?

You are the definition of brain dead my friend....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it depends what you mean by own.  I pay taxes to the fed.. I suppose you could say that means they own me too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they get 97% of your earnings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I figure the federal government is responsible for the taking of about 55% of my earnings at the moment. What is significant about 97%?
Click to expand...


That's the amount the Fed turned over to the Treasury, versus less than 2% to the "private owners".


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can limit government.  It's not that hard, been done before, and will be done again.  Just requires people to stop being cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When has it been done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many examples do you want?
> 
> For generations, Texas leaned left in a serious way.  Then the state saw the light so to speak under Reagan and never looked back.
Click to expand...


Texas leaned Democrat along with the rest of Dixie.  It never leaned left.  It's been going more left every year.  Furthermore, a state is not a valid example since states have to compete with each other for new residents.  National governments never give up any power once the are acquired except at the point of a gun.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they get 97% of your earnings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I figure the federal government is responsible for the taking of about 55% of my earnings at the moment. What is significant about 97%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the amount the Fed turned over to the Treasury, versus less than 2% to the "private owners".
Click to expand...


Yeah well it wasn't their money to begin with, was it? When you are creating money out of thin air it's really easy to give the interest you earned on it less your small commission isn't it?


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When has it been done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many examples do you want?
> 
> For generations, Texas leaned left in a serious way.  Then the state saw the light so to speak under Reagan and never looked back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas leaned Democrat along with the rest of Dixie.  It never leaned left.  It's been going more left every year.  Furthermore, a state is not a valid example since states have to compete with each other for new residents.  National governments never give up any power once the are acquired except at the point of a gun.
Click to expand...


Huh?  Democrats were conservative under Carter? Are you daft?


----------



## Bombur

rottweiler said:


> bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> in other words - he provided real world situations that don't jive with your liberal theories.
> 
> Only a liberal could dismiss actual instances as "meaningless and irrelevant" while crowing about "trends" (ie false theories build on false data)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only liberals consider anecdotal evidence that contradicts national trends to be meaningless?
> 
> Tell me more about these liberals you speak of because you seem to be suggesting they are the only ones that are not brain dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you mean like the national "trends" obama provides. Where unemployment magically dips below 8% for the first time in his entire presidency just before the election?
> 
> You are the definition of brain dead my friend....
Click to expand...


lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I figure the federal government is responsible for the taking of about 55% of my earnings at the moment. What is significant about 97%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the amount the Fed turned over to the Treasury, versus less than 2% to the "private owners".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well it wasn't their money to begin with, was it? When you are creating money out of thin air it's really easy to give the interest you earned on it less your small commission isn't it?
Click to expand...


And you saw how much they gave the real owners.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many examples do you want?
> 
> For generations, Texas leaned left in a serious way.  Then the state saw the light so to speak under Reagan and never looked back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas leaned Democrat along with the rest of Dixie.  It never leaned left.  It's been going more left every year.  Furthermore, a state is not a valid example since states have to compete with each other for new residents.  National governments never give up any power once the are acquired except at the point of a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?  Democrats were conservative under Carter? Are you daft?
Click to expand...


Texas Democrats were.  They voted for Carter only because he was a Democrat.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes it a "dual" state?  None of the items you listed have any connection with duality.
> 
> 
> 
> "du·al·i·ty
> d(y)o&#862;o&#712;alit&#275;/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> the quality or condition of being dual.
> 'the novel's deep duality about human motive'
> 2.
> *an instance of opposition or contrast between two concepts* or two aspects of something; a dualism.
> 'the photographs capitalize on the dualities of light and dark, stillness and movement'"
> 
> *There's a growing opposition or contrast between civil liberties and national security in the US that reminds many of what occurred in Germany during Hitler's rise.
> 
> Ernst Fraenkel was a German Jew who probably saw the dual state more clearly than either you or I do:*
> 
> "After studying American law Fraenkel lectured at the New School for Social Research. In 1941 he published The Dual State in which he analysed the political system of the Nazi state.
> 
> "For Fraenkel it was a 'normative state' (Normenstaat) which secured the *continuation of capitalist society* for those Germans not threatened by Nazism coexisted alongside a 'prerogative state' (Maßnahmenstaat) that used legal sanctions as well as brutal violence against people considered to be enemies of Nazism and Nazi Germany."
> 
> Ernst Fraenkel (political scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Email Edward Snowden or Glenn Greenwald if you're still in denial about what's coming .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently this supposed "duality" is based on the theory that a state can't do two things at the same time.  In other words, it can't chew gum and walk at the same time.  It can't persecute Jews and maintain capitalism at the same time.  It can't have social programs and pursue a drug war at the same times.
> 
> That's obvious horseshit, but sociology professors make a name for themselves by coming up with new buzzwords, not by getting the facts right.
Click to expand...

Government is capable of doing many things simultaneously; this one promises the people security against unreasonable searches and seizures while instigating a technical system of surveillance capable of storing every telephone call, email, or text we send or receive. This government promises equal opportunity for all while systematically passing tax and trade policies that work to the economic advantage of 10% of US voters at the expense of the (poorer) 90%. Ignorant, self-absorbed takers who imagine they "make a lot of money (with) excellent benefits" are mere useful idiots to today's Masters of Mankind.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the amount the Fed turned over to the Treasury, versus less than 2% to the "private owners".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well it wasn't their money to begin with, was it? When you are creating money out of thin air it's really easy to give the interest you earned on it less your small commission isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you saw how much they gave the real owners.
Click to expand...


And if they were not "private" in the first place they would not have had to "give" the money over as they would already "be" the federal government.  The point about the cartel is that they get trillions of dollars at a discount rate. They pay a negligible amount of interest for it.  They can borrow the same amount the next year +plus the amount of interest they owe and use the new funds to pay back the old funds.  Thus... it is a scam in which the bankers get to decide how much free money they want to hold in their banks to use as they see fit.  If they have losses it's no big deal they just borrow more the next year.  Do you understand yet?  Imagine if you could set your own credit balance. You decide you want to take out a million dollars.  You use the million to buy yourself a nice house. Next year you borrow 1.01million to pay for the previous year's debt.  Rinse repeat enjoy the house.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well it wasn't their money to begin with, was it? When you are creating money out of thin air it's really easy to give the interest you earned on it less your small commission isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you saw how much they gave the real owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they were not "private" in the first place they would not have had to "give" the money over as they would already "be" the federal government.  The point about the cartel is that they get trillions of dollars at a discount rate. They pay a negligible amount of interest for it.  They can borrow the same amount the next year +plus the amount of interest they owe and use the new funds to pay back the old funds.  Thus... it is a scam in which the bankers get to decide how much free money they want to hold in their banks to use as they see fit.  If they have losses it's no big deal they just borrow more the next year.  Do you understand yet?  Imagine if you could set your own credit balance. You decide you want to take out a million dollars.  You use the million to buy yourself a nice house. Next year you borrow 1.01million to pay for the previous year's debt.  Rinse repeat enjoy the house.
Click to expand...


*And if they were not "private" in the first place they would not have had to "give" the money over as they would already "be" the federal government.*

It already was the federal government. 


* The point about the cartel is that they get trillions of dollars at a discount rate. *

What "cartel"?
Banks are currently lending the Fed trillions, not borrowing.

*Thus... it is a scam in which the bankers get to decide how much free money they want to hold in their banks to use as they see fit. *

You're confused.

*Do you understand yet?*

I understand that you know little about how the system works.

*Imagine if you could set your own credit balance.*

Imagine, if you read a good book on the topic.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you saw how much they gave the real owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they were not "private" in the first place they would not have had to "give" the money over as they would already "be" the federal government.  The point about the cartel is that they get trillions of dollars at a discount rate. They pay a negligible amount of interest for it.  They can borrow the same amount the next year +plus the amount of interest they owe and use the new funds to pay back the old funds.  Thus... it is a scam in which the bankers get to decide how much free money they want to hold in their banks to use as they see fit.  If they have losses it's no big deal they just borrow more the next year.  Do you understand yet?  Imagine if you could set your own credit balance. You decide you want to take out a million dollars.  You use the million to buy yourself a nice house. Next year you borrow 1.01million to pay for the previous year's debt.  Rinse repeat enjoy the house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And if they were not "private" in the first place they would not have had to "give" the money over as they would already "be" the federal government.*
> 
> It already was the federal government.
> 
> 
> * The point about the cartel is that they get trillions of dollars at a discount rate. *
> 
> What "cartel"?
> Banks are currently lending the Fed trillions, not borrowing.
> 
> *Thus... it is a scam in which the bankers get to decide how much free money they want to hold in their banks to use as they see fit. *
> 
> You're confused.
> 
> *Do you understand yet?*
> 
> I understand that you know little about how the system works.
> 
> *Imagine if you could set your own credit balance.*
> 
> Imagine, if you read a good book on the topic.
Click to expand...


If the fed is the federal government, explain then why the fed has to hand over their profits to the federal government.  You are either pretending to be obtuse, or daft, or are really that dumb. I can't figure out which.

You ask, "what cartel?"  The federal reserve banks + federal reserve bank, aka central bank, aka the cartel. 

You say, "*anks are currently lending the Fed trillions, not borrowing." Huh? The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate. It's called unlimited expansion of credit. This borrowing is at the heart of how our central banking/monetary system works.  The unique part of this system is that when the fed lends out money they don't have to have anything to back it... nothing at all. All they have to do is add some zeroes to the amount they lend out to the federal reserve banks.

You ask me to become more educated on the subject.  lol.. dude put down your self-proclaimed expert banner.. you appear to know nothing about the system.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/discountrate.htm*


----------



## georgephillip

"If you havent experienced the 'recovery' from the Great Recession the corporate media keeps insisting is here, thats because 'quantitative easing' is a new way to say 'trickle-down.' 

"In this latest version, the Federal Reserve has pumped trillions of dollars into financial markets to create a stock market bubble.

"Other than a small secondary effect of re-animating real estate prices, a growing bubble in stock prices has constituted the extent of the economic impact. 

"*Good for the one percent, not so good for the rest of us.*

"'Quantitative easing' is the technical name for a Federal Reserve program in which it buys U.S. government debt and mortgage-backed securities in massive amounts. 

"In conjunction with keeping interest rates near zero, quantitative easing is supposedly intended to stimulate the economy by encouraging investment. 

"A reduction in long-term interests rates would encourage working people to buy or refinance homes; for businesses to invest because they could borrow cheaply; and push down the value of the dollar, thereby boosting exports by making U.S.-made products more competitive.

"In real life, however, the effect has been an upward distribution of money and an increase in speculation. 

"This new form of trickle-down has not worked any differently than did the earlier version during the Reagan administration. 

"Now that the Federal Reserve will gradually reduce the amount of bonds it purchases (announced last month) and perhaps end the program by the end of 2014, Wall Street and corporate executives worry that their latest party might be over."

The Federal Reserve Inflates Another Bubble, But Not for You » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## P@triot

And that Dumbocrat "quantitative easing" is about to collapse the U.S. dollar. They've pumped so many trillions into the economy (to "spread the wealth") that the U.S. dollar is about to be worth as much as the Mexican peso.


----------



## Bombur

Rottweiler said:


> And that Dumbocrat "quantitative easing" is about to collapse the U.S. dollar. They've pumped so many trillions into the economy (to "spread the wealth") that the U.S. dollar is about to be worth as much as the Mexican peso.



The USD is artificially inflated relative to other currencies. Inflation is low. The US has demonstrated unprecedented ability to maintain low interest rates.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they were not "private" in the first place they would not have had to "give" the money over as they would already "be" the federal government.  The point about the cartel is that they get trillions of dollars at a discount rate. They pay a negligible amount of interest for it.  They can borrow the same amount the next year +plus the amount of interest they owe and use the new funds to pay back the old funds.  Thus... it is a scam in which the bankers get to decide how much free money they want to hold in their banks to use as they see fit.  If they have losses it's no big deal they just borrow more the next year.  Do you understand yet?  Imagine if you could set your own credit balance. You decide you want to take out a million dollars.  You use the million to buy yourself a nice house. Next year you borrow 1.01million to pay for the previous year's debt.  Rinse repeat enjoy the house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And if they were not "private" in the first place they would not have had to "give" the money over as they would already "be" the federal government.*
> 
> It already was the federal government.
> 
> 
> * The point about the cartel is that they get trillions of dollars at a discount rate. *
> 
> What "cartel"?
> Banks are currently lending the Fed trillions, not borrowing.
> 
> *Thus... it is a scam in which the bankers get to decide how much free money they want to hold in their banks to use as they see fit. *
> 
> You're confused.
> 
> *Do you understand yet?*
> 
> I understand that you know little about how the system works.
> 
> *Imagine if you could set your own credit balance.*
> 
> Imagine, if you read a good book on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the fed is the federal government, explain then why the fed has to hand over their profits to the federal government.  You are either pretending to be obtuse, or daft, or are really that dumb. I can't figure out which.
> 
> You ask, "what cartel?"  The federal reserve banks + federal reserve bank, aka central bank, aka the cartel.
> 
> You say, "*anks are currently lending the Fed trillions, not borrowing." Huh? The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate. It's called unlimited expansion of credit. This borrowing is at the heart of how our central banking/monetary system works.  The unique part of this system is that when the fed lends out money they don't have to have anything to back it... nothing at all. All they have to do is add some zeroes to the amount they lend out to the federal reserve banks.
> 
> You ask me to become more educated on the subject.  lol.. dude put down your self-proclaimed expert banner.. you appear to know nothing about the system.
> 
> FRB: The Discount Rate*
Click to expand...

*

If the fed is the federal government, explain then why the fed has to hand over their profits to the federal government. 

What would you like them to call it? They move it from the pocket called the Federal Reserve to the pocket called the US Treasury. Clear enough?

The federal reserve banks + federal reserve bank, aka central bank, aka the cartel. 

What are the "federal reserve banks"?
Joe's Bank down the street and Liberty Trust across town? 

Huh? The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate. 

That's not how the "system" works. The way it works is banks take deposits and loan out a portion. Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Currently, banks are lending the Fed over $2.4 trillion. 

Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions (EXCSRESNS) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

You ask me to become more educated on the subject.

Yes, that would be nice.*


----------



## itfitzme

georgephillip said:


> "If you havent experienced the 'recovery' from the Great Recession the corporate media keeps insisting is here, thats because 'quantitative easing' is a new way to say 'trickle-down.'
> 
> "In this latest version, the Federal Reserve has pumped trillions of dollars into financial markets to create a stock market bubble.
> 
> "Other than a small secondary effect of re-animating real estate prices, a growing bubble in stock prices has constituted the extent of the economic impact.
> 
> "*Good for the one percent, not so good for the rest of us.*
> 
> "'Quantitative easing' is the technical name for a Federal Reserve program in which it buys U.S. government debt and mortgage-backed securities in massive amounts.
> 
> "In conjunction with keeping interest rates near zero, quantitative easing is supposedly intended to stimulate the economy by encouraging investment.
> 
> "A reduction in long-term interests rates would encourage working people to buy or refinance homes; for businesses to invest because they could borrow cheaply; and push down the value of the dollar, thereby boosting exports by making U.S.-made products more competitive.
> 
> "In real life, however, the effect has been an upward distribution of money and an increase in speculation.
> 
> "This new form of trickle-down has not worked any differently than did the earlier version during the Reagan administration.
> 
> "Now that the Federal Reserve will gradually reduce the amount of bonds it purchases (announced last month) and perhaps end the program by the end of 2014, Wall Street and corporate executives worry that their latest party might be over."
> 
> The Federal Reserve Inflates Another Bubble, But Not for You » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names



You are placing excessive expectations on what monetary policy can do.  All it can do is attempt to manage inflation and make monies available to meet the demand for money.  That is it.

The rest is up to fiscal policy and the free markets.


----------



## itfitzme

Rottweiler said:


> And that Dumbocrat "quantitative easing" is about to collapse the U.S. dollar. They've pumped so many trillions into the economy (to "spread the wealth") that the U.S. dollar is about to be worth as much as the Mexican peso.



Yeah, like you can predict anything.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And if they were not "private" in the first place they would not have had to "give" the money over as they would already "be" the federal government.*
> 
> It already was the federal government.
> 
> 
> * The point about the cartel is that they get trillions of dollars at a discount rate. *
> 
> What "cartel"?
> Banks are currently lending the Fed trillions, not borrowing.
> 
> *Thus... it is a scam in which the bankers get to decide how much free money they want to hold in their banks to use as they see fit. *
> 
> You're confused.
> 
> *Do you understand yet?*
> 
> I understand that you know little about how the system works.
> 
> *Imagine if you could set your own credit balance.*
> 
> Imagine, if you read a good book on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the fed is the federal government, explain then why the fed has to hand over their profits to the federal government.  You are either pretending to be obtuse, or daft, or are really that dumb. I can't figure out which.
> 
> You ask, "what cartel?"  The federal reserve banks + federal reserve bank, aka central bank, aka the cartel.
> 
> You say, "*anks are currently lending the Fed trillions, not borrowing." Huh? The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate. It's called unlimited expansion of credit. This borrowing is at the heart of how our central banking/monetary system works.  The unique part of this system is that when the fed lends out money they don't have to have anything to back it... nothing at all. All they have to do is add some zeroes to the amount they lend out to the federal reserve banks.
> 
> You ask me to become more educated on the subject.  lol.. dude put down your self-proclaimed expert banner.. you appear to know nothing about the system.
> 
> FRB: The Discount Rate*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> If the fed is the federal government, explain then why the fed has to hand over their profits to the federal government.
> 
> What would you like them to call it? They move it from the pocket called the Federal Reserve to the pocket called the US Treasury. Clear enough?
> 
> The federal reserve banks + federal reserve bank, aka central bank, aka the cartel.
> 
> What are the "federal reserve banks"?
> Joe's Bank down the street and Liberty Trust across town?
> 
> Huh? The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate.
> 
> That's not how the "system" works. The way it works is banks take deposits and loan out a portion. Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Currently, banks are lending the Fed over $2.4 trillion.
> 
> Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions (EXCSRESNS) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
> 
> You ask me to become more educated on the subject.
> 
> Yes, that would be nice.*
Click to expand...

*

You asked what are the federal reserve banks.  

Here's one of their web pages:
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK

Here's a map:
Federal Reserve Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I said, "The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate."

In response you said "[t]hat's not how the system works[,] [t]he way it works is banks take deposits and loan out a portion."  Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.  Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?






Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? Interest? ROFL  Deposits? ROFL*


----------



## gnarlylove

Rottweiler said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "freedom" to create weapons is not a freedom worth having since it limits freedom, ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red = appalling
> Dark Red = arrogant
Click to expand...


I want some votes on this.

Who thinks weapons take away freedom?

Who thinks the extinction of guns is appalling?
In other words, who thinks having the ability to instantly murder someone is not appalling (where we know this is acted out several times a day across America)? 

Put differently, who thinks being able to murder someone is appalling?

Being able to murder any human is strictly appalling, immoral and outrageous unjustified. 

When it comes to self defense this is another matter but how many instances are self defense? How many are acts of violence? Violence is many magnitudes higher. If nothing else, the fact people are murdered in cold blood removing their freedom in an ultimate sense is sufficient reason to seriously question whether gun ownership should be so easy.

Face it Rot, you prefer to be able to kill people and think it's appalling when you can't. To think you need a gun for the sake of self defense is maddening if no guns existed in the first place. hence my plea to remove guns. And yet you say something so ridiculous as to think a gun-full world is a non-appalling while a gun free world is appalling. You are fucking  dense.



Rottweiler said:


> The only thing insane is your "thinking" (and I use that term lightly).



You have honestly answered to the best of your ability. You have no respect for academic or reasoned argument. I'm no hot shot academic and do not wish to be but saying my ideas are not ideas sums up your whole response. In other words you just played semantics, it was not much of a substantive response.

I can also assert your ideas are not ideas. So what are we to do? Certainly we can settle this. Wait, no, in your world of "Rot knows" and I'm "a junior" you have already predetermined this debate. How convenient when ideas no know age limit. To think otherwise is a fallacy.

You have no idea how to conduct a rigorous response based in rational thought know as reasoning, which is our only hope of reaching an agreement. Instead, your brain has been rotted out from years of living without critically thinking. And thinking without critically analyzing. So you just accepted whatever thoughts fanned your ego or that made you feel more powerful over your fellow man. But why did you fail to analyze the thoughts you accepted? Because you don't know the rules of thought. I am not perfect but I have the basic understanding on how to compare ideas and determine their value, pragmatic and a priori if any. You even admit this is not important or valuable by saying philosophy isn't valuable (or did you mean marketable?). And you further incriminate yourself as anti-evaluative/philosophical by saying you wouldn't waste your time on such. Your exact words. Therefore, we know where you stand: against rational thought and pro-megalomania confirming beliefs such as gun ownership and violent language tendencies as well as ownership, which is highly egotistical. But don't worry, this doesn't effect you because you do not care about it and I understand some people refuse to because it would mean calling their whole existence into question as a lie.

But alas I can only take what I can get and what I can get from you is punditry repeated. You have no idea how to actually defend your thoughts without repeating them over and over. Eternally running in circles using your own beliefs to justify them. It's like using the Bible to justify the Bible. You are sadly incapable of speaking on the level, so I will respect that and avoid further wasting our time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the fed is the federal government, explain then why the fed has to hand over their profits to the federal government.  You are either pretending to be obtuse, or daft, or are really that dumb. I can't figure out which.
> 
> You ask, "what cartel?"  The federal reserve banks + federal reserve bank, aka central bank, aka the cartel.
> 
> You say, "*anks are currently lending the Fed trillions, not borrowing." Huh? The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate. It's called unlimited expansion of credit. This borrowing is at the heart of how our central banking/monetary system works.  The unique part of this system is that when the fed lends out money they don't have to have anything to back it... nothing at all. All they have to do is add some zeroes to the amount they lend out to the federal reserve banks.
> 
> You ask me to become more educated on the subject.  lol.. dude put down your self-proclaimed expert banner.. you appear to know nothing about the system.
> 
> FRB: The Discount Rate*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> If the fed is the federal government, explain then why the fed has to hand over their profits to the federal government.
> 
> What would you like them to call it? They move it from the pocket called the Federal Reserve to the pocket called the US Treasury. Clear enough?
> 
> The federal reserve banks + federal reserve bank, aka central bank, aka the cartel.
> 
> What are the "federal reserve banks"?
> Joe's Bank down the street and Liberty Trust across town?
> 
> Huh? The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate.
> 
> That's not how the "system" works. The way it works is banks take deposits and loan out a portion. Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Currently, banks are lending the Fed over $2.4 trillion.
> 
> Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions (EXCSRESNS) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
> 
> You ask me to become more educated on the subject.
> 
> Yes, that would be nice.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> You asked what are the federal reserve banks.
> 
> Here's one of their web pages:
> FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK
> 
> Here's a map:
> Federal Reserve Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> I said, "The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate."
> 
> In response you said "[t]hat's not how the system works[,] [t]he way it works is banks take deposits and loan out a portion."  Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.  Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? Interest? ROFL  Deposits? ROFL*
Click to expand...

*

You asked what are the federal reserve banks. 

Here's one of their web pages:
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK

The only federal reserve banks are the Federal Reserve Branches?
What about the member banks, like the bank in my neighborhood?

Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.

So why would the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago need to borrow from the Fed?

Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?

Yup, that's what I say.

Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? 

The Fed gets to create money out of thin air.
It's what Central Banks do.

So just to be clear, the members of the "cartel" are just the Fed branches, not banks traded on stock exchanges? Is that your latest claim?*


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If the fed is the federal government, explain then why the fed has to hand over their profits to the federal government. *
> 
> What would you like them to call it? They move it from the pocket called the Federal Reserve to the pocket called the US Treasury. Clear enough?
> 
> *The federal reserve banks + federal reserve bank, aka central bank, aka the cartel. *
> 
> What are the "federal reserve banks"?
> Joe's Bank down the street and Liberty Trust across town?
> 
> *Huh? The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate. *
> 
> That's not how the "system" works. The way it works is banks take deposits and loan out a portion. Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Currently, banks are lending the Fed over $2.4 trillion.
> 
> Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions (EXCSRESNS) - FRED - St. Louis Fed
> 
> *You ask me to become more educated on the subject.*
> 
> Yes, that would be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked what are the federal reserve banks.
> 
> Here's one of their web pages:
> FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK
> 
> Here's a map:
> Federal Reserve Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> I said, "The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate."
> 
> In response you said "[t]hat's not how the system works[,] [t]he way it works is banks take deposits and loan out a portion."  Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.  Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? Interest? ROFL  Deposits? ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You asked what are the federal reserve banks.
> 
> Here's one of their web pages:
> FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK*
> 
> The only federal reserve banks are the Federal Reserve Branches?
> What about the member banks, like the bank in my neighborhood?
> 
> *Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.*
> 
> So why would the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago need to borrow from the Fed?
> 
> *Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?*
> 
> Yup, that's what I say.
> 
> *Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? *
> 
> The Fed gets to create money out of thin air.
> It's what Central Banks do.
> 
> So just to be clear, the members of the "cartel" are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchanges? Is that your latest claim?
Click to expand...


Banks have Bank Branches.  Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.  

You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. This is not as hard as you are making it.

Then you say "[t]he Fed gets to create money out of thin air[,] _t's what Central Banks do."

Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?


Then you stated/asked, "just to be clear, the members of the cartel are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchange... Is that your latest claim?"

No. I did not make a claim as to whether fed bank branches are openly traded.  If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, and some of those banks are openly traded some are privately owned... so in effect the ownership is "once" removed, much like the mob is organized to keep the sins one level away from the leadership._


----------



## Indeependent

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked what are the federal reserve banks.
> 
> Here's one of their web pages:
> FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK
> 
> Here's a map:
> Federal Reserve Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> I said, "The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate."
> 
> In response you said "[t]hat's not how the system works[,] [t]he way it works is banks take deposits and loan out a portion."  Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.  Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? Interest? ROFL  Deposits? ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You asked what are the federal reserve banks.
> 
> Here's one of their web pages:
> FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK*
> 
> The only federal reserve banks are the Federal Reserve Branches?
> What about the member banks, like the bank in my neighborhood?
> 
> *Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.*
> 
> So why would the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago need to borrow from the Fed?
> 
> *Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?*
> 
> Yup, that's what I say.
> 
> *Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? *
> 
> The Fed gets to create money out of thin air.
> It's what Central Banks do.
> 
> So just to be clear, the members of the "cartel" are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchanges? Is that your latest claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banks have Bank Branches.  Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.
> 
> I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.
> 
> You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. This is not as hard as you are making it.
> 
> Then you say "[t]he Fed gets to create money out of thin air[,] _t's what Central Banks do."
> 
> Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?
> 
> 
> Then you stated/asked, "just to be clear, the members of the cartel are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchange... Is that your latest claim?"
> 
> No. I did not make a claim as to whether fed bank branches are openly traded.  If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, and some of those banks are openly traded some are privately owned... so in effect the ownership is "once" removed, much like the mob is organized to keep the sins one level away from the leadership._
Click to expand...

_

C'mon, we all need a good laugh now and then._


----------



## RKMBrown

Indeependent said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You asked what are the federal reserve banks.
> 
> Here's one of their web pages:
> FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK*
> 
> The only federal reserve banks are the Federal Reserve Branches?
> What about the member banks, like the bank in my neighborhood?
> 
> *Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.*
> 
> So why would the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago need to borrow from the Fed?
> 
> *Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?*
> 
> Yup, that's what I say.
> 
> *Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? *
> 
> The Fed gets to create money out of thin air.
> It's what Central Banks do.
> 
> So just to be clear, the members of the "cartel" are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchanges? Is that your latest claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banks have Bank Branches.  Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.
> 
> I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.
> 
> You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. This is not as hard as you are making it.
> 
> Then you say "[t]he Fed gets to create money out of thin air[,] _t's what Central Banks do."
> 
> Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?
> 
> 
> Then you stated/asked, "just to be clear, the members of the cartel are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchange... Is that your latest claim?"
> 
> No. I did not make a claim as to whether fed bank branches are openly traded.  If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, and some of those banks are openly traded some are privately owned... so in effect the ownership is "once" removed, much like the mob is organized to keep the sins one level away from the leadership._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> C'mon, we all need a good laugh now and then._
Click to expand...

_



_


----------



## gnarlylove

You are obviously glorifying sadistic tendencies. Congratulations on treating language as another war zone.

Nothing like living in America and being poor.


> Since the Great Recession began in 2009, there's been a 73 percent jump in student homelessness and a 23 percent increase in child hunger. The so-called "jobless recovery" has not helped."
> 
> It's even worse in Southern states, where 1-in-4 kids is poor. "We call it the geographic lottery," Fichtenberg says. "Depending on where the child is born, there's a much higher or lower chance they'll be poor."
> 
> Their findings square with recent research that shows your chances of doing better than your parents depend on where you grow up. When it comes to social mobility, "Geography is destiny."
> 
> But states with some of the highest rates of child poverty have historically pursued policies that make life harder for poor families. Here are the 5 states with the worst rates of child poverty and some of the unhelpful policy decisions lawmakers made there.


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "freedom" to create weapons is not a freedom worth having since it limits freedom, ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red = appalling
> Dark Red = arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want some votes on this.
> 
> Who thinks weapons take away freedom?
> 
> Who thinks the extinction of guns is appalling?
> In other words, who thinks having the ability to instantly murder someone is not appalling (where we know this is acted out several times a day across America)?
> 
> Put differently, who thinks being able to murder someone is appalling?
> 
> Being able to murder any human is strictly appalling, immoral and outrageous unjustified.
> 
> When it comes to self defense this is another matter but how many instances are self defense? How many are acts of violence? Violence is many magnitudes higher. If nothing else, the fact people are murdered in cold blood removing their freedom in an ultimate sense is sufficient reason to seriously question whether gun ownership should be so easy.
> 
> Face it Rot, you prefer to be able to kill people and think it's appalling when you can't. To think you need a gun for the sake of self defense is maddening if no guns existed in the first place. hence my plea to remove guns. And yet you say something so ridiculous as to think a gun-full world is a non-appalling while a gun free world is appalling. You are fucking  dense.
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing insane is your "thinking" (and I use that term lightly).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have honestly answered to the best of your ability. You have no respect for academic or reasoned argument. I'm no hot shot academic and do not wish to be but saying my ideas are not ideas sums up your whole response. In other words you just played semantics, it was not much of a substantive response.
> 
> I can also assert your ideas are not ideas. So what are we to do? Certainly we can settle this. Wait, no, in your world of "Rot knows" and I'm "a junior" you have already predetermined this debate. How convenient when ideas no know age limit. To think otherwise is a fallacy.
> 
> You have no idea how to conduct a rigorous response based in rational thought know as reasoning, which is our only hope of reaching an agreement. Instead, your brain has been rotted out from years of living without critically thinking. And thinking without critically analyzing. So you just accepted whatever thoughts fanned your ego or that made you feel more powerful over your fellow man. But why did you fail to analyze the thoughts you accepted? Because you don't know the rules of thought. I am not perfect but I have the basic understanding on how to compare ideas and determine their value, pragmatic and a priori if any. You even admit this is not important or valuable by saying philosophy isn't valuable (or did you mean marketable?). And you further incriminate yourself as anti-evaluative/philosophical by saying you wouldn't waste your time on such. Your exact words. Therefore, we know where you stand: against rational thought and pro-megalomania confirming beliefs such as gun ownership and violent language tendencies as well as ownership, which is highly egotistical. But don't worry, this doesn't effect you because you do not care about it and I understand some people refuse to because it would mean calling their whole existence into question as a lie.
> 
> But alas I can only take what I can get and what I can get from you is punditry repeated. You have no idea how to actually defend your thoughts without repeating them over and over. Eternally running in circles using your own beliefs to justify them. It's like using the Bible to justify the Bible. You are sadly incapable of speaking on the level, so I will respect that and avoid further wasting our time.
Click to expand...


Interesting how you edited the entire post and removed all but two sentences which you attempt to take out of context.

Now tell us again how your little pieces of paper have appointed you supreme ruler of the world. Tell us how anyone who thinks there can be "true freedom with private property is sadly mistaken" becuase you're so brilliant and "smug". And then tell me how I'm an "alpha male" because you analyzed my screen name...


----------



## P@triot

gnarlylove said:


> I want some votes on this.
> 
> Who thinks weapons take away freedom?



Obviously every government in the world disagrees with you because they haven't disarmed yet and they are all free...


----------



## Indeependent

Rottweiler said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want some votes on this.
> 
> Who thinks weapons take away freedom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously every government in the world disagrees with you because they haven't disarmed yet and they are all free...
Click to expand...


No Arms Agreements?
No Balance of Power?
AND...They're all free.
FINALLY we can disband the UN and NATO.


----------



## gnarlylove

Although I've stated I am a nobody, I see you can't accept the fact someone doesn't need to think of themselves as supreme rulers to identify BS from other people.

I see you may have connected the dots between guns and appalling. I'm sure it won't change you at all but I guess I'm not here for that. I want to offer the hope of creating a 100% free society instead of living in a world of fear. But I am entirely aware this won't work since governments and people like you pass on this knowledge through blood lines to fear others because humans are out to get you.  I know since I live and grew up in probably the most redneck part of America (OH-KY-WV tri-state). Although this is true, it turns out this can be taught away but we neglect teaching this reality. Instead, we prefer to teach violence and major retaliation as the only option. It's a clever way to keep the world suffering from violence. Make them think it's the only option.

You sir, are clever at deceiving yourself. You are skilled at rhetoric and sophistry, but not like our politicians.  I vowed to be honest with myself and despite taking that vow I have struggled and made choices against it. But how do I know? I am honest with myself. Your bull shit is so stock piled you have gotten use to the smell and it actually turns you on.

I respect you the person and mean you no offense by calling out your horrendous ideas. I am no better than you as a human being, but your ideas are some of the worse cultural memes the world has ever invented. But since it fans your ego you waft your own farts and love it. Count me out, I'll stick to verifiable thought and solidarity with humanity's right to total liberty. But we must take it one step at a time since we have a Mtn Higher than Everest to climb. We may never reach the top but hope is necessary to wake in the morning for everyone


----------



## gnarlylove

"&#8220;This issue is hard to talk about. There&#8217;s so much stigma attached to hunger in America,&#8221; said Kathy Underhill, director of Hunger Free Colorado."

&#8220;Everyone has this archetype of who&#8217;s hungry in America and it&#8217;s usually the gentleman on the side of the street with the cardboard sign,&#8221; Underhill said. &#8220;And the truth is, you&#8217;re most likely to live in a hungry household in Colorado if you&#8217;re between the ages of 0 and 5. You&#8217;re most likely to be hungry if you&#8217;re an older adult or a single woman. So it&#8217;s incredibly important for folks to understand that hunger can impact anybody.&#8221;

Food stamp recipients document their lives in photos


----------



## Indeependent

gnarlylove said:


> Although I've stated I am a nobody, I see you can't accept the fact someone doesn't need to think of themselves as supreme rulers to identify BS from other people.
> 
> I see you may have connected the dots between guns and appalling. I'm sure it won't change you at all but I guess I'm not here for that. I want to offer the hope of creating a 100% free society instead of living in a world of fear. But I am entirely aware this won't work since governments and people like you pass on this knowledge through blood lines to fear others because humans are out to get you.  I know since I live and grew up in probably the most redneck part of America (OH-KY-WV tri-state). Although this is true, it turns out this can be taught away but we neglect teaching this reality. Instead, we prefer to teach violence and major retaliation as the only option. It's a clever way to keep the world suffering from violence. Make them think it's the only option.
> 
> You sir, are clever at deceiving yourself. You are skilled at rhetoric and sophistry, but not like our politicians.  I vowed to be honest with myself and despite taking that vow I have struggled and made choices against it. But how do I know? I am honest with myself. Your bull shit is so stock piled you have gotten use to the smell and it actually turns you on.
> 
> I respect you the person and mean you no offense by calling out your horrendous ideas. I am no better than you as a human being, but your ideas are some of the worse cultural memes the world has ever invented. But since it fans your ego you waft your own farts and love it. Count me out, I'll stick to verifiable thought and solidarity with humanity's right to total liberty. But we must take it one step at a time since we have a Mtn Higher than Everest to climb. We may never reach the top but hope is necessary to wake in the morning for everyone



Could you please use the QUOTE button.
I know you're conversing with Rott only because I'm here.
If I checked in after two days I wouldn't know to whom you are responding.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked what are the federal reserve banks.
> 
> Here's one of their web pages:
> FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK
> 
> Here's a map:
> Federal Reserve Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> I said, "The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate."
> 
> In response you said "[t]hat's not how the system works[,] [t]he way it works is banks take deposits and loan out a portion."  Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.  Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? Interest? ROFL  Deposits? ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You asked what are the federal reserve banks.
> 
> Here's one of their web pages:
> FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK*
> 
> The only federal reserve banks are the Federal Reserve Branches?
> What about the member banks, like the bank in my neighborhood?
> 
> *Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.*
> 
> So why would the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago need to borrow from the Fed?
> 
> *Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?*
> 
> Yup, that's what I say.
> 
> *Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? *
> 
> The Fed gets to create money out of thin air.
> It's what Central Banks do.
> 
> So just to be clear, the members of the "cartel" are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchanges? Is that your latest claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banks have Bank Branches.  Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.
> 
> I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.
> 
> You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. This is not as hard as you are making it.
> 
> Then you say "[t]he Fed gets to create money out of thin air[,] _t's what Central Banks do."
> 
> Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?
> 
> 
> Then you stated/asked, "just to be clear, the members of the cartel are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchange... Is that your latest claim?"
> 
> No. I did not make a claim as to whether fed bank branches are openly traded.  If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, and some of those banks are openly traded some are privately owned... so in effect the ownership is "once" removed, much like the mob is organized to keep the sins one level away from the leadership._
Click to expand...

_

*Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.*

Just trying to nail down your silly "cartel" claim.

*I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.  *

Because many banks are member banks of the Federal Reserve. 
A completely different thing than a Federal Reserve Branch.

*You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. *

Branches of the Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air, why would they need to borrow money from another Federal Reserve Branch bank?
*
Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?*

Finally? LOL!
When did I deny it?

*If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, *

Changed your story? LOL!
It's amazing what you can learn, with a little research.

Let me know if you can find out how much those "cartel members" are borrowing from the Fed.
You might be surprised._


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.*



No, that's how socialism works.

When you say "socialize the costs".... nothing else you say, changes the facts you just laid out.   You "socialized the cost".... period.    That's socialism.

You look at any socialized system around the world, the costs are socialized.    Privatizing the profits, doesn't change the fact that you socialized the costs.

And merely privatizing the profits, doesn't make it a "capitalist system".

Milton Friedman -  "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."

Now where in that statement by Milton Friedman do you see "socializing loss is capitalism"?     Of course you don't.  If you look up Ludwig von Mises, and the Austrian Economics, you won't find it there either.   If you read Adam Smith, you won't find it there either.   If you look up Friedrich Hayek, you won't find it.  If you read Thomas Sowell, you won't find it.

This is one of the keys of leftism.  You basically have to be a liar, to make up crap to support your beliefs.

Because no one on the right, no conservatives I know of, have ever supported or promoted the idea of socializing the loss.

Was it not the Conservative Caucus in the House, that proposed an alternative to the bailouts, that required zero tax dollars?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/americas/26iht-repubs.4.16518356.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Why... yes it was.     Compare that to the leftists who suppose that the bailout saved America from eminent doom, and yet attack Bush for doing it.


----------



## Andylusion

KNB said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains are not EARNED.  It's money made from having money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income.  If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At the very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work.  That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't EARNED like a real paycheck is EARNED, by actually doing something other than already being rich.
> 
> And why aren't the 1% putting their money back to work?
> Google Joins Apple Avoiding Taxes With Stateless Income - Bloomberg
> Global super-rich hide $21 trillion in tax havens - CNN.com
> The Real Problem With Offshore Tax Havens | TIME.com
> http://tjn-usa.org/storage/documents/The_Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_-_22-07-2012.pdf
> Piercing the secrecy of offshore tax havens - The Washington Post
> BBC News - Tax havens: Super-rich 'hiding' at least $21tn
> Offshore Tax Haven Money Could Save Us From the Fiscal Cliff | Mother Jones
> A money 'black hole': rich hide at least $21 trillion in tax havens, study shows - Business
> Super-Rich Hide $21 Trillion in Secret Tax Havens, Says Tax Justice Network - ABC News
> Tax havens: The missing $20 trillion | The Economist
> How Apple, Google And Microsoft Keep Profits Offshore To Avoid Taxes - Business Insider
Click to expand...


But, they are using their money to grow their companies, and that benefits millions of employees, and people around the world.

What would NOT be putting money back to work, is to allow the government to have it, which would be spent and consumed, and gone, wasted on bad government projects, and political pay backs to supporters.

Here's the question you should be asking.   Why do you support a tax system that rewards companies for investing outside the US?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's how socialism works.
> 
> When you say "socialize the costs".... nothing else you say, changes the facts you just laid out.   You "socialized the cost".... period.    That's socialism.
> 
> You look at any socialized system around the world, the costs are socialized.    Privatizing the profits, doesn't change the fact that you socialized the costs.
> 
> And merely privatizing the profits, doesn't make it a "capitalist system".
> 
> Milton Friedman -  "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."
> 
> Now where in that statement by Milton Friedman do you see "socializing loss is capitalism"?     Of course you don't.  If you look up Ludwig von Mises, and the Austrian Economics, you won't find it there either.   If you read Adam Smith, you won't find it there either.   If you look up Friedrich Hayek, you won't find it.  If you read Thomas Sowell, you won't find it.
> 
> This is one of the keys of leftism.  You basically have to be a liar, to make up crap to support your beliefs.
> 
> Because no one on the right, no conservatives I know of, have ever supported or promoted the idea of socializing the loss.
> 
> Was it not the Conservative Caucus in the House, that proposed an alternative to the bailouts, that required zero tax dollars?
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/americas/26iht-repubs.4.16518356.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> Why... yes it was.     Compare that to the leftists who suppose that the bailout saved America from eminent doom, and yet attack Bush for doing it.
Click to expand...

*I guess you've never heard of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital?*

"Mitt Romney touts his business acumen and job-creation record as a key qualification for being the next U.S. president.

"Whats clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors. 

"He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firms partners and investors. 

"When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain. 

*"Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses."*

Romney?s Bain Yielded Private Gains, Socialized Losses - Bloomberg

*Since Adam Smith lived at the time capitalism was in its infancy, he may never have used the phrase socializing cost and privatizing profit; however his Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others leads to the same logical conclusion.*

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You asked what are the federal reserve banks.
> 
> Here's one of their web pages:
> FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK*
> 
> The only federal reserve banks are the Federal Reserve Branches?
> What about the member banks, like the bank in my neighborhood?
> 
> *Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.*
> 
> So why would the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago need to borrow from the Fed?
> 
> *Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?*
> 
> Yup, that's what I say.
> 
> *Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? *
> 
> The Fed gets to create money out of thin air.
> It's what Central Banks do.
> 
> So just to be clear, the members of the "cartel" are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchanges? Is that your latest claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banks have Bank Branches.  Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.
> 
> I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.
> 
> You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. This is not as hard as you are making it.
> 
> Then you say "[t]he Fed gets to create money out of thin air[,] _t's what Central Banks do."
> 
> Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?
> 
> 
> Then you stated/asked, "just to be clear, the members of the cartel are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchange... Is that your latest claim?"
> 
> No. I did not make a claim as to whether fed bank branches are openly traded.  If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, and some of those banks are openly traded some are privately owned... so in effect the ownership is "once" removed, much like the mob is organized to keep the sins one level away from the leadership._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> *Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.*
> 
> Just trying to nail down your silly "cartel" claim.
> 
> *I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.  *
> 
> Because many banks are member banks of the Federal Reserve.
> A completely different thing than a Federal Reserve Branch.
> 
> *You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. *
> 
> Branches of the Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air, why would they need to borrow money from another Federal Reserve Branch bank?
> *
> Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?*
> 
> Finally? LOL!
> When did I deny it?
> 
> *If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, *
> 
> Changed your story? LOL!
> It's amazing what you can learn, with a little research.
> 
> Let me know if you can find out how much those "cartel members" are borrowing from the Fed.
> You might be surprised._
Click to expand...

_
I have not changed my story.  Your just a dumb ass._


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> *Since Adam Smith lived at the time capitalism was in its infancy, he may never have used the phrase socializing cost and privatizing profit; however his Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others leads to the same logical conclusion.*
> 
> Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)


The intro is fascinating:

"But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later [_Wealth of Nations]_, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."

He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality."

We don't live in perfect liberty. No body denies that. Hence I argued in order to achieve perfect liberty we need to essentially rid the world of violence/esp guns  (and private property) since these items are easily capable of encroaching on the needs of others. It sounds like what Smith is saying is markets can create the perfect balance of supply and demand that is based on what humans need, not what people with money want (which is what fills the stores). Marketing and stores have taken our freedom away by creating demands that were never in our heads when we were born.

Our markets have become totally corrupt for personal gain rather than creating a civilized society with liberty and justice for all.

But anyone read Smith's entire Wealth of Nations? I haven't and certainly didn't read the part about division of labor making humans ignorant. I guess it makes sense, the more specialized we become the less likely we are to think about well developed selves, that is to day develop the mind in its logical capacities and creative capacities as well as a well rounded body and routine. Too bad conservatives tend to stick to habit and tradition rather than being open to new experiences that can help round them out. So are conservatives what Smith was talking about when he said division of labor will make people ignorant (because of specialization)?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's how socialism works.
> 
> When you say "socialize the costs".... nothing else you say, changes the facts you just laid out.   You "socialized the cost".... period.    That's socialism.
> 
> You look at any socialized system around the world, the costs are socialized.    Privatizing the profits, doesn't change the fact that you socialized the costs.
> 
> And merely privatizing the profits, doesn't make it a "capitalist system".
> 
> Milton Friedman -  "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."
> 
> Now where in that statement by Milton Friedman do you see "socializing loss is capitalism"?     Of course you don't.  If you look up Ludwig von Mises, and the Austrian Economics, you won't find it there either.   If you read Adam Smith, you won't find it there either.   If you look up Friedrich Hayek, you won't find it.  If you read Thomas Sowell, you won't find it.
> 
> This is one of the keys of leftism.  You basically have to be a liar, to make up crap to support your beliefs.
> 
> Because no one on the right, no conservatives I know of, have ever supported or promoted the idea of socializing the loss.
> 
> Was it not the Conservative Caucus in the House, that proposed an alternative to the bailouts, that required zero tax dollars?
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/americas/26iht-repubs.4.16518356.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> Why... yes it was.     Compare that to the leftists who suppose that the bailout saved America from eminent doom, and yet attack Bush for doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I guess you've never heard of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney touts his business acumen and job-creation record as a key qualification for being the next U.S. president.
> 
> "What&#8217;s clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors.
> 
> "He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm&#8217;s partners and investors.
> 
> "When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain.
> 
> *"Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses."*
> 
> Romney?s Bain Yielded Private Gains, Socialized Losses - Bloomberg
> 
> *Since Adam Smith lived at the time capitalism was in its infancy, he may never have used the phrase socializing cost and privatizing profit; however his Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others leads to the same logical conclusion.*
> 
> Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)
Click to expand...


You lost the argument again.

How many times do I have to smack you around with your own inability to make an argument?

What does anything you posted have to do with the topic?    Does anything you say, have anything to do with what capitalism is?  Nope.   So what's the point?   The point is, you are completely incompetent at discussion on a forum.  I said this before, and I'll say it every time you fail at this.... if you have to change the topic in order to respond.... you lost the argument.   That's what suddenly changing topics means.   Leftist =  "I can't answer him, so now I'll bring up Romney and Bain Capital!  Dur!"






And Noam Chomsky?   You are quoting from a linguist?   You do know that Chomsky is a linguist, right?   Not an economist.    He doesn't know anything about the topic, and that mindlessly stupid quote you posted of his, proves his own ignorance, and the ignorance of those who follow him.    You don't typically see Chomsky quoted in Economic review, or The Economist magazine........  because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and most economists don't bother with him.   If you want to discuss languages, Chomsky is a brilliant scholar on the subject.   If you want to talk economics, Chomsky is a ignorant fool, who plays up to other ignorant fools.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's how socialism works.
> 
> When you say "socialize the costs".... nothing else you say, changes the facts you just laid out.   You "socialized the cost".... period.    That's socialism.
> 
> You look at any socialized system around the world, the costs are socialized.    Privatizing the profits, doesn't change the fact that you socialized the costs.
> 
> And merely privatizing the profits, doesn't make it a "capitalist system".
> 
> Milton Friedman -  "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."
> 
> Now where in that statement by Milton Friedman do you see "socializing loss is capitalism"?     Of course you don't.  If you look up Ludwig von Mises, and the Austrian Economics, you won't find it there either.   If you read Adam Smith, you won't find it there either.   If you look up Friedrich Hayek, you won't find it.  If you read Thomas Sowell, you won't find it.
> 
> This is one of the keys of leftism.  You basically have to be a liar, to make up crap to support your beliefs.
> 
> Because no one on the right, no conservatives I know of, have ever supported or promoted the idea of socializing the loss.
> 
> Was it not the Conservative Caucus in the House, that proposed an alternative to the bailouts, that required zero tax dollars?
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/americas/26iht-repubs.4.16518356.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> Why... yes it was.     Compare that to the leftists who suppose that the bailout saved America from eminent doom, and yet attack Bush for doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> *I guess you've never heard of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney touts his business acumen and job-creation record as a key qualification for being the next U.S. president.
> 
> "Whats clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors.
> 
> "He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firms partners and investors.
> 
> "When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain.
> 
> *"Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses."*
> 
> Romney?s Bain Yielded Private Gains, Socialized Losses - Bloomberg
> 
> *Since Adam Smith lived at the time capitalism was in its infancy, he may never have used the phrase socializing cost and privatizing profit; however his Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others leads to the same logical conclusion.*
> 
> Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost the argument again.
> 
> How many times do I have to smack you around with your own inability to make an argument?
> 
> What does anything you posted have to do with the topic?    Does anything you say, have anything to do with what capitalism is?  Nope.   So what's the point?   The point is, you are completely incompetent at discussion on a forum.  I said this before, and I'll say it every time you fail at this.... if you have to change the topic in order to respond.... you lost the argument.   That's what suddenly changing topics means.   Leftist =  "I can't answer him, so now I'll bring up Romney and Bain Capital!  Dur!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Noam Chomsky?   You are quoting from a linguist?   You do know that Chomsky is a linguist, right?   Not an economist.    He doesn't know anything about the topic, and that mindlessly stupid quote you posted of his, proves his own ignorance, and the ignorance of those who follow him.    You don't typically see Chomsky quoted in Economic review, or The Economist magazine........  because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and most economists don't bother with him.   If you want to discuss languages, Chomsky is a brilliant scholar on the subject.   If you want to talk economics, Chomsky is a ignorant fool, who plays up to other ignorant fools.
Click to expand...

*Chomsky has read Adam Smith's books numerous times.
How about you?
You probably don't read the Economist or the Economic Review so how would you know if Chomsky is quoted in those publications or not? Chomsky regularly reads the business press and is paid to offer his interpretations of their economic insights which makes it highly ironic, at least, that an insignificant bitch like you would be qualified to judge the opinions of one of the most astute observers of the political economy currently living.

BTW, you were the one who, stupidly, argued capitalism doesn't involve socializing loss while privatizing profit. I pointed out how capitalists always socialize loss as a way to enhancing private profit and pointed to Bain Capital as one of many examples.

Since you couldn't refute my claim you resorted to "you lost the argument again."
That's only compelling to another right-wing retard incapable of independent thought or existence. Maybe you should try a few college courses before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.*

"The Commonize CostsPrivatize Profits Game (or CCPP Game) is a concept developed by the ecologist Garrett Hardin to describe a 'game' (in the game theory sense) widely played in matters of resource allocation.[1] 

"The concept is a formalism of the closely related phenomenon known as the tragedy of the commons,[2] and is referred to in political discourse as "privatizing profits and socializing losses".

"Players of the CCPP Game aim to commonize the costs (or externalities) generated by their activities across the wider community, while privatizing all profits (financial or otherwise) to themselves."

CC?PP game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Since Adam Smith lived at the time capitalism was in its infancy, he may never have used the phrase socializing cost and privatizing profit; however his Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others leads to the same logical conclusion.*
> 
> Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)
> 
> 
> 
> The intro is fascinating:
> 
> "But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later [_Wealth of Nations]_, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."
> 
> He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality."
> 
> We don't live in perfect liberty. No body denies that. Hence I argued in order to achieve perfect liberty we need to essentially rid the world of violence/esp guns  (and private property) since these items are easily capable of encroaching on the needs of others. It sounds like what Smith is saying is markets can create the perfect balance of supply and demand that is based on what humans need, not what people with money want (which is what fills the stores). Marketing and stores have taken our freedom away by creating demands that were never in our heads when we were born.
> 
> Our markets have become totally corrupt for personal gain rather than creating a civilized society with liberty and justice for all.
> 
> But anyone read Smith's entire Wealth of Nations? I haven't and certainly didn't read the part about division of labor making humans ignorant. I guess it makes sense, the more specialized we become the less likely we are to think about well developed selves, that is to day develop the mind in its logical capacities and creative capacities as well as a well rounded body and routine. Too bad conservatives tend to stick to habit and tradition rather than being open to new experiences that can help round them out. So are conservatives what Smith was talking about when he said division of labor will make people ignorant (because of specialization)?
Click to expand...

*Full disclosure: I haven't read Smith extensively so I rely on experts who have.
I think Smith believed that division of labor taken to its economic extremes would render humanity as stupid and ignorant as it is possible to become.

He also seemed prescient about capitalism's penchant for producing rising inequality of condition and opportunity:*

"He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. 

"That's the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at. 

"It goes on and on. 

"He gave a devastating critique of what we would call North-South policies. 

"He was talking about England and India. 

"He bitterly condemned the British experiments they were carrying out which were devastating India.

"He also made remarks which ought to be truisms about the way states work. He pointed out that its totally senseless to talk about a nation and what we would nowadays call 'national interests.' 

"He simply observed in passing, because it's so obvious, that in England, which is what he's discussing -- and it was the most democratic society of the day -- the principal architects of policy are the 'merchants and manufacturers,' and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, 'most peculiarly attended to,' no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies. 

"He didn't have the data to prove it at the time, but he was probably right."

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

*Conservatives have always been knee-jerk supporters of the status quo (as long as Master tosses them a few scraps from the big table) so, maybe in that respect, they would be more susceptible to ignorance and stupidity.*


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I guess you've never heard of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital?*
> 
> "Mitt Romney touts his business acumen and job-creation record as a key qualification for being the next U.S. president.
> 
> "What&#8217;s clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors.
> 
> "He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm&#8217;s partners and investors.
> 
> "When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain.
> 
> *"Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses."*
> 
> Romney?s Bain Yielded Private Gains, Socialized Losses - Bloomberg
> 
> *Since Adam Smith lived at the time capitalism was in its infancy, he may never have used the phrase socializing cost and privatizing profit; however his Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others leads to the same logical conclusion.*
> 
> Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the argument again.
> 
> How many times do I have to smack you around with your own inability to make an argument?
> 
> What does anything you posted have to do with the topic?    Does anything you say, have anything to do with what capitalism is?  Nope.   So what's the point?   The point is, you are completely incompetent at discussion on a forum.  I said this before, and I'll say it every time you fail at this.... if you have to change the topic in order to respond.... you lost the argument.   That's what suddenly changing topics means.   Leftist =  "I can't answer him, so now I'll bring up Romney and Bain Capital!  Dur!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Noam Chomsky?   You are quoting from a linguist?   You do know that Chomsky is a linguist, right?   Not an economist.    He doesn't know anything about the topic, and that mindlessly stupid quote you posted of his, proves his own ignorance, and the ignorance of those who follow him.    You don't typically see Chomsky quoted in Economic review, or The Economist magazine........  because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and most economists don't bother with him.   If you want to discuss languages, Chomsky is a brilliant scholar on the subject.   If you want to talk economics, Chomsky is a ignorant fool, who plays up to other ignorant fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Chomsky has read Adam Smith's books numerous times.
> How about you?
> You probably don't read the Economist or the Economic Review so how would you know if Chomsky is quoted in those publications or not? Chomsky regularly reads the business press and is paid to offer his interpretations of their economic insights which makes it highly ironic, at least, that an insignificant bitch like you would be qualified to judge the opinions of one of the most astute observers of the political economy currently living.
> 
> BTW, you were the one who, stupidly, argued capitalism doesn't involve socializing loss while privatizing profit. I pointed out how capitalists always socialize loss as a way to enhancing private profit and pointed to Bain Capital as one of many examples.
> 
> Since you couldn't refute my claim you resorted to "you lost the argument again."
> That's only compelling to another right-wing retard incapable of independent thought or existence. Maybe you should try a few college courses before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.*
> 
> "The Commonize Costs&#8211;Privatize Profits Game (or CC&#8211;PP Game) is a concept developed by the ecologist Garrett Hardin to describe a 'game' (in the game theory sense) widely played in matters of resource allocation.[1]
> 
> "The concept is a formalism of the closely related phenomenon known as the tragedy of the commons,[2] and is referred to in political discourse as "privatizing profits and socializing losses".
> 
> "Players of the CC&#8211;PP Game aim to commonize the costs (or externalities) generated by their activities across the wider community, while privatizing all profits (financial or otherwise) to themselves."
> 
> CC?PP game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Yes of course.   Reading the book, doesn't mean that spewing idiotic drivel, because you are linguist, and not an economist, is suddenly intelligent, or a valid argument.

Chomsky is a linguist.   If you want to under stand languages, he's the guy to go to.  He's been trained in languages, done many scholarly works on languages, and is consider one of the top in that field.

I don't know a single economist off hand, that has bothered to comment much on Chomsky's economic spewage, because..... he's not an economist.    I've had a subscription to the Economist magazine for quite awhile.   I can't find a single article that had anything positive to say about chomsky.... or honestly much to say about him either way... >BECAUSE, HE IS NOT AN ECONOMIST<.

Why is that so hard for you leftists to grasp?   Oh right.... because.....






That's why.     You can't come up with an argument yourself, so you find some idiot that knows nothing about economics, and hang on his every word about the topic you know nothing about.

Lastly....

As far as The Commonize Costs&#8211;Privatize Profits Game.... yes of course.   Everyone, everywhere, tries to do this.   In socialized economies, they try and do this.   In capitalist economies they try and do this.   In every economy they try and do this.

That doesn't make this capitalism, anymore than murderers committing murder, are trying to make murder lawful.   That's the absolute stupidity of your argument.

Well they are trying to do that.... thus it must be what capitalism is.

Well they are trying to murder people, thus that must be what lawful protection of rights is.

Do you really not comprehend the stupidity of your position?   Does your position really make logical sense to you?

Again, everyone that has advocated Free-market Capitalism, not one of them has supported the idea of socializing the loss.   Milton Friedman said "Capitalism is a profit and loss system.   Profit encourages risk taking.  Loss encourages prudence."

Where in there, do you see "loss is socialized to avoid prudence"?   Oh... it's not there?     Shocking.   Maybe your claim of what capitalism is, is full of crap?     Just a thought.

You should try that whole "thinking" thing too.  Might do you some good, and stop you from quoting Linguists on economic issues.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the argument again.
> 
> How many times do I have to smack you around with your own inability to make an argument?
> 
> What does anything you posted have to do with the topic?    Does anything you say, have anything to do with what capitalism is?  Nope.   So what's the point?   The point is, you are completely incompetent at discussion on a forum.  I said this before, and I'll say it every time you fail at this.... if you have to change the topic in order to respond.... you lost the argument.   That's what suddenly changing topics means.   Leftist =  "I can't answer him, so now I'll bring up Romney and Bain Capital!  Dur!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Noam Chomsky?   You are quoting from a linguist?   You do know that Chomsky is a linguist, right?   Not an economist.    He doesn't know anything about the topic, and that mindlessly stupid quote you posted of his, proves his own ignorance, and the ignorance of those who follow him.    You don't typically see Chomsky quoted in Economic review, or The Economist magazine........  because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and most economists don't bother with him.   If you want to discuss languages, Chomsky is a brilliant scholar on the subject.   If you want to talk economics, Chomsky is a ignorant fool, who plays up to other ignorant fools.
> 
> 
> 
> *Chomsky has read Adam Smith's books numerous times.
> How about you?
> You probably don't read the Economist or the Economic Review so how would you know if Chomsky is quoted in those publications or not? Chomsky regularly reads the business press and is paid to offer his interpretations of their economic insights which makes it highly ironic, at least, that an insignificant bitch like you would be qualified to judge the opinions of one of the most astute observers of the political economy currently living.
> 
> BTW, you were the one who, stupidly, argued capitalism doesn't involve socializing loss while privatizing profit. I pointed out how capitalists always socialize loss as a way to enhancing private profit and pointed to Bain Capital as one of many examples.
> 
> Since you couldn't refute my claim you resorted to "you lost the argument again."
> That's only compelling to another right-wing retard incapable of independent thought or existence. Maybe you should try a few college courses before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.*
> 
> "The Commonize CostsPrivatize Profits Game (or CCPP Game) is a concept developed by the ecologist Garrett Hardin to describe a 'game' (in the game theory sense) widely played in matters of resource allocation.[1]
> 
> "The concept is a formalism of the closely related phenomenon known as the tragedy of the commons,[2] and is referred to in political discourse as "privatizing profits and socializing losses".
> 
> "Players of the CCPP Game aim to commonize the costs (or externalities) generated by their activities across the wider community, while privatizing all profits (financial or otherwise) to themselves."
> 
> CC?PP game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of course.   Reading the book, doesn't mean that spewing idiotic drivel, because you are linguist, and not an economist, is suddenly intelligent, or a valid argument.
> 
> Chomsky is a linguist.   If you want to under stand languages, he's the guy to go to.  He's been trained in languages, done many scholarly works on languages, and is consider one of the top in that field.
> 
> I don't know a single economist off hand, that has bothered to comment much on Chomsky's economic spewage, because..... he's not an economist.    I've had a subscription to the Economist magazine for quite awhile.   I can't find a single article that had anything positive to say about chomsky.... or honestly much to say about him either way... >BECAUSE MORON, HE IS NOT AN ECONOMIST<.
> 
> Why is that so hard for you leftists to grasp?   Oh right.... because.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why.     You can't come up with an argument yourself, so you find some idiot that knows nothing about economics, and hang on his every word about the topic you know nothing about.
> 
> Lastly....
> 
> As far as The Commonize CostsPrivatize Profits Game.... yes of course.   Everyone, everywhere, tries to do this.   In socialized economies, they try and do this.   In capitalist economies they try and do this.   In every economy they try and do this.
> 
> That doesn't make this capitalism, anymore than murderers committing murder, are trying to make murder lawful.   That's the absolute stupidity of your argument.
> 
> Well they are trying to do that.... thus it must be what capitalism is.
> 
> Well they are trying to murder people, thus that must be what lawful protection of rights is.
> 
> Do you really not comprehend the stupidity of your position?   Does your position really make logical sense to you?
> 
> Again, everyone that has advocated Free-market Capitalism, not one of them has supported the idea of socializing the loss.   Milton Friedman said "Capitalism is a profit and loss system.   Profit encourages risk taking.  Loss encourages prudence."
> 
> Where in there, do you see "loss is socialized to avoid prudence"?   Oh... it's not there?     Shocking.   Maybe your claim of what capitalism is, is full of crap?     Just a thought.
> 
> You should try that whole "thinking" thing too.  Might do you some good, and stop you from quoting Linguists on economic issues.
Click to expand...


One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.


----------



## KevinWestern

Bombur said:


> One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.



I wouldn't exactly say that. When a company tests their product on children, and dumps toxic waste into the environment, so long as the population is informed there's a pretty good chance people are going to say "no" and instead buy from the company who's practicing business in a more responsible manner. That's the check that the free market provides: choice. 

See here's the thing. In order for Capitalism to work we need to have (A) a well educated, well informed society, and (B) regulations that are sensible but DON'T work against small businesses who are trying to enter the market (and compete against the companies doing the bad things). 

Right now I think we are not very well educated (as a whole) and I think we have a lot of legislation that was designed by lobbyists to keep out the other players. At the very least we should start there..


----------



## RKMBrown

KevinWestern said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't exactly say that. When a company tests their product on children, and dumps toxic waste into the environment, so long as the population is informed there's a pretty good chance people are going to say "no" and instead buy from the company who's practicing business in a more responsible manner. That's the check that the free market provides: choice.
> 
> See here's the thing. In order for Capitalism to work we need to have (A) a well educated, well informed society, and (B) regulations that are sensible but DON'T work against small businesses who are trying to enter the market (and compete against the companies doing the bad things).
> 
> Right now I think we are not very well educated (as a whole) and I think we have a lot of legislation that was designed by lobbyists to keep out the other players. At the very least we should start there..
Click to expand...

I love clams.. but I refuse to buy clams shipped from china.  Anyone know why all the clam sold these days are from china? Cause it's been a good year since I've seen anything from LA or what not.  I figured they would be back and running its been years since the gulf spill.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.



That's a matter of opinion.   I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice.   I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banks have Bank Branches.  Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.
> 
> I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.
> 
> You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. This is not as hard as you are making it.
> 
> Then you say "[t]he Fed gets to create money out of thin air[,] _t's what Central Banks do."
> 
> Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?
> 
> 
> Then you stated/asked, "just to be clear, the members of the cartel are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchange... Is that your latest claim?"
> 
> No. I did not make a claim as to whether fed bank branches are openly traded.  If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, and some of those banks are openly traded some are privately owned... so in effect the ownership is "once" removed, much like the mob is organized to keep the sins one level away from the leadership._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> *Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.*
> 
> Just trying to nail down your silly "cartel" claim.
> 
> *I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.  *
> 
> Because many banks are member banks of the Federal Reserve.
> A completely different thing than a Federal Reserve Branch.
> 
> *You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. *
> 
> Branches of the Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air, why would they need to borrow money from another Federal Reserve Branch bank?
> *
> Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?*
> 
> Finally? LOL!
> When did I deny it?
> 
> *If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, *
> 
> Changed your story? LOL!
> It's amazing what you can learn, with a little research.
> 
> Let me know if you can find out how much those "cartel members" are borrowing from the Fed.
> You might be surprised._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> I have not changed my story.  Your just a dumb ass._
Click to expand...

_

Tell me again about "cartel members" borrowing from the Fed.
Always funny.
Did you find out how much they're borrowing?
Let me know._


----------



## Andylusion

KevinWestern said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't exactly say that. When a company tests their product on children, and dumps toxic waste into the environment, so long as the population is informed there's a pretty good chance people are going to say "no" and instead buy from the company who's practicing business in a more responsible manner. That's the check that the free market provides: choice.
> 
> See here's the thing. In order for Capitalism to work we need to have (A) a well educated, well informed society, and (B) regulations that are sensible but DON'T work against small businesses who are trying to enter the market (and compete against the companies doing the bad things).
> 
> Right now I think we are not very well educated (as a whole) and I think we have a lot of legislation that was designed by lobbyists to keep out the other players. At the very least we should start there..
Click to expand...


The problem there is, ALL regulation inherently benefits large corporations, at the expense of smaller corporations.

It's inherent.   I can't think of a time in which regulation didn't benefit the large corporations at the expense have smaller ones.

If you think about it logically, every possible regulation is going to cost any applicable business some money.   At least a little.    Well no matter how little, or how much, which business, a small company with $100K yearly revenue, or a big company with multiple billions, which is it going to hurt more?     Obviously, a big billion dollar company is going to be more able to pay for any regulation, while a small company will be less able.

All regulations, all of them, inherently benefit the big companies.

I remember when they first started selling off spectrum for Cell Phone use.   AT&T, went to the FCC and was arguing that they shouldn't have to pay to buy spectrum in each individual market.

But then, as AT&T starting buying up existing small companies that couldn't compete, and in doing so gained a nation wide coverage area, they immedately went right back to the FCC, and argued that companies should have to buy spectrum in each individual market.....  because they knew that keeps out competition.   Small companies don't have the resources to buy spectrum in every individual market.    The regulations inherently benefit AT&T and the national carriers by keeping out small upstarts.

The same thing happened in the 1970s.   Before the 1970s, all the car companies were worried about the effects of regulations on the auto industry.   Instead, after the heavy regulations of the late 1970s, instead of dozens of independent car companies... Jeep, Studebaker, AMC, and dozens of others....  by the mid-80s, there were three.  GM, Chrysler, Ford.

This is why today when government signs big regulations on the auto industry, instead of cries and wailing from the auto companies, they practically endorse it.






This is Obama at the signing of the Auto regulations.   He's shaking hands with the CEO of Ford.

Do those CEO look worried to you at the new regulations?  Of course not.  Those regulations will kill off upstart companies, not the big three which have billions to pay for those regulations.

And every regulation has the same effect.  It's unavoidable.

BTW, this is why I've always said that Leftists, whether intentionally or not, are in fact the biggest contributors to the wealth of the rich.   Every time they attempt to "regulate" the markets, the result is they make the rich, even richer.


----------



## Bombur

KevinWestern said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't exactly say that. When a company tests their product on children, and dumps toxic waste into the environment, so long as the population is informed there's a pretty good chance people are going to say "no" and instead buy from the company who's practicing business in a more responsible manner. That's the check that the free market provides: choice.
> 
> See here's the thing. In order for Capitalism to work we need to have (A) a well educated, well informed society, and (B) regulations that are sensible but DON'T work against small businesses who are trying to enter the market (and compete against the companies doing the bad things).
> 
> Right now I think we are not very well educated (as a whole) and I think we have a lot of legislation that was designed by lobbyists to keep out the other players. At the very least we should start there..
Click to expand...


It is a social cost. By definition it is a cost born by society and not necessarily the people engaging in the transaction.

Try again?


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.   I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice.   I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.
Click to expand...


You might as well not believe in air. Having a lot of friends that don't believe in air doesn't mean air doesn't exist.


----------



## Londoner

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's how socialism works.
> 
> Milton Friedman -  "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."
Click to expand...


George is talking about capitalism _in practice_. You're talking about capitalism _in theory._ George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns. 

In practice, Modern American capitalism has always had varying levels of state intervention, much of it begged for by some of the same corporations that fund Libertarian think tanks. Take the Patent system for instance, where the nanny state protects the research investments of corporations. Or consider how dependent global capitalism is upon military intervention, e.g., stabilizing the middle east in order to ensure reliable delivery of energy. Or what about the state supplied legal system, which protects property and financial transactions? Or the FDIC insurance which puts more money into the banking system, where it is turned into fuel on both the demand and supply side. And let's not even talk about industrial and commercial infrastructure or subsidies, which have been a part of American capitalism since nearly the beginning.

Marx predicted that the final phase of capitalism would be monopoly capitalism. This is where the most powerful market players purchase the political machinery of the state and use that political power to consolidate control over the domestic economy (forming a rentier class where once there was competition). Smith was also very worried about this outcome. You should actually study him. His contempt for monopolies is under-reported, not least because he sounds a little too much like Marx.

In the meantime, keep riding the unicorn.


----------



## dblack

Londoner said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's how socialism works.
> 
> Milton Friedman -  "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George is talking about capitalism _in practice_. You're talking about capitalism _in theory._ George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns.
Click to expand...


But wouldn't you agree it's important to know what we desire? If we can't find some consensus on the ideal, how can we ever move the reality toward it?


----------



## dblack

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.   I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice.   I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.
Click to expand...


I can understand the concept of 'social cost'. But where I disagree is the notion that government is the proper tool for managing that cost. We build the kind of society we want communally, voluntarily, by our individual decisions informed by our individual values. Government should only step in when we cross a line, namely when we can't resolve disputes peacefully. Otherwise, in my view, the most organic, civilized, way to solve our problems and build the kind of society we want is through voluntary interactions, not authoritarian mandate.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.   I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice.   I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can understand the concept of 'social cost'. But where I disagree is the notion that government is the proper tool for managing that cost. We build the kind of society we want communally, voluntarily, by our individual decisions informed by our individual values. Government should only step in when we cross a line, namely when we can't resolve disputes peacefully. Otherwise, in my view, the most organic, civilized, way to solve our problems and build the kind of society we want is through voluntary interactions, not authoritarian mandate.
Click to expand...


Both social costs and social benefits are not recognized completely in market interactions. The cost or benefit is often spread out and markets are horrible at taking into account both these costs and benefits.

Public education, investments in infrastructure, the FDA, OSHA, EPA, banking regulations, Police, Fire, etc have all been ways the US has tried to recognize a social benefit or cost. 

I honestly don't understand the view that the markets can recognize these social costs in an efficient manner.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's how socialism works.
> 
> Milton Friedman -  "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George is talking about capitalism _in practice_. You're talking about capitalism _in theory._ George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But wouldn't you agree it's important to know what we desire? If we can't find some consensus on the ideal, how can we ever move the reality toward it?
Click to expand...


It's even more important to understand what conditions must exist in order for X to be desirable. Hence, free markets only exist with perfect liberty which match supply and demand/the needs of the public. And we are way far off that track. We are no where near perfect liberty, and its dubious such a society can exist anyway. 

Markets have become tools by the wealthy to get richer and so we see ever increasing conglomerations and lobbyists asking for de-regulation or gutting regulatory laws. Markets have been transformed from meeting needs of society to meeting the desires of the affluent--providing extreme excess to those with money to burn. And providing cheap, easily broken products for the poor so it reinforces cyclical consumption--perpetual buying. Believe me, it's a major scheme, for example some companies added salt to bottled water years back and we all know Walmart to IKEA make shoddy products because it keeps a profit rolling and the consumer continually spending (who's most likely already in debt--so they make minimum payments on the principal and the bankers are happy).

No one cares about the cost to the environment of this "throw away society" because economics says the environment is an externalized cost--you can forget about it in other words--like it is inessential to our system! How nuts! No wonder we can't create a semblance of mild equality and real freedom. You need to be without debt and above normal society to have freedom in the sense that we all hope we have. The law is out to get us, not the most affluent in society. Bernie Madoff is in prison because he stole from them, not the pensions of the poor which is open season at the end of each Q.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> George is talking about capitalism _in practice_. You're talking about capitalism _in theory._ George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But wouldn't you agree it's important to know what we desire? If we can't find some consensus on the ideal, how can we ever move the reality toward it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's even more important to understand what conditions must exist in order for X to be desirable. Hence, free markets only exist with perfect liberty which match supply and demand/the needs of the public. And we are way far off that track. We are no where near perfect liberty, and its dubious such a society can exist anyway.
Click to expand...


Of course it can't. All you're really saying here is perfection can't be achieved. A perfect socialist state will never be achieved either. So what? My point is that if we can't agree on the ideal, we can't determine which way to proceed.


----------



## gnarlylove

Bombur said:


> I honestly don't understand the view that the markets can recognize these social costs in an efficient manner.



Well said. I think it's impossible for the current system to weigh social costs. Economics does not take these costs (and natural capital which is a part of social costs) into consideration. It would be damaging to quarterly profits to do so.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.   I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice.   I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand the concept of 'social cost'. But where I disagree is the notion that government is the proper tool for managing that cost. We build the kind of society we want communally, voluntarily, by our individual decisions informed by our individual values. Government should only step in when we cross a line, namely when we can't resolve disputes peacefully. Otherwise, in my view, the most organic, civilized, way to solve our problems and build the kind of society we want is through voluntary interactions, not authoritarian mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both social costs and social benefits are not recognized completely in market interactions. The cost or benefit is often spread out and markets are horrible at taking into account both these costs and benefits.
Click to expand...


Markets aren't supposed to take those costs into account. Not directly, in any case. This is why i'm trying to emphasize that markets are just one aspect of social interaction. Critics of capitalism are responding to ridiculous claims by advocates that free market economics can solve all our problems. And they're right to call bullshit on such religiosity. But by the same token, it's ridiculous to condemn freedom because it, alone, won't solve all our problems.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.   I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice.   I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.
Click to expand...

*What part of "justice" does this fall under?*

"As West Virginians were learning Thursday of a devastating chemical spill in the Elk River that has rendered water undrinkable for 300,000 people, the US House of Representatives was busy gutting federal hazardous-waste cleanup law.

The House passed the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act that would ultimately eliminate requirements for the Environmental Protection Agency to review and update hazardous-waste disposal regulations in a timely manner, and make it more difficult for the government to compel companies that deal with toxic substances to carry proper insurance for cleanups, *pushing the cost on to taxpayers."*

*The part where corporations privatize their coal-related profits while socializing their cleanup costs on the backs of taxpayers?*

US House passed bill ravaging toxic-waste law - on same day as W. Virginia chemical spill ? RT USA


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> But wouldn't you agree it's important to know what we desire? If we can't find some consensus on the ideal, how can we ever move the reality toward it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's even more important to understand what conditions must exist in order for X to be desirable. Hence, free markets only exist with perfect liberty which match supply and demand/the needs of the public. And we are way far off that track. We are no where near perfect liberty, and its dubious such a society can exist anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it can't. All you're really saying here is perfection can't be achieved. A perfect socialist state will never be achieved either. So what? My point is that if we can't agree on the ideal, we can't determine which way to proceed.
Click to expand...


I didn't say it can't be achieved. I said it was dubious; to make the point we need to be aware that we don't live there. If we better educated people and spent more time considering the needs of society instead of wants of the affluent we might develop a better society that can achieve far more.

Instead, millions think we live in a capitalist system that will continue providing the world better and better life but the precise opposite is happening. People have been displaced and struggling all over the globe and capitalism is part of the problem. Too few people are getting needs met so they must turn to other violent sources or simply die.

So dblack, together we can set capitalism down from its peddle stool instead of making it our aim. Instead, we must first achieve those conditions. What are they? I suspect it would take more than a few policy changes to get us one iota closer to those conditions.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.*
> 
> Just trying to nail down your silly "cartel" claim.
> 
> *I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.  *
> 
> Because many banks are member banks of the Federal Reserve.
> A completely different thing than a Federal Reserve Branch.
> 
> *You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. *
> 
> Branches of the Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air, why would they need to borrow money from another Federal Reserve Branch bank?
> *
> Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?*
> 
> Finally? LOL!
> When did I deny it?
> 
> *If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, *
> 
> Changed your story? LOL!
> It's amazing what you can learn, with a little research.
> 
> Let me know if you can find out how much those "cartel members" are borrowing from the Fed.
> You might be surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.  Your just a dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me again about "cartel members" borrowing from the Fed.
> Always funny.
> Did you find out how much they're borrowing?
> Let me know.
Click to expand...


That's right dumb ass, just keep thinking that fed discount windows are just a figment of my imagination.  What a POS dumb ass retard you are.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's even more important to understand what conditions must exist in order for X to be desirable. Hence, free markets only exist with perfect liberty which match supply and demand/the needs of the public. And we are way far off that track. We are no where near perfect liberty, and its dubious such a society can exist anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can't. All you're really saying here is perfection can't be achieved. A perfect socialist state will never be achieved either. So what? My point is that if we can't agree on the ideal, we can't determine which way to proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it can't be achieved.
Click to expand...


Well, I am. Perfect markets will never exist. Perfect state socialism will never exist. Once we accept that perfection isn't an option, the question is what should we strive for? I advocate for free markets because I value free, voluntary society. I consider the most fundamental immoral act to be indulging the urge to force your will on others. To pick up a club and attack someone because they won't do what you want.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost the argument again.
> 
> How many times do I have to smack you around with your own inability to make an argument?
> 
> What does anything you posted have to do with the topic?    Does anything you say, have anything to do with what capitalism is?  Nope.   So what's the point?   The point is, you are completely incompetent at discussion on a forum.  I said this before, and I'll say it every time you fail at this.... if you have to change the topic in order to respond.... you lost the argument.   That's what suddenly changing topics means.   Leftist =  "I can't answer him, so now I'll bring up Romney and Bain Capital!  Dur!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Noam Chomsky?   You are quoting from a linguist?   You do know that Chomsky is a linguist, right?   Not an economist.    He doesn't know anything about the topic, and that mindlessly stupid quote you posted of his, proves his own ignorance, and the ignorance of those who follow him.    You don't typically see Chomsky quoted in Economic review, or The Economist magazine........  because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and most economists don't bother with him.   If you want to discuss languages, Chomsky is a brilliant scholar on the subject.   If you want to talk economics, Chomsky is a ignorant fool, who plays up to other ignorant fools.
> 
> 
> 
> *Chomsky has read Adam Smith's books numerous times.
> How about you?
> You probably don't read the Economist or the Economic Review so how would you know if Chomsky is quoted in those publications or not? Chomsky regularly reads the business press and is paid to offer his interpretations of their economic insights which makes it highly ironic, at least, that an insignificant bitch like you would be qualified to judge the opinions of one of the most astute observers of the political economy currently living.
> 
> BTW, you were the one who, stupidly, argued capitalism doesn't involve socializing loss while privatizing profit. I pointed out how capitalists always socialize loss as a way to enhancing private profit and pointed to Bain Capital as one of many examples.
> 
> Since you couldn't refute my claim you resorted to "you lost the argument again."
> That's only compelling to another right-wing retard incapable of independent thought or existence. Maybe you should try a few college courses before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.*
> 
> "The Commonize CostsPrivatize Profits Game (or CCPP Game) is a concept developed by the ecologist Garrett Hardin to describe a 'game' (in the game theory sense) widely played in matters of resource allocation.[1]
> 
> "The concept is a formalism of the closely related phenomenon known as the tragedy of the commons,[2] and is referred to in political discourse as "privatizing profits and socializing losses".
> 
> "Players of the CCPP Game aim to commonize the costs (or externalities) generated by their activities across the wider community, while privatizing all profits (financial or otherwise) to themselves."
> 
> CC?PP game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes of course.   Reading the book, doesn't mean that spewing idiotic drivel, because you are linguist, and not an economist, is suddenly intelligent, or a valid argument.
> 
> Chomsky is a linguist.   If you want to under stand languages, he's the guy to go to.  He's been trained in languages, done many scholarly works on languages, and is consider one of the top in that field.
> 
> I don't know a single economist off hand, that has bothered to comment much on Chomsky's economic spewage, because..... he's not an economist.    I've had a subscription to the Economist magazine for quite awhile.   I can't find a single article that had anything positive to say about chomsky.... or honestly much to say about him either way... >BECAUSE, HE IS NOT AN ECONOMIST<.
> 
> Why is that so hard for you leftists to grasp?   Oh right.... because.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why.     You can't come up with an argument yourself, so you find some idiot that knows nothing about economics, and hang on his every word about the topic you know nothing about.
> 
> Lastly....
> 
> As far as The Commonize CostsPrivatize Profits Game.... yes of course.   Everyone, everywhere, tries to do this.   In socialized economies, they try and do this.   In capitalist economies they try and do this.   In every economy they try and do this.
> 
> That doesn't make this capitalism, anymore than murderers committing murder, are trying to make murder lawful.   That's the absolute stupidity of your argument.
> 
> Well they are trying to do that.... thus it must be what capitalism is.
> 
> Well they are trying to murder people, thus that must be what lawful protection of rights is.
> 
> Do you really not comprehend the stupidity of your position?   Does your position really make logical sense to you?
> 
> Again, everyone that has advocated Free-market Capitalism, not one of them has supported the idea of socializing the loss.   Milton Friedman said "Capitalism is a profit and loss system.   Profit encourages risk taking.  Loss encourages prudence."
> 
> Where in there, do you see "loss is socialized to avoid prudence"?   Oh... it's not there?     Shocking.   Maybe your claim of what capitalism is, is full of crap?     Just a thought.
> 
> You should try that whole "thinking" thing too.  Might do you some good, and stop you from quoting Linguists on economic issues.
Click to expand...

Chomsky and Smith are/were moral philosophers concerned with the unequal distribution of wealth and political privilege; Milton Friedman was a corporate tool. 

Chomsky and Smith define "free markets" as those exchanges free of undue rentier influence. In Smith's day those inflicting undue influence upon markets were largely hereditary elites like those responsible for creating the East India Corporation; in Chomsky's day, multi-national corporations and FIRE sector elites are those he warns against gaining undue market or political influence. 

"Friedman, by comparison, wanted markets free of any democratic regulation which is exactly what he got in Chile on September 11, 1973

When Milton Friedman's economic policy advice to Chilean conservatives led to the overthrow of a democratically elected president in 1973, profits were privatized and the losses were socialized at expense of one person; one vote. 

Which is another of those social costs that capitalism regularly inflicts on society that you have a hard time wrapping your propaganda-filled mind around.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not changed my story.  Your just a dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me again about "cartel members" borrowing from the Fed.
> Always funny.
> Did you find out how much they're borrowing?
> Let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right dumb ass, just keep thinking that fed discount windows are just a figment of my imagination.  What a POS dumb ass retard you are.
Click to expand...


Tell me, dumb ass, how much are these "cartel members" (love that silly phrase) currently borrowing from the Fed Discount Window?

Don't worry, I won't think any less of you when you post the answer.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Well, I am. Perfect markets will never exist. Perfect state socialism will never exist. Once we accept that perfection isn't an option, the question is what should we strive for? I advocate for free markets because I value free, voluntary society. I consider the most fundamental immoral act to be indulging the urge to force your will on others. To pick up a club and attack someone because they won't do what you want.



I was pointing out you misread my statement. Of course absolute perfection cannot exist, and we don't even have an idea what that is with our finite minds. But humans are capable of doing much much better than we are today.

When you say free markets it sounds like you are defining that as freedom itself. That "free markets" create a free society. This is language fraud. Don't be mistaken by the word free in free markets. We don't live in a free market system and if we did, human greed would bring it crashing down to where we are today, which is no free market.

Until we can teach people to live freely entails responsibility and this responsibility enables others to maintain freedom. It cannot work any other way. As long as greed exists to exploit the dispensable workers these people are not free in the way others outside of wage slavery are free. Especially not like the top 2%. What is so disgusting about creating a free society for all? Free markets will centralize greed and wealth and even regulated markets centralize greed and power.

Your variety of freedom sounds like its synonymous with free markets. Well, if you define free markets as freedom there is no way around your tautological conclusion. But free markets do not imply free society. It seems as long as greed exists, the desire of wanting beyond what is sustainable for the rest of the planet to meet their needs, then markets will continue to lessen the freedom of those at the bottom by making them utterly dependent on cheap goods implying cheaper labor.

Do you want a free society for some or do you think we should have freedom for all? You have the cart before the horse. Free markets are not going to create our free society. But I'm assuming you want a free society for nearly all people, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Chomsky has read Adam Smith's books numerous times.
> How about you?
> You probably don't read the Economist or the Economic Review so how would you know if Chomsky is quoted in those publications or not? Chomsky regularly reads the business press and is paid to offer his interpretations of their economic insights which makes it highly ironic, at least, that an insignificant bitch like you would be qualified to judge the opinions of one of the most astute observers of the political economy currently living.
> 
> BTW, you were the one who, stupidly, argued capitalism doesn't involve socializing loss while privatizing profit. I pointed out how capitalists always socialize loss as a way to enhancing private profit and pointed to Bain Capital as one of many examples.
> 
> Since you couldn't refute my claim you resorted to "you lost the argument again."
> That's only compelling to another right-wing retard incapable of independent thought or existence. Maybe you should try a few college courses before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.*
> 
> "The Commonize CostsPrivatize Profits Game (or CCPP Game) is a concept developed by the ecologist Garrett Hardin to describe a 'game' (in the game theory sense) widely played in matters of resource allocation.[1]
> 
> "The concept is a formalism of the closely related phenomenon known as the tragedy of the commons,[2] and is referred to in political discourse as "privatizing profits and socializing losses".
> 
> "Players of the CCPP Game aim to commonize the costs (or externalities) generated by their activities across the wider community, while privatizing all profits (financial or otherwise) to themselves."
> 
> CC?PP game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course.   Reading the book, doesn't mean that spewing idiotic drivel, because you are linguist, and not an economist, is suddenly intelligent, or a valid argument.
> 
> Chomsky is a linguist.   If you want to under stand languages, he's the guy to go to.  He's been trained in languages, done many scholarly works on languages, and is consider one of the top in that field.
> 
> I don't know a single economist off hand, that has bothered to comment much on Chomsky's economic spewage, because..... he's not an economist.    I've had a subscription to the Economist magazine for quite awhile.   I can't find a single article that had anything positive to say about chomsky.... or honestly much to say about him either way... >BECAUSE, HE IS NOT AN ECONOMIST<.
> 
> Why is that so hard for you leftists to grasp?   Oh right.... because.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why.     You can't come up with an argument yourself, so you find some idiot that knows nothing about economics, and hang on his every word about the topic you know nothing about.
> 
> Lastly....
> 
> As far as The Commonize CostsPrivatize Profits Game.... yes of course.   Everyone, everywhere, tries to do this.   In socialized economies, they try and do this.   In capitalist economies they try and do this.   In every economy they try and do this.
> 
> That doesn't make this capitalism, anymore than murderers committing murder, are trying to make murder lawful.   That's the absolute stupidity of your argument.
> 
> Well they are trying to do that.... thus it must be what capitalism is.
> 
> Well they are trying to murder people, thus that must be what lawful protection of rights is.
> 
> Do you really not comprehend the stupidity of your position?   Does your position really make logical sense to you?
> 
> Again, everyone that has advocated Free-market Capitalism, not one of them has supported the idea of socializing the loss.   Milton Friedman said "Capitalism is a profit and loss system.   Profit encourages risk taking.  Loss encourages prudence."
> 
> Where in there, do you see "loss is socialized to avoid prudence"?   Oh... it's not there?     Shocking.   Maybe your claim of what capitalism is, is full of crap?     Just a thought.
> 
> You should try that whole "thinking" thing too.  Might do you some good, and stop you from quoting Linguists on economic issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chomsky and Smith are/were moral philosophers concerned with the unequal distribution of wealth and political privilege; Milton Friedman was a corporate tool.
> 
> Chomsky and Smith define "free markets" as those exchanges free of undue rentier influence. In Smith's day those inflicting undue influence upon markets were largely hereditary elites like those responsible for creating the East India Corporation; in Chomsky's day, multi-national corporations and FIRE sector elites are those he warns against gaining undue market or political influence.
> 
> "Friedman, by comparison, wanted markets free of any democratic regulation which is exactly what he got in Chile on September 11, 1973
> 
> When Milton Friedman's economic policy advice to Chilean conservatives led to the overthrow of a democratically elected president in 1973, profits were privatized and the losses were socialized at expense of one person; one vote.
> 
> Which is another of those social costs that capitalism regularly inflicts on society that you have a hard time wrapping your propaganda-filled mind around.
Click to expand...


Still whining about Allende? LOL!
Who is better off today, the people of Chile or the people of Cuba?


----------



## KNB

When do record corporate profits trickle down?


----------



## georgephillip

Londoner said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's how socialism works.
> 
> Milton Friedman -  "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George is talking about capitalism _in practice_. You're talking about capitalism _in theory._ George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns.
> 
> In practice, Modern American capitalism has always had varying levels of state intervention, much of it begged for by some of the same corporations that fund Libertarian think tanks. Take the Patent system for instance, where the nanny state protects the research investments of corporations. Or consider how dependent global capitalism is upon military intervention, e.g., stabilizing the middle east in order to ensure reliable delivery of energy. Or what about the state supplied legal system, which protects property and financial transactions? Or the FDIC insurance which puts more money into the banking system, where it is turned into fuel on both the demand and supply side. And let's not even talk about industrial and commercial infrastructure or subsidies, which have been a part of American capitalism since nearly the beginning.
> 
> Marx predicted that the final phase of capitalism would be monopoly capitalism. This is where the most powerful market players purchase the political machinery of the state and use that political power to consolidate control over the domestic economy (forming a rentier class where once there was competition). Smith was also very worried about this outcome. You should actually study him. His contempt for monopolies is under-reported, not least because he sounds a little too much like Marx.
> 
> In the meantime, keep riding the unicorn.
Click to expand...

*Chomsky and Smith and that "Invisible Hand"*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4viRUBGFyLo]Noam Chomsky "Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand" - YouTube[/ame]

*Modern Economists distort Smith's invisible hand in defense of neo-liberal economic policy when what Smith had in mind was the exact opposite of today's privatize the profits and socialize the costs mantra practiced by all good crony-capitalists.*


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand the concept of 'social cost'. But where I disagree is the notion that government is the proper tool for managing that cost. We build the kind of society we want communally, voluntarily, by our individual decisions informed by our individual values. Government should only step in when we cross a line, namely when we can't resolve disputes peacefully. Otherwise, in my view, the most organic, civilized, way to solve our problems and build the kind of society we want is through voluntary interactions, not authoritarian mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both social costs and social benefits are not recognized completely in market interactions. The cost or benefit is often spread out and markets are horrible at taking into account both these costs and benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Markets aren't supposed to take those costs into account. Not directly, in any case. This is why i'm trying to emphasize that markets are just one aspect of social interaction. Critics of capitalism are responding to ridiculous claims by advocates that free market economics can solve all our problems. And they're right to call bullshit on such religiosity. But by the same token, it's ridiculous to condemn freedom because it, alone, won't solve all our problems.
Click to expand...


I am not condemning freedom. That is gross hyperbole. 

Government is far from perfect but it is still the best option we have for dealing with these issues. There is really no evidence to the contrary.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> When you say free markets it sounds like you are defining that as freedom itself.


Very nearly, yeah. Not as a tautology, but there is a deep dependency. Without economic freedom, all other freedoms (speech, religion, association, etc...) are moot. If the state controls your bank account, if they control how you earn a living and how you spend your money, they control you pretty much completely.


> Do you want a free society for some or do you think we should have freedom for all? You have the cart before the horse. Free markets are not going to create our free society. But I'm assuming you want a free society for nearly all people, right?



Equal protection is essential to freedom. But I suspect you're talking about empowerment rather than freedom. They're not the same thing.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say free markets it sounds like you are defining that as freedom itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Very nearly, yeah. Not as a tautology, but there is a deep dependency. Without economic freedom, all other freedoms (speech, religion, association, etc...) are moot.
Click to expand...


Can you describe economic freedom? I just want to be sure I know what you mean. How does one gain or loose economic freedom?

For that matter, can you delineate what you mean by free market. Do you simply mean the uninhibited trade between nations and their people?




dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want a free society for some or do you think we should have freedom for all? You have the cart before the horse. Free markets are not going to create our free society. But I'm assuming you want a free society for nearly all people, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection is essential to freedom. But I suspect you're talking about empowerment rather than freedom. They're not the same thing.
Click to expand...


I don't think I am. Maybe you can distinguish the two and see where I stand.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.   I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice.   I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might as well not believe in air. Having a lot of friends that don't believe in air doesn't mean air doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


It is just an excuse to justify tyranny over the public.   You just call out that everything you happen to not like, is a social cost, and then impose your will over the public.   If you look at any tyranny in human history, every single time they justified their actions, as being part of the greater good.  It's not.  It's a false argument, used for rationalization, and nothing more.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say free markets it sounds like you are defining that as freedom itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Very nearly, yeah. Not as a tautology, but there is a deep dependency. Without economic freedom, all other freedoms (speech, religion, association, etc...) are moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you describe economic freedom? I just want to be sure I know what you mean. How does one gain or loose economic freedom?
Click to expand...


The freedom to voluntarily exchange goods and services with others without asking the state for permission. One doesn't "gain" such freedom. It's innate to volition. But it can be violated by anyone willing to employ coercion to achieve their ends.


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want a free society for some or do you think we should have freedom for all? You have the cart before the horse. Free markets are not going to create our free society. But I'm assuming you want a free society for nearly all people, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection is essential to freedom. But I suspect you're talking about empowerment rather than freedom. They're not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I am. Maybe you can distinguish the two and see where I stand.
Click to expand...


Protecting a person's right to do something doesn't include ensuring that they are empowered to exercise the right. You seemed to be suggesting that economic freedom only protects the freedom of some, and not all - presumably because not all are empowered to exercise it equally. But the right and the power to exercise it are different things.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> It is just an excuse to justify tyranny over the public.   You just call out that everything you happen to not like, is a social cost, and then impose your will over the public.   If you look at any tyranny in human history, every single time they justified their actions, as being part of the greater good.  It's not.  It's a false argument, used for rationalization, and nothing more.



Social costs are not real then? Do you call them externalities or do they simply not exist?

It's rare to find someone who thinks externalities are a way of imposing tyranny. Certain results from "business as usual" are not just unpleasant but cost in productivity. Look at the cost of the Yangtze River in 1998 when it flooded. The cost of timber did not reflect the cost of deforestation and more important the agricultural loss due to flooding. Some say the productivity lost was twice the price of what the timber reflected--not to mention the social cost of 3,650 lives who died. Thus, nature is subsidizing our fuck ups as well as other expendable humans, but this can only continue for so long as the Earth is finite and can only stand so many fuck ups. What I'm saying is I hope you realize social costs are real, not something made up.

"A market that tells the ecological truth will incorporate the value
of ecosystem services. For example, if we buy furniture from a forest
products corporation that engages in clearcutting, we pay the
costs of logging and converting the logs into furniture, but not the
costs of the flooding downstream. If we restructure the tax system
and raise taxes on clearcutting timber so that its price reflects the
cost to society of the resultant flooding, this method of harvesting
timber likely would be eliminated."
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/ecoch11.pdf


----------



## Andylusion

Londoner said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's how socialism works.
> 
> Milton Friedman -  "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George is talking about capitalism _in practice_. You're talking about capitalism _in theory._ George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns.
> 
> In practice, Modern American capitalism has always had varying levels of state intervention, much of it begged for by some of the same corporations that fund Libertarian think tanks. Take the Patent system for instance, where the nanny state protects the research investments of corporations. Or consider how dependent global capitalism is upon military intervention, e.g., stabilizing the middle east in order to ensure reliable delivery of energy. Or what about the state supplied legal system, which protects property and financial transactions? Or the FDIC insurance which puts more money into the banking system, where it is turned into fuel on both the demand and supply side. And let's not even talk about industrial and commercial infrastructure or subsidies, which have been a part of American capitalism since nearly the beginning.
> 
> Marx predicted that the final phase of capitalism would be monopoly capitalism. This is where the most powerful market players purchase the political machinery of the state and use that political power to consolidate control over the domestic economy (forming a rentier class where once there was competition). Smith was also very worried about this outcome. You should actually study him. His contempt for monopolies is under-reported, not least because he sounds a little too much like Marx.
> 
> In the meantime, keep riding the unicorn.
Click to expand...


Ironically, I would agree with you on most of that.

Of course I'm talking about the ideal of Capitalism, in what it actually refers to, over what Capitalism can and sometimes does end up.

Just like people who support Socialism, refer to the ideal of Socialism, and ignore that in practice Socialism always, every single time, ends up a tyranny.

Of course there is no perfect Capitalistic Utopia, and there certainly isn't a Socialist Workers Paradise.

That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse.   And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.

China was the leading country on the face of the planet.   They moved towards Socialism, and ended up a 3rd world impoverished hell.   Now they are moving towards Capitalism, and will likely retake their spot as leading the world.

India move towards Socialism after independence, and declined.   Now they are moving towards Capitalism and are succeeding.

Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America.  They moved towards socialism, and now are the worst performing economy in all of Latin America.

Brazil has embraced Capitalism, and is now the leading economy in Latin America.    And I could list hundreds of other examples.  Cuba, Jamaica, East and West Berlin, North and South Korea,  Hong Kong and China, the list of examples is endless.

The more people move towards the ideal of Capitalism, the better off they end up.   The more they move towards Socialism, the worse off they are.

Does that mean we don't have pockets of socialism in a generally capitalistic country, like the USA?  Of course not.  We most certainly do.  And all of those areas, are the areas we have problems.    Do you see problems in the paper supply, or office supply areas?   Nope.  Very little regulations, controls, subsidies, on pencils and copier paper.    How about Health Care, or Banking?   Yes, and both have massive issues and problems.

And all Capitalism requires the enforcement of property rights, and stability.    Has nothing to do with Oil, as much as it has to do with all business is hard to conduct when people are shooting each other, and bombs are going off.   When rockets are flying over head, people generally don't go to the dealership to check out a new Volvo.  Just saying.

And of course companies support intervention that supports their companies.   Whether they fund libertarian think tanks, I don't give a crap.  I'm against government intervention, no matter who funds what.

Just because a company wants regulations that benefit themselves, happens to fund some group somewhere, doesn't matter to me.   Sometimes I think you people on the left say stuff like that, because if that company was funding your group, you would support them.... thus you assume us on the right, are the same.  Sorry.  Not true.

FDIC is exactly the kind of bank supporting system, that I'm against.   Ironically FDR was against it.    Even the big banks were against it at the time.   But dumb as hell leftists in the 30s, demanded this program which screws themselves over, at the benefit of the banks.

It's ironic that you bring up the exact policies I'm against, to counter my point.   That's a fail dude.

I'm even against Intellectual Property rights, because the idea of patenting a 'thought' is fruit cake nonsense.

What I am in favor of is enforcing property rights.  Without the right to property, you might as well be slaves.    Look at Haiti.   That's what you end up with, without property rights.

*Subsidies are a different matter.  When I talk about Subsidies, I'm talking about government taxing one person, and taking the money from them, and giving it to another person.*    Money has to be removed from one individual, and given to another individual, for me to call that a "subsidy".

When a leftist refers to a "subsidy", they typically mean a tax deduction, and yet ironically, they never refer to the taking money from one, to give to another.

So when the tax payers pay their taxes, and government gives out money that money to rich companies, or farmers, to grow corn for Ethanol, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.   When Government gives out billions in grants, taxed from the public, given to a company to make Solar Panels, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.

But if you happen to give an oil company a tax deduction, for the depreciation of their drilling equipment, so they pay tax, but just a little less tax..... suddenly the left starts screaming about subsidies to evil oil!   Bull crap.  That's not a subsidy, anymore than deducting my Student loans from my taxes, so I saved $100 from my tax bill, means the American public is subsidizing me.

If a tax deduction is a subsidy, then the entire population of the whole country, is being subsidized.   In which case, the word is meaningless, and the argument is self defeating.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> The freedom to voluntarily exchange goods and services with others without asking the state for permission. One doesn't "gain" such freedom. It's innate to volition. But it can be violated by anyone willing to employ coercion to achieve their ends.



But your aware that companies tend to create social and natural costs by doing business, right? So if we allow the current set of humans freedom to do what maximizes buisness, then we are ushering in a new wave of social and natural costs that will burden our planet's ecosystems even further.

You know that this is not an option right? We cannot allow business to neglect natural capital and social costs. I'm not saying we currently enforce these regulations properly, but some do work and help keep companies from creating many more social costs. If we let them run free, what do you think would happen? That they govern themselves with responsible edict and proper disposal? Those things are costly to profits!

If we want to move away from government's involvement we need to be able to regulate ourselves, to be responsible when no one is watching. This does not happen in the business world. Dark markets are preferred for this very reason. You are not accounting for humanity in your free market dreams which is typical from an economics perspective since economics is but one lens through which to understand the world.



dblack said:


> But the right and the power to exercise [freedom] are different things.



So you're saying the simple difference is whether one chooses to exercise a right? Sounds like you're saying everyone is free but not everyone has the choice to act freely. That's not freedom if someone is not able to choose to act freely.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse.   And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.



Let's see if you are right...

Take a look at this study which totally contradicts your statement:

"Each country is ranked on 89 variables sorted into eight subsections: economy, entrepreneurship, governance, education, health, safety, personal freedom and social capital."

'To use economic measurements alone to gauge the success of a nation would be equivalent to assessing the entire condition of a man simply by looking at his bank balance, writes Peter Mandelson, former U.K. economic minister.'

"...joining Norway in the top 10 prosperous countries are its Scandinavian sisters Denmark, Finland and Sweden, with equally small and civilized Switzerland and the Netherlands also in the club....

So what gives? What do these prosperous European nations have in common that can somehow explain their prosperity? Being an electoral democracy is almost a givenof the top 25 most prosperous countries, only Singapore and Hong Kong arent.

Being small helps too. ...
What else? *They are all borderline socialist states*, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth."
From The World's Happiest Countries - Forbes

*You are utterly wrong Androw.* Socialism helps make more people better off. Capitalism helps a few people to become extremely well off on the backs of the rest.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's how socialism works.
> 
> Milton Friedman -  "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George is talking about capitalism _in practice_. You're talking about capitalism _in theory._ George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns.
> 
> In practice, Modern American capitalism has always had varying levels of state intervention, much of it begged for by some of the same corporations that fund Libertarian think tanks. Take the Patent system for instance, where the nanny state protects the research investments of corporations. Or consider how dependent global capitalism is upon military intervention, e.g., stabilizing the middle east in order to ensure reliable delivery of energy. Or what about the state supplied legal system, which protects property and financial transactions? Or the FDIC insurance which puts more money into the banking system, where it is turned into fuel on both the demand and supply side. And let's not even talk about industrial and commercial infrastructure or subsidies, which have been a part of American capitalism since nearly the beginning.
> 
> Marx predicted that the final phase of capitalism would be monopoly capitalism. This is where the most powerful market players purchase the political machinery of the state and use that political power to consolidate control over the domestic economy (forming a rentier class where once there was competition). Smith was also very worried about this outcome. You should actually study him. His contempt for monopolies is under-reported, not least because he sounds a little too much like Marx.
> 
> In the meantime, keep riding the unicorn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironically, I would agree with you on most of that.
> 
> Of course I'm talking about the ideal of Capitalism, in what it actually refers to, over what Capitalism can and sometimes does end up.
> 
> Just like people who support Socialism, refer to the ideal of Socialism, and ignore that in practice Socialism always, every single time, ends up a tyranny.
> 
> Of course there is no perfect Capitalistic Utopia, and there certainly isn't a Socialist Workers Paradise.
> 
> That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse.   And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.
> 
> China was the leading country on the face of the planet.   They moved towards Socialism, and ended up a 3rd world impoverished hell.   Now they are moving towards Capitalism, and will likely retake their spot as leading the world.
> 
> India move towards Socialism after independence, and declined.   Now they are moving towards Capitalism and are succeeding.
> 
> Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America.  They moved towards socialism, and now are the worst performing economy in all of Latin America.
> 
> Brazil has embraced Capitalism, and is now the leading economy in Latin America.    And I could list hundreds of other examples.  Cuba, Jamaica, East and West Berlin, North and South Korea,  Hong Kong and China, the list of examples is endless.
> 
> The more people move towards the ideal of Capitalism, the better off they end up.   The more they move towards Socialism, the worse off they are.
> 
> Does that mean we don't have pockets of socialism in a generally capitalistic country, like the USA?  Of course not.  We most certainly do.  And all of those areas, are the areas we have problems.    Do you see problems in the paper supply, or office supply areas?   Nope.  Very little regulations, controls, subsidies, on pencils and copier paper.    How about Health Care, or Banking?   Yes, and both have massive issues and problems.
> 
> And all Capitalism requires the enforcement of property rights, and stability.    Has nothing to do with Oil, as much as it has to do with all business is hard to conduct when people are shooting each other, and bombs are going off.   When rockets are flying over head, people generally don't go to the dealership to check out a new Volvo.  Just saying.
> 
> And of course companies support intervention that supports their companies.   Whether they fund libertarian think tanks, I don't give a crap.  I'm against government intervention, no matter who funds what.
> 
> Just because a company wants regulations that benefit themselves, happens to fund some group somewhere, doesn't matter to me.   Sometimes I think you people on the left say stuff like that, because if that company was funding your group, you would support them.... thus you assume us on the right, are the same.  Sorry.  Not true.
> 
> FDIC is exactly the kind of bank supporting system, that I'm against.   Ironically FDR was against it.    Even the big banks were against it at the time.   But dumb as hell leftists in the 30s, demanded this program which screws themselves over, at the benefit of the banks.
> 
> It's ironic that you bring up the exact policies I'm against, to counter my point.   That's a fail dude.
> 
> I'm even against Intellectual Property rights, because the idea of patenting a 'thought' is fruit cake nonsense.
> 
> What I am in favor of is enforcing property rights.  Without the right to property, you might as well be slaves.    Look at Haiti.   That's what you end up with, without property rights.
> 
> *Subsidies are a different matter.  When I talk about Subsidies, I'm talking about government taxing one person, and taking the money from them, and giving it to another person.*    Money has to be removed from one individual, and given to another individual, for me to call that a "subsidy".
> 
> When a leftist refers to a "subsidy", they typically mean a tax deduction, and yet ironically, they never refer to the taking money from one, to give to another.
> 
> So when the tax payers pay their taxes, and government gives out money that money to rich companies, or farmers, to grow corn for Ethanol, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.   When Government gives out billions in grants, taxed from the public, given to a company to make Solar Panels, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.
> 
> But if you happen to give an oil company a tax deduction, for the depreciation of their drilling equipment, so they pay tax, but just a little less tax..... suddenly the left starts screaming about subsidies to evil oil!   Bull crap.  That's not a subsidy, anymore than deducting my Student loans from my taxes, so I saved $100 from my tax bill, means the American public is subsidizing me.
> 
> If a tax deduction is a subsidy, then the entire population of the whole country, is being subsidized.   In which case, the word is meaningless, and the argument is self defeating.
Click to expand...

"China was the leading country on the face of the planet. They moved towards Socialism, and ended up a 3rd world impoverished hell. Now they are moving towards Capitalism, and will likely retake their spot as leading the world."

*When was China "the leading country on the face of the planet?"*


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's how socialism works.
> 
> Milton Friedman -  "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George is talking about capitalism _in practice_. You're talking about capitalism _in theory._ George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns.
> 
> In practice, Modern American capitalism has always had varying levels of state intervention, much of it begged for by some of the same corporations that fund Libertarian think tanks. Take the Patent system for instance, where the nanny state protects the research investments of corporations. Or consider how dependent global capitalism is upon military intervention, e.g., stabilizing the middle east in order to ensure reliable delivery of energy. Or what about the state supplied legal system, which protects property and financial transactions? Or the FDIC insurance which puts more money into the banking system, where it is turned into fuel on both the demand and supply side. And let's not even talk about industrial and commercial infrastructure or subsidies, which have been a part of American capitalism since nearly the beginning.
> 
> Marx predicted that the final phase of capitalism would be monopoly capitalism. This is where the most powerful market players purchase the political machinery of the state and use that political power to consolidate control over the domestic economy (forming a rentier class where once there was competition). Smith was also very worried about this outcome. You should actually study him. His contempt for monopolies is under-reported, not least because he sounds a little too much like Marx.
> 
> In the meantime, keep riding the unicorn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironically, I would agree with you on most of that.
> 
> Of course I'm talking about the ideal of Capitalism, in what it actually refers to, over what Capitalism can and sometimes does end up.
> 
> Just like people who support Socialism, refer to the ideal of Socialism, and ignore that in practice Socialism always, every single time, ends up a tyranny.
> 
> Of course there is no perfect Capitalistic Utopia, and there certainly isn't a Socialist Workers Paradise.
> 
> That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse.   And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.
> 
> China was the leading country on the face of the planet.   They moved towards Socialism, and ended up a 3rd world impoverished hell.   Now they are moving towards Capitalism, and will likely retake their spot as leading the world.
> 
> India move towards Socialism after independence, and declined.   Now they are moving towards Capitalism and are succeeding.
> 
> Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America.  They moved towards socialism, and now are the worst performing economy in all of Latin America.
> 
> Brazil has embraced Capitalism, and is now the leading economy in Latin America.    And I could list hundreds of other examples.  Cuba, Jamaica, East and West Berlin, North and South Korea,  Hong Kong and China, the list of examples is endless.
> 
> The more people move towards the ideal of Capitalism, the better off they end up.   The more they move towards Socialism, the worse off they are.
> 
> Does that mean we don't have pockets of socialism in a generally capitalistic country, like the USA?  Of course not.  We most certainly do.  And all of those areas, are the areas we have problems.    Do you see problems in the paper supply, or office supply areas?   Nope.  Very little regulations, controls, subsidies, on pencils and copier paper.    How about Health Care, or Banking?   Yes, and both have massive issues and problems.
> 
> And all Capitalism requires the enforcement of property rights, and stability.    Has nothing to do with Oil, as much as it has to do with all business is hard to conduct when people are shooting each other, and bombs are going off.   When rockets are flying over head, people generally don't go to the dealership to check out a new Volvo.  Just saying.
> 
> And of course companies support intervention that supports their companies.   Whether they fund libertarian think tanks, I don't give a crap.  I'm against government intervention, no matter who funds what.
> 
> Just because a company wants regulations that benefit themselves, happens to fund some group somewhere, doesn't matter to me.   Sometimes I think you people on the left say stuff like that, because if that company was funding your group, you would support them.... thus you assume us on the right, are the same.  Sorry.  Not true.
> 
> FDIC is exactly the kind of bank supporting system, that I'm against.   Ironically FDR was against it.    Even the big banks were against it at the time.   But dumb as hell leftists in the 30s, demanded this program which screws themselves over, at the benefit of the banks.
> 
> It's ironic that you bring up the exact policies I'm against, to counter my point.   That's a fail dude.
> 
> I'm even against Intellectual Property rights, because the idea of patenting a 'thought' is fruit cake nonsense.
> 
> What I am in favor of is enforcing property rights.  Without the right to property, you might as well be slaves.    Look at Haiti.   That's what you end up with, without property rights.
> 
> *Subsidies are a different matter.  When I talk about Subsidies, I'm talking about government taxing one person, and taking the money from them, and giving it to another person.*    Money has to be removed from one individual, and given to another individual, for me to call that a "subsidy".
> 
> When a leftist refers to a "subsidy", they typically mean a tax deduction, and yet ironically, they never refer to the taking money from one, to give to another.
> 
> So when the tax payers pay their taxes, and government gives out money that money to rich companies, or farmers, to grow corn for Ethanol, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.   When Government gives out billions in grants, taxed from the public, given to a company to make Solar Panels, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.
> 
> But if you happen to give an oil company a tax deduction, for the depreciation of their drilling equipment, so they pay tax, but just a little less tax..... suddenly the left starts screaming about subsidies to evil oil!   Bull crap.  That's not a subsidy, anymore than deducting my Student loans from my taxes, so I saved $100 from my tax bill, means the American public is subsidizing me.
> 
> If a tax deduction is a subsidy, then the entire population of the whole country, is being subsidized.   In which case, the word is meaningless, and the argument is self defeating.
Click to expand...




Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course.   Reading the book, doesn't mean that spewing idiotic drivel, because you are linguist, and not an economist, is suddenly intelligent, or a valid argument.
> 
> Chomsky is a linguist.   If you want to under stand languages, he's the guy to go to.  He's been trained in languages, done many scholarly works on languages, and is consider one of the top in that field.
> 
> I don't know a single economist off hand, that has bothered to comment much on Chomsky's economic spewage, because..... he's not an economist.    I've had a subscription to the Economist magazine for quite awhile.   I can't find a single article that had anything positive to say about chomsky.... or honestly much to say about him either way... >BECAUSE, HE IS NOT AN ECONOMIST<.
> 
> Why is that so hard for you leftists to grasp?   Oh right.... because.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why.     You can't come up with an argument yourself, so you find some idiot that knows nothing about economics, and hang on his every word about the topic you know nothing about.
> 
> Lastly....
> 
> As far as The Commonize CostsPrivatize Profits Game.... yes of course.   Everyone, everywhere, tries to do this.   In socialized economies, they try and do this.   In capitalist economies they try and do this.   In every economy they try and do this.
> 
> That doesn't make this capitalism, anymore than murderers committing murder, are trying to make murder lawful.   That's the absolute stupidity of your argument.
> 
> Well they are trying to do that.... thus it must be what capitalism is.
> 
> Well they are trying to murder people, thus that must be what lawful protection of rights is.
> 
> Do you really not comprehend the stupidity of your position?   Does your position really make logical sense to you?
> 
> Again, everyone that has advocated Free-market Capitalism, not one of them has supported the idea of socializing the loss.   Milton Friedman said "Capitalism is a profit and loss system.   Profit encourages risk taking.  Loss encourages prudence."
> 
> Where in there, do you see "loss is socialized to avoid prudence"?   Oh... it's not there?     Shocking.   Maybe your claim of what capitalism is, is full of crap?     Just a thought.
> 
> You should try that whole "thinking" thing too.  Might do you some good, and stop you from quoting Linguists on economic issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Chomsky and Smith are/were moral philosophers concerned with the unequal distribution of wealth and political privilege; Milton Friedman was a corporate tool.
> 
> Chomsky and Smith define "free markets" as those exchanges free of undue rentier influence. In Smith's day those inflicting undue influence upon markets were largely hereditary elites like those responsible for creating the East India Corporation; in Chomsky's day, multi-national corporations and FIRE sector elites are those he warns against gaining undue market or political influence.
> 
> "Friedman, by comparison, wanted markets free of any democratic regulation which is exactly what he got in Chile on September 11, 1973
> 
> When Milton Friedman's economic policy advice to Chilean conservatives led to the overthrow of a democratically elected president in 1973, profits were privatized and the losses were socialized at expense of one person; one vote.
> 
> Which is another of those social costs that capitalism regularly inflicts on society that you have a hard time wrapping your propaganda-filled mind around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still whining about Allende? LOL!
> Who is better off today, the people of Chile or the people of Cuba?
Click to expand...

The people who are not subject to a US embargo, Idiot.

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom to voluntarily exchange goods and services with others without asking the state for permission. One doesn't "gain" such freedom. It's innate to volition. But it can be violated by anyone willing to employ coercion to achieve their ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But your aware that companies tend to create social and natural costs by doing business, right? So if we allow the current set of humans freedom to do what maximizes buisness, then we are ushering in a new wave of social and natural costs that will burden our planet's ecosystems even further.
Click to expand...


Sure. Suss out what damage they're doing and bring charges against the perpetrators. Just don't employ collective guilt in the name of "class warfare".



> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the right and the power to exercise [freedom] are different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the simple difference is whether one chooses to exercise a right? Sounds like you're saying everyone is free but not everyone has the choice to act freely. That's not freedom if someone is not able to choose to act freely.
Click to expand...

What? I'm saying protecting someone's right to do something isn't the same as ensuring they are able to exercise it. For example, our Constitution protects our right to bear arms, but it doesn't promise that we will be provided with said arms. Freedom of the press doesn't mean the state provides each of us with a print shop. See the difference?


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.   I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice.   I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might as well not believe in air. Having a lot of friends that don't believe in air doesn't mean air doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is just an excuse to justify tyranny over the public.   You just call out that everything you happen to not like, is a social cost, and then impose your will over the public.   If you look at any tyranny in human history, every single time they justified their actions, as being part of the greater good.  It's not.  It's a false argument, used for rationalization, and nothing more.
Click to expand...


There is no tyranny. You are resorting to nonsensical emotional rhetoric instead of a rational logical take on reality. I have no use for such blather.


----------



## Andylusion

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.   I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice.   I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand the concept of 'social cost'. But where I disagree is the notion that government is the proper tool for managing that cost. We build the kind of society we want communally, voluntarily, by our individual decisions informed by our individual values. Government should only step in when we cross a line, namely when we can't resolve disputes peacefully. Otherwise, in my view, the most organic, civilized, way to solve our problems and build the kind of society we want is through voluntary interactions, not authoritarian mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both social costs and social benefits are not recognized completely in market interactions. The cost or benefit is often spread out and markets are horrible at taking into account both these costs and benefits.
> 
> Public education, investments in infrastructure, the FDA, OSHA, EPA, banking regulations, Police, Fire, etc have all been ways the US has tried to recognize a social benefit or cost.
> 
> I honestly don't understand the view that the markets can recognize these social costs in an efficient manner.
Click to expand...


Public education is why we have such ignorant and useless people.
Less than half of high school graduates are prepared for college, says maker of SAT - College Bound - Campus and College News from Boston and Cambridge - Boston.com


> Only 43 percent of SAT takers in the class of 2013 graduated from high school academically prepared for the rigors of college-level course work, the College Board said in releasing scores Thursday.



If you want to compare the US to other countries, our public education, is horrid.  We can debate that if you want.

Point being, I would much rather prefer a more privatized system.   When companies are having to pay for education for their employees, because our publicly funded system sucks so bad.... there's something wrong.

Further, Banking Regulations have CAUSED social cost, rather than being a solution to social cost.    I would also add that the EPA, OSHA, and the FDA, have drastically added social cost, not mitigated it.

None of these have reduced social costs, and all of them have drastically increased social costs.

Now as far as infrastructure, police, and fire.   As I said prior... I get that.   Do you realize how tiny and insignificant our taxes would be, if we only paid for those?

The Ohio budget, is $30 Billion dollars.   All of those things right there, are only 8% of the Ohio Budget.  Or $2.4 Billion dollars.

Of the Federal Budget, those things only add up to a mere $100 Billion, of a budget of $3.5 Trillion?  (numbers may be off, that's 2010 budget I think)

Point is, we're talking about a tiny fraction of the budget.   Only at the local level, do the things your talking about make up the majority of the budget.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The freedom to voluntarily exchange goods and services with others without asking the state for permission. One doesn't "gain" such freedom. It's innate to volition. But it can be violated by anyone willing to employ coercion to achieve their ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But your aware that companies tend to create social and natural costs by doing business, right? So if we allow the current set of humans freedom to do what maximizes buisness, then we are ushering in a new wave of social and natural costs that will burden our planet's ecosystems even further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Suss out what damage they're doing and bring charges against the perpetrators. Just don't employ collective guilt in the name of "class warfare".
Click to expand...


How do we take these charges to trial without government (judicial system?)?

Why did you mention class warfare? Clearly you think everyone is treated equally, got your blinders on I see. Do you think the police exist to enforce laws? Then you misunderstand what laws are. The laws are not codes of genuine ethics, they are often methods of enforcing the will of the powerful.


----------



## Bombur

Androw said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand the concept of 'social cost'. But where I disagree is the notion that government is the proper tool for managing that cost. We build the kind of society we want communally, voluntarily, by our individual decisions informed by our individual values. Government should only step in when we cross a line, namely when we can't resolve disputes peacefully. Otherwise, in my view, the most organic, civilized, way to solve our problems and build the kind of society we want is through voluntary interactions, not authoritarian mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both social costs and social benefits are not recognized completely in market interactions. The cost or benefit is often spread out and markets are horrible at taking into account both these costs and benefits.
> 
> Public education, investments in infrastructure, the FDA, OSHA, EPA, banking regulations, Police, Fire, etc have all been ways the US has tried to recognize a social benefit or cost.
> 
> I honestly don't understand the view that the markets can recognize these social costs in an efficient manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public education is why we have such ignorant and useless people.
> Less than half of high school graduates are prepared for college, says maker of SAT - College Bound - Campus and College News from Boston and Cambridge - Boston.com
> 
> 
> 
> Only 43 percent of SAT takers in the class of 2013 graduated from high school academically prepared for the rigors of college-level course work, the College Board said in releasing scores Thursday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to compare the US to other countries, our public education, is horrid.  We can debate that if you want.
> 
> Point being, I would much rather prefer a more privatized system.   When companies are having to pay for education for their employees, because our publicly funded system sucks so bad.... there's something wrong.
> 
> Further, Banking Regulations have CAUSED social cost, rather than being a solution to social cost.    I would also add that the EPA, OSHA, and the FDA, have drastically added social cost, not mitigated it.
> 
> None of these have reduced social costs, and all of them have drastically increased social costs.
> 
> Now as far as infrastructure, police, and fire.   As I said prior... I get that.   Do you realize how tiny and insignificant our taxes would be, if we only paid for those?
> 
> The Ohio budget, is $30 Billion dollars.   All of those things right there, are only 8% of the Ohio Budget.  Or $2.4 Billion dollars.
> 
> Of the Federal Budget, those things only add up to a mere $100 Billion, of a budget of $3.5 Trillion?  (numbers may be off, that's 2010 budget I think)
> 
> Point is, we're talking about a tiny fraction of the budget.   Only at the local level, do the things your talking about make up the majority of the budget.
Click to expand...


You are literally asking me to compare a public system to a public system. My argument is not that our government is perfect or isn't in desperate need of improvement. The argument is whether or not government is the tool to use. Success in other countries just helps demonstrate my point.

Banking regulations that came about after the bank runs of the past have been extremely important. The government has at times failed to regulate properly though. That doesn't mean regulations are not needed. It means we can't under fund regulations and forget our past.

Not all regulations are good.

OSHA has helped reduce death rates and injury rates in a large number of industries. You are wrong there.

The EPA has helped reduce pollution and helped address significant problems we had in the past. 

The FDA has been very important as well. 

State and local budgets are dominated by Medicaid, Education, Safety(prisons), and infrastructure. 

Medicaid, Medicare, SS, and defense are the major expenses. I would prefer UHC personally and we could cut from defense. My biggest problem is the way we fund the transfer payment in SS/Disability and unemployment insurance.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your aware that companies tend to create social and natural costs by doing business, right? So if we allow the current set of humans freedom to do what maximizes buisness, then we are ushering in a new wave of social and natural costs that will burden our planet's ecosystems even further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Suss out what damage they're doing and bring charges against the perpetrators. Just don't employ collective guilt in the name of "class warfare".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we take these charges to trial without government (judicial system?)?
Click to expand...


Without government? What are you talking about? I'm not advocating anarchy. 



> Why did you mention class warfare?.



Because usually vague appeals to "social costs" aren't actually about identifying wrongdoers and stopping them.  It's usually a call to employ social engineering schemes that treat people as classes, rich vs poor, black vs white, labor vs management, etc...


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the jobs of government in such a system is to recognize the social cost and "adjust" the market accordingly. Capitalism, without government, has no mechanism for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.   I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice.   I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What part of "justice" does this fall under?*
> 
> "As West Virginians were learning Thursday of a devastating chemical spill in the Elk River that has rendered water undrinkable for 300,000 people, the US House of Representatives was busy gutting federal hazardous-waste cleanup law.
> 
> The House passed the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act that would ultimately eliminate requirements for the Environmental Protection Agency to review and update hazardous-waste disposal regulations in a timely manner, and make it more difficult for the government to compel companies that deal with toxic substances to carry proper insurance for cleanups, *pushing the cost on to taxpayers."*
> 
> *The part where corporations privatize their coal-related profits while socializing their cleanup costs on the backs of taxpayers?*
> 
> US House passed bill ravaging toxic-waste law - on same day as W. Virginia chemical spill ? RT USA
Click to expand...


I'm a vegetarian.   I have a membership to PETA, and I donated money to the Animal Legal Defense Fund.    I travel the world, and have spoken to congress on behalf of animal rights.

Yesterday I went to Texas Roadhouse, and ate a massive steak.

Regardless of what others say, regardless of what I say, regardless of anything else I've done...... am I a vegetarian?

No.   I'm not a vegetarian.   Doesn't matter what others says, or even I say... I'm not a vegetarian, because I ate meat, and the very definition of Vegetarian excludes the action of eating meat.

Back to your post.....

Is this capitalism?    If you privatize the profits, but socialize the cost... is that Capitalism?

Milton Friedman:   "Capitalism is a profit and loss system.  Profit encourages risk taking.  Loss encourages prudence"

Is this Capitalism?   No.    It's not.   You can bring up a thousand articles of government engaging in Socialism... and my response will be exactly the same every single time.

*Yes georgephillip, Socialism is unjust, and doesn't work.  Stop electing socialists that socialize the loss.*

Gutting the EPA would not have done anything.   Nor would having the EPA pass more regulations do anything.

So how does Free-Market Capitalism work?

Real simple.   The company caused an economic loss, just like me hitting your car would cause a loss.   The solution would be for me to pay for the repairs to your car.  Similarly, the company should pay for the repairs to the damaged water supply.      If the company can't afford it, then it closes, thus eliminating them from the economy.   Other companies seeing what happens to the bankrupted and eliminated company, would voluntarily without regulations, pay for insurance, or pay for reasonable tighter safety standards.

Instead, because of you socialists, socializing the costs, and passing regulations, small companies will go out of business under the weight of regulations they can't afford.    Big wealthy companies will become even wealthier, while at the same time drastically increasing cost to the consumer (supply goes down from less competition, demand stays the same, price goes up).

Meanwhile companies are less likely to make wiser choices, knowing all they have to do is follow regulations, and socialists in government will bail them out.

It's exactly what happened in Banking.    Socialism has the same effect regardless of industry.
*
And by the way, the socialists in government play you people like a fiddle, and use you repeatedly.*

I read about an EPA site, of an old factory.   The clean up of the site was so clean, that a child who could climb the metal fence, and get on to the abandoned property, miles away from any residential area, could eat dirt... literally eat dirt for 10 days, before getting sick.

The politicians stirred up the public, and debate ensued until finally, additional millions of dollars were spent to the wealthy clean up company, who also happened to back the politicians, in order to make the dirt at the fenced off site clean enough that if a child scaled the fence, they could eat dirt for 41 days before getting sick.  (an adult wouldn't be affected at all).

Score for the rich wealthy clean up company, the politicians, and the lawyers.   Fail for the tax payers, whose children would never have been able to scale the fence, and honestly if your child is so brain damaged that he shovels dirt in his mouth for days on end, you likely have bigger problems than the toxicity of dirt at an abandoned factory site.

This is socialism at work.   Government regulation, control, and dictation to the economy.   This is how socialism works around the world, and throughout human history.  Just read the stories coming of out Russia over the recent games.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's even more important to understand what conditions must exist in order for X to be desirable. Hence, free markets only exist with perfect liberty which match supply and demand/the needs of the public. And we are way far off that track. We are no where near perfect liberty, and its dubious such a society can exist anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can't. All you're really saying here is perfection can't be achieved. A perfect socialist state will never be achieved either. So what? My point is that if we can't agree on the ideal, we can't determine which way to proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it can't be achieved. I said it was dubious; to make the point we need to be aware that we don't live there. If we better educated people and spent more time considering the needs of society instead of wants of the affluent we might develop a better society that can achieve far more.
> 
> Instead, millions think we live in a capitalist system that will continue providing the world better and better life but the precise opposite is happening. People have been displaced and struggling all over the globe and capitalism is part of the problem. Too few people are getting needs met so they must turn to other violent sources or simply die.
> 
> So dblack, together we can set capitalism down from its peddle stool instead of making it our aim. Instead, we must first achieve those conditions. What are they? I suspect it would take more than a few policy changes to get us one iota closer to those conditions.
Click to expand...


oh come on.     You realize that a married couple, both working at Wendy's flipping burgers for minimum wage....   They make $30K a year.   $30K a year, puts them in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

Do grasp the point?   People in the lowest income levels of our society, have a better standard of living than 99% of the world.

And you think Capitalism hasn't worked for us?  Compared to what?

Tell that to North Koreans risking being shot to get to South Korea.   Tell that to Cubans willing to die to get to Florida.     Tell that to the Chinese, that they were better of living in mud huts for $2 a week.    Tell that to the over one million Venezuelans that have fled Venezuela.

Come on.... seriously?  How can you even attempt to justify such a claim?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> George is talking about capitalism _in practice_. You're talking about capitalism _in theory._ George is pointing out the problem with your cliches about "Free" Markets, which may be desirable but have the empirical validity of unicorns.
> 
> In practice, Modern American capitalism has always had varying levels of state intervention, much of it begged for by some of the same corporations that fund Libertarian think tanks. Take the Patent system for instance, where the nanny state protects the research investments of corporations. Or consider how dependent global capitalism is upon military intervention, e.g., stabilizing the middle east in order to ensure reliable delivery of energy. Or what about the state supplied legal system, which protects property and financial transactions? Or the FDIC insurance which puts more money into the banking system, where it is turned into fuel on both the demand and supply side. And let's not even talk about industrial and commercial infrastructure or subsidies, which have been a part of American capitalism since nearly the beginning.
> 
> Marx predicted that the final phase of capitalism would be monopoly capitalism. This is where the most powerful market players purchase the political machinery of the state and use that political power to consolidate control over the domestic economy (forming a rentier class where once there was competition). Smith was also very worried about this outcome. You should actually study him. His contempt for monopolies is under-reported, not least because he sounds a little too much like Marx.
> 
> In the meantime, keep riding the unicorn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, I would agree with you on most of that.
> 
> Of course I'm talking about the ideal of Capitalism, in what it actually refers to, over what Capitalism can and sometimes does end up.
> 
> Just like people who support Socialism, refer to the ideal of Socialism, and ignore that in practice Socialism always, every single time, ends up a tyranny.
> 
> Of course there is no perfect Capitalistic Utopia, and there certainly isn't a Socialist Workers Paradise.
> 
> That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse.   And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.
> 
> China was the leading country on the face of the planet.   They moved towards Socialism, and ended up a 3rd world impoverished hell.   Now they are moving towards Capitalism, and will likely retake their spot as leading the world.
> 
> India move towards Socialism after independence, and declined.   Now they are moving towards Capitalism and are succeeding.
> 
> Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America.  They moved towards socialism, and now are the worst performing economy in all of Latin America.
> 
> Brazil has embraced Capitalism, and is now the leading economy in Latin America.    And I could list hundreds of other examples.  Cuba, Jamaica, East and West Berlin, North and South Korea,  Hong Kong and China, the list of examples is endless.
> 
> The more people move towards the ideal of Capitalism, the better off they end up.   The more they move towards Socialism, the worse off they are.
> 
> Does that mean we don't have pockets of socialism in a generally capitalistic country, like the USA?  Of course not.  We most certainly do.  And all of those areas, are the areas we have problems.    Do you see problems in the paper supply, or office supply areas?   Nope.  Very little regulations, controls, subsidies, on pencils and copier paper.    How about Health Care, or Banking?   Yes, and both have massive issues and problems.
> 
> And all Capitalism requires the enforcement of property rights, and stability.    Has nothing to do with Oil, as much as it has to do with all business is hard to conduct when people are shooting each other, and bombs are going off.   When rockets are flying over head, people generally don't go to the dealership to check out a new Volvo.  Just saying.
> 
> And of course companies support intervention that supports their companies.   Whether they fund libertarian think tanks, I don't give a crap.  I'm against government intervention, no matter who funds what.
> 
> Just because a company wants regulations that benefit themselves, happens to fund some group somewhere, doesn't matter to me.   Sometimes I think you people on the left say stuff like that, because if that company was funding your group, you would support them.... thus you assume us on the right, are the same.  Sorry.  Not true.
> 
> FDIC is exactly the kind of bank supporting system, that I'm against.   Ironically FDR was against it.    Even the big banks were against it at the time.   But dumb as hell leftists in the 30s, demanded this program which screws themselves over, at the benefit of the banks.
> 
> It's ironic that you bring up the exact policies I'm against, to counter my point.   That's a fail dude.
> 
> I'm even against Intellectual Property rights, because the idea of patenting a 'thought' is fruit cake nonsense.
> 
> What I am in favor of is enforcing property rights.  Without the right to property, you might as well be slaves.    Look at Haiti.   That's what you end up with, without property rights.
> 
> *Subsidies are a different matter.  When I talk about Subsidies, I'm talking about government taxing one person, and taking the money from them, and giving it to another person.*    Money has to be removed from one individual, and given to another individual, for me to call that a "subsidy".
> 
> When a leftist refers to a "subsidy", they typically mean a tax deduction, and yet ironically, they never refer to the taking money from one, to give to another.
> 
> So when the tax payers pay their taxes, and government gives out money that money to rich companies, or farmers, to grow corn for Ethanol, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.   When Government gives out billions in grants, taxed from the public, given to a company to make Solar Panels, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.
> 
> But if you happen to give an oil company a tax deduction, for the depreciation of their drilling equipment, so they pay tax, but just a little less tax..... suddenly the left starts screaming about subsidies to evil oil!   Bull crap.  That's not a subsidy, anymore than deducting my Student loans from my taxes, so I saved $100 from my tax bill, means the American public is subsidizing me.
> 
> If a tax deduction is a subsidy, then the entire population of the whole country, is being subsidized.   In which case, the word is meaningless, and the argument is self defeating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chomsky and Smith are/were moral philosophers concerned with the unequal distribution of wealth and political privilege; Milton Friedman was a corporate tool.
> 
> Chomsky and Smith define "free markets" as those exchanges free of undue rentier influence. In Smith's day those inflicting undue influence upon markets were largely hereditary elites like those responsible for creating the East India Corporation; in Chomsky's day, multi-national corporations and FIRE sector elites are those he warns against gaining undue market or political influence.
> 
> "Friedman, by comparison, wanted markets free of any democratic regulation which is exactly what he got in Chile on September 11, 1973
> 
> When Milton Friedman's economic policy advice to Chilean conservatives led to the overthrow of a democratically elected president in 1973, profits were privatized and the losses were socialized at expense of one person; one vote.
> 
> Which is another of those social costs that capitalism regularly inflicts on society that you have a hard time wrapping your propaganda-filled mind around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still whining about Allende? LOL!
> Who is better off today, the people of Chile or the people of Cuba?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people who are not subject to a US embargo, Idiot.
> 
> United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


They can trade with the other 200 countries in the world, but they're an economic basket case because they can't trade with 1?
Nothing to do with the socialist blood suckers draining them for the last 50 plus years? LOL! Idiot.

Do you have an Allende poster on your wall?


----------



## Andylusion

KNB said:


> When do record corporate profits trickle down?



Do you have a phone?   That's trickle down.   Do you have a job?  That's trickle down.    Do you have a car?   That's trickle down.    Do you have a TV?  Or Internet?  Or food?   Or a computer?  Laptop?

Look around you right now.    Everything that you own, is an example of trickle down.

Look around the country at all the jobs that exist.  Every single one of them.... all of them, are an example of trickle down.

Everything that exists, is the result of trickle down.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is just an excuse to justify tyranny over the public.   You just call out that everything you happen to not like, is a social cost, and then impose your will over the public.   If you look at any tyranny in human history, every single time they justified their actions, as being part of the greater good.  It's not.  It's a false argument, used for rationalization, and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social costs are not real then? Do you call them externalities or do they simply not exist?
> 
> It's rare to find someone who thinks externalities are a way of imposing tyranny. Certain results from "business as usual" are not just unpleasant but cost in productivity. Look at the cost of the Yangtze River in 1998 when it flooded. The cost of timber did not reflect the cost of deforestation and more important the agricultural loss due to flooding. Some say the productivity lost was twice the price of what the timber reflected--not to mention the social cost of 3,650 lives who died. Thus, nature is subsidizing our fuck ups as well as other expendable humans, but this can only continue for so long as the Earth is finite and can only stand so many fuck ups. What I'm saying is I hope you realize social costs are real, not something made up.
> 
> "A market that tells the ecological truth will incorporate the value
> of ecosystem services. For example, if we buy furniture from a forest
> products corporation that engages in clearcutting, we pay the
> costs of logging and converting the logs into furniture, but not the
> costs of the flooding downstream. If we restructure the tax system
> and raise taxes on clearcutting timber so that its price reflects the
> cost to society of the resultant flooding, this method of harvesting
> timber likely would be eliminated."
> http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/ecoch11.pdf
Click to expand...


This is exactly what I'm talking about.   There is very little evidence that clear cutting trees results in floods.  Now there is a little.... but very little.    Trees do not absorb water quickly enough to have any real impact on flooding.

Further, cutting trees, gives sunlight to the ground level, which allows massive growth of under brush and such, that have just as much water retaining power as trees do, and in some cases more.

So you people have to 'make up' that cutting a tree down causes flooding, thus is a "social cost", as a justification for passing more socialism, more controls, more mandates, more dictation on society.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> When do record corporate profits trickle down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a phone?   That's trickle down.   Do you have a job?  That's trickle down.    Do you have a car?   That's trickle down.    Do you have a TV?  Or Internet?  Or food?   Or a computer?  Laptop?
> 
> Look around you right now.    Everything that you own, is an example of trickle down.
> 
> Look around the country at all the jobs that exist.  Every single one of them.... all of them, are an example of trickle down.
> 
> Everything that exists, is the result of trickle down.
Click to expand...


Go rains mana down from Heaven. Thank the Rich for the Life that I have.

The Rich will save humanity by sending or trickling down products through the ranks. How inane. Completely divorced from understanding what life is like for 3/4 of the planet.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> Do grasp the point?   People in the lowest income levels of our society, have a better standard of living than 99% of the world.
> 
> And you think Capitalism hasn't worked for us?  Compared to what?
> 
> Tell that to North Koreans risking being shot to get to South Korea.   Tell that to Cubans willing to die to get to Florida.     Tell that to the Chinese, that they were better of living in mud huts for $2 a week.    Tell that to the over one million Venezuelans that have fled Venezuela.
> 
> Come on.... seriously?  How can you even attempt to justify such a claim?



Ok first put down your intravenous capitalism. I have admitted plenty of times capitalism has brought increased standard of living for America and the world. Your completely inane statistic about Wendys workers being in the top 1%. You have little idea that those numbers don't correspond to shit since a Wendy's worker is in insurmountable debts. You lie through your teeth when you say socialism implies worse circumstances. You're love affair for capitalism borderline mental. These are ideas that aren't even happening in reality (we don't live in a free market) taken to religious heights and then crammed repetitively down your throat and in turn mine.

There is no perfect system and the more we indulge in narcissism like you advocate capitalism for, the less likely we will understand the planet is finite and begin generating solutions to the global travesties occurring each day. You are completely unaware of any real scientific information about deforestation aiding in increased probability of floods so you think this means there is insufficient evidence. There's plenty of it out there, you just have to actually care to read about it, which I know you don't. Very few people believe what you do about natural capital/social costs not existing. It's a very extreme view that is based in ignoring information. I understand if that's your methodology, but I shant respect it.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse.   And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see if you are right...
> 
> Take a look at this study which totally contradicts your statement:
> 
> "Each country is ranked on 89 variables sorted into eight subsections: economy, entrepreneurship, governance, education, health, safety, personal freedom and social capital."
> 
> 'To use economic measurements alone to gauge the success of a nation would be equivalent to assessing the entire condition of a man simply by looking at his bank balance, writes Peter Mandelson, former U.K. economic minister.'
> 
> "...joining Norway in the top 10 prosperous countries are its Scandinavian sisters Denmark, Finland and Sweden, with equally small and civilized Switzerland and the Netherlands also in the club....
> 
> So what gives? What do these prosperous European nations have in common that can somehow explain their prosperity? Being an electoral democracy is almost a givenof the top 25 most prosperous countries, only Singapore and Hong Kong arent.
> 
> Being small helps too. ...
> What else? *They are all borderline socialist states*, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth."
> From The World's Happiest Countries - Forbes
> 
> *You are utterly wrong Androw.* Socialism helps make more people better off. Capitalism helps a few people to become extremely well off on the backs of the rest.
Click to expand...


No no no no....  please.

Greece was the most generous Socialist based system.   Norway is no where near being socialist.  Not even close.

None of those countries is even remotely socialist.   You are crazy.   Sweden is more capitalist friendly than the US today.
Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

Switzerland, Denmark, and Canada, are all higher on the Economic Freedom index, than the US is.

This is yet another example of what I see all the time.  In order to justify this insanity that Socialism works, you have to look at extremely free-market Capitalist based countries, call them "borderline Socialist", in order to fabricate the justification that socialism can work.

No sorry.   Not even close.

[ame=http://youtu.be/vG51uCrYxVM]Sweden's March Towards Capitalism: Economist Andreas Bergh on the "Capitalist Welfare State" - YouTube[/ame]

Economist Andreas Bergh:

"Sweden is moving in the market economic direction, but that does not mean the US should be moving in the socialist direction.

It is not the case that people are taxed at high levels, and then those taxes are used to give to someone else.  Actually 85% of the taxes paid, are returned back to you as an individual.

The amount that is transferred to the poorest, is very small in Sweden"

If that's the version of "socialism" you support, then I can go for that too.  Give back to the rich, their money.  Give back to the middle class, their money.    And give back to me, my money.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> If that's the version of "socialism" you support, then I can go for that too.  Give back to the rich, their money.  Give back to the middle class, their money.    And give back to me, my money.



I didn't say that they were socialist ideals embodied perfectly. The fact they also have some capitalist aspirations is beside the point because these countries rely on redistribution of wealth, universal health care, free university education etc. Ya know? Things that bring a higher quality of life to their citizens.  I was merely quoting the article on Forbes which said also said those top *"socialist states"* (Forbes' words, not mine) were also robust traders with few limits on the flow of capital. But they treat their citizens with much more equality. They are nothing like America which is a bastion for your ideology and the extreme gap between 1% and bottom 20%. These socialist nations treat citizens, not as profit generators, but as people with basic needs that can be fulfilled by guaranteeing the rights of basic services. And that this in turn produces happier more productive workforce. So naturally they aspire to become competitive on the global market. 

Look, your little rule of thumb about "socialism=worse off; capitalism=glory be from on high" is flat out mistaken. All the countries in the top have socialist policy and/or universal welfare programs to ensure citizens are capable of making themselves useful to society. America, while it spends billions on welfare, does a horrible job at offering opportunities to make our citizens useful so they remain hovering in poverty unable to be productive and innovative. You need to reconsider your understanding of socialism. Your ideology forces you to slam socialism when in reality it has manifested itself in autonomous states that have chosen to accept a variety of socialist polities.

Neither socialism nor capitalism are perfect, but the evidence is clear: socialism works better for humans, American capitalism works better for psychopaths.


----------



## Londoner

dblack said:


> But wouldn't you agree it's important to know what we desire? If we can't find some consensus on the ideal, how can we ever move the reality toward it?



Yes.

Ideals guide action, and they can be great analytical tools, helping us measure current problems in light of what we want the world to look like. 

But I'm afraid of fundamentalists on either side. I'd love it if we could use the most defensible elements of both sides. For instance, in the 70's, when marginal rates were north of 70% on the top earners, I thought there was room for tax reform, especially because our corporations faced new threats from a re-industrialized Germany and Japan, as well as the rising power of China and India. But I didn't want tax reform to come at the expense of Labor, nor did I want to see us cannibalize all the policies and programs that targeted middle class purchasing power, which, when removed, left too many families vulnerable to credit (debt) as a means of survival. Skipping around, I was shocked at the deficits Reagan created with his increase in Defense Spending, but I also appreciated what the influx of government workers did for say, San Diego and Orange counties. (Sorting out my opinions on this stuff is above my pay grade.) In nearly every case I see nuances and complications that don't begin to scratch at the surface of how complicated this is.  

Leaning right, several decades ago I thought there was room for sensible deregulation in some industries, but I didn't want to remove the state's regulatory power altogether and thus enable companies like Enron to commit fraud. I wanted to see a middle ground . . . but, alas, by the time Rush came on the air, my desire for a functional middle was drowned out by carnival barkers who were strategically agitated to clog the debate with scare stories about Communism and Socialism. Where someone like you might be inclined toward market fundamentalism, I'm for the "all of the above" approach, taking things case by case, never taking any solutions off the table. Milton Friedman should help us scan our policy decisions for unintended consequences, while Marx should help us avoid state supported monopolies. 

In terms of government involvement, I'm for sensible anti-trust enforcement (which I think the Right dismantled to our detriment). For instance, I think mistakes were made in the 80s, a period marked by steroidal mega-mergers and leveraged buyouts. Rather than competing, companies bought each other, which resulted in "too big to fail" behemoths that had monopoly power across too many industries. Moreover, when a company is so big that it's failure can cause widespread damage to the economy, it has the kind of "bailout insurance" that creates toxic incentives (which arguably happened in 2008 with companies like AIG). 

The power that Reaganomics gave to corporations translated into unprecedented amounts of concentrated capital, the sort which allowed big business to fund elections, lobby politicians and gather more media assets, giving them too much centralized control over policies and opinions. As they captured the power of the State, they ingeniously funded a think tank and media revolution that convinced people that business was actually the victim of the state, effectively preventing citizens from seeing the truth about who owned their government. [Power is at its most effective when it produces an ideology that penetrates the deepest layers of common sense. The current ideology binds the poor Tea Party'er to the billionaire in much the same way that Christianity bound the serf to the landlord during the feudal period.]

Regardless, we emerged from the 80s with massive corporate behemoths that had the leverage to influence governments around the world (talk about central planning). I  thought it was tragic to see these behemoths preach about free markets in the front of the house while, in the back of the house, getting their Washington servants to divide the domestic economy into no-compete zones where everything from Health Care to Cable/Internet providers was insulated from market competition (-this is partly why health care costs were rising at 5x inflation). I sort of feel like the Supply Side Movement used Free Market rhetoric to infiltrate our political and regulatory organs - and then, once fully in control, they did what Marx predicted and Smith feared: they setup quasi-monopoly control over most industries; they stopped competing and, in too many instances, lost the incentive to innovate, choosing instead to raise rents on enslaved consumers. Money that could have been reinvested into R&D or productive capacity was increasingly channeled to image management and political manipulation. (We can debate advertising and how much of the space-time continuum is over branded on another day)

In terms of government's role in the economy, I liked Carter's anti-trust suit against AT&T. And I like that Reagan didn't prevent the justice department from breaking up the Bell System so that that baby Bells had to compete. As a consumer, I want telecom to drive over the bones of the living and the dead to give me a better price and better service, which is why the consumer in me will take a competitive market where one exists (though the citizen in me doesn't want polluted rivers or the neoliberal policies that have often accompanied the sometimes violent imposition of markets, Chile being one of the most famous). But the point is: I see a role for government - at the very least - in facilitating competition (to avoid monopolies). I also think that people are terribly ignorant about our history. There has _always_ been a powerful relationship between the State and Private sectors, much of it to the benefit of profit makers. That is, I think the amount of money, technology and infrastructure government gives to the owners of capital is dangerously under-reported, the effect of which is to leave 1/2 the population in the dark about where profit comes from. For instance, the satellite system that so many of our industries depend upon came out of the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program, but nobody who watches FOX knows that, which means they are more likely to clog public debate with misinformation, a fact that causes paralysis, which paralysis merely preserves the status quo and those who benefit from it.

Ultimately, I see the value of markets, but I also think government has a role to play in regulating those markets. Tragically, I don't think we, as a nation, have enough sound information to effectively debate what the goals should be on matters of government and markets. There are too many myopic partisans walking around with rage-filled opinions and next to zero data. Indeed, their rage is strategically stoked by the most irresponsible pundit class in world history. They want you to throw up your hands and say "it's always something with government." This cynicism means that you won't ask government to do anything. No Hoover Dams. No interstate systems. No great public universities. No stimulus. No work programs. No satellite system. No internet. No energy grids. No water plants. Nothing. This means more for the special interests who currently own government. (In my comedic ending to this thread I envision a picture of Ronald Reagan standing in front of the Hoover Dam or the Moon Landing and saying "Nothing to see here")


----------



## Londoner

This is an interesting explanation about the larger problems that our economy faced as we entered the 2000s

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTkEBIoxBA]Capitalism Hits the Fan Film Screening and Q&A with Professor Richard Wolff | The New School - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## gnarlylove

Londoner, I like your reasoned rebuke of affairs as it pertains to markets. Especially the explanations of events in the 80s. A professor of mine made sure to reiterate Reagan's  deficits of defense spending such as aircrafts would be paid on the backs of my generation.

Ideals only take us so far, and it's no different with free market fundamentalism.
Free markets carry a false persona of betterment.

Market fundamentalism dblack strives for is not wise, I argue. And I think it's because we disagree that people should not be allowed to generate wealth beyond comprehension. No one needs or can use a billion or dollars in a sensible way. Period. Whether spending it or investing it in assets or what have you it's just precarious. It transports a person from everyday life to an elite status that corrupts, see this link for a detailed explanation. It encourages unending arms race to the top and unfortunately it's allowing them to control governments and convince the public to blame the poor. It insulates them from criticism.

Do you see hope moving forward or will we continue to spiral downward from, as you noted, all the polemic that has devoured American politics?


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Londoner, I like your reasoned rebuke of affairs as it pertains to markets. Especially the explanations of events in the 80s. A professor of mine made sure to reiterate Reagan's  deficits of defense spending such as aircrafts would be paid on the backs of my generation.
> 
> Ideals only take us so far, and it's no different with free market fundamentalism.
> Free markets carry a false persona of betterment.
> 
> Market fundamentalism dblack strives for is not wise, I argue. And I think it's because we disagree that people should not be allowed to generate wealth beyond comprehension. No one needs or can use a billion or dollars in a sensible way. Period. Whether spending it or investing it in assets or what have you it's just precarious. It transports a person from everyday life to an elite status that corrupts, see this link for a detailed explanation. It encourages unending arms race to the top and unfortunately it's allowing them to control governments and convince the public to blame the poor. It insulates them from criticism.
> 
> Do you see hope moving forward or will we continue to spiral downward from, as you noted, all the polemic that has devoured American politics?



I don't argue for 'market fundamentalism'. I argue for freedom, and reject state coercion as a tool for forcing your will on others.


----------



## gnarlylove

You have proffered free market solutions at every turn. Am I right? If not then I have a hard time differentiating between when you are arguing ideals and when you are arguing for legitimate policy in the real world.

Watching Londoner's video, just the intro of Richard Wolff, he notes how our financial crisis was not merely financial and that we only got out of the last Great Depression due to a major change in society. I think similarly, we are going to have to take measures to change society in order to climb out of this ever widening gap of have-nots and the 2%. With attitudes divided about the poor and the amounts of vitriol in the daily lives of people (.e.g road rage is increasing in leaps and bounds in America) we need to realize the exorbitance of the wealthy is our problem, not the poor who have so much to contribute but are offered little to know development, adequate education and sufficient opportunity to demonstrate their great utility.

Would you agree or do you think the solution is free markets?


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> You have proffered free market solutions at every turn. Am I right? If not then I have a hard time differentiating between when you are arguing ideals and when you are arguing for legitimate policy in the real world.



Nope. The free market doesn't 'solve' much of anything.



> Watching Londoner's video, just the intro of Richard Wolff, he notes how our financial crisis was not merely financial and that we only got out of the last Great Depression due to a major change in society. I think similarly, we are going to have to take measures to change society in order to climb out of this ever widening gap of have-nots and the 2%. With attitudes divided about the poor and the amounts of vitriol in the daily lives of people (.e.g road rage is increasing in leaps and bounds in America) we need to realize the exorbitance of the wealthy is our problem, not the poor who have so much to contribute but are offered little to know development, adequate education and sufficient opportunity to demonstrate their great utility.
> 
> Would you agree or do you think the solution is free markets?



"The solution" is something we can work on together, voluntarily, as a free society. My only real theme here is the rejection authoritarian initiatives to coerce people toward some pre-ordained goal. I'm not interested in grand plans to 'change society'. We'll change as we will, or we won't.

To put it another way, I want to live in a peaceful, cooperative community. To achieve that, we have to behave peacefully and cooperate. We can't do that by reaching for the billy club to solve every problem we face.


----------



## gnarlylove

My mistake then, I have heard you advocate for free markets as essential for freedom and misapplied it. You admit we need government to prosecute businesses that are harming us by unsafe disposal etc. but also advocate the lack of coercion, which means the lack of government. How does this play out? Does it mean smaller government but still enough to regulate bad business practices?


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> My mistake then, I have heard you advocate for free markets as essential for freedom and misapplied it. You admit we need government to prosecute businesses that are harming us by unsafe disposal etc. but also advocate the lack of coercion, which means the lack of government. How does this play out? Does it mean smaller government but still enough to regulate bad business practices?



It depends on what you mean by "regulate bad business practices". If you're talking about prosecuting fraud, theft, breach of contract, pollution, etc.. , I'd agree with your statement. If you're talking about the myriad ways government tries to "manage" our economic decisions, overriding individual judgment with state mandates - then I'd not agree.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me again about "cartel members" borrowing from the Fed.
> Always funny.
> Did you find out how much they're borrowing?
> Let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right dumb ass, just keep thinking that fed discount windows are just a figment of my imagination.  What a POS dumb ass retard you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, dumb ass, how much are these "cartel members" (love that silly phrase) currently borrowing from the Fed Discount Window?
> 
> Don't worry, I won't think any less of you when you post the answer.
Click to expand...


Retard.


----------



## Londoner

gnarlylove said:


> Do you see hope moving forward or will we continue to spiral downward from, as you noted, all the polemic that has devoured American politics?



Downward spiral. [I want to say something philosophically interesting that I got from the book After Virtue, which I barely understood in college... but here goes:]  When the West replaced its fixed world (anchored by God then Reason) with the belief that reality was a chaotic void to be filled in by the creative self, we lost the overarching context for settling value disputes. [I'm a fan of pluralism to the bitter end, but I feel like] We've became victims of a cruel postmodern joke, one where we were all freed to travel headlong into our own tragically solipsistic freedom, and now, as a result, we spend all day insulated within the warm amniotic confines of websites, books, newspapers, virtual communities and radio stations that reinforce what we already believe. I can't imagine a way out, not least because there is a massive financial incentive to keep us stupid and balkanized.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right dumb ass, just keep thinking that fed discount windows are just a figment of my imagination.  What a POS dumb ass retard you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, dumb ass, how much are these "cartel members" (love that silly phrase) currently borrowing from the Fed Discount Window?
> 
> Don't worry, I won't think any less of you when you post the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retard.
Click to expand...


Awwww.....did you find out just how small that number was?

You were wrong......you'll be okay......don't cry.


----------



## gnarlylove

Londoner said:


> We've became victims of a cruel postmodern joke, one where we were all freed to travel headlong into our own tragically solipsistic freedom, and now, as a result, we spend all day insulated within the warm amniotic confines of websites, books, newspapers, virtual communities and radio stations that reinforce what we already believe. I can't imagine a way out, not least because there is a massive financial incentive to keep us stupid and balkanized.



Excellent summary of our condition. I am a huge supporter of philosophy and especially critical thinking which I doubt 10% of people really know to apply critical thinking or applied ethics. Like you said, people have been told any desire is to be fulfilled and this is true freedom. I tried that and I nearly died, hedonism is the death of a person. Life fast and die young. Luckily I had grounding in Philosophical Christianity as a teen and more genuine philosophy in college so I was able to realize the essential requisite for having the good life: freedom entails responsibility. Freedom is not having a desire and then acting on it as long as its within legal confines (and thats hardly a deterrant, wasn't for me).

I agree with you it will continue to get worse. But the way out is to encourage responsibility and critical thinking. Also to stop the propaganda/ceaseless advertising that genuinely causes humans to believe their natural habitat is full of ads on a busy downtown street instead of a silent treetop or a beautiful nature scene--these things instill respect for nature. And that this everyday scene for most people is significantly damaging their minds, spirits, bodies. I know it did mine and I knew critical thinking!

I would advocate a required nature programs for kids. I worked on a wilderness discipline program for teens and adults and I tell you, most teenagers have 0 understanding of nature, or worse, they don't know anything outside the supermarket privileged lifestyle. It was scary since I grew up with this understanding nature is not infinite but is precious and must be sustained.

Lastly, I think somehow playing down the joys of consumerism as the ultimate joy will need to happen before we move forward. But this won't happen until capitalism shameless promotion is discontinued in a serious way. In other words, we need a revitalization of spiritual practices: a way to sternly teach one's own ego is not the greatest thing ever but that other human beings constitute the joy of existence and thus we must have compassion for all humans--not just fellow rich white ones. Ah, most would consider me crazy and that's part of the problem.

Another idea I heard the other day to possibly instill responsibility/vision the other day: it was bringing back the draft (not just military service but aide service abroad). I pondered and this seems decent to say the least.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've became victims of a cruel postmodern joke, one where we were all freed to travel headlong into our own tragically solipsistic freedom, and now, as a result, we spend all day insulated within the warm amniotic confines of websites, books, newspapers, virtual communities and radio stations that reinforce what we already believe. I can't imagine a way out, not least because there is a massive financial incentive to keep us stupid and balkanized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent summary of our condition. I am a huge supporter of philosophy and especially critical thinking which I doubt 10% of people really know to apply critical thinking or applied ethics. Like you said, people have been told any desire is to be fulfilled and this is true freedom. I tried that and I nearly died, hedonism is the death of a person. Life fast and die young. Luckily I had grounding in Philosophical Christianity as a teen and more genuine philosophy in college so I was able to realize the essential requisite for having the good life: freedom entails responsibility. Freedom is not having a desire and then acting on it as long as its within legal confines (and thats hardly a deterrant, wasn't for me).
> 
> I agree with you it will continue to get worse. But the way out is to encourage responsibility and critical thinking. Also to stop the propaganda/ceaseless advertising that genuinely causes humans to believe their natural habitat is full of ads on a busy downtown street instead of a silent treetop or a beautiful nature scene--these things instill respect for nature. And that this everyday scene for most people is significantly damaging their minds, spirits, bodies. I know it did mine and I knew critical thinking!
> 
> I would advocate a required nature programs for kids. I worked on a wilderness discipline program for teens and adults and I tell you, most teenagers have 0 understanding of nature, or worse, they don't know anything outside the supermarket privileged lifestyle. It was scary since I grew up with this understanding nature is not infinite but is precious and must be sustained.
> 
> Lastly, I think somehow playing down the joys of consumerism as the ultimate joy will need to happen before we move forward. But this won't happen until capitalism shameless promotion is discontinued in a serious way. In other words, we need a revitalization of spiritual practices: a way to sternly teach one's own ego is not the greatest thing ever but that other human beings constitute the joy of existence and thus we must have compassion for all humans--not just fellow rich white ones. Ah, most would consider me crazy and that's part of the problem.
> 
> Another idea I heard the other day to possibly instill responsibility/vision the other day: it was bringing back the draft (not just military service but aide service abroad). I pondered and this seems decent to say the least.
Click to expand...


And what becomes of those who won't submit to your vision of the good life? Parents who refuse to send their children to your required nature programs? People who evade your national service draft? Arrest? Imprisonment? Re-education? What if they continue to resist?


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, dumb ass, how much are these "cartel members" (love that silly phrase) currently borrowing from the Fed Discount Window?
> 
> Don't worry, I won't think any less of you when you post the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awwww.....did you find out just how small that number was?
> 
> You were wrong......you'll be okay......don't cry.
Click to expand...

^retard thinks the fed doesn't do anything.  What a dumb ass.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.   I have no such belief in a social cost, other than police, fire, justice.   I know many many many people that agree with that perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> *What part of "justice" does this fall under?*
> 
> "As West Virginians were learning Thursday of a devastating chemical spill in the Elk River that has rendered water undrinkable for 300,000 people, the US House of Representatives was busy gutting federal hazardous-waste cleanup law.
> 
> The House passed the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act that would ultimately eliminate requirements for the Environmental Protection Agency to review and update hazardous-waste disposal regulations in a timely manner, and make it more difficult for the government to compel companies that deal with toxic substances to carry proper insurance for cleanups, *pushing the cost on to taxpayers."*
> 
> *The part where corporations privatize their coal-related profits while socializing their cleanup costs on the backs of taxpayers?*
> 
> US House passed bill ravaging toxic-waste law - on same day as W. Virginia chemical spill ? RT USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a vegetarian.   I have a membership to PETA, and I donated money to the Animal Legal Defense Fund.    I travel the world, and have spoken to congress on behalf of animal rights.
> 
> Yesterday I went to Texas Roadhouse, and ate a massive steak.
> 
> Regardless of what others say, regardless of what I say, regardless of anything else I've done...... am I a vegetarian?
> 
> No.   I'm not a vegetarian.   Doesn't matter what others says, or even I say... I'm not a vegetarian, because I ate meat, and the very definition of Vegetarian excludes the action of eating meat.
> 
> Back to your post.....
> 
> Is this capitalism?    If you privatize the profits, but socialize the cost... is that Capitalism?
> 
> Milton Friedman:   "Capitalism is a profit and loss system.  Profit encourages risk taking.  Loss encourages prudence"
> 
> Is this Capitalism?   No.    It's not.   You can bring up a thousand articles of government engaging in Socialism... and my response will be exactly the same every single time.
> 
> *Yes georgephillip, Socialism is unjust, and doesn't work.  Stop electing socialists that socialize the loss.*
> 
> Gutting the EPA would not have done anything.   Nor would having the EPA pass more regulations do anything.
> 
> So how does Free-Market Capitalism work?
> 
> Real simple.   The company caused an economic loss, just like me hitting your car would cause a loss.   The solution would be for me to pay for the repairs to your car.  Similarly, the company should pay for the repairs to the damaged water supply.      If the company can't afford it, then it closes, thus eliminating them from the economy.   Other companies seeing what happens to the bankrupted and eliminated company, would voluntarily without regulations, pay for insurance, or pay for reasonable tighter safety standards.
> 
> Instead, because of you socialists, socializing the costs, and passing regulations, small companies will go out of business under the weight of regulations they can't afford.    Big wealthy companies will become even wealthier, while at the same time drastically increasing cost to the consumer (supply goes down from less competition, demand stays the same, price goes up).
> 
> Meanwhile companies are less likely to make wiser choices, knowing all they have to do is follow regulations, and socialists in government will bail them out.
> 
> It's exactly what happened in Banking.    Socialism has the same effect regardless of industry.
> *
> And by the way, the socialists in government play you people like a fiddle, and use you repeatedly.*
> 
> I read about an EPA site, of an old factory.   The clean up of the site was so clean, that a child who could climb the metal fence, and get on to the abandoned property, miles away from any residential area, could eat dirt... literally eat dirt for 10 days, before getting sick.
> 
> The politicians stirred up the public, and debate ensued until finally, additional millions of dollars were spent to the wealthy clean up company, who also happened to back the politicians, in order to make the dirt at the fenced off site clean enough that if a child scaled the fence, they could eat dirt for 41 days before getting sick.  (an adult wouldn't be affected at all).
> 
> Score for the rich wealthy clean up company, the politicians, and the lawyers.   Fail for the tax payers, whose children would never have been able to scale the fence, and honestly if your child is so brain damaged that he shovels dirt in his mouth for days on end, you likely have bigger problems than the toxicity of dirt at an abandoned factory site.
> 
> This is socialism at work.   Government regulation, control, and dictation to the economy.   This is how socialism works around the world, and throughout human history.  Just read the stories coming of out Russia over the recent games.
Click to expand...

So what?
The next time you and Milton visit that Texas steakhouse, order pork.
Capitalism uses government to suck up vast amounts of taxpayer cash at the job or at the pump, then doles out the dollars to private contractors (capitalists) who, like pigs at the trough, never stop asking for more.

Possibly you're not ignorant of how 19th century capitalists used government to subsidize the building of canals, the establishment of a merchant marine, the laying of the first transcontinental railroad which brought millions of acres public land under the control of a handful of private tycoons for free.

Who got the profits, and who paid the cost?

A generation earlier a similar collusion between capitalists and government appropriated taxpayer dollars for private profits in the construction of roadways, public buildings, navy yards and army posts all outsourced to private contractors (capitalists)

Today "privatization" still ensures capitalists pursuing private gain with little or no regard for social consequences, and only pathic fools who've digested decades of Milton Friedman's night soil believe any capitalist will ever self-regulate.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, I would agree with you on most of that.
> 
> Of course I'm talking about the ideal of Capitalism, in what it actually refers to, over what Capitalism can and sometimes does end up.
> 
> Just like people who support Socialism, refer to the ideal of Socialism, and ignore that in practice Socialism always, every single time, ends up a tyranny.
> 
> Of course there is no perfect Capitalistic Utopia, and there certainly isn't a Socialist Workers Paradise.
> 
> That said, every time any country moves towards Socialism, things get worse.   And every time that any country moves more towards Capitalism, things get better.
> 
> China was the leading country on the face of the planet.   They moved towards Socialism, and ended up a 3rd world impoverished hell.   Now they are moving towards Capitalism, and will likely retake their spot as leading the world.
> 
> India move towards Socialism after independence, and declined.   Now they are moving towards Capitalism and are succeeding.
> 
> Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America.  They moved towards socialism, and now are the worst performing economy in all of Latin America.
> 
> Brazil has embraced Capitalism, and is now the leading economy in Latin America.    And I could list hundreds of other examples.  Cuba, Jamaica, East and West Berlin, North and South Korea,  Hong Kong and China, the list of examples is endless.
> 
> The more people move towards the ideal of Capitalism, the better off they end up.   The more they move towards Socialism, the worse off they are.
> 
> Does that mean we don't have pockets of socialism in a generally capitalistic country, like the USA?  Of course not.  We most certainly do.  And all of those areas, are the areas we have problems.    Do you see problems in the paper supply, or office supply areas?   Nope.  Very little regulations, controls, subsidies, on pencils and copier paper.    How about Health Care, or Banking?   Yes, and both have massive issues and problems.
> 
> And all Capitalism requires the enforcement of property rights, and stability.    Has nothing to do with Oil, as much as it has to do with all business is hard to conduct when people are shooting each other, and bombs are going off.   When rockets are flying over head, people generally don't go to the dealership to check out a new Volvo.  Just saying.
> 
> And of course companies support intervention that supports their companies.   Whether they fund libertarian think tanks, I don't give a crap.  I'm against government intervention, no matter who funds what.
> 
> Just because a company wants regulations that benefit themselves, happens to fund some group somewhere, doesn't matter to me.   Sometimes I think you people on the left say stuff like that, because if that company was funding your group, you would support them.... thus you assume us on the right, are the same.  Sorry.  Not true.
> 
> FDIC is exactly the kind of bank supporting system, that I'm against.   Ironically FDR was against it.    Even the big banks were against it at the time.   But dumb as hell leftists in the 30s, demanded this program which screws themselves over, at the benefit of the banks.
> 
> It's ironic that you bring up the exact policies I'm against, to counter my point.   That's a fail dude.
> 
> I'm even against Intellectual Property rights, because the idea of patenting a 'thought' is fruit cake nonsense.
> 
> What I am in favor of is enforcing property rights.  Without the right to property, you might as well be slaves.    Look at Haiti.   That's what you end up with, without property rights.
> 
> *Subsidies are a different matter.  When I talk about Subsidies, I'm talking about government taxing one person, and taking the money from them, and giving it to another person.*    Money has to be removed from one individual, and given to another individual, for me to call that a "subsidy".
> 
> When a leftist refers to a "subsidy", they typically mean a tax deduction, and yet ironically, they never refer to the taking money from one, to give to another.
> 
> So when the tax payers pay their taxes, and government gives out money that money to rich companies, or farmers, to grow corn for Ethanol, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.   When Government gives out billions in grants, taxed from the public, given to a company to make Solar Panels, you don't see the left screaming about Subsidies.
> 
> But if you happen to give an oil company a tax deduction, for the depreciation of their drilling equipment, so they pay tax, but just a little less tax..... suddenly the left starts screaming about subsidies to evil oil!   Bull crap.  That's not a subsidy, anymore than deducting my Student loans from my taxes, so I saved $100 from my tax bill, means the American public is subsidizing me.
> 
> If a tax deduction is a subsidy, then the entire population of the whole country, is being subsidized.   In which case, the word is meaningless, and the argument is self defeating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still whining about Allende? LOL!
> Who is better off today, the people of Chile or the people of Cuba?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people who are not subject to a US embargo, Idiot.
> 
> United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can trade with the other 200 countries in the world, but they're an economic basket case because they can't trade with 1?
> Nothing to do with the socialist blood suckers draining them for the last 50 plus years? LOL! Idiot.
> 
> Do you have an Allende poster on your wall?
Click to expand...

Do you have an autographed picture of Hank Paulson under your bed?
Why don't you ask it how the "economic basket case" manages to pay for free education and health care for all its citizens?
Punk.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can't. All you're really saying here is perfection can't be achieved. A perfect socialist state will never be achieved either. So what? My point is that if we can't agree on the ideal, we can't determine which way to proceed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it can't be achieved. I said it was dubious; to make the point we need to be aware that we don't live there. If we better educated people and spent more time considering the needs of society instead of wants of the affluent we might develop a better society that can achieve far more.
> 
> Instead, millions think we live in a capitalist system that will continue providing the world better and better life but the precise opposite is happening. People have been displaced and struggling all over the globe and capitalism is part of the problem. Too few people are getting needs met so they must turn to other violent sources or simply die.
> 
> So dblack, together we can set capitalism down from its peddle stool instead of making it our aim. Instead, we must first achieve those conditions. What are they? I suspect it would take more than a few policy changes to get us one iota closer to those conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh come on.     You realize that a married couple, both working at Wendy's flipping burgers for minimum wage....   They make $30K a year.   $30K a year, puts them in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.
> 
> Do grasp the point?   People in the lowest income levels of our society, have a better standard of living than 99% of the world.
> 
> And you think Capitalism hasn't worked for us?  Compared to what?
> 
> Tell that to North Koreans risking being shot to get to South Korea.   Tell that to Cubans willing to die to get to Florida.     Tell that to the Chinese, that they were better of living in mud huts for $2 a week.    Tell that to the over one million Venezuelans that have fled Venezuela.
> 
> Come on.... seriously?  How can you even attempt to justify such a claim?
Click to expand...

Do you realize that couple flipping burgers at Wendy's today would be earning $50,000-$60,000 a year if the pay for their increased productivity had risen proportionally to the richest 1% of Americans (who earned 8% of US income in the '70s compared to nearly 25% today?)

Maybe you "get it" how US prosperity has come at the expense of the working populations of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela?

Four percent of the world's population acquired 25% of its wealth by becoming the greatest purveyor of violence in the world; seriously, how can you be ignorant of that?


----------



## Londoner

dblack said:


> And what becomes of those who won't submit to your vision of the good life? Parents who refuse to send their children to your required nature programs? People who evade your national service draft? Arrest? Imprisonment? Re-education? What if they continue to resist?



I think we saw that with Vietnam protests. The government wanted to feed children into a civil war/stalemate with no political resolution in sight. The kids resisted and many were imprisoned. 

But to your point. High School imposes a particular curriculum on children - a curriculum whose seminal texts contain values and narratives and a vision of the good life. There is also a physical education component  ("Gym") which itself is justified by appeals to a certain goal or vision about life or health. In a democratic society, a citizen has a right to ask that a particular course be included in the required high school curriculum. That citizen would have to give an argument for why he or she thinks a given course would be valuable, which of course means they would have to follow protocols by submitting their plan to the appropriate regional/state/federal agency where it would be evaluated and voted upon. If passed, than non-compliance with the course would be met with the same consequences as non-compliance for any other course.

To suggest that someone may want to re-condition students or imprison them when they're only offering an idea for debate is, IMHO, a strawman. It goes along with the strategy of accusing someone of being a Fascist in lieu of an open discussion (a strategy ironically deployed by the Trotskyites to clog public debate).

Are you familiar with the brilliant book "The Closing of the American Mind" by conservative icon Allen Bloom? Bloom suggests that the liberal reforms on education adopted in the sixties were bad for the country. Liberals wanted a more open curriculum - one that taught children to be hyper critical of everything, including traditional history texts and traditional values. The theory is that children shouldn't be indoctrinated into a particular version of American history, and they shouldn't be indoctrinated into being patriotic, but, rather, they should comes to these things by critical engagement and choice. By building education around their critical faculties and individual choice, the Liberals argued, students would be better able to fulfill their role as _free_ citizens, ones empowered to make decisions about the foundational values by which they would live. [This stems mostly from John Dewey who believed that students were not mere receptacles of tradition and/or god-given values, but actual creators of values.]  Bloom's countered that a particular vision of the good life - one that followed American Conservatism & Tradition - should be imposed on children. He thought the alternative - e.g., critical engagement with our most sacred values, or a willingness to entertain the value of other cultures - lead to value relativism and multiculturalism, both of which weakened national spirit. Bloom was a conservative, not a Libertarian, obviously. 

I kind of wish we could resurrect the very real conflict between Conservatism and Libertarianism There's enough substance here, IMO, to have a civil debate. I think that when Reagan combined these two coalitions to form the modern GOP, he suppressed some very real conflicts not only inside the Right's vision of education but politics in general. Moreover, I think members inside your party probably do think education should impose a vision of the good life. And I don't fault them for that because I think there are very compelling arguments on both sides of this debate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awwww.....did you find out just how small that number was?
> 
> You were wrong......you'll be okay......don't cry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^retard thinks the fed doesn't do anything.  What a dumb ass.
Click to expand...


The Fed does lots of things.

What they aren't doing, right now, is lending a lot of money at the discount window.

Let me know if you need me to hold your hand, to find out how much, or if you prefer to remain ignorant of that fact?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who are not subject to a US embargo, Idiot.
> 
> United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can trade with the other 200 countries in the world, but they're an economic basket case because they can't trade with 1?
> Nothing to do with the socialist blood suckers draining them for the last 50 plus years? LOL! Idiot.
> 
> Do you have an Allende poster on your wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have an autographed picture of Hank Paulson under your bed?
> Why don't you ask it how the "economic basket case" manages to pay for free education and health care for all its citizens?
> Punk.
Click to expand...


Paying for healthcare is easy, when only the Party members get it.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can trade with the other 200 countries in the world, but they're an economic basket case because they can't trade with 1?
> Nothing to do with the socialist blood suckers draining them for the last 50 plus years? LOL! Idiot.
> 
> Do you have an Allende poster on your wall?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an autographed picture of Hank Paulson under your bed?
> Why don't you ask it how the "economic basket case" manages to pay for free education and health care for all its citizens?
> Punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying for healthcare is easy, when only the Party members get it.
Click to expand...

"The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility *for the health care of all its citizens*.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."

Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack

Londoner said:


> To suggest that someone may want to re-condition students or imprison them when they're only offering an idea for debate is, IMHO, a strawman. It goes along with the strategy of accusing someone of being a Fascist in lieu of an open discussion (a strategy ironically deployed by the Trotskyites to clog public debate).



I don't think it is a strawman. It's an earnest appeal to consider the ramifications of pursuing social reform via state mandates, rather simply working to persuade people to make the desired changes voluntarily. Making these ideas legal requirements means we're willing to use violent force against anyone who defies us. I think it's always worth questioning if such extremes are really necessary.



> Are you familiar with the brilliant book "The Closing of the American Mind" by conservative icon Allen Bloom?



Yeah, I read that one back in the day. And while it never set well with me, I failed, at the time, to see just how dangerous his views really were. It wasn't until years later, as the worldview of Bloom, and the rest of the "Straussians" came to fruition in the form of the Bush/Cheney administration, that I understood.



> I kind of wish we could resurrect the very real conflict between Conservatism and Libertarianism There's enough substance here, IMO, to have a civil debate.


You may get your wish. I see the principal axis of American political debate rotating, away from the left/right split, and toward the authoritarian/libertarian divide. The only missing piece is for the Democrats to get their "Ron Paul". 

If and when that happens, we could see a real alignment among individual liberty advocates that could challenge the authoritarian, neo-con status quo currently dominating both established parties.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an autographed picture of Hank Paulson under your bed?
> Why don't you ask it how the "economic basket case" manages to pay for free education and health care for all its citizens?
> Punk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying for healthcare is easy, when only the Party members get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility *for the health care of all its citizens*.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."
> 
> Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


*There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.*

Absolutely.

_In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food._

Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist

LOL!


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack, I think you might be misreading me. I advocated for a couple things but in vague ways. THe draft is easily resistible and I kinda of do myself but it makes sense to instill responsibility in young people. The world cannot cohere if billions of irresponsible people are spending beyond their means and no one is acting with any interest other than their own. We know this plays out poorly and I know you agree. Without discipline, there is no freedom. Without understanding, there is no freedom. We must cooperate and for the time being governments must be involved. We both wish it weren't so but it is.


The following video is about American politics and how they have devolved into drivel. Sandel offers moral discussion than entertainment politics.

Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate | Video on TED.com

Bloom's book, while important, makes me a bit nauseas. On the one hand it is an informative book, on the other it is a privileged perspective that, as usual, claims to see things for what they really are.

We don't need a fixed point, I think its quite clear truth is relative (except maybe math and logic but lets not get too technical, that's not the issue). But just because there is no truth beyond humanity doesn't mean there's less reason to not harm one another. Relativism can strike two ways: leaving one hopeless for understanding Truth, or what it should do is free one to realizing there is no ultimate idea we can perceive a priori so quit fighting over "who is right" by recognizing the humanity in all of us (most wars are fought over ideology) and lets produce a society based on freedom (pluralism among other things), not authority (i.e. who is right/has the most might). Indeed, this has been the arc of human history. Will it bend away from liberty and justice once more before it slightly curves towards liberty and justice? Just because there will be no absolute best way to run things that we can know a priori then we can finally start trying things instead of complaining they won't work based on ideology. Ideologies are fancy narratives that claim to be absolute but are often misinterpretations of reality. I say that because perceiving ultimate reality is not genuinely possible. One gets close when thinking of nothing but we can get no closer.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying for healthcare is easy, when only the Party members get it.
> 
> 
> 
> "The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility *for the health care of all its citizens*.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."
> 
> Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.*
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> _In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food._
> 
> Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...

*The Economist*

"The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate. 

"Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely. 

"Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries. 

"Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others. 

"*If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.* 

"Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."

Health in Cuba


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility *for the health care of all its citizens*.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."
> 
> Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.*
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> _In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food._
> 
> Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Economist*
> 
> "The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate.
> 
> "Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely.
> 
> "Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries.
> 
> "Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others.
> 
> "*If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.*
> 
> "Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."
> 
> Health in Cuba
Click to expand...


Is the Economist telling lies about those hospitals in Cuba?


----------



## Londoner

dblack said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> To suggest that someone may want to re-condition students or imprison them when they're only offering an idea for debate is, IMHO, a strawman. It goes along with the strategy of accusing someone of being a Fascist in lieu of an open discussion (a strategy ironically deployed by the Trotskyites to clog public debate).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is a strawman. It's an earnest appeal to consider the ramifications of pursuing social reform via state mandates, rather simply working to persuade people to make the desired changes voluntarily. Making these ideas legal requirements means we're willing to use violent force against anyone who defies us. I think it's always worth questioning if such extremes are really necessary.
Click to expand...



Fair enough. This is very interesting issue.

Louis Althusser, a French Marxist who was deeply critical of state power, believed that schools were part of the "Ideological State Apparatus" which served mainly to socialize individuals for their role inside the prevailing mode of exchange. He believed that the primary function of school in, say, a capitalist society was to create good capitalists. In this view schools become the primary locus of state power, and their job is to _morally_ calibrate students to their function as workers, managers or owners, which mean that schools negatively reinforce those who, say, reject competitive individualism or tout the virtues of socialism.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Just because there will be no absolute best way to run things that we can know a priori then we can finally start trying things instead of complaining they won't work based on ideology. Ideologies are fancy narratives that claim to be absolute but are often misinterpretations of reality. I say that because perceiving ultimate reality is not genuinely possible. One gets close when thinking of nothing but we can get no closer.



I think we disagree more than you recognize. Perhaps you're merely dismissing my comments as "ideology", but I think I've made clear I don't think the purpose of government is to "run things".

As to your comments on ideology, I think they're off base. An ideology isn't an interpretation of reality or an attempt to perceive ultimate reality. It's an internally consistent set of ideals that define our goals. Broadly, it's the way we think things _ought_ to be. In a political discussion, ideology is unavoidable. It's just a question of whether it's acknowledged or implicit.

As to the TED talk you linked to, I didn't get it. I didn't really see any relevance to the thread or our discussions. The only thing that did get my attention - but I don't think in the way that he intended - was his suggestion that we need to understand the _purpose_ of our social institutions before we begin discussing specific values and policies.

Here's where I think it's relevant. Most every debate I see on these boards involves, as a subtext, fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. But we almost never talk directly about that disagreement. We delve into relatively pointless debate about what sorts of government policies we ought to have for various specific issues, with out ever finding alignment on what the overall goal of those policies should be.


----------



## dblack

Londoner said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> To suggest that someone may want to re-condition students or imprison them when they're only offering an idea for debate is, IMHO, a strawman. It goes along with the strategy of accusing someone of being a Fascist in lieu of an open discussion (a strategy ironically deployed by the Trotskyites to clog public debate).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is a strawman. It's an earnest appeal to consider the ramifications of pursuing social reform via state mandates, rather simply working to persuade people to make the desired changes voluntarily. Making these ideas legal requirements means we're willing to use violent force against anyone who defies us. I think it's always worth questioning if such extremes are really necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. This is very interesting issue.
> 
> Louis Althusser, a French Marxist who was deeply critical of state power, believed that schools were part of the "Ideological State Apparatus" which served mainly to socialize individuals for their role inside the prevailing mode of exchange. He believed that the primary function of school in, say, a capitalist society was to create good capitalists. *In this view schools become the primary locus of state power*, and their job is to _morally_ calibrate students to their function as workers, managers or owners, which mean that schools negatively reinforce those who, say, reject competitive individualism or tout the virtues of socialism.
Click to expand...


Yep.


----------



## gnarlylove

My comments on ideology don't really conflict with yours. I think it's important to recognize that an ideology is one _way of perceiving_ the world and how it ought to be but that this perception is little more than that. To consider it ultimate truth is a great way to inculcate authoritarianism and keep coercion over people. Michele Focault discussed Truth as Power and made many interesting observations. You might think I'm guilty of this by imposing nature programs but that's a little off the wall because if we neglect our natural habitat, how will we come to know how we depend on it? So our decisions will not reflect an interest for this obviously vital resource for sustenance.

As I understand you dblack, you stand for minimal government, mostly for crime reduction/corporate misbehavior as far as I know. Beyond that you see the rest of government as excessive by preventing freedom from being totally realized.

If this means you think you should be advocating for massive reductions in gov't today or in the near future, I'd think you'd be misguided. Listen to Chomsky defend the Welfare State bearing in mind he is an anarchist.



			
				Noam Chomsky in Understanding Power said:
			
		

> ...I share that vision [dismantling state power]. But right now it runs directly counter to my goals: my immediate goals have been, and now very much are, to defend and even strengthen certain elements of  state authority  that are now under severe attack...
> 
> What's called the "welfare state" is essentially a recognition that every child has a right to have food, and to have health care and so on--and as I've been saying, those programs were set up in the nation-state system after a century of very hard struggle by the labor movement..." NB: Hundreds died in labor movements in the America in the late 1800s.
> 
> "And given the accelerating effort that's being made these days to roll back the victories for justice and human rights which have been won through long and often extremely bitter struggles in the West, in my opinion the immediate goal of even committed anarchist should be to defend some state institutions, while helping pry them open to more meaningful public participation and ultimately to dismantle them in a much more free society.
> 
> "There are practical problems of tomorrow on which people's lives very much depend, and while defending these kinds of programs is by no means the ultimate end we should be pursuing, in my view we still have to face the problems that are right on the horizon, and which seriously affect human lives. I don't think those things can simply be forgotten because they might not fit within some radical slogan that reflects a deeper vision of a future society. The deeper visions should be maintained...but dismantling the state system is a goal that's a lot farther away, and you want to deal first with what's at hand and nearby, I think. And in any realistic perspective the political system, with all its flaws, does have opportunities for participation by the general population which other existing institutions, such as corporations, don't have. In fact, that's exactly why the far right wants to _weaken_ governmental structures--because if you can make sure that all the key decisions are in the hands of Microsoft and General Electric and Raytheon, then you don't have to worry anymore about the threat of popular involvement in policy-making.
> 
> So take something that's been happening in recent years: devolution--that is, removing authority from the federal government down to the state governments. Well, in some circumstances, that would be democratizing move which I would be in favor of--it would be a move away from central authority down to local authority. But that's in abstract circumstances that don't exist. Right now it'll happen because moving decision-making power down to the state level in fact means handing it over to private power. See, huge corporations can influence and dominate the federal government, but even middle-sized corporations can influence state governments and play one state's workforce off against another's by threatening to move production elsewhere unless they get better tax breaks and so on.



I have a hard time understanding your ideas on moving forward in the current state we are in. What do you think of devolution? Are you in favor of Microsoft making decisions? Do you think people are less part of the equation than ideology when it comes to government size? 

In America we need to give those struggling a chance to be productive--and I believe that entails curtailing some of the extreme wealth being generated at the top .1%. It's a risk to freely educate people and give them food hoping they return the favor and then some but the risk pays off, just like it does in Denmark, Finland and some other countries that have high redistribution programs and robust welfare programs like free university.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> The only thing that did get my attention - but I don't think in the way that he intended - was his suggestion that we need to understand the _purpose_ of our social institutions before we begin discussing specific values and policies.
> 
> Here's where I think it's relevant. Most every debate I see on these boards involves, as a subtext, fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. But we almost never talk directly about that disagreement. We delve into relatively pointless debate about what sorts of government policies we ought to have for various specific issues, with out ever finding alignment on what the overall goal of those policies should be.



You are talking about news coverage, right? Most debates you see? Or are you talking USMB?

The purpose of government is essential to understanding how to employ it. But a government created back in 1776 may not be adequate for today. So while I agree our government is unconstitutional as it operates, I say at least some of these new "unconstitutional" features are important for social good. Especially given the change in power structures and dynamics and technologies there is good reason to consider a government designed in 1776 may need updating and may even have ill instructions for our present day. So even if we rebooted our government back to 1.0, I think we'd need to do a lot of Windows Updating before we could have the same quality of life unless somehow this also changed the people into moral, responsible citizens. Unlikely.

This is to say there has been change that needs accounting. Government must adapt just like people adapt. I remember you calling for return to the Constitution, which I find interesting most certainly. But given we need a national discussion on purpose of government, what do you see as the government perceived purpose today? How do you think the government views itself...

And how does their current purpose conflict with what you perceive should be their purpose? Keep in mind, if your idea is to end all welfare programs, you are going to harm a lot of people. I don't think this is acceptable definition of purposeful government. Do you? I hope you proffer a real world purposeful government that doesn't leave current millions stranded without food or heat, not one based in economic ideology of ending coercive government control.


----------



## gnarlylove

"Research has only recently been able to identify poverty as a causal factor (rather than merely correlational) in debilitating medical conditions that leave people sick, unable to work and unable to think - all factors that then perpetuate poverty, leaving the poor trapped in a vicious biological cycle."

"f you're a child born into a poor household, you're more likely to exhibit psychological symptoms than if you were born to a non-poor household - symptoms that are a direct result of being born poor."

"How do we know this? In 1993, a group of researchers started an eight-year longitudinal study of children in the Great Smoky Mountains, a range of peaks along the North Carolina-Tennessee border. One thousand four hundred twenty children were recruited - 25 percent Native American, 7.5 percent black and the rest white - and given psychiatric exams annually. Unsurprisingly, the children from poor families were found to have problems, about 60 percent more than their middle-class counterparts."

"The human brain has a finite amount of bandwidth. If one is forced to spend that worrying about poverty, it will necessarily have less capacity to spend on other tasks. Indeed, as other studies have shown, the poor often fail to take prescribed medications, fail to use preventative health care less and are less productive workers than their more-comfortable counterparts. "

Poverty

We need to stop damning the poor by blaming only them for their circumstances. Because growing up in poverty means one is growing up in scarcity unlike the middle class child who lives in abundance as normalcy (of food, of entertainment, of space, of attention from parents).

This clearly has an effect on children and it tends to harm them rather than help them as they grow older. So correcting this by preventing scarcity on behalf of society by the government is a big help and has paid off immensely in European countries like Denmark etc when done properly. I can attest to my parents having less capacity to do other basic tasks like take care of themselves (sleep enough, eat decent food etc) because they wake up worrying about debt or some future potential disaster or making the land taxes payment months in advance. And my parents have been working their whole lives, no slackers here. They are worse off as a result of income inequality in this stagnating economy while those at the top have seen unprecedented gains. So advocating for policies that continue damning the working class and poor while helping stupid greedy fucks who could use more money like they could a hole in the head feels like a direct attack on my family.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that did get my attention - but I don't think in the way that he intended - was his suggestion that we need to understand the _purpose_ of our social institutions before we begin discussing specific values and policies.
> 
> Here's where I think it's relevant. Most every debate I see on these boards involves, as a subtext, fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. But we almost never talk directly about that disagreement. We delve into relatively pointless debate about what sorts of government policies we ought to have for various specific issues, with out ever finding alignment on what the overall goal of those policies should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about news coverage, right? Most debates you see? Or are you talking USMB?
Click to expand...


Both



> what do you see as the government perceived purpose today? How do you think the government views itself. And how does their current purpose conflict with what you perceive should be their purpose?



Well, I don't think of government as a conscious entity, but I think most people today see it as an all purpose tool to force their will on others. I consider the purpose of government to be essentially the direct opposite: to prevent people from forcing their will others.


----------



## RKMBrown

gnarlylove said:


> "Research has only recently been able to identify poverty as a causal factor (rather than merely correlational) in debilitating medical conditions that leave people sick, unable to work and unable to think - all factors that then perpetuate poverty, leaving the poor trapped in a vicious biological cycle."
> 
> "f you're a child born into a poor household, you're more likely to exhibit psychological symptoms than if you were born to a non-poor household - symptoms that are a direct result of being born poor."
> 
> "How do we know this? In 1993, a group of researchers started an eight-year longitudinal study of children in the Great Smoky Mountains, a range of peaks along the North Carolina-Tennessee border. One thousand four hundred twenty children were recruited - 25 percent Native American, 7.5 percent black and the rest white - and given psychiatric exams annually. Unsurprisingly, the children from poor families were found to have problems, about 60 percent more than their middle-class counterparts."
> 
> "The human brain has a finite amount of bandwidth. If one is forced to spend that worrying about poverty, it will necessarily have less capacity to spend on other tasks. Indeed, as other studies have shown, the poor often fail to take prescribed medications, fail to use preventative health care less and are less productive workers than their more-comfortable counterparts. "
> 
> Poverty
> 
> We need to stop damning the poor by blaming only them for their circumstances. Because growing up in poverty means one is growing up in scarcity unlike the middle class child who lives in abundance as normalcy (of food, of entertainment, of space, of attention from parents).
> 
> This clearly has an effect on children and it tends to harm them rather than help them as they grow older. So correcting this by preventing scarcity on behalf of society by the government is a big help and has paid off immensely in European countries like Denmark etc when done properly. I can attest to my parents having less capacity to do other basic tasks like take care of themselves (sleep enough, eat decent food etc) because they wake up worrying about debt or some future potential disaster or making the land taxes payment months in advance. And my parents have been working their whole lives, no slackers here. They are worse off as a result of income inequality in this stagnating economy while those at the top have seen unprecedented gains. So advocating for policies that continue damning the working class and poor while helping stupid greedy fucks who could use more money like they could a hole in the head feels like a direct attack on my family.


Translation... people that whine about what other people are doing instead of getting off their fat lazy butts and working are generally worthless to society and get paid as such.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack,I know you advocate for capitalism/free markets while also advocating for reduction in government, to ultimately no government with laissez faire capitalism. But as a dissenter of capitalism, either as its practiced today or in its ideal form tend to agree with Albert Meltzer who wrote:

"Commonsense shows that any capitalist society might dispense with a 'State' . . . but it could not dispense with organised government, or a privatised form of it, if there were people amassing money and others working to amass it for them. The philosophy of 'anarcho-capitalism' dreamed up by the 'libertarian' New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper. It is a lie . . . Patently unbridled capitalism . . . needs some force at its disposal to maintain class privileges, either from the State itself or from private armies. What they believe in is in fact a limited State -- that is, one in which the State has one function, to protect the ruling class, does not interfere with exploitation, and comes as cheap as possible for the ruling class. The idea also serves another purpose . . . a moral justification for bourgeois consciences in avoiding taxes without feeling guilty about it." [Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, p. 50]

So in other words, like this original thread argued, capitalism will continue to create inequality, whether free market or regulated. As long as there is private property, there will be organized government, though we may choose to call it by another name.

"So what is capitalism? Well, for starters, it&#8217;s an economic system marked by two features: private property and wage labor. The latter is a result of the former; who would work for a wage, i.e., generate surplus value for a boss, if they had access the means of production themselves? Private property is the source of the inequality necessary for capitalism to function. And how is this inequality enforced and preserved? By means of a coercive structure at the disposal of the owners: that is, the state.

"There&#8217;s no such thing as private property without a coercive structure to enforce it. There&#8217;s no mystical essence to property. It&#8217;s not a concept that exists in all cultures and time periods."[http://www.crimethinc.com/podcast/18/transcript18.html]


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility *for the health care of all its citizens*.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."
> 
> Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.*
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> _In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food._
> 
> Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Economist*
> 
> "The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate.
> 
> "Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely.
> 
> "Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries.
> 
> "Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others.
> 
> "*If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.*
> 
> "Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."
> 
> Health in Cuba
Click to expand...


So you want to turn the rest of the world into a totalitarian police state?


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.*
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> _In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food._
> 
> Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> *The Economist*
> 
> "The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate.
> 
> "Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely.
> 
> "Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries.
> 
> "Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others.
> 
> "*If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.*
> 
> "Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."
> 
> Health in Cuba
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the Economist telling lies about those hospitals in Cuba?
Click to expand...


The economist is just gullible.  Cuba lies and The Economist believes their lies because it's staffed by a bunch of gullible liberals.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> dblack,I know you advocate for capitalism/free markets while also advocating for reduction in government, to ultimately no government with laissez faire capitalism. But as a dissenter of capitalism, either as its practiced today or in its ideal form tend to agree with Albert Meltzer who wrote:
> 
> "Commonsense shows that any capitalist society might dispense with a 'State'



A lot of people who disagree with that claim. I've advocated abolishing government altogether quite vociferously and persistently, and as a result I am viciously attacked by many of the "conservatives" and so-called "libertarians" in this forum.



gnarlylove said:


> . . . but it could not dispense with organised government, or a privatised form of it, if there were people amassing money and others working to amass it for them.



The term "privatized government" is an oxymoron.  Government is the monopoly on the use of force.  If it's privatized, then it's no longer a monopoly.



gnarlylove said:


> The philosophy of 'anarcho-capitalism' dreamed up by the 'libertarian' New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper. It is a lie . . . Patently unbridled capitalism . . . needs some force at its disposal to maintain class privileges, either from the State itself or from private armies. What they believe in is in fact a limited State -- that is, one in which the State has one function, to protect the ruling class, does not interfere with exploitation, and comes as cheap as possible for the ruling class.



The old form of so-called anarchism is the lie. You can't have socialism without force.  If people are free to pursue their own plans, then how does the community make them follow the community plan?  You can make people follow any plan without using force, and that means government.  

You'll never find any supporter of capitalism claiming that it requires the maintenance of "class privilege."  No capitalist believes there is anything resembling a class under capitalism.  That's a Marxist notion.  You don't need a government to maintain something that doesn't exist.

There is no "ruling class" under capitalism.  The fact that some people earn more doesn't make them a "class" or allow them to "rule" over anyone.

The term "exploitation" is virtually meaningless.  Basically all your author has said is that capitalism allows some people to earn more than others, and they might hire private security to protect what they've earned from thieves and looter.  When put in such mundane terms, your author's claim hardly sounds as sinister or scary as he makes it sound.



gnarlylove said:


> The idea also serves another purpose . . . a moral justification for bourgeois consciences in avoiding taxes without feeling guilty about it." [Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, p. 50



You're truly naïve if you think anyone feels guilty about not paying taxes, let alone the rich.



gnarlylove said:


> So in other words, like this original thread argued, capitalism will continue to create inequality, whether free market or regulated. As long as there is private property, there will be organized government, though we may choose to call it by another name.



Capitalism doesn't create inequality. Life does that.  All capitalism does is prevent the looters and useless parasites from taking what others have earned.  All you're saying is that if we don't force everyone to toss what they have produced into some communal pile, then some will have more than others.    Yeah, that's right, but so what?  However, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.  You haven't posted any valid reason why allowing people to keep what they have produced requires government.



gnarlylove said:


> "So what is capitalism? Well, for starters, its an economic system marked by two features: private property and wage labor. The latter is a result of the former; who would work for a wage, i.e., generate surplus value for a boss, if they had access the means of production themselves?



Socialism also uses wage labor, so it's hardly correct to claim that capitalism is "marked" wage labor.  If you disagree, then explain how the socialist economy would work without paying wages to people who do the work?



gnarlylove said:


> Private property is the source of the inequality necessary for capitalism to function. And how is this inequality enforced and preserved? By means of a coercive structure at the disposal of the owners: that is, the state.



You mean allowing people to keep what they have produced is necessary for capitalism to function.  That's true.  No economic system could possible function if anyone was free to claim anything produced by others.  Keeping your stuff only requires a means of protecting your stuff.  There's nothing "coercive" about hiring security to keep thieves and marauders at bay.  How is anyone being coerced by the presence of a gate to my property and a guard manning that gate?



gnarlylove said:


> "Theres no such thing as private property without a coercive structure to enforce it. Theres no mystical essence to property. Its not a concept that exists in all cultures and time periods."[http://www.crimethinc.com/podcast/18/transcript18.html]



Sure there is.  Private property existed for thousands of years before the state ever came into being.  The state is the single greatest threat to private property, not it's benefactor.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an autographed picture of Hank Paulson under your bed?
> Why don't you ask it how the "economic basket case" manages to pay for free education and health care for all its citizens?
> Punk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying for healthcare is easy, when only the Party members get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility *for the health care of all its citizens*.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."
> 
> Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


A fucking paradise.

So explain the reason Cubans are willing to leave the socialist paradise on anything that floats?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.*
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> _In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food._
> 
> Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> *The Economist*
> 
> "The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate.
> 
> "Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely.
> 
> "Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries.
> 
> "Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others.
> 
> "*If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.*
> 
> "Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."
> 
> Health in Cuba
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the Economist telling lies about those hospitals in Cuba?
Click to expand...

*Could be...*

"This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba. 

"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic. 

"Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre. 

"Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients. 

"Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."

Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com


----------



## buckeye45_73

georgephillip said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...

 
Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).

And i guess the ussr was better?  What system do you prefer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Economist*
> 
> "The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate.
> 
> "Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely.
> 
> "Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries.
> 
> "Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others.
> 
> "*If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.*
> 
> "Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."
> 
> Health in Cuba
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Economist telling lies about those hospitals in Cuba?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Could be...*
> 
> "This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.
> 
> "Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.
> 
> "Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.
> 
> "Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.
> 
> "Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."
> 
> Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com
Click to expand...

*
"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic. *

Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Economist telling lies about those hospitals in Cuba?
> 
> 
> 
> *Could be...*
> 
> "This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.
> 
> "Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.
> 
> "Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.
> 
> "Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.
> 
> "Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."
> 
> Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> "Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic. *
> 
> Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
> That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
> So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?
Click to expand...


All the Cubans I've ever known where hard working people that paid their bills.  You're a retarded racist biggot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Could be...*
> 
> "This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.
> 
> "Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.
> 
> "Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.
> 
> "Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.
> 
> "Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."
> 
> Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic. *
> 
> Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
> That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
> So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the Cubans I've ever known where hard working people that paid their bills.  You're a retarded racist biggot.
Click to expand...


Damn you're stupid.

It's not easy for the average Cuban to get hard currency, is it?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Economist telling lies about those hospitals in Cuba?
> 
> 
> 
> *Could be...*
> 
> "This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.
> 
> "Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.
> 
> "Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.
> 
> "Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.
> 
> "Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."
> 
> Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> "Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic. *
> 
> Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
> That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
> So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?
Click to expand...

100% of Cubans still have free medical care and education, don't they, Bigot?


----------



## buckeye45_73

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Could be...*
> 
> "This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.
> 
> "Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.
> 
> "Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.
> 
> "Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.
> 
> "Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."
> 
> Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic. *
> 
> Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
> That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
> So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100% of Cubans still have free medical care and education, don't they, Bigot?
Click to expand...

 
 wow they have free shit, yay for them. I'd rather have opportunity to make some money and get better healthcare

 so you want to be dirt poor like a Cuban, go right ahead bro!

 and again what economic system is better than the US, I'm waiting


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Could be...*
> 
> "This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.
> 
> "Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.
> 
> "Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.
> 
> "Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.
> 
> "Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."
> 
> Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic. *
> 
> Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
> That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
> So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100% of Cubans still have free medical care and education, don't they, Bigot?
Click to expand...


I guess if the low quality care is free, you can have it.  Idiot!


----------



## Contumacious

buckeye45_73 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic. *
> 
> Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
> That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
> So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?
> 
> 
> 
> 100% of Cubans still have free medical care and education, don't they, Bigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow they have free shit, yay for them. I'd rather have opportunity to make some money and get better healthcare
> 
> * so you want to be dirt poor like a Cuban, go right ahead bro!*
> 
> and again what economic system is better than the US, I'm waiting
Click to expand...


No, he wants ALL Americans to be dirt poor like Cubans.

.


----------



## dblack

Contumacious said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% of Cubans still have free medical care and education, don't they, Bigot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow they have free shit, yay for them. I'd rather have opportunity to make some money and get better healthcare
> 
> * so you want to be dirt poor like a Cuban, go right ahead bro!*
> 
> and again what economic system is better than the US, I'm waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he wants ALL Americans to be dirt poor like Cubans.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


But we won't need money. Everything will be free!!!


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow they have free shit, yay for them. I'd rather have opportunity to make some money and get better healthcare
> 
> * so you want to be dirt poor like a Cuban, go right ahead bro!*
> 
> and again what economic system is better than the US, I'm waiting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he wants ALL Americans to be dirt poor like Cubans.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we won't need money. Everything will be free!!!
Click to expand...


It's sad that some libturds believe that being 10 times poorer than the poorest American is worth it of you have free healthcare, no matter how shitty and worthless it is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Could be...*
> 
> "This health centre is located in Havana in Cuba and belongs to the Public Health national System of Cuba.
> 
> "Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic.
> 
> "Medical treatments are provided and surgical procedures are performed in all medical disciplines at the centre.
> 
> "Facilities at the centre includes modern surgery rooms, pre anaesthetic and post anaesthetic recovery rooms and 39 private rooms with two suites that have the best possible amenities for the comfort of patients.
> 
> "Services at the centre include health examinations, internal medicine, dental care and rehabilitation programmes."
> 
> Clinica Central Cira Garcia - Dentist in Havana - WhatClinic.com
> 
> 
> 
> *
> "Overseas patients are welcome at the clinic. *
> 
> Anyone who pays hard currency is welcome.
> That leaves out about 99.9% of Cubans.
> So much for your free, workers paradise, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100% of Cubans still have free medical care and education, don't they, Bigot?
Click to expand...


During that cold snap in mid-January, Cuban dissidents snuck out, via internet, a report claiming that over forty patients had somehow frozen to death in Cubas Mazorra mental hospital   not far from the one featured in Michael Moores paean to Cuban health care, Sicko.  Cubas Stalinist regime, along with the media courtesans to whom it grants press bureaus and journalist visas, were utterly mum on the matter, however. It took three days  as the word spread through the mostly Spanish-language web but finally the Stalinist regime issued a terse and exculpatory press-release on the matter.



But the story did not go away. Just last week, pictures of some of the dead were snuck out of Cuba. They proved that hypothermia alone was not the cause of death, any more than it was the cause of the death for the prisoners at Dachau or Buchenwald. Horrific malnutrition and savage beatings were plain to see for anyone genuinely interested in the causes.

Cuba?s Healthcare Horror | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But the story did not go away. Just last week, pictures of some of the dead were snuck out of Cuba. They proved that hypothermia alone was not the cause of death, any more than it was the cause of the death for the prisoners at Dachau or Buchenwald. Horrific malnutrition and savage beatings were plain to see for anyone genuinely interested in the causes.
> 
> Cuba?s Healthcare Horror | FrontPage Magazine



You don't care about Cubans' suffering, do you? Why would you post this?  To make an intellectual point? Who is keeping tabs, you? This article is kinda old and the picture is likely an isolated thing, to sensationalize it, ya know?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the story did not go away. Just last week, pictures of some of the dead were snuck out of Cuba. They proved that hypothermia alone was not the cause of death, any more than it was the cause of the death for the prisoners at Dachau or Buchenwald. Horrific malnutrition and savage beatings were plain to see for anyone genuinely interested in the causes.
> 
> Cuba?s Healthcare Horror | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't care about Cubans' suffering, do you? Why would you post this?  To make an intellectual point? Who is keeping tabs, you? This article is kinda old and the picture is likely an isolated thing, to sensationalize it, ya know?
Click to expand...


I do care about the suffering Cubans. I look forward to the day the Castro regime is placed on the ash heap of history.


----------



## gnarlylove

That is something we can both agree on. Cheers!


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.*
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> _In Cuba itself, meanwhile, private medicine is readily available to paying foreigners and well-connected locals. The two best hospitals in Havana, Cira García and CIMEX, are run for profit. Both are far better than normal state hospitals, where patients are often obliged to bring their own sheets and food._
> 
> Cuban health care: Nip and tuck in | The Economist
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> *The Economist*
> 
> "The poorer countries of the world continue to struggle with an enormous health burden from diseases that we have long had the capacity to eliminate.
> 
> "Similarly, the health systems of some countries, rich and poor alike, are fragmented and inefficient, leaving many population groups underserved and often without health care access entirely.
> 
> "Cuba represents an important alternative example where modest infrastructure investments combined with a well-developed public health strategy have generated health status measures comparable with those of industrialized countries.
> 
> "Areas of success include control of infectious diseases, reduction in infant mortality, establishment of a research and biotechnology industry, and progress in control of chronic diseases, among others.
> 
> "*If the Cuban experience were generalized to other poor and middle-income countries human health would be transformed.*
> 
> "Given current political alignments, however, the major public health advances in Cuba, and the underlying strategy that has guided its health gains, have been systematically ignored."
> 
> Health in Cuba
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to turn the rest of the world into a totalitarian police state?
Click to expand...

*Cuba functions as a police state because of two generations of US attempts to invade, vilify, sanction, and ignore the positive contributions the Cuban health system has contributed to global public health:*

"The unwillingness to take account of the Cuban experience, or to even view it as an alternative route through which some societies can move toward the universal goal of health promotion, represents an important oversight. 

"The achievements in Cuba thereby pose a challenge to the authority of the biomedical community in countries that define the scientific agenda. 

"This assertion by no means rests exclusively on Cuba's success in climbing the vital statistics charts. 

"In virtually every critical area of public health and medicine facing poor countries Cuba has achieved undeniable success; these include most prominentlycreating a high quality primary care network and an unequaled public health system, educating a skilled work force, sustaining a local biomedical research infrastructure, controlling infectious diseases, achieving a decline in non-communicable diseases, and meeting the emergency health needs of less developed countries. 

"In the following discussion, we attempt to substantiate these claims with evidence and speculate on some of the implications of having allowed the debate over the Cuban experience to be silenced."

Health in Cuba

*You should be more concerned about the totalitarian police state the Republicans AND Democrats are building in the US, IMHO.*


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying for healthcare is easy, when only the Party members get it.
> 
> 
> 
> "The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility *for the health care of all its citizens*.[1] There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda."
> 
> Health care in Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fucking paradise.
> 
> So explain the reason Cubans are willing to leave the socialist paradise on anything that floats?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

A lack of political freedom that has exactly nothing to do with the quality of medical care they receive.


----------



## georgephillip

buckeye45_73 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).
> 
> And i guess the ussr was better?  What system do you prefer?
Click to expand...

I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.

Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).
> 
> And i guess the ussr was better?  What system do you prefer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.
> 
> Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.
Click to expand...



The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).
> 
> And i guess the ussr was better?  What system do you prefer?
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.
> 
> Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?
Click to expand...


Is UHC more efficient? Does it meet our standards as a society more effectively than our current system? 

Whether you like it or not the fact is the nation does support things like Medicaid and Medicare. The entire industrialized world has some form of UHC because it works and meets the needs of the people.

This is not an ideological issue. The ideology of healthcare has already been established with Medicaid and Medicare. It is almost entirely an efficiency issue at this point and our system is horribly inefficient in large part because we like to pretend it is based on market economics. Meanwhile UHC systems like that in Germany have better market based decision making in use.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.
> 
> Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is UHC more efficient? Does it meet our standards as a society more effectively than our current system?
> 
> Whether you like it or not the fact is the nation does support things like Medicaid and Medicare. The entire industrialized world has some form of UHC because it works and meets the needs of the people.
> 
> This is not an ideological issue. The ideology of healthcare has already been established with Medicaid and Medicare. It is almost entirely an efficiency issue at this point and our system is horribly inefficient in large part because we like to pretend it is based on market economics. Meanwhile UHC systems like that in Germany have better market based decision making in use.
Click to expand...


Ok.. I hear you. Your answer is 'yes'. But I disagree. The political system, in as much as it is defined by government, is a system of coercion and, ultimately, violent force. We should employ it only as a last resort.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).
> 
> And i guess the ussr was better?  What system do you prefer?
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.
> 
> Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?
Click to expand...


That's your question.

My question is not whether it belongs, but in what manner it belongs.  Government's job is to break up monopolies, protect property, provide for the general welfare.  General welfare is not individual welfare.  ...

So IMO they should be breaking up drug monopolies, breaking up monopolies on our health care like medicare, and OCA.   Government job should be to ensure there is a process to certify doctors, drugs etc. as that applies to the general welfare, then allow us to choose if we want certified doctors and drugs or not.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).
> 
> And i guess the ussr was better?  What system do you prefer?
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.
> 
> Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?
Click to expand...


That's your question.

My question is not whether it belongs, but in what manner it belongs.  Government's job is to break up monopolies, protect property, provide for the general welfare.  General welfare is not individual welfare.  ...

So IMO they should be breaking up drug monopolies, breaking up monopolies on our health care like medicare, and OCA.   Government's job should be to ensure there is a process to certify doctors, drugs etc. as that applies to the general welfare, then allow us to choose if we want certified doctors and drugs or not.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.
> 
> Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your question.
> 
> My question is not whether it belongs, but in what manner it belongs.  Government's job is to break up monopolies, protect property, provide for the general welfare.  General welfare is not individual welfare.  ...
Click to expand...


That's all just basic law and order stuff.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is UHC more efficient? Does it meet our standards as a society more effectively than our current system?
> 
> Whether you like it or not the fact is the nation does support things like Medicaid and Medicare. The entire industrialized world has some form of UHC because it works and meets the needs of the people.
> 
> This is not an ideological issue. The ideology of healthcare has already been established with Medicaid and Medicare. It is almost entirely an efficiency issue at this point and our system is horribly inefficient in large part because we like to pretend it is based on market economics. Meanwhile UHC systems like that in Germany have better market based decision making in use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.. I hear you. Your answer is 'yes'. But I disagree. The political system, in as much as it is defined by government, is a system of coercion and, ultimately, violent force. We should employ it only as a last resort.
Click to expand...


Which is an ideological stance against government as opposed to one based on outcomes. If it is a matter of conflicts in ideology it just becomes about who has the most votes. This results in an inefficient government like the one we have today.

Alternatively I think it should be about outcomes. Our government shouldn't be about shouting matches based on belief but a recognition of the values of all our people and then an attempt to work together to help represent those beliefs and achieve the outcomes that are desired.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is UHC more efficient? Does it meet our standards as a society more effectively than our current system?
> 
> Whether you like it or not the fact is the nation does support things like Medicaid and Medicare. The entire industrialized world has some form of UHC because it works and meets the needs of the people.
> 
> This is not an ideological issue. The ideology of healthcare has already been established with Medicaid and Medicare. It is almost entirely an efficiency issue at this point and our system is horribly inefficient in large part because we like to pretend it is based on market economics. Meanwhile UHC systems like that in Germany have better market based decision making in use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.. I hear you. Your answer is 'yes'. But I disagree. The political system, in as much as it is defined by government, is a system of coercion and, ultimately, violent force. We should employ it only as a last resort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is an ideological stance against government as opposed to one based on outcomes.
Click to expand...


It's not 'against' government at all. It's just a clear recognition of it's nature and how it should, and should not, be used.



> Alternatively I think it should be about outcomes.



In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.. I hear you. Your answer is 'yes'. But I disagree. The political system, in as much as it is defined by government, is a system of coercion and, ultimately, violent force. We should employ it only as a last resort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is an ideological stance against government as opposed to one based on outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'against' government at all. It's just a clear recognition of it's nature and how it should, and should not, be used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alternatively I think it should be about outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.
Click to expand...


It is a moral belief about how it should be used. 

The "means" in question are taxation. I have no problem talking about the nature of taxation but an emphasis on the outcome doesn't mean the "means" are ignored. The means are inherent in the outcome approach.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is an ideological stance against government as opposed to one based on outcomes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'against' government at all. It's just a clear recognition of it's nature and how it should, and should not, be used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alternatively I think it should be about outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a moral belief about how it should be used.
> 
> The "means" in question are taxation. I have no problem talking about the nature of taxation but an emphasis on the outcome doesn't mean the "means" are ignored. The means are inherent in the outcome approach.
Click to expand...


The means in question are a convoluted cluster fuck of corporatist mandates.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your question.
> 
> My question is not whether it belongs, but in what manner it belongs.  Government's job is to break up monopolies, protect property, provide for the general welfare.  General welfare is not individual welfare.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all just basic law and order stuff.
Click to expand...


Correct.  I don't want a government that thinks its job is to manage my life.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.



I've been on both sides of the issue but have concluded there are no genuine means to an end. All events are end results in themselves. TO ignore an event or group of events for the sake of achieving some idea or goal is inauthentic. It ignores the quality of an event for the preference of another. As conscious beings we can withhold concerns in order to magnify other concerns, but nature and reality have no preference for one over another.

Of course there are tons of moral dilemmas we can raise regarding this, but we must realize we are understanding life not on nature's terms but on our pre-selected terms.

So in thinking about outcomes, we need to first realize the need for a gigantic health care system is largely preventable. By a nourishing diet and exercise one can reach a free cure for most ailments. This is preventive medicine, and should be the most important--but in an industry of profit, the more sick people the more money--so capitalism has deceived us again. Around 700CE famous Chinese doctor Sun Si-miao said that when a person is sick, the doctor should first regulate the patient's diet and lifestyle. In most cases, these changes alone are enough to effect a cure over time. Only once these changes are identified as inadequate, says Sun Si-miao, should the doctor administer other interventions such as internal medicine and acupuncture.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'against' government at all. It's just a clear recognition of it's nature and how it should, and should not, be used.
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a moral belief about how it should be used.
> 
> The "means" in question are taxation. I have no problem talking about the nature of taxation but an emphasis on the outcome doesn't mean the "means" are ignored. The means are inherent in the outcome approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The means in question are a convoluted cluster fuck of corporatist mandates.
Click to expand...


That's one means in question.  The other means in question is the funding via redistributions (public theft) of Peter's income and assets to pay for Paul's health care.


----------



## RKMBrown

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on both sides of the issue but have concluded there are no genuine means to an end. All events are end results in themselves. TO ignore an event or group of events for the sake of achieving some idea or goal is inauthentic. It ignores the quality of an event for the preference of another. As conscious beings we can withhold concerns in order to magnify other concerns, but nature and reality have no preference for one over another.
> 
> Of course there are tons of moral dilemmas we can raise regarding this, but we must realize we are understanding life not on nature's terms but on our pre-selected terms.
> 
> So in thinking about outcomes, we need to first realize the need for a gigantic health care system is largely preventable. By a nourishing diet and exercise one can reach a free cure for most ailments. This is preventive medicine, and should be the most important--but in an industry of profit, the more sick people the more money--so capitalism has deceived us again. Around 700CE famous Chinese doctor Sun Si-miao said that when a person is sick, the doctor should first regulate the patient's diet and lifestyle. In most cases, these changes alone are enough to effect a cure over time. Only once these changes are identified as inadequate, says Sun Si-miao, should the doctor administer other interventions such as internal medicine and acupuncture.
Click to expand...


That's a really long winded attempt to justify the raping of a small group of people for the benefit of another small group of people.


----------



## gnarlylove

"Are the privileged and powerful finally starting to get it? Former Fed chief Alan Greenspan said yesterday to the National Association of Business Economists: &#8220;I consider income inequality the most dangerous part of what&#8217;s going on in the United States. You can see the deteriorating impact of that on our current political system, and you cannot talk about politics without talking about its impact on the economy.&#8221; 

Bill Gross, co-founder and co-chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Company, the biggest bond-trading firm in America, wrote in one of his recent investment letters that the share of total pretax income going to America&#8217;s top 1% more than doubled from 10% in the 1970s to 20% today, and that his wealthy clients did not &#8220;create that wave. You rode it. And now it&#8217;s time to kick out and share some of your good fortune by paying higher taxes or reforming them to favor economic growth and labor, as opposed to corporate profits and individual gazillions.&#8221;

Is the business class beginning to understand that as long as 95% of the economy&#8217;s gains go to the top 1%, the rest of America doesn&#8217;t have the purchasing power to get the economy out of first gear? Or are they afraid that if prosperity isn&#8217;t more widely shared they'll face a political backlash against concentrated wealth, corporate power, free trade, and global capitalism?"

-Robert Riech, former Clinton Sec. of Labor


----------



## gnarlylove

RKMBrown said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on both sides of the issue but have concluded there are no genuine means to an end. All events are end results in themselves. TO ignore an event or group of events for the sake of achieving some idea or goal is inauthentic. It ignores the quality of an event for the preference of another. As conscious beings we can withhold concerns in order to magnify other concerns, but nature and reality have no preference for one over another.
> 
> Of course there are tons of moral dilemmas we can raise regarding this, but we must realize we are understanding life not on nature's terms but on our pre-selected terms.
> 
> So in thinking about outcomes, we need to first realize the need for a gigantic health care system is largely preventable. By a nourishing diet and exercise one can reach a free cure for most ailments. This is preventive medicine, and should be the most important--but in an industry of profit, the more sick people the more money--so capitalism has deceived us again. Around 700CE famous Chinese doctor Sun Si-miao said that when a person is sick, the doctor should first regulate the patient's diet and lifestyle. In most cases, these changes alone are enough to effect a cure over time. Only once these changes are identified as inadequate, says Sun Si-miao, should the doctor administer other interventions such as internal medicine and acupuncture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a really long winded attempt to justify the raping of a small group of people for the benefit of another small group of people.
Click to expand...


I must admit you are very creative. My abstract discussion of ends justifying means should denote that all events, all people are not means. Despite your creative deduction, I will state for the record: all people are ends. There should be no raping/exploitation because no person can be considered a means (i.e. sacrifice or expendable) for the sake of some glorified end. Maybe someday we will treat others as ends, not means, but I won't hold my breath given your level of exegesis.


----------



## RKMBrown

gnarlylove said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on both sides of the issue but have concluded there are no genuine means to an end. All events are end results in themselves. TO ignore an event or group of events for the sake of achieving some idea or goal is inauthentic. It ignores the quality of an event for the preference of another. As conscious beings we can withhold concerns in order to magnify other concerns, but nature and reality have no preference for one over another.
> 
> Of course there are tons of moral dilemmas we can raise regarding this, but we must realize we are understanding life not on nature's terms but on our pre-selected terms.
> 
> So in thinking about outcomes, we need to first realize the need for a gigantic health care system is largely preventable. By a nourishing diet and exercise one can reach a free cure for most ailments. This is preventive medicine, and should be the most important--but in an industry of profit, the more sick people the more money--so capitalism has deceived us again. Around 700CE famous Chinese doctor Sun Si-miao said that when a person is sick, the doctor should first regulate the patient's diet and lifestyle. In most cases, these changes alone are enough to effect a cure over time. Only once these changes are identified as inadequate, says Sun Si-miao, should the doctor administer other interventions such as internal medicine and acupuncture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a really long winded attempt to justify the raping of a small group of people for the benefit of another small group of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit you are very creative. My abstract discussion of ends justifying means should denote that all events, all people are not means. Despite your creative deduction, I will state for the record: all people are ends. There should be no raping/exploitation because no person can be considered a means (i.e. sacrifice or expendable) for the sake of some glorified end. Maybe someday we will treat others as ends, not means, but I won't hold my breath given your level of exegesis.
Click to expand...


Yeah well your statements are all over the map, thus my criticism. 

You say all people are ends. 
Then you say all people are not means.
Then you say maybe some day we will treat others an an ends not a means.

You appear to be willing to admit we should not enslave the rich and health care providers for the benefit of the masses, but for some reason you want to do it while still pretending to be a progressive that is somewhat in favor of the way the enslavement is actively going on, this based on a limited ability to hold your breath.


----------



## RKMBrown

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events.  The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results.  While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions.  Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result.  The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result.  The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person.   For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.)  However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events.  The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results.  While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions.  Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result.  The result may be the same, however, the result is in the former is a tainted result.  The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person.   For example, when a woman has a baby and ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.)  However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.



Exactly. 'The-ends-justifies-the-means' is a problem when we're asked to ignore questionable means because they produce a desired result.


----------



## KevinWestern

RKMBrown said:


> The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events.  The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results.  While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions.  Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result.  The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result.  The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person.   For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.)  However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.



When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example). 

But with that said, Obamacare is *NOT *socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being _forced _to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions. 

The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).

The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do. 

This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events.  The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results.  While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions.  Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result.  The result may be the same, however, the result is in the former is a tainted result.  The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person.   For example, when a woman has a baby and ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.)  However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. 'The-ends-justifies-the-means' is a problem when we're asked to ignore questionable means because they produce a desired result.
Click to expand...


We are in agreement, all three. Perhaps my use of language was confusing but considering every person and event as an end in itself implies we cannot treat them/it as means to some desirable result. Thus, we can not rape a woman to produce a baby because although we may need that baby to keep the human race alive, her will of not having a baby must be respected as a end in itself. Thus, sacrificing her desires for the greater good is never ok. In the area of applied ethics one can properly discusses such examples but bottom line, the ends should never justify the means.

I think where we disagree with my assertion of "never." This atemporal assertion conflicts with the our current economy: the idea of exploitation, treating a laborer as a means to generating profit. Sure, workers are "paid" but this is not a commensurate exchange. Given many workers are near poverty line openly demonstrates how we treat laborer as a means . Even the worker herself tends to treat their laboring as a means to an end--the paycheck--not as an end in itself. This is the whole foundation of alienation of the working class. The worker no longer views their laboring as important or an end, it is merely a means to sustenance (and to keep society functioning which benefits the profiteer much more than the alienated worker).


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'against' government at all. It's just a clear recognition of it's nature and how it should, and should not, be used.
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, "the ends justify the means" is always worth questioning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a moral belief about how it should be used.
> 
> The "means" in question are taxation. I have no problem talking about the nature of taxation but an emphasis on the outcome doesn't mean the "means" are ignored. The means are inherent in the outcome approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The means in question are a convoluted cluster fuck of corporatist mandates.
Click to expand...


I was talking about UHC generally. 

The US system is a cluster fuck but that doesn't mean the solution is a blind ideological devotion to "not government" like you have pushed.

Half our problem is that no one seems willing to step back and address the problems with the system. Instead we are stuck in BS ideological debates that result in crap compromises and inefficiencies. The government is a massive thing that needs to be reformed but when the conservative ideology amounts to "no government is the only good government" there is no reform happening.


----------



## gnarlylove

KevinWestern said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events.  The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results.  While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions.  Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result.  The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result.  The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person.   For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.)  However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).
> 
> But with that said, Obamacare is *NOT *socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being _forced _to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.
> 
> The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).
> 
> The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.
> 
> This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.
Click to expand...

I agree, Obamacare is not a justifiable means to the end of having everyone insured. It has been corrupted by Obama's dismal of the public while his retained ties with Big Pharma and Big Insurance. The public was vehemently against this forced system, but it stands to reason the companies from which we are forced to buy are making bank.

I like how you denoted your agreement with having everyone insured, which generates a healthier society on the whole (we hope) but the way we are being forced into is is unfortunate to say the least.

I think the real discussion that's not on the table is preventive medicine. This is why our system is overburdened. People simply do not take care of themselves and haven't the slightest clue how to either--good job cheap food companies (a predictable result of profit over people).


----------



## RKMBrown

KevinWestern said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events.  The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results.  While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions.  Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result.  The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result.  The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person.   For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.)  However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).
> 
> But with that said, Obamacare is *NOT *socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being _forced _to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.
> 
> The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).
> 
> The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.
> 
> This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.
Click to expand...


Every sector can be argued as necessary, and thus a thing that we can't trust to private enterprise. However, the issue is not one of trust, the issue is one of power and control over the sector.  Do we let the consumers exercise liberty to control their own choices or do we switch one step at a time from an American Capitalist economic system based on liberty under the rule of law, to a Marxist Soviet style system with government managing every important aspect of our lives and the law being a police state where there is only a very minimal amount of liberty that the government can't take without killing you. 

They did expand medicare and medicaid... they did that some dozen times over the last dozen years. ACA was just one more baby step to the democrat nirvana of a land in which liberty is the liberty to put their boots on everyone's neck.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events.  The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results.  While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions.  Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result.  The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result.  The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person.   For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.)  However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.



When I was talking about outcomes I was talking about looking at all the steps which would include things like how the plan is funded. Or in your analogy the rape.

If you want to compare taxation for UHC to rape then that is your belief. I would love to live in a world without taxation but that is not a realistic approach to real problems a nation and a society of people face.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events.  The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results.  While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions.  Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result.  The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result.  The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person.   For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.)  However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).
> 
> But with that said, Obamacare is *NOT *socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being _forced _to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.
> 
> The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).
> 
> The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.
> 
> This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every sector can be argued as necessary, and thus a thing that we can't trust to private enterprise. However, the issue is not one of trust, the issue is one of power and control over the sector.  Do we let the consumers exercise liberty to control their own choices or do we switch one step at a time from an American Capitalist economic system based on liberty under the rule of law, to a Marxist Soviet style system with government managing every important aspect of our lives and the law being a police state where there is only a very minimal amount of liberty that the government can't take without killing you.
> 
> They did expand medicare and medicaid... the did that some dozen times over the last dozen years. ACA was just one more baby step to the democrat nirvana of a land in which liberty is the liberty to put their boots on everyone's neck.
Click to expand...


This is gross hyperbole that has no place in any serious discussion. Get real.


----------



## gnarlylove

Bombur said:


> The US system is a cluster fuck but that doesn't mean the solution is a blind ideological devotion to "not government" like you have pushed.



Good summary of dblack position. He seems to be full steam ahead at ridding the world of government but his push is an ideological one--not one centered in feasible policy or society. We must have a transition to reaching this government-less society. And remaining free market in ideology is not a transition--it maintains the status quo which is irrespective of government. I admit the government helps enforce the status quo but the status quo goes deeper than purely a government policy--many corporations are multi-national and do not have to bow to American policy. It would be a different story if Americans were aware of the sham of corporations and refused to acknowledge their domination, but alas, this won't happen anytime soon since 99.9% tacitly affirm the power of the status quo.


----------



## KevinWestern

gnarlylove said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events.  The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results.  While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions.  Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result.  The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result.  The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person.   For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.)  However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).
> 
> But with that said, Obamacare is *NOT *socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being _forced _to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.
> 
> The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).
> 
> The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.
> 
> This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, Obamacare is not a justifiable means to the end of having everyone insured. It has been corrupted by Obama's dismal of the public while his retained ties with Big Pharma and Big Insurance. The public was vehemently against this forced system, but it stands to reason the companies from which we are forced to buy are making bank.
> 
> I like how you denoted your agreement with having everyone insured, which generates a healthier society on the whole (we hope) but the way we are being forced into is is unfortunate to say the least.
> 
> I think the real discussion that's not on the table is preventive medicine. This is why our system is overburdened. People simply do not take care of themselves and haven't the slightest clue how to either--good job cheap food companies (a predictable result of profit over people).
Click to expand...


Personally, I think the BEST thing we can do is move to a catastrophic based insurance model, where people can choose/pay for regular checkups and what not out of pocket - free market - and will use insurance only to cover unlikely events (like a major kidney surgery). 

The model we currently have would be like using insurance to cover a flat tire, or an oil change - two very likely events. We pay that kind of stuff out of pocket..

This will force people to doctor-shop and will force doctors to lower their prices. In addition, we need the government to lift some of these insane regulations, etc, and loosen up on the patent laws so that an AIDs pill will cost $1 vs $50. Medicine is so much cheaper elsewhere in the world.

I think the most viable solution is adding more free market into healthcare. In a perfect utopia, maybe I'd be down for universal healthcare, but unfortunately I just don't trust these guys in Washington and feel the US is too large for a "blanket system".


----------



## KevinWestern

RKMBrown said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events.  The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results.  While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions.  Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result.  The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result.  The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person.   For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.)  However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).
> 
> But with that said, Obamacare is *NOT *socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being _forced _to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.
> 
> The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).
> 
> The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.
> 
> This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every sector can be argued as necessary, and thus a thing that we can't trust to private enterprise. However, the issue is not one of trust, the issue is one of power and control over the sector.  Do we let the consumers exercise liberty to control their own choices or do we switch one step at a time from an American Capitalist economic system based on liberty under the rule of law, to a Marxist Soviet style system with government managing every important aspect of our lives and the law being a police state where there is only a very minimal amount of liberty that the government can't take without killing you.
> 
> They did expand medicare and medicaid... the did that some dozen times over the last dozen years. ACA was just one more baby step to the democrat nirvana of a land in which liberty is the liberty to put their boots on everyone's neck.
Click to expand...


No, I disagree. Here's the thing, you don't need 8 years of medical schooling to know that the TV you're buying is right for you, but you DO need 8 years of medical schooling to know that the little pain you feel in your side is something serious that needs to be operated on. We're talking about a sector where people don't know what they need, and a sector where people don't care about the cost of things. 

Simply put, the competitive forces that are usually driving efficiencies in the Television market are absent, making it unique. If we used insurance to buy TVs I assure you they'd cost 2 to 3 times more than they do today. 

So we probably have to do something; I say revamp the insurance model and use some gov't funds to help cover basic care for the poor.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US system is a cluster fuck but that doesn't mean the solution is a blind ideological devotion to "not government" like you have pushed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good summary of dblack position. He seems to be full steam ahead at ridding the world of government but his push is an ideological one--not one centered in feasible policy or society. We must have a transition to reaching this government-less society.
Click to expand...


You guys still trying to dress me up as an anarchist? Try listening to what people say rather than trying to squeeze them into your stereotypes.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US system is a cluster fuck but that doesn't mean the solution is a blind ideological devotion to "not government" like you have pushed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good summary of dblack position. He seems to be full steam ahead at ridding the world of government but his push is an ideological one--not one centered in feasible policy or society. We must have a transition to reaching this government-less society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys still trying to dress me up as an anarchist? Try listening to what people say rather than trying to squeeze them into your stereotypes.
Click to expand...


Fine, replace "not government" with "government as a last resort which means no government involvement in the issue being discussed" or something. The point is the same either way as you are basing your position on a strict ideological belief.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good summary of dblack position. He seems to be full steam ahead at ridding the world of government but his push is an ideological one--not one centered in feasible policy or society. We must have a transition to reaching this government-less society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys still trying to dress me up as an anarchist? Try listening to what people say rather than trying to squeeze them into your stereotypes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, replace "not government" with "government as a last resort which means no government involvement in the issue being discussed" or something. The point is the same either way as *you are basing your position on a strict ideological belief*.
Click to expand...


What does the bolded portion mean to you? On what do you base your positions? Random whim?


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys still trying to dress me up as an anarchist? Try listening to what people say rather than trying to squeeze them into your stereotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, replace "not government" with "government as a last resort which means no government involvement in the issue being discussed" or something. The point is the same either way as *you are basing your position on a strict ideological belief*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the bolded portion mean to you? On what do you base your positions? Random whim?
Click to expand...


Reality.

Observation of the world, understanding my own values and the values of our nation, and ultimately a cost benefit analysis based on those facts and those values specific to the issue at hand. At least that is what I would want to be the basis of decisions.

You have already decided government is the last resort. Your conclusion proceeds your analysis to the point it isn't clear if there is an analysis. Your analysis is only of yourself and not the nation of people.

UHC is a fine example IMO of how the US shoots itself in the foot because of ideology trumping reality.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, replace "not government" with "government as a last resort which means no government involvement in the issue being discussed" or something. The point is the same either way as *you are basing your position on a strict ideological belief*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the bolded portion mean to you? On what do you base your positions? Random whim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> Observation of the world, understanding my own values and the values of our nation, and ultimately a cost benefit analysis based on those facts and those values specific to the issue at hand.
Click to expand...


Well, that's a fine ideology. As it so happens, mine is based on exactly the same thing.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does the bolded portion mean to you? On what do you base your positions? Random whim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> Observation of the world, understanding my own values and the values of our nation, and ultimately a cost benefit analysis based on those facts and those values specific to the issue at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's a fine ideology. As it so happens, mine is based on exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...


You are now contradicting yourself when you said "government as a last resort."

You have already established your bias very clearly in this thread and now you want me to just ignore that. No.

You can't resort to the gross hyperbole you have and then still claim a lack of preconceived bias. Your can't specifically establish your assumed conclusion in all cases and then claim you are objectively looking at the facts and the values of all Americans.

You can maybe convince yourself that is what you are doing but I am not fooled.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> Reality.
> 
> Observation of the world, understanding my own values and the values of our nation, and ultimately a cost benefit analysis based on those facts and those values specific to the issue at hand.



Well, that's a fine ideology. As it so happens, mine is based on exactly the same thing.[/QUOTE]

You are now contradicting yourself when you said "government as a last resort."

Huh? How?


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's a fine ideology. As it so happens, mine is based on exactly the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are now contradicting yourself when you said "government as a last resort."
> 
> Huh? How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am saying that your ideology proceeds your analysis of any issue based on facts and values of all people. That you are biased to the point of absurdity as established in your hyperbolic posts about government involvement.
> 
> You are a rather blatant ideologue who wants to pretend to be open to the facts and taking into account the values of other people. There are open minded people and there are ideologues. Your posts clearly demonstrate to me that you are the latter and no amount of you claiming to be the former will convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...


----------



## RKMBrown

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events.  The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results.  While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions.  Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result.  The result may be the same, however, the result is in the former is a tainted result.  The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person.   For example, when a woman has a baby and ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.)  However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. 'The-ends-justifies-the-means' is a problem when we're asked to ignore questionable means because they produce a desired result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are in agreement, all three. Perhaps my use of language was confusing but considering every person and event as an end in itself implies we cannot treat them/it as means to some desirable result. Thus, we can not rape a woman to produce a baby because although we may need that baby to keep the human race alive, her will of not having a baby must be respected as a end in itself. Thus, sacrificing her desires for the greater good is never ok. In the area of applied ethics one can properly discusses such examples but bottom line, the ends should never justify the means.
> 
> I think where we disagree with my assertion of "never." This atemporal assertion conflicts with the our current economy: the idea of exploitation, treating a laborer as a means to generating profit. Sure, workers are "paid" but this is not a commensurate exchange. Given many workers are near poverty line openly demonstrates how we treat laborer as a means . Even the worker herself tends to treat their laboring as a means to an end--the paycheck--not as an end in itself. This is the whole foundation of alienation of the working class. The worker no longer views their laboring as important or an end, it is merely a means to sustenance (and to keep society functioning which benefits the profiteer much more than the alienated worker).
Click to expand...

Corporations don't force people to work and our poverty line of 40k dollars a year for some and 95k for others is complete and utter BS.  As is the assumption that one earner on minimum wage doing that which is considered to be the least valuable job in this country, should be given a wage worthy of a skilled professional to the point where that person MUST have the income to cover all wants, needs, and desires to live like a king in a house on a hill.  The entire measure of poverty in this country is upside down.


----------



## dblack

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are now contradicting yourself when you said "government as a last resort."
> 
> Huh? How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that your ideology proceeds your analysis of any issue based on facts and values of all people. That you are biased to the point of absurdity as established in your hyperbolic posts about government involvement.
> 
> You are a rather blatant ideologue who wants to pretend to be open to the facts and taking into account the values of other people. There are open minded people and there are ideologues. Your posts clearly demonstrate to me that you are the latter and no amount of you claiming to be the former will convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...


I'm no more ideological than anyone else here. I just have different, and perhaps less popular, ideals than you do. I could, with equal conviction and justification, claim that you will eagerly advocate that the coercive power of government be applied to any and every problem society faces - blindly, because of your ideology.

You claim that your ideology is based on: 


> Reality.



So is mine. Government is, really, based on brute force. I find the people who can willfully ignore that to be very deluded by their ideology that tells the it isn't so.



> Observation of the world, understanding my own values and the values of our nation, and ultimately a cost benefit analysis based on those facts and those values specific to the issue at hand.



Ditto. We've just made some different observations, and have different understandings of the values of our nation. I find yours to be just as closed-minded and confounding as you, apparently, do mine.



> You have already decided government is the last resort. Your conclusion proceeds your analysis to the point it isn't clear if there is an analysis. Your analysis is only of yourself and not the nation of people.



Please understand, I can make exactly the same claims about your position. From my perspective, you've already decided that government is the solution to everything that ails society (and yes, that's an exaggeration, but so is your insistence that I'm an anarchist), and for you, all that's left to discuss is when and how. You want the conversation to start with that premise, because that's how _your_ ideology informs your opinions.

I'm not trying to beat up on you here. But the claim that anybody who disagrees on matters of principle is an ideologue, and therefore to be dismissed out of hand, is a copout. We just have different opinions on what's important.


----------



## RKMBrown

KevinWestern said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).
> 
> But with that said, Obamacare is *NOT *socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being _forced _to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.
> 
> The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).
> 
> The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.
> 
> This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every sector can be argued as necessary, and thus a thing that we can't trust to private enterprise. However, the issue is not one of trust, the issue is one of power and control over the sector.  Do we let the consumers exercise liberty to control their own choices or do we switch one step at a time from an American Capitalist economic system based on liberty under the rule of law, to a Marxist Soviet style system with government managing every important aspect of our lives and the law being a police state where there is only a very minimal amount of liberty that the government can't take without killing you.
> 
> They did expand medicare and medicaid... the did that some dozen times over the last dozen years. ACA was just one more baby step to the democrat nirvana of a land in which liberty is the liberty to put their boots on everyone's neck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I disagree. Here's the thing, you don't need 8 years of medical schooling to know that the TV you're buying is right for you, but you DO need 8 years of medical schooling to know that the little pain you feel in your side is something serious that needs to be operated on. We're talking about a sector where people don't know what they need, and a sector where people don't care about the cost of things.
> 
> Simply put, the competitive forces that are usually driving efficiencies in the Television market are absent, making it unique. If we used insurance to buy TVs I assure you they'd cost 2 to 3 times more than they do today.
> 
> So we probably have to do something; I say revamp the insurance model and use some gov't funds to help cover basic care for the poor.
Click to expand...


Not true.  You don't need 8years of medical schooling to address some medical issues.  You don't need 8years of medical schooling to take an aspirin for a caffeine headache.  You don't need 8years of medical schooling to know that a sharp pain is serious and needs to be looked at by an expert.  You say we don't care about prices... I call BS we sure as hell do care about prices. I'm in an HSA, it's my money.  If doctor A wants 2k to pull my tooth and doctor B wants 1k I'm probably gonna think it over.  I'm not gonna just run off and spend the extra 1k of my money without having some valid reason that is worth 1k dollars to me.

Further, you can use insurance to buy TVs and it does not cost 3x more to do so.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are now contradicting yourself when you said "government as a last resort."
> 
> Huh? How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that your ideology proceeds your analysis of any issue based on facts and values of all people. That you are biased to the point of absurdity as established in your hyperbolic posts about government involvement.
> 
> You are a rather blatant ideologue who wants to pretend to be open to the facts and taking into account the values of other people. There are open minded people and there are ideologues. Your posts clearly demonstrate to me that you are the latter and no amount of you claiming to be the former will convince me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm no more ideological than anyone else here. I just have different, and perhaps less popular, ideals than you do. I could, with equal conviction and justification, claim that you will eagerly advocate that the coercive power of government be applied to any and every problem society faces - blindly, because of your ideology.
> 
> You claim that your ideology is based on:
> 
> 
> So is mine. Government is, really, based on brute force. I find the people who can willfully ignore that to be very deluded by their ideology that tells the it isn't so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Observation of the world, understanding my own values and the values of our nation, and ultimately a cost benefit analysis based on those facts and those values specific to the issue at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ditto. We've just made some different observations, and have different understandings of the values of our nation. I find yours to be just as closed-minded and confounding as you, apparently, do mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have already decided government is the last resort. Your conclusion proceeds your analysis to the point it isn't clear if there is an analysis. Your analysis is only of yourself and not the nation of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please understand, I can make exactly the same claims about your position. From my perspective, you've already decided that government is the solution to everything that ails society (and yes, that's an exaggeration, but so is your insistence that I'm an anarchist), and for you, all that's left to discuss is when and how. You want the conversation to start with that premise, because that's how _your_ ideology informs your opinions.
> 
> I'm not trying to beat up on you here. But the claim that anybody who disagrees on matters of principle is an ideologue, and therefore to be dismissed out of hand, is a copout. We just have different opinions on what's important.
Click to expand...


No you can't make the same claims I have because I didn't make post after post of hyperbolic nonsense concerning government. 

When you look at the values of the nation you trump those values with your own. You regularly distorted reality to fit your preconceived world view. I have never even come close to claiming government is the solution to everything. 

The entire industrialized world values their citizens enough to provide them with health care when they can't afford it themselves. The US included. Please demonstrate how you incorporate that view into your argument concerning UHC. Use the UHC issue to establish your way of approaching an issue.


----------



## RKMBrown

gnarlylove said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US system is a cluster fuck but that doesn't mean the solution is a blind ideological devotion to "not government" like you have pushed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good summary of dblack position. He seems to be full steam ahead at ridding the world of government but his push is an ideological one--not one centered in feasible policy or society. We must have a transition to reaching this government-less society. And remaining free market in ideology is not a transition--it maintains the status quo which is irrespective of government. I admit the government helps enforce the status quo but the status quo goes deeper than purely a government policy--many corporations are multi-national and do not have to bow to American policy. It would be a different story if Americans were aware of the sham of corporations and refused to acknowledge their domination, but alas, this won't happen anytime soon since 99.9% tacitly affirm the power of the status quo.
Click to expand...

Why make so much stuff up?  99.9 tacitly afirm?  Multi-nationals do not have to bow to American policy?  Sham of corporations?

So basically where he is anti-government you are anti people getting together to form groups of any kind and especially not under incorporation papers for the purpose of generating income.  

Sigh.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that your ideology proceeds your analysis of any issue based on facts and values of all people. That you are biased to the point of absurdity as established in your hyperbolic posts about government involvement.
> 
> You are a rather blatant ideologue who wants to pretend to be open to the facts and taking into account the values of other people. There are open minded people and there are ideologues. Your posts clearly demonstrate to me that you are the latter and no amount of you claiming to be the former will convince me otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no more ideological than anyone else here. I just have different, and perhaps less popular, ideals than you do. I could, with equal conviction and justification, claim that you will eagerly advocate that the coercive power of government be applied to any and every problem society faces - blindly, because of your ideology.
> 
> You claim that your ideology is based on:
> 
> 
> So is mine. Government is, really, based on brute force. I find the people who can willfully ignore that to be very deluded by their ideology that tells the it isn't so.
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto. We've just made some different observations, and have different understandings of the values of our nation. I find yours to be just as closed-minded and confounding as you, apparently, do mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have already decided government is the last resort. Your conclusion proceeds your analysis to the point it isn't clear if there is an analysis. Your analysis is only of yourself and not the nation of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please understand, I can make exactly the same claims about your position. From my perspective, you've already decided that government is the solution to everything that ails society (and yes, that's an exaggeration, but so is your insistence that I'm an anarchist), and for you, all that's left to discuss is when and how. You want the conversation to start with that premise, because that's how _your_ ideology informs your opinions.
> 
> I'm not trying to beat up on you here. But the claim that anybody who disagrees on matters of principle is an ideologue, and therefore to be dismissed out of hand, is a copout. We just have different opinions on what's important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you can't make the same claims I have because I didn't make post after post of hyperbolic nonsense concerning government.
Click to expand...


Neither do I.



> When you look at the values of the nation you trump those values with your own. You regularly distorted reality to fit your preconceived world view. I have never even come close to claiming government is the solution to everything.



And I've never come close to saying we should abolish government. Yet that's what you keep coming back to. Are you seeing the reflection?



> The entire industrialized world values their citizens enough to provide them with health care when they can't afford it themselves. The US included. Please demonstrate how you incorporate that view into your argument concerning UHC. Use the UHC issue to establish your way of approaching an issue.



I've fully acknowledged mine is the minority opinion. In your recall of history, has the minority ever been right? The majority ever wrong? If you were in the minority, would you just sit down and shut up?


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no more ideological than anyone else here. I just have different, and perhaps less popular, ideals than you do. I could, with equal conviction and justification, claim that you will eagerly advocate that the coercive power of government be applied to any and every problem society faces - blindly, because of your ideology.
> 
> You claim that your ideology is based on:
> 
> 
> So is mine. Government is, really, based on brute force. I find the people who can willfully ignore that to be very deluded by their ideology that tells the it isn't so.
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto. We've just made some different observations, and have different understandings of the values of our nation. I find yours to be just as closed-minded and confounding as you, apparently, do mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Please understand, I can make exactly the same claims about your position. From my perspective, you've already decided that government is the solution to everything that ails society (and yes, that's an exaggeration, but so is your insistence that I'm an anarchist), and for you, all that's left to discuss is when and how. You want the conversation to start with that premise, because that's how _your_ ideology informs your opinions.
> 
> I'm not trying to beat up on you here. But the claim that anybody who disagrees on matters of principle is an ideologue, and therefore to be dismissed out of hand, is a copout. We just have different opinions on what's important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you can't make the same claims I have because I didn't make post after post of hyperbolic nonsense concerning government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither do I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you look at the values of the nation you trump those values with your own. You regularly distorted reality to fit your preconceived world view. I have never even come close to claiming government is the solution to everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I've never come close to saying we should abolish government. Yet that's what you keep coming back to. Are you seeing the reflection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire industrialized world values their citizens enough to provide them with health care when they can't afford it themselves. The US included. Please demonstrate how you incorporate that view into your argument concerning UHC. Use the UHC issue to establish your way of approaching an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've fully acknowledged mine is the minority opinion. In your recall of history, has the minority ever been right? The majority ever wrong? If you were in the minority, would you just sit down and shut up?
Click to expand...


You misunderstood me, I never claimed you were an anarchist. I was claiming that you were ideologically opposed to government involvement.

You repeatedly equated government involvement as tyranny or some other extreme. You repeatedly tried to equate rather moderate ideas to extreme positions.

I have already pointed out that I don't believe in an approach based on majority makes right. In fact I have accused you of NOT incorporating the views of others into your position. Saying that you beliefs are in the minority doesn't suggest to me that you are able to take into account the beliefs of others.

You can demonstrate for me and everyone else that you are open minded and can take into account the facts and the opinions of others by talking about UHC.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> You misunderstood me, I never claimed you were an anarchist. I was claiming that you were ideologically opposed to government involvement.
> 
> You repeatedly equated government involvement as tyranny or some other extreme. You repeatedly tried to equate rather moderate ideas to extreme positions.



Nope, I'm just pointing out that government is based on coercion. This is an obvious fact, but one that many seem all-too-willing to gloss over. I think voluntary cooperation is often, even usually, a better alternative. That doesn't mean government equates to tyranny or that it's always a bad idea. Sometimes, it's the very best option.



> You can demonstrate for me and everyone else that you are open minded and can take into account the facts and the opinions of others by talking about UHC.



I take them into account on nearly every post. When I disagree with them, I try to explain why - further, I make reasonable efforts to appreciate the intent behind them. Unlike some of the 'Fox reactionaries' here, I don't assume those who disagree with me are moral degenerates or viscous scoundrels. I'm content that you have good-faith intent and just see things differently. What more do you want?

I think you're just frustrated because I don't agree to the premises you to want lay out as the starting point of the conversation. I'm disagreeing at a more fundamental level than you're used to and you don't quite know how to address that, other than to dismiss me as an 'ideologue'.


----------



## KevinWestern

RKMBrown said:


> Not true.  You don't need 8years of medical schooling to address some medical issues.  You don't need 8years of medical schooling to take an aspirin for a caffeine headache.  You don't need 8years of medical schooling to know that a sharp pain is serious and needs to be looked at by an expert.


Maybe I didnt make my point clear. 

When you go to that expert for that sharp pain HE is going to tell YOU what you need to buy. Youre at his mercy, basically.  When a car salesman says you need to upgrade to premium speakers, you can turn him down without hesitation. But when 3 different doctors tell you that you need to buy surgery A and use machine X or you will die, you usually have to take their word for it. 

Theres a huge difference. This is why doctors take a Hippocratic Oath and car salesmen do not. Were at their mercy in many cases. 





RKMBrown said:


> You say we don't care about prices... I call BS we sure as hell do care about prices. I'm in an HSA, it's my money.  If doctor A wants 2k to pull my tooth and doctor B wants 1k I'm probably gonna think it over.  I'm not gonna just run off and spend the extra 1k of my money without having some valid reason that is worth 1k dollars to me.



Yes, HSAs are great, and I like that idea but come on (you know this, I dont have to explain)  obviously the majority of Americans today go the standard HMO/PPO route, pay their $20 co-pay and thats it. Doctor A cost $20/visit, doctor B costs $20/visit; emergency room A costs $75/visit, emergency room B costs $75/visit. Price shopping is largely non-existent. This is WELL-documented; theres no disputing it, dude. 

And even considering the HSA, what happens when you have surgery and the major insurance kicks in after your deductible? Are you paying the $100,000 triple bypass surgery out of pocket? Are you comparing pricing then? No, its all covered by insurance; you shop ONLY for quality at that point. 



RKMBrown said:


> Further, you can use insurance to buy TVs and it does not cost 3x more to do so.


Im talking if the entire TV market was insurance based, costs would be higher overall. Obviously the TV market is not insurance based, lol.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstood me, I never claimed you were an anarchist. I was claiming that you were ideologically opposed to government involvement.
> 
> You repeatedly equated government involvement as tyranny or some other extreme. You repeatedly tried to equate rather moderate ideas to extreme positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I'm just pointing out that government is based on coercion. This is an obvious fact, but one that many seem all-too-willing to gloss over. I think voluntary cooperation is often, even usually, a better alternative. That doesn't mean government equates to tyranny or that it's always a bad idea. Sometimes, it's the very best option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can demonstrate for me and everyone else that you are open minded and can take into account the facts and the opinions of others by talking about UHC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take them into account on nearly every post. When I disagree with them, I try to explain why - further, I make reasonable efforts to appreciate the intent behind them. Unlike some of the 'Fox reactionaries' here, I don't assume those who disagree with me are moral degenerates or viscous scoundrels. I'm content that you have good-faith intent and just see things differently. What more do you want?
> 
> I think you're just frustrated because I don't agree to the premises you to want lay out as the starting point of the conversation. I'm disagreeing at a more fundamental level than you're used to and you don't quite know how to address that, other than to dismiss me as an 'ideologue'.
Click to expand...


BS

Feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating how you take into account facts and the opinions of others with regards to health care, and more specifically UHC.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstood me, I never claimed you were an anarchist. I was claiming that you were ideologically opposed to government involvement.
> 
> You repeatedly equated government involvement as tyranny or some other extreme. You repeatedly tried to equate rather moderate ideas to extreme positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I'm just pointing out that government is based on coercion. This is an obvious fact, but one that many seem all-too-willing to gloss over. I think voluntary cooperation is often, even usually, a better alternative. That doesn't mean government equates to tyranny or that it's always a bad idea. Sometimes, it's the very best option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can demonstrate for me and everyone else that you are open minded and can take into account the facts and the opinions of others by talking about UHC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take them into account on nearly every post. When I disagree with them, I try to explain why - further, I make reasonable efforts to appreciate the intent behind them. Unlike some of the 'Fox reactionaries' here, I don't assume those who disagree with me are moral degenerates or viscous scoundrels. I'm content that you have good-faith intent and just see things differently. What more do you want?
> 
> I think you're just frustrated because I don't agree to the premises you to want lay out as the starting point of the conversation. I'm disagreeing at a more fundamental level than you're used to and you don't quite know how to address that, other than to dismiss me as an 'ideologue'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS
> 
> Feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating how you take into account facts and the opinions of others with regards to health care, and more specifically UHC.
Click to expand...


I have. To reiterate, I think it's dangerous and unwise to establish health care as a government responsibility. It puts all our eggs in one basket and centralizes control over something that is vital to everyone. Pushing through such radical change without genuine consensus has made the entire issue a political football, and turned health care into a tug-of-war between vested special interests. The sooner we divorce it from politics, the better.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I'm just pointing out that government is based on coercion. This is an obvious fact, but one that many seem all-too-willing to gloss over. I think voluntary cooperation is often, even usually, a better alternative. That doesn't mean government equates to tyranny or that it's always a bad idea. Sometimes, it's the very best option.
> 
> 
> 
> I take them into account on nearly every post. When I disagree with them, I try to explain why - further, I make reasonable efforts to appreciate the intent behind them. Unlike some of the 'Fox reactionaries' here, I don't assume those who disagree with me are moral degenerates or viscous scoundrels. I'm content that you have good-faith intent and just see things differently. What more do you want?
> 
> I think you're just frustrated because I don't agree to the premises you to want lay out as the starting point of the conversation. I'm disagreeing at a more fundamental level than you're used to and you don't quite know how to address that, other than to dismiss me as an 'ideologue'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS
> 
> Feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating how you take into account facts and the opinions of others with regards to health care, and more specifically UHC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. To reiterate, I think it's dangerous and unwise to establish health care as a government responsibility. It puts all our eggs in one basket and centralizes control over something that is vital to everyone. Pushing through such radical change without genuine consensus has made the entire issue a political football, and turned health care into a tug-of-war between vested special interests. The sooner we divorce it from politics, the better.
Click to expand...


I rest my case.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS
> 
> Feel free to prove me wrong by demonstrating how you take into account facts and the opinions of others with regards to health care, and more specifically UHC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. To reiterate, I think it's dangerous and unwise to establish health care as a government responsibility. It puts all our eggs in one basket and centralizes control over something that is vital to everyone. Pushing through such radical change without genuine consensus has made the entire issue a political football, and turned health care into a tug-of-war between vested special interests. The sooner we divorce it from politics, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Take a breather. You've apparently convinced yourself that the only way someone can be 'open minded' is to agree with you.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. To reiterate, I think it's dangerous and unwise to establish health care as a government responsibility. It puts all our eggs in one basket and centralizes control over something that is vital to everyone. Pushing through such radical change without genuine consensus has made the entire issue a political football, and turned health care into a tug-of-war between vested special interests. The sooner we divorce it from politics, the better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. Take a breather. You've apparently convinced yourself that the only way someone can be 'open minded' is to agree with you.
Click to expand...


You demonstrated rather clearly that you are not willing to look at the facts. You didn't even come close to talking about the health of people or any other facts related to the issue. You made some vague claims that only hinted at possible facts. You referenced politics and special interests to poison the well and then made a completely unsubstantiated claim that it has to be "divorced" from politics.

I can't express enough how completely and totally meaningless I consider your argument to be. It is not just that I disagree with your conclusion. It is that I consider the method in which you derived at your conclusion to be completely useless. You demonstrated the exact flaw I accused you of.


----------



## dblack

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Take a breather. You've apparently convinced yourself that the only way someone can be 'open minded' is to agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You demonstrated rather clearly that you are not willing to look at the facts. You didn't even come close to talking about the health of people or any other facts related to the issue. You made some vague claims that only hinted at possible facts. You referenced politics and special interests to poison the well and then made a completely unsubstantiated claim that it has to be "divorced" from politics.
> 
> I can't express enough how completely and totally meaningless I consider your argument to be. It is not just that I disagree with your conclusion. It is that I consider the method in which you derived at your conclusion to be completely useless. You demonstrated the exact flaw I accused you of.
Click to expand...


You don't even really see what's going on here, do you? You're insisting that because I don't agree with the premise of your argument, that my views are invalid. I'm saying I don't want to get the police mixed up in our health care, and you're frustrated because I'm not talking about the 'facts' of health care. We can chat about all the problems with health care, if you like, but it doesn't address my concerns with UHC - at all. So it seems rather pointless. It's like asking a vegetarian to tell you what they want on their hamburger, and being angry if they tell you they don't want a hamburger. You're just stomping your feet and pouting because I won't sing along.


----------



## Bombur

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Take a breather. You've apparently convinced yourself that the only way someone can be 'open minded' is to agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You demonstrated rather clearly that you are not willing to look at the facts. You didn't even come close to talking about the health of people or any other facts related to the issue. You made some vague claims that only hinted at possible facts. You referenced politics and special interests to poison the well and then made a completely unsubstantiated claim that it has to be "divorced" from politics.
> 
> I can't express enough how completely and totally meaningless I consider your argument to be. It is not just that I disagree with your conclusion. It is that I consider the method in which you derived at your conclusion to be completely useless. You demonstrated the exact flaw I accused you of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't even really see what's going on here, do you? You're insisting that because I don't agree with the premise of your argument, that my views are invalid. I'm saying I don't want to get the police mixed up in our health care, and you're frustrated because I'm not talking about the 'facts' of health care. We can chat about all the problems with health care, if you like, but it doesn't address my concerns with UHC - at all. So it seems rather pointless. It's like asking a vegetarian to tell you what they want on their hamburger, and being angry if they tell you they don't want a hamburger. You're just stomping your feet and pouting because I won't sing along.
Click to expand...


I am saying that when asked to make an argument based on facts and the values of the people of our nation you referenced neither. You resorted to logical fallacies and failed to make a meaningful argument. When this was pointed out to you, you made more logical fallacies and failed to address the deficiencies in your argument. 

That is my scoring of the events so far.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Nope, I'm just pointing out that government is based on coercion.



This is demonstration of your unwavering ideology as opposed to allowing reality to suggest otherwise. At every turn your recourse is to say gov't is coercion or acts are based on it. This is patently false and there are plenty of citizens quite grateful for their government involvement in their lives. There are capitalists who depend on gov't to keep them safe and rich.

So your ideology is based on a half truth. Governments can and does harm but it also helps citizens by coercion but oftentimes coercion plays no role, rather, simply social beneficence flows from reallocation.

In fact, a capitalist class could not flourish like it has without government. So your repetition of free markets seem to favor government as a means for establishing authority over their property. I'm not saying capitalism is exactly the capitalists, but if it isn't, then the foible is the same as your equation of free markets to freedom.


----------



## gnarlylove

I also wanted to show you this as it relates to my views on how advertising affects the public in a corrosive way. For what its worth..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> "Are the privileged and powerful finally starting to get it? Former Fed chief Alan Greenspan said yesterday to the National Association of Business Economists: I consider income inequality the most dangerous part of whats going on in the United States. You can see the deteriorating impact of that on our current political system, and you cannot talk about politics without talking about its impact on the economy.
> 
> Bill Gross, co-founder and co-chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Company, the biggest bond-trading firm in America, wrote in one of his recent investment letters that the share of total pretax income going to Americas top 1% more than doubled from 10% in the 1970s to 20% today, and that his wealthy clients did not create that wave. You rode it. And now its time to kick out and share some of your good fortune by paying higher taxes or reforming them to favor economic growth and labor, as opposed to corporate profits and individual gazillions.
> 
> Is the business class beginning to understand that as long as 95% of the economys gains go to the top 1%, the rest of America doesnt have the purchasing power to get the economy out of first gear? Or are they afraid that if prosperity isnt more widely shared they'll face a political backlash against concentrated wealth, corporate power, free trade, and global capitalism?"
> 
> -Robert Riech, former Clinton Sec. of Labor



*And now its time to kick out and share some of your good fortune by paying higher taxes *

Those mean 1%ers already pay higher taxes.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I'm just pointing out that government is based on coercion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is demonstration of your unwavering ideology as opposed to allowing reality to suggest otherwise. At every turn your recourse is to say gov't is coercion or acts are based on it. This is patently false and there are plenty of citizens quite grateful for their government involvement in their lives. There are capitalists who depend on gov't to keep them safe and rich.
> 
> So your ideology is based on a half truth. Governments can and does harm but it also helps citizens by coercion but oftentimes coercion plays no role, rather, simply social beneficence flows from reallocation.
Click to expand...


You seem confused about the definition of coercion. It doesn't necessarily mean harm, and it can most definitely be used properly toward righteous ends. I don't contend otherwise.

Coercion is simply the use of the threat of violence to compel behavior. All enforcement of all laws is backed by coercive threat. That's what makes laws different than 'suggestions'. And laws are the core mode of government. Government's use of coercion is what makes it different from all other social institutions. Not really sure how you can steer around that fact.

The use of force to achieve its ends doesn't make government bad. But it does make it fundamentally different than voluntary association, and potentially very dangerous if controlled by people with malicious, or badly misguided, intent.



> In fact, a capitalist class could not flourish like it has without government.



Indeed. Capitalism depends on government to protect property at a bare minimum. I'm not sure why you keep insisting I'm some kind of anarchist or something. Have you never heard the reasoning behind Constitutionally limited government?


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Coercion is simply the use of the threat of violence to compel behavior. All enforcement of all laws is backed by coercive threat. That's what makes laws different than 'suggestions'. And laws are the core mode of government. Government's use of coercion is what makes it different from all other social institutions. Not really sure how you can steer around that fact.
> 
> The use of force to achieve its ends doesn't make government bad. But it does make it fundamentally different than voluntary association, and potentially very dangerous if controlled by people with malicious, or badly misguided, intent.



I contend that people don't think they must obey laws otherwise they will be beaten and tortured (or some other form of violence). Thinking this opens us up to whole realm of unperceived threats to our freedom that do not involve violence and ignores them as threats to our freedom as evinced on your spirited defense of advertising.

People voluntarily submit to drive speed limits and do not murder generally because its simple and common sensical. There is benefit to be had by obeying most laws and coercion never enters the scene. To impose this abstract concept onto each persons' decision making process is trite and Ockham's Razor cuts it clean off--that's not to say people are never motivated by threats of violence. Still other laws are never intended to threaten violence for not obeying it. These are financial regulations that are suggestions but no CEO is going to hit the slammer for breaking the "law." Period. Why? Government protects the capitalist class first and foremost.

So I am confused when you insist coercion involves a threat of violence. There are many other forms of coercion that do not involve violence; misinformation is a major contributor to daily submission to laws (it often equates the person's choice with their belief in complying). And I suggest these submissions are usually voluntary, not the result of threatened force.

Your ideology seems to evict common sense and replaces it with fear must be the prime motivator of all humans--a behavioralist sounding model. People do X because they fear the consequence of not doing X. This is not how people tend to think and yet governments are still effective without that threat lingering in ever decision. Hmmm. I'm not saying it isn't involved in people who are truly motivated by fear (often gun nuts) but I think people prefer to not be in fear all the time.



dblack said:


> Indeed. Capitalism depends on government to protect property at a bare minimum. I'm not sure why you keep insisting I'm some kind of anarchist or something. Have you never heard the reasoning behind Constitutionally limited government?



I don't think I called you anarchist--retract if I do--but you are just about as anti-government as they come since your conclusion is reached based on a priori reasoning which is founded on this principle: You think government's capacity to get us to do things is solely derived from the threat of violence (aka coercion as you defined it). This is terribly misleading and false. But assuming this principle one can see why governments are last resort options.

But if people can actually assemble out of symbiosis, then we might acheive real progress and governments could play a foundational role in this. I'd say in fact governments could and have been used as great institutions for championing the public good over the private gain. Yet you seem to repeat: last resort. Are you someone who espouses the efficient market hypothesis and that's why you want to have no gov't?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KevinWestern said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).
> 
> But with that said, Obamacare is *NOT *socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being _forced _to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.
> 
> The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).
> 
> The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.
> 
> This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, Obamacare is not a justifiable means to the end of having everyone insured. It has been corrupted by Obama's dismal of the public while his retained ties with Big Pharma and Big Insurance. The public was vehemently against this forced system, but it stands to reason the companies from which we are forced to buy are making bank.
> 
> I like how you denoted your agreement with having everyone insured, which generates a healthier society on the whole (we hope) but the way we are being forced into is is unfortunate to say the least.
> 
> I think the real discussion that's not on the table is preventive medicine. This is why our system is overburdened. People simply do not take care of themselves and haven't the slightest clue how to either--good job cheap food companies (a predictable result of profit over people).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the BEST thing we can do is move to a catastrophic based insurance model, where people can choose/pay for regular checkups and what not out of pocket - free market - and will use insurance only to cover unlikely events (like a major kidney surgery).
> 
> The model we currently have would be like using insurance to cover a flat tire, or an oil change - two very likely events. We pay that kind of stuff out of pocket..
> 
> This will force people to doctor-shop and will force doctors to lower their prices. In addition, we need the government to lift some of these insane regulations, etc, and loosen up on the patent laws so that an AIDs pill will cost $1 vs $50. Medicine is so much cheaper elsewhere in the world.
> 
> I think the most viable solution is adding more free market into healthcare. In a perfect utopia, maybe I'd be down for universal healthcare, but unfortunately I just don't trust these guys in Washington and feel the US is too large for a "blanket system".
Click to expand...


*and loosen up on the patent laws so that an AIDs pill will cost $1 vs $50. Medicine is so much cheaper elsewhere in the world.*

You can make it cheaper when you steal the IP.

If they do that here, you can kiss new meds goodbye.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And now its time to kick out and share some of your good fortune by paying higher taxes *
> 
> Those mean 1%ers already pay higher taxes.



I don't know why you'd think I could understand this: I'm dumber than you. Math is harder for me. You have the biggest cock in your city.

But despite not knowing math, I want to know if the top 1% know about the Tax Cuts they've had? Surely we'd like to consider this in analysis of taxes, but that's just me, I dwmb at maffs. There's a few more points I'd make but clearly you are right and I have no business questioning the success of billionaires. Nothing is suspicious about 95% of the income gains having gone to the 1%.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> *I don't think I called you anarchist--retract if I do*--but you are just about as anti-government as they come since your conclusion is reached based on a priori reasoning which is founded on this principle: You think government's capacity to get us to do things is solely derived from the threat of violence (aka coercion as you defined it). This is terribly misleading and false. But assuming this principle one can see why governments are last resort options.
> 
> But if people can actually assemble out of symbiosis, then we might acheive real progress and governments could play a foundational role in this. I'd say in fact governments could and have been used as great institutions for championing the public good over the private gain. Yet you seem to repeat: last resort. Are you someone who espouses the efficient market hypothesis *and that's why you want to have no gov't?*



You can't even go two paragraphs without coming back to this. Listen man, have fun with your strawman. I'm tired of correcting you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And now its time to kick out and share some of your good fortune by paying higher taxes *
> 
> Those mean 1%ers already pay higher taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you'd think I could understand this: I'm dumber than you. Math is harder for me. You have the biggest cock in your city.
> 
> But despite not knowing math, I want to know if the top 1% know about the Tax Cuts they've had? Surely we'd like to consider this in analysis of taxes, but that's just me, I dwmb at maffs. There's a few more points I'd make but clearly you are right and I have no business questioning the success of billionaires. Nothing is suspicious about 95% of the income gains having gone to the 1%.
Click to expand...


*But despite not knowing math, I want to know if the top 1% know about the Tax Cuts they've had? *

I'm sure they do. They also pay nearly 40% of total income tax, despite the cuts.

*Nothing is suspicious about 95% of the income gains having gone to the 1%.*

Measuring such a stat, as we come out of a recession is very suspicious. And meaningless.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't think I called you anarchist--retract if I do*--but you are just about as anti-government as they come since your conclusion is reached based on a priori reasoning which is founded on this principle: You think government's capacity to get us to do things is solely derived from the threat of violence (aka coercion as you defined it). This is terribly misleading and false. But assuming this principle one can see why governments are last resort options.
> 
> But if people can actually assemble out of symbiosis, then we might acheive real progress and governments could play a foundational role in this. I'd say in fact governments could and have been used as great institutions for championing the public good over the private gain. Yet you seem to repeat: last resort. Are you someone who espouses the efficient market hypothesis *and that's why you want to have no gov't?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even go two paragraphs without coming back to this. Listen man, have fun with your strawman. I'm tired of correcting you.
Click to expand...


What is your ideal state of affairs? One with out government interference, right? You have talked about hypothetical scenarios as much as real ones. In your hypothetical world, you imagine governments as unnecessary and ultimately brutish, preventing progress. 
Surely you agree, I've read enough posts to gather that from you. But even then, you treat the real question as irrelevant: do you trust the efficient market hypothesis?


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Nothing is suspicious about 95% of the income gains having gone to the 1%.*
> 
> Measuring such a stat, as we come out of a recession is very suspicious. And meaningless.



Your insidious self-deciet knows no bounds. You can give a meaningful statistic the doesn't offer analysis of income distribution but you call my statistic meaningless. You are incredulous to the core. Can you see the dishonesty you present? Why are you suspicious? Because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of the world. This is intellectual fraud. But don't worry, I am dumber than you and we both know it. So despite your genuine lack of concern for reality, I am the stupid one because I offer a view that perplexes you and arises suspicion. Suspicion not based on anything but a threat to you fucked up hardcore ideologue interpretation of the world.

BTW, it's not a meaningless stat. It's well known fact that represents the income growth in the last 4 years have gone to the top 1%, leaving 5% of the gains to the rest.95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%. Here's What That Really Means. - Business Insider
Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).
> 
> And i guess the ussr was better?  What system do you prefer?
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.
> 
> Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?
Click to expand...

Yes.
National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.
> 
> Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
> Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
> Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.
Click to expand...


Food? Housing? Reproduction?

What else should be under democratic control?


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
> Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
> Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Food? Housing? Reproduction?
> 
> What else should be under democratic control?
Click to expand...

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
> Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
> Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Food? Housing? Reproduction?
> 
> What else should be under democratic control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Click to expand...


So, in your view, pretty much everything we need should be "under democratic control"?


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
> Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
> Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Food? Housing? Reproduction?
> 
> What else should be under democratic control?
Click to expand...


The surest way to fuck something up is to put it under democratic control.


----------



## ret4andry

The idea that redlining is "racists" or something, is just garbage. I've looked for evidence of that for a decade now. There is no solid evidence of anything 'racist' about redlining.

But why does redlining exist?


----------



## RKMBrown

KevinWestern said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  You don't need 8years of medical schooling to address some medical issues.  You don't need 8years of medical schooling to take an aspirin for a caffeine headache.  You don't need 8years of medical schooling to know that a sharp pain is serious and needs to be looked at by an expert.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I didn&#8217;t make my point clear.
> 
> When you go to that expert for that sharp pain HE is going to tell YOU what you need to buy. You&#8217;re at his mercy, basically.  When a car salesman says you &#8220;need&#8221; to upgrade to premium speakers, you can turn him down without hesitation. But when 3 different doctors tell you that you &#8220;need&#8221; to buy surgery A and use machine X or you will die, you usually have to take their word for it.
> 
> There&#8217;s a huge difference. This is why doctors take a Hippocratic Oath and car salesmen do not. We&#8217;re at their mercy in many cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say we don't care about prices... I call BS we sure as hell do care about prices. I'm in an HSA, it's my money.  If doctor A wants 2k to pull my tooth and doctor B wants 1k I'm probably gonna think it over.  I'm not gonna just run off and spend the extra 1k of my money without having some valid reason that is worth 1k dollars to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, HSA&#8217;s are great, and I like that idea but come on (you know this, I don&#8217;t have to explain) &#8211; obviously the majority of Americans today go the standard HMO/PPO route, pay their $20 co-pay and that&#8217;s it. Doctor A cost $20/visit, doctor B costs $20/visit; emergency room A costs $75/visit, emergency room B costs $75/visit. Price shopping is largely non-existent. This is WELL-documented; there&#8217;s no disputing it, dude.
> 
> And even considering the HSA, what happens when you have surgery and the major insurance kicks in after your deductible? Are you paying the $100,000 triple bypass surgery out of pocket? Are you comparing pricing then? No, it&#8217;s all covered by insurance; you shop ONLY for quality at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further, you can use insurance to buy TVs and it does not cost 3x more to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I&#8217;m talking if the entire TV market was insurance based, costs would be higher overall. Obviously the TV market is not insurance based, lol.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how you missed my point.  Consumers do have a choice.  It is only through government mandates at the threat of gun that we LOOSE that choice. 

Your point, may have been that some/most people CHOOSE to walk away from choices once the bill will be primarily shouldered someone else. To this I would tentatively agree but only regarding the some part.  I've seen quite a few people CHOOSE the less expensive path, even though they don't have to.  Some people, believe it or not, are actually frugal with other peoples money.  Perhaps because they give a shit. Further, in my experience the best care is not necessarily the most expensive care.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events.  The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results.  While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions.  Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result.  The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result.  The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person.   For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.)  However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was talking about outcomes I was talking about looking at all the steps which would include things like how the plan is funded. Or in your analogy the rape.
> 
> If you want to compare taxation for UHC to rape then that is your belief. I would love to live in a world without taxation but that is not a realistic approach to real problems a nation and a society of people face.
Click to expand...

I don't mind taxation for the classic traditional constitutional purposes of our federal government pre-civil war, and more particularly pre-new deal.  In particular, I volunteer to pay for said acts.

However, taxation to redistribute income from Peter to hand-out to Paul, is not a classic traditional constitutional purpose of our federal government.  More particularly, taking money from Peter to hand out to Paul is quite frankly nothing more than PUBLIC THEFT. And since the amounts we are talking about exceed $500, the theft is FELONIOUS. Therefore, my taxes are "tainted."  More specifically the classical definition of rape is to seize and take away by force, thus my use of the term is the federal government "seizing and taking away by force" (aka. rape) my income, to redistribute in the form of hand-outs.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events.  The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results.  While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions.  Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result.  The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result.  The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person.   For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.)  However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was talking about outcomes I was talking about looking at all the steps which would include things like how the plan is funded. Or in your analogy the rape.
> 
> If you want to compare taxation for UHC to rape then that is your belief. I would love to live in a world without taxation but that is not a realistic approach to real problems a nation and a society of people face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't mind taxation for the classic traditional constitutional purposes of our federal government pre-civil war, and more particularly pre-new deal.  In particular, I volunteer to pay for said acts.
> 
> However, taxation to redistribute income from Peter to hand-out to Paul, is not a classic traditional constitutional purpose of our federal government.  More particularly, taking money from Peter to hand out to Paul is quite frankly nothing more than PUBLIC THEFT. And since the amounts we are talking about exceed $500, the theft is FELONIOUS. Therefore, my taxes are "tainted."  More specifically the classical definition of rape is to seize and take away by force, thus my use of the term is the federal government "seizing and taking away by force" (aka. rape) my income, to redistribute in the form of hand-outs.
Click to expand...


You are not being raped. This is the type of hyperbolic nonsense that makes it easy to discount your world view as irrelevant and meaningless ideology that is not based on reality.

I would suggest you find a nation that agrees with you but every single industrialized nation disagrees with your assessment. When you live in civilization people actually care about the well being of one another.


----------



## gnarlylove

This "public theft" is not causing you to go without or become dependent on the state because of progressive taxation (or supposedly). Half of taxes are spent on military and much on the health care system. welfare programs are a small margin of taxation. I know you cannot stand having to care for those less fortunate than you because you keep repeating your mantra that they don't work hard but this is ideology talking, not reality. The fact is capitalism has made your ego so large it blocks out empathy, the part that considers other humans. So you refuse to understand that those in poverty are there for any reason except their own fault. Major ideology and its a major lie but there's no convincing you because your ideology is a part of WHO YOU ARE. You identify yourself on the basis of having no concern for the well being of fellow humans--only within your tribe do you care.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
> Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
> Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Food? Housing? Reproduction?
> 
> What else should be under democratic control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The surest way to fuck something up is to put it under democratic control.
Click to expand...


What I don't understand is the assumption that it boils down to a choice between submitting to corporations or submitting to government.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Food? Housing? Reproduction?
> 
> What else should be under democratic control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The surest way to fuck something up is to put it under democratic control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is the assumption that it boils down to a choice between submitting to corporations or submitting to government.
Click to expand...


The sphere of influence is either public or private. That is why there is an assumption. Public influence is synonymous with the state. Private influence has the most power in corporations and is thus associated with corporations wielding influence.

So either we can create a new sphere of influence (say of power based in the people which lies outside the state and corporation--a democratic notion) or we can remain in the dynamic of today. Suggesting a overhaul of the government without overhaul of the whole system simply creates a power vacuum that will easily be filled by those with 20 billion dollars.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.
> 
> Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
> Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
> Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.
Click to expand...


Totally wrong.  But it's georgieporgie, so the errors he makes come as no surprise.

"Promoting the general welfare" is not (and never was intended to be) a trump card used to evade the strictures of the enumerated component of enumerated powers.  

And, of course, "national health" is quite obviously not related to "national defense."

Health should NOT be under government control.  And the majority ought to have NO say at all in how we obtain our health care.  For to give them the power to decide what measure of care we get is the same as allowing them to decide what we may be denied.


----------



## georgephillip

IlarMeilyr said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
> Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
> Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally wrong.  But it's georgieporgie, so the errors he makes come as no surprise.
> 
> "Promoting the general welfare" is not (and never was intended to be) a trump card used to evade the strictures of the enumerated component of enumerated powers.
> 
> And, of course, "national health" is quite obviously not related to "national defense."
> 
> Health should NOT be under government control.  And the majority ought to have NO say at all in how we obtain our health care.  For to give them the power to decide what measure of care we get is the same as allowing them to decide what we may be denied.
Click to expand...

Health and Education are key components of National Defense.
The warfare/welfare state is not; in fact, it functions in opposition to any meaningful version of democracy, which, of course, is exactly what fascist trolls regularly fantasize about.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Food? Housing? Reproduction?
> 
> What else should be under democratic control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The surest way to fuck something up is to put it under democratic control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is the assumption that it boils down to a choice between submitting to corporations or submitting to government.
Click to expand...

Are you denying the need for some agency to control the monopoly of violence today?
If not, are you in favor of public or private control?


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The surest way to fuck something up is to put it under democratic control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is the assumption that it boils down to a choice between submitting to corporations or submitting to government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you denying the need for some agency to control the monopoly of violence today?
Click to expand...


No.



> If not, are you in favor of public or private control?



Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was talking about outcomes I was talking about looking at all the steps which would include things like how the plan is funded. Or in your analogy the rape.
> 
> If you want to compare taxation for UHC to rape then that is your belief. I would love to live in a world without taxation but that is not a realistic approach to real problems a nation and a society of people face.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind taxation for the classic traditional constitutional purposes of our federal government pre-civil war, and more particularly pre-new deal.  In particular, I volunteer to pay for said acts.
> 
> However, taxation to redistribute income from Peter to hand-out to Paul, is not a classic traditional constitutional purpose of our federal government.  More particularly, taking money from Peter to hand out to Paul is quite frankly nothing more than PUBLIC THEFT. And since the amounts we are talking about exceed $500, the theft is FELONIOUS. Therefore, my taxes are "tainted."  More specifically the classical definition of rape is to seize and take away by force, thus my use of the term is the federal government "seizing and taking away by force" (aka. rape) my income, to redistribute in the form of hand-outs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not being raped. This is the type of hyperbolic nonsense that makes it easy to discount your world view as irrelevant and meaningless ideology that is not based on reality.
> 
> I would suggest you find a nation that agrees with you but every single industrialized nation disagrees with your assessment. When you live in civilization people actually care about the well being of one another.
Click to expand...


No, it's only hyperbole in YOUR mind.  You lack the education to use the term by it's defined meaning. The definition of rape is seizing and taking away by force, your accusation that it only pertains to sex acts, points out what a little mind you have.

You want videos of the rape being performed by our IRS agents? 

While I can see why some folks like to be the benefactors of theft, talking nice about it is nothing more than pandering to the violent act you are benefiting from.  

Then you point to other nations, like Rwanda where they hack peoples heads off as a basis for using criminal acts on citizens and that makes it ok in your mind?


----------



## RKMBrown

gnarlylove said:


> This "public theft" is not causing you to go without or become dependent on the state because of progressive taxation (or supposedly). Half of taxes are spent on military and much on the health care system. welfare programs are a small margin of taxation. I know you cannot stand having to care for those less fortunate than you because you keep repeating your mantra that they don't work hard but this is ideology talking, not reality. The fact is capitalism has made your ego so large it blocks out empathy, the part that considers other humans. So you refuse to understand that those in poverty are there for any reason except their own fault. Major ideology and its a major lie but there's no convincing you because your ideology is a part of WHO YOU ARE. You identify yourself on the basis of having no concern for the well being of fellow humans--only within your tribe do you care.



Screw you.  You think paying taxes is "caring for people?"  You may serve this government as your god.  Not me.  I give charity to charities.  This government makes slaves of people that's not charity.  Quite the opposite.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind taxation for the classic traditional constitutional purposes of our federal government pre-civil war, and more particularly pre-new deal.  In particular, I volunteer to pay for said acts.
> 
> However, taxation to redistribute income from Peter to hand-out to Paul, is not a classic traditional constitutional purpose of our federal government.  More particularly, taking money from Peter to hand out to Paul is quite frankly nothing more than PUBLIC THEFT. And since the amounts we are talking about exceed $500, the theft is FELONIOUS. Therefore, my taxes are "tainted."  More specifically the classical definition of rape is to seize and take away by force, thus my use of the term is the federal government "seizing and taking away by force" (aka. rape) my income, to redistribute in the form of hand-outs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not being raped. This is the type of hyperbolic nonsense that makes it easy to discount your world view as irrelevant and meaningless ideology that is not based on reality.
> 
> I would suggest you find a nation that agrees with you but every single industrialized nation disagrees with your assessment. When you live in civilization people actually care about the well being of one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's only hyperbole in YOUR mind.  You lack the education to use the term by it's defined meaning. The definition of rape is seizing and taking away by force, your accusation that it only pertains to sex acts, points out what a little mind you have.
> 
> You want videos of the rape being performed by our IRS agents?
> 
> While I can see why some folks like to be the benefactors of theft, talking nice about it is nothing more than pandering to the violent act you are benefiting from.
> 
> Then you point to other nations, like Rwanda where they hack peoples heads off as a basis for using criminal acts on citizens and that makes it ok in your mind?
Click to expand...


What you just said is literally crazy. UHC that exists in every single industrialized nation is the topic. Not people getting their head cut off in Rwanda. 

We live in a society together. Other members of our society have fought and died for one another. We help each other, depend on one another, and what separates the US from Rwanda is not any individual but the civilization that we have cultivated together.

The fact that we provide health care for the poor isn't even really up for debate in reality.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand is the assumption that it boils down to a choice between submitting to corporations or submitting to government.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying the need for some agency to control the monopoly of violence today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If not, are you in favor of public or private control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?
Click to expand...

Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying the need for some agency to control the monopoly of violence today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If not, are you in favor of public or private control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.
> 
> Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?


----------



## LeftofLeft

It is Capitalism that ultimately funds redistribution.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not being raped. This is the type of hyperbolic nonsense that makes it easy to discount your world view as irrelevant and meaningless ideology that is not based on reality.
> 
> I would suggest you find a nation that agrees with you but every single industrialized nation disagrees with your assessment. When you live in civilization people actually care about the well being of one another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's only hyperbole in YOUR mind.  You lack the education to use the term by it's defined meaning. The definition of rape is seizing and taking away by force, your accusation that it only pertains to sex acts, points out what a little mind you have.
> 
> You want videos of the rape being performed by our IRS agents?
> 
> While I can see why some folks like to be the benefactors of theft, talking nice about it is nothing more than pandering to the violent act you are benefiting from.
> 
> Then you point to other nations, like Rwanda where they hack peoples heads off as a basis for using criminal acts on citizens and that makes it ok in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you just said is literally crazy. UHC that exists in every single industrialized nation is the topic. Not people getting their head cut off in Rwanda.
> 
> We live in a society together. Other members of our society have fought and died for one another. We help each other, depend on one another, and what separates the US from Rwanda is not any individual but the civilization that we have cultivated together.
> 
> The fact that we provide health care for the poor isn't even really up for debate in reality.
Click to expand...


Bull shit.  Cultivate your own damn income and GTFO me and mine. We have absolutely no interest in your panhandling, blood sucking, or burning down of our country.

Lazy, good for nothing, ... then I have no interest in helping you at all. None.  You want a hand up.. maybe we can talk about how to get you off your ass and becoming self reliant.

You want to reduce the voters to only people who have actually served in the military?  I'm good with that.  We'll see just how long it takes for there to be zero democrats in DC.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?
> 
> 
> 
> Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.
> 
> Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?
Click to expand...


Ding... the difference is under the government monopoly the lazy don't have to lift a finger, everyone becomes entitled to be lazy good for nothings.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?



So to you the public, which is me, you, the people, our neighbors, the working class, those who constitute general society that we cross paths with are to be considered a monopolizing force?

Yet our best friend private corporations compete and therefore do not have a monopoly?? What ideologue are you working from because it ain't reality! Corporations prefer to monopolize!!!!!! And so they do! Do corporations compete in regard to economic policy? No. It's a race to the bottom! Those who run, own, and operate corporations all have similar economic values and policies in mind. They impose them on the government in a monopolistic fashion through lobbying and funding of campaigns. There is no challenge to this monopoly on government policy. If you think voting is a challenge to bad economic policy, wake up! When there's an election, only 10% of voters voted based on issues (2004 poll). We are voting based on profiles, not policies (there policies are the same). You protect the corporation like its your own child but can't stand if the monopoly of the working class.


----------



## RKMBrown

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to you the public, which is me, you, the people, our neighbors, the working class, those who constitute general society that we cross paths with are to be considered a monopolizing force?
> 
> Yet our best friend private corporations compete and therefore do not have a monopoly?? What ideologue are you working from because it ain't reality! Corporations prefer to monopolize!!!!!! And so they do! Do corporations compete in regard to economic policy? No. It's a race to the bottom! Those who run, own, and operate corporations all have similar economic values and policies in mind. They impose them on the government in a monopolistic fashion through lobbying and funding of campaigns. There is no challenge to this monopoly on government policy. If you think voting is a challenge to bad economic policy, wake up! When there's an election, only 10% of voters voted based on issues (2004 poll). We are voting based on profiles, not policies (there policies are the same). You protect the corporation like its your own child but can't stand if the monopoly of the working class.
Click to expand...


What makes you think the majority of voters are at all representative of the working class?  News flash, being paid welfare does not make you a part of the working class.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to you the public, which is me, you, the people, our neighbors, the working class, those who constitute general society that we cross paths with are to be considered a monopolizing force?
> 
> Yet our best friend private corporations compete and therefore do not have a monopoly??
Click to expand...


Well, I wouldn't call them my best friends, but no, they don't have a monopoly. In any case, I'm not required to do business with them. And I am required to 'do business' with the monopoly of government. That's the difference. And I realize it's a difference that doesn't seem to register with you, but it's not a fantasy. It's very real.



> You protect the corporation like its your own child but can't stand if the monopoly of the working class.



That's pretty laughable to anyone who know's me. I despise most large corporations - which is why I tend to avoid doing business with them. But, again, the difference is, I don't have to. I can tell them to fuck off and they won't arrest me and put me in jail. I don't have that option with government. 

Now, here's where you'll no doubt, once again, accuse me of being an anarchist opposed to all government, yada yada yada.... But I'm not, at all. Government is the right and proper solution for resolving disputes and serious problems that can't be solved through non-violent means. For everything else, it's much better, much more civilized to rely on voluntary means to get by - live and let live. It's not as radical an idea as you seem to think.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying the need for some agency to control the monopoly of violence today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If not, are you in favor of public or private control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.
> 
> Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


The surest path to mass starvation is democratic control over the economy.  "a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders" means more numskulls having a say in how a company is run.  We're talking about giving the kind of people who think Obama is going to pay their mortgage a say in running billion dollar companies.


----------



## bripat9643

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not being raped. This is the type of hyperbolic nonsense that makes it easy to discount your world view as irrelevant and meaningless ideology that is not based on reality.
> 
> I would suggest you find a nation that agrees with you but every single industrialized nation disagrees with your assessment. When you live in civilization people actually care about the well being of one another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's only hyperbole in YOUR mind.  You lack the education to use the term by it's defined meaning. The definition of rape is seizing and taking away by force, your accusation that it only pertains to sex acts, points out what a little mind you have.
> 
> You want videos of the rape being performed by our IRS agents?
> 
> While I can see why some folks like to be the benefactors of theft, talking nice about it is nothing more than pandering to the violent act you are benefiting from.
> 
> Then you point to other nations, like Rwanda where they hack peoples heads off as a basis for using criminal acts on citizens and that makes it ok in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you just said is literally crazy. UHC that exists in every single industrialized nation is the topic. Not people getting their head cut off in Rwanda.
> 
> We live in a society together. Other members of our society have fought and died for one another. We help each other, depend on one another, and what separates the US from Rwanda is not any individual but the civilization that we have cultivated together.
> 
> The fact that we provide health care for the poor isn't even really up for debate in reality.
Click to expand...


The thing that separates us from Rawanda is that we aren't required to follow the herd into the abattoir. However, the U.S. is becoming more and more like Rawanda with each passing day.


----------



## gnarlylove

I admit to being taken by hyperbole but you clearly favor corporate control because you understand it as 100% voluntary ergo no control. This is easily rationalized when you believe you can only comply by force or choice and you identify correctly that corporations are not using force. I submit this is a false dichotomy. I know corporations are not synonymous with government and therefore violence, but corporations are people that effect the government far more than any individual citizen does. Naturally we think of a line in the sand between government's authority to use force and corporate lack of such authority. This is less clear of a line when you investigate which you must avoid doing to maintain your views.

You may live remote region of USA like myself but I know you aren't off the grid involved in subsistence farming. This is no attack on your life choice (I agree with you often) but you are given to manufactured consent, a necessary delusion if you think you are under no corporate influence (this includes media and all private corps). Our ego centric economy is driven by personal distraction and delusions from meaningful issues like human atrocities done without justification. The justification is often in the fact that we need more resources to continue our pursuits.


Upon recognizing that private corporation uses every device possible to subdue free press like framing of issues, public relations among other devices one can realize this is at least a tacit effort between competing companies and essentially between elites to protect their interests. Institutions and people are not about to allow total change, they will bitterly resist. So with general control of the mainstream press the information is filtered for the public in fragmented slices rather than the organic whole; many historical examples show the press presenting the side that makes USA look good often when we are supporting atrocities. This is about expansion and resource control. Who owns minerals? Not so much governments but private corporations are the major resource owners--remember, private property? It is in their (the corps.) best interest to have unfettered access to resources and have a hand in government policy, the media etc. Thus tricking us into going along with their interests through distortions making us think its in our interest too. It's been the game of the police since its creation to enforce business interests over human interests. The elites are inclined to squash natural inquisition--diametrically opposed to human need for creativity and expression. It might lead to a genuinely free society where they don't have the same power and authority.


----------



## RKMBrown

gnarlylove said:


> I admit to being taken by hyperbole but you clearly favor corporate control because you understand it as 100% voluntary ergo no control. This is easily rationalized when you believe you can only comply by force or choice and you identify correctly that corporations are not using force. I submit this is a false dichotomy. I know corporations are not synonymous with government and therefore violence, but corporations are people that effect the government far more than any individual citizen does. Naturally we think of a line in the sand between government's authority to use force and corporate lack of such authority. This is less clear of a line when you investigate which you must avoid doing to maintain your views.
> 
> You may live remote region of USA like myself but I know you aren't off the grid involved in subsistence farming. This is no attack on your life choice (I agree with you often) but you are given to manufactured consent, a necessary delusion if you think you are under no corporate influence (this includes media and all private corps). Our ego centric economy is driven by personal distraction and delusions from meaningful issues like human atrocities done without justification. The justification is often in the fact that we need more resources to continue our pursuits.
> 
> 
> Upon recognizing that private corporation uses every device possible to subdue free press like framing of issues, public relations among other devices one can realize this is at least a tacit effort between competing companies and essentially between elites to protect their interests. Institutions and people are not about to allow total change, they will bitterly resist. So with general control of the mainstream press the information is filtered for the public in fragmented slices rather than the organic whole; many historical examples show the press presenting the side that makes USA look good often when we are supporting atrocities. This is about expansion and resource control. Who owns minerals? Not so much governments but private corporations are the major resource owners--remember, private property? It is in their (the corps.) best interest to have unfettered access to resources and have a hand in government policy, the media etc. Thus tricking us into going along with their interests through distortions making us think its in our interest too. It's been the game of the police since its creation to enforce business interests over human interests. The elites are inclined to squash natural inquisition--diametrically opposed to human need for creativity and expression. It might lead to a genuinely free society where they don't have the same power and authority.



Nonsense.  Corporations are nothing more than groups of individuals.  No different than any other group.  

No surprise then that you numbskulls want to split up all groups except the biggest group.  My god, put down the shovel man.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying the need for some agency to control the monopoly of violence today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If not, are you in favor of public or private control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.
> 
> Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


That's fine.  You have a right to your opinion.    But your opinion is not based on evidence, history, or rational thought.

That does not mean you are not entitled to your opinion.   By all means.   But the rest of us need something more than some idealized mythical "workers paradise" of economic democracy.






These empty shelves are from Venezuela.  Above the shelves it says Made in Socialism.





Three million 'unable to get NHS dentistry appointment' - Telegraph





"Three million people in England have been unable to get an appointment with an NHS dentist in the last two years, according to a new study. "

Economic Democracy.

And I could go down the list of hundreds of examples.   Socialized anything, never works.   Only the free-market Capitalist system, provides the most benefit to the most people.   Not perfectly, because there is no perfect.    But it provides the *MOST* benefit to the *MOST* people.    Far better than your "economic democracy" system ever has.

Equality, is only equally impoverished.


----------



## RKMBrown

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?
> 
> 
> 
> Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.
> 
> Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine.  You have a right to your opinion.    But your opinion is not based on evidence, history, or rational thought.
> 
> That does not mean you are not entitled to your opinion.   By all means.   But the rest of us need something more than some idealized mythical "workers paradise" of economic democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These empty shelves are from Venezuela.  Above the shelves it says Made in Socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three million 'unable to get NHS dentistry appointment' - Telegraph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Three million people in England have been unable to get an appointment with an NHS dentist in the last two years, according to a new study. "
> 
> Economic Democracy.
> 
> And I could go down the list of hundreds of examples.   Socialized anything, never works.   Only the free-market Capitalist system, provides the most benefit to the most people.   Not perfectly, because there is no perfect.    But it provides the *MOST* benefit to the *MOST* people.    Far better than your "economic democracy" system ever has.
> 
> Equality, is only equally impoverished.
Click to expand...


But we can't move forward until the least of us catches up.  Oh btw the least of us only wants to sit on the couch and watch the flat screen TV all day and have everything taken care of for them.


----------



## Bombur

RKMBrown said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's only hyperbole in YOUR mind.  You lack the education to use the term by it's defined meaning. The definition of rape is seizing and taking away by force, your accusation that it only pertains to sex acts, points out what a little mind you have.
> 
> You want videos of the rape being performed by our IRS agents?
> 
> While I can see why some folks like to be the benefactors of theft, talking nice about it is nothing more than pandering to the violent act you are benefiting from.
> 
> Then you point to other nations, like Rwanda where they hack peoples heads off as a basis for using criminal acts on citizens and that makes it ok in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you just said is literally crazy. UHC that exists in every single industrialized nation is the topic. Not people getting their head cut off in Rwanda.
> 
> We live in a society together. Other members of our society have fought and died for one another. We help each other, depend on one another, and what separates the US from Rwanda is not any individual but the civilization that we have cultivated together.
> 
> The fact that we provide health care for the poor isn't even really up for debate in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Cultivate your own damn income and GTFO me and mine. We have absolutely no interest in your panhandling, blood sucking, or burning down of our country.
> 
> Lazy, good for nothing, ... then I have no interest in helping you at all. None.  You want a hand up.. maybe we can talk about how to get you off your ass and becoming self reliant.
> 
> You want to reduce the voters to only people who have actually served in the military?  I'm good with that.  We'll see just how long it takes for there to be zero democrats in DC.
Click to expand...


The entire industrialized world is BS to you? You think me, and the rest of the civilized world has to "GTFO" to placate your ideology?

Personally I have an absolutely awesome health care plan. When you make it about me you just demonstrate that you live in a narrow minded world where everything is about you so you assume I think the same way. I don't.


----------



## Bombur

bripat9643 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's only hyperbole in YOUR mind.  You lack the education to use the term by it's defined meaning. The definition of rape is seizing and taking away by force, your accusation that it only pertains to sex acts, points out what a little mind you have.
> 
> You want videos of the rape being performed by our IRS agents?
> 
> While I can see why some folks like to be the benefactors of theft, talking nice about it is nothing more than pandering to the violent act you are benefiting from.
> 
> Then you point to other nations, like Rwanda where they hack peoples heads off as a basis for using criminal acts on citizens and that makes it ok in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you just said is literally crazy. UHC that exists in every single industrialized nation is the topic. Not people getting their head cut off in Rwanda.
> 
> We live in a society together. Other members of our society have fought and died for one another. We help each other, depend on one another, and what separates the US from Rwanda is not any individual but the civilization that we have cultivated together.
> 
> The fact that we provide health care for the poor isn't even really up for debate in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing that separates us from Rawanda is that we aren't required to follow the herd into the abattoir. However, the U.S. is becoming more and more like Rawanda with each passing day.
Click to expand...


----------



## RKMBrown

Bombur said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you just said is literally crazy. UHC that exists in every single industrialized nation is the topic. Not people getting their head cut off in Rwanda.
> 
> We live in a society together. Other members of our society have fought and died for one another. We help each other, depend on one another, and what separates the US from Rwanda is not any individual but the civilization that we have cultivated together.
> 
> The fact that we provide health care for the poor isn't even really up for debate in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Cultivate your own damn income and GTFO me and mine. We have absolutely no interest in your panhandling, blood sucking, or burning down of our country.
> 
> Lazy, good for nothing, ... then I have no interest in helping you at all. None.  You want a hand up.. maybe we can talk about how to get you off your ass and becoming self reliant.
> 
> You want to reduce the voters to only people who have actually served in the military?  I'm good with that.  We'll see just how long it takes for there to be zero democrats in DC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire industrialized world is BS to you? You think me, and the rest of the civilized world has to "GTFO" to placate your ideology?
> 
> Personally I have an absolutely awesome health care plan. When you make it about me you just demonstrate that you live in a narrow minded world where everything is about you so you assume I think the same way. I don't.
Click to expand...


Bull shit.  I know people that live in countries all around the world who disagree with redistribution of their wages and how their health care systems are managed.  Just because they live there does not mean everyone there agrees with socialist based systems.

You asked if I think that you and the rest of the civilized world has to "GTFO" to placate my ideology?  No, I only want you and people like you in my country that are putting your boots on my neck to GTFO.  Why would I give a shit about what dumb ass type of failed socialist system the dumb ass Europeans are proving does not work?

My life is about me, not you. Why is GTFO so hard for you to understand?


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Well, I wouldn't call them my best friends, but no, they don't have a monopoly. In any case, I'm not required to do business with them. And I am required to 'do business' with the monopoly of government. That's the difference. And I realize it's a difference that doesn't seem to register with you, but it's not a fantasy. It's very real.



dblack, this is about the best description you will find regarding our fundamental opposition.
This is written from the vantage point of 2096 looking back over the century but it was written in 1996:

"As long as their political discourse was dominated by the notion of ''rights'' -- whether ''individual'' or ''civil'' -- it was hard for Americans to think of the results of unequal distribution of wealth and income as immoral. Such rights talk, common among late-20th-century liberals, gave conservative opponents of redistributionist policies a tremendous advantage: ''the right to a job'' (or ''to a decent wage'') had none of the resonance of ''the right to sit in the front of the bus'' or ''the right to vote'' or even ''the right to equal pay for equal work.'' Rights in the liberal tradition were, after all, powers and privileges to be wrested from the state, not from the economy.

Of course socialists had, since the mid-19th century, urged that the economy and the state be merged to guarantee economic rights. But it had become clear by the middle of the 20th century that such merging was disastrous. The history of the pre-1989 ''socialist'' countries -- bloody dictatorships that paid only lip service to the fraternity for which the socialist revolutionaries had yearned -- made it plausible for conservatives to argue that extending the notion of rights to the economic order would be a step down the road to serfdom. By the end of the 20th century, even left-leaning American intellectuals agreed that ''socialism, no wave of the future, now looks (at best) like a temporary historical stage through which various nations passed before reaching the great transition to capitalist democracy.''1

The realization by those on the left that a viable economy required free markets did not stop them from insisting that capitalism would be compatible with American ideals of human brotherhood only if the state were able to redistribute wealth. Yet this view was still being criticized as ''un-American'' and ''socialist'' at the beginning of the present century, even as, under the pressures of a globalized world economy, the gap between most Americans' incomes and those of the lucky one-third at the top widened. Looking back, we think how easy it would have been for our great-grandfathers to have forestalled the social collapse that resulted from these economic pressures. They could have insisted that all classes had to confront the new global economy together. In the name of our common citizenship, they could have asked everybody, not just the bottom two-thirds, to tighten their belts and make do with less. They might have brought the country together by bringing back its old pride in fraternal ideals."

He returns to this idea later saying,
"Here, in the late 21st century, as talk of fraternity and unselfishness has replaced talk of rights, American political discourse has come to be dominated by quotations from Scripture and literature, rather than from political theorists or social scientists. Fraternity, like friendship, was not a concept that either philosophers or lawyers knew how to handle. They could formulate principles of justice, equality and liberty, and invoke these principles when weighing hard moral or legal issues. But how to formulate a ''principle of fraternity''? Fraternity is an inclination of the heart, one that produces a sense of shame at having much when others have little. It is not the sort of thing that anybody can have a theory about or that people can be argued into having."Fraternity Reigns - NYTimes.com
Written by Richard Rorty.

You use the description of humans having rights but that rights don't coincide with economic rights, so you speak of economic freedom instead. A phrase that allows anything to happen like present inequality instead of securing humans assurance to food.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I wouldn't call them my best friends, but no, they don't have a monopoly. In any case, I'm not required to do business with them. And I am required to 'do business' with the monopoly of government. That's the difference. And I realize it's a difference that doesn't seem to register with you, but it's not a fantasy. It's very real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack, this is about the best description you will find regarding our fundamental opposition.
> This is written from the vantage point of 2096 looking back over the century but it was written in 1996:
> 
> "As long as their political discourse was dominated by the notion of ''rights'' -- whether ''individual'' or ''civil'' -- it was hard for Americans to think of the results of unequal distribution of wealth and income as immoral. Such rights talk, common among late-20th-century liberals, gave conservative opponents of redistributionist policies a tremendous advantage: ''the right to a job'' (or ''to a decent wage'') had none of the resonance of ''the right to sit in the front of the bus'' or ''the right to vote'' or even ''the right to equal pay for equal work.'' Rights in the liberal tradition were, after all, powers and privileges to be wrested from the state, not from the economy.
> 
> Of course socialists had, since the mid-19th century, urged that the economy and the state be merged to guarantee economic rights. But it had become clear by the middle of the 20th century that such merging was disastrous. The history of the pre-1989 ''socialist'' countries -- bloody dictatorships that paid only lip service to the fraternity for which the socialist revolutionaries had yearned -- made it plausible for conservatives to argue that extending the notion of rights to the economic order would be a step down the road to serfdom. By the end of the 20th century, even left-leaning American intellectuals agreed that ''socialism, no wave of the future, now looks (at best) like a temporary historical stage through which various nations passed before reaching the great transition to capitalist democracy.''1
> 
> The realization by those on the left that a viable economy required free markets did not stop them from insisting that capitalism would be compatible with American ideals of human brotherhood only if the state were able to redistribute wealth. Yet this view was still being criticized as ''un-American'' and ''socialist'' at the beginning of the present century, even as, under the pressures of a globalized world economy, the gap between most Americans' incomes and those of the lucky one-third at the top widened. Looking back, we think how easy it would have been for our great-grandfathers to have forestalled the social collapse that resulted from these economic pressures. They could have insisted that all classes had to confront the new global economy together. In the name of our common citizenship, they could have asked everybody, not just the bottom two-thirds, to tighten their belts and make do with less. They might have brought the country together by bringing back its old pride in fraternal ideals."
> 
> He returns to this idea later saying,
> "Here, in the late 21st century, as talk of fraternity and unselfishness has replaced talk of rights, American political discourse has come to be dominated by quotations from Scripture and literature, rather than from political theorists or social scientists. Fraternity, like friendship, was not a concept that either philosophers or lawyers knew how to handle. They could formulate principles of justice, equality and liberty, and invoke these principles when weighing hard moral or legal issues. But how to formulate a ''principle of fraternity''? Fraternity is an inclination of the heart, one that produces a sense of shame at having much when others have little. It is not the sort of thing that anybody can have a theory about or that people can be argued into having."Fraternity Reigns - NYTimes.com
> Written by Richard Rorty.
> 
> You use the description of humans having rights but that rights don't coincide with economic rights, so you speak of economic freedom instead. A phrase that allows anything to happen like present inequality instead of securing humans assurance to food.
Click to expand...


Cute story, but it's pure fiction.  You haven't refuted the concept of rights.


----------



## deltex1

Equal opportunity guarantees rising inequality.  Some will try harder than others.  Duh.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?
> 
> 
> 
> Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.
> 
> Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?
Click to expand...

*Shifting control of the means of production from a relatively small group of private shareholders to a much larger group of public stakeholders is the exact opposite of monopoly.

Mondragon seems a viable starting point:*

"Noted poverty expert and sociology professor Barbara J. Peters (Southampton College, Long Island University) has studied the incorporated and entirely resident-owned Basque town of Mondragón, Spain. 'In Mondragón, I saw no signs of poverty. I saw no signs of extreme wealth,' Peters said. 'I saw people looking out for each other..It's a caring form of capitalism.'"

Mondragón - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.
> 
> Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Shifting control of the means of production from a relatively small group of private shareholders to a much larger group of public stakeholders is the exact opposite of monopoly.
> 
> Mondragon seems a viable starting point:*
> 
> "Noted poverty expert and sociology professor Barbara J. Peters (Southampton College, Long Island University) has studied the incorporated and entirely resident-owned Basque town of Mondragón, Spain. 'In Mondragón, I saw no signs of poverty. I saw no signs of extreme wealth,' Peters said. 'I saw people looking out for each other&#8230;..It's a caring form of capitalism.'"
> 
> Mondragón - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


If it's such a stunning success, then why isn't it being emulated all over the world?

_"On 16 October 2013, Fagor filed for bankruptcy under Spanish law in order to renegotiate &#8364;1,1 billion of debt, after suffering heavy losses during the eurocrisis and as consequence of the poor finance management putting 5,600 employees at risk to lose their jobs.[12] This was followed by the bankruptcy of the whole Fagor group on 6 November 2013.[13]"_​
FAGOR is a subsidiary of Mondragon.


----------



## georgephillip

LeftofLeft said:


> It is Capitalism that ultimately funds redistribution.


*Capitalism begins with a fundamental redistribution:*

"Surplus labour is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy. 

"It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ('necessary labour'). 

"According to Marxian economics, surplus labour is usually 'unpaid labour'. 

"Marxian economics regards surplus labour as the ultimate source of capitalist profits."

Surplus labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## deltex1

georgephillip said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Capitalism that ultimately funds redistribution.
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism begins with a fundamental redistribution:*
> 
> "Surplus labour is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy.
> 
> "It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ('necessary labour').
> 
> "According to Marxian economics, surplus labour is usually 'unpaid labour'.
> 
> "Marxian economics regards surplus labour as the ultimate source of capitalist profits."
> 
> Surplus labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


That's why Obabble takes in one million low wage immigrants per year.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Capitalism that ultimately funds redistribution.
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism begins with a fundamental redistribution:*
> 
> "Surplus labour is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy.
> 
> "It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ('necessary labour').
> 
> "According to Marxian economics, surplus labour is usually 'unpaid labour'.
> 
> "Marxian economics regards surplus labour as the ultimate source of capitalist profits."
> 
> Surplus labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Marxian "economics" is always pure bullshit.

Ask the Somalians, Venezuelans, Cubans.........

.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?
> 
> 
> 
> *Shifting control of the means of production from a relatively small group of private shareholders to a much larger group of public stakeholders is the exact opposite of monopoly.
> 
> Mondragon seems a viable starting point:*
> 
> "Noted poverty expert and sociology professor Barbara J. Peters (Southampton College, Long Island University) has studied the incorporated and entirely resident-owned Basque town of Mondragón, Spain. 'In Mondragón, I saw no signs of poverty. I saw no signs of extreme wealth,' Peters said. 'I saw people looking out for each other..It's a caring form of capitalism.'"
> 
> Mondragón - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's such a stunning success, then why isn't it being emulated all over the world?
> 
> _"On 16 October 2013, Fagor filed for bankruptcy under Spanish law in order to renegotiate 1,1 billion of debt, after suffering heavy losses during the eurocrisis and as consequence of the poor finance management putting 5,600 employees at risk to lose their jobs.[12] This was followed by the bankruptcy of the whole Fagor group on 6 November 2013.[13]"_​
> FAGOR is a subsidiary of Mondragon.
Click to expand...

"the Mondragon Co-op was founded in 1956 in the Basque region of Spain when 3 metal workers from a small technical college started a decade earlier by a young Catholic priest named José María Arizmendiarrieta co-operatively opened a small workshop producing paraffin heaters in the town of Mondragón . 

"At the end of 2011 it was providing employment for 83,869 people working in 256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge. 

"Scholars such as Richard D. Wolff, American professor of economics, have hailed the Mondragon set of enterprises, including the good wages it provides for employees, the empowerment of ordinary workers in decision making, and the measure of equality for female workers, as a major success and have cited it as a working model of an alternative to capitalism."

*Mondragon operates within a global capitalist framework and can't be held responsible for economic events beyond its control, like the Great Recession, for example. Employees who lost their jobs at Fagor were likely put back to work in other Mondragon enterprises.* 

The Mud Report: The Success of Spain's Mondragon Co-operative Shows That There are Alternatives to Capitalism


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Shifting control of the means of production from a relatively small group of private shareholders to a much larger group of public stakeholders is the exact opposite of monopoly.
> 
> Mondragon seems a viable starting point:*
> 
> "Noted poverty expert and sociology professor Barbara J. Peters (Southampton College, Long Island University) has studied the incorporated and entirely resident-owned Basque town of Mondragón, Spain. 'In Mondragón, I saw no signs of poverty. I saw no signs of extreme wealth,' Peters said. 'I saw people looking out for each other..It's a caring form of capitalism.'"
> 
> Mondragón - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's such a stunning success, then why isn't it being emulated all over the world?
> 
> _"On 16 October 2013, Fagor filed for bankruptcy under Spanish law in order to renegotiate 1,1 billion of debt, after suffering heavy losses during the eurocrisis and as consequence of the poor finance management putting 5,600 employees at risk to lose their jobs.[12] This was followed by the bankruptcy of the whole Fagor group on 6 November 2013.[13]"_​
> FAGOR is a subsidiary of Mondragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "the Mondragon Co-op was founded in 1956 in the Basque region of Spain when 3 metal workers from a small technical college started a decade earlier by a young Catholic priest named José María Arizmendiarrieta co-operatively opened a small workshop producing paraffin heaters in the town of Mondragón .
> 
> "At the end of 2011 it was providing employment for 83,869 people working in 256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge.
> 
> "Scholars such as Richard D. Wolff, American professor of economics, have hailed the Mondragon set of enterprises, including the good wages it provides for employees, the empowerment of ordinary workers in decision making, and the measure of equality for female workers, as a major success and have cited it as a working model of an alternative to capitalism."
> 
> *Mondragon operates within a global capitalist framework and can't be held responsible for economic events beyond its control, like the Great Recession, for example. Employees who lost their jobs at Fagor were likely put back to work in other Mondragon enterprises.*
> 
> The Mud Report: The Success of Spain's Mondragon Co-operative Shows That There are Alternatives to Capitalism
Click to expand...


If it operates "within the global capitalist framework," then it isn't an alternative to capitalism, is it?

I have no objection to operations like Mondragon, so long as the government doesn't impose them on anyone.  We have plenty of cooperatives here in the United States.  Their record of success, however, isn't stellar.  Profit making corporations are always on the top of the heap in terms of employment, wages and output.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Capitalism that ultimately funds redistribution.
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism begins with a fundamental redistribution:*
> 
> "Surplus labour is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy.
> 
> "It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ('necessary labour').
> 
> "According to Marxian economics, surplus labour is usually 'unpaid labour'.
> 
> "Marxian economics regards surplus labour as the ultimate source of capitalist profits."
> 
> Surplus labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Marxist economics has been proven over and over again to be pure horseshit.   You know that, don't you?

Just take the labor theory of value.  It's obviously false.  One day the price of oranges is $0.50/lb.  Then a severe frost hits Florida and the next day the price of oranges is $2.00/lb.  The exact same oranges are four times more expensive the following day.  The amount of labor required to produce them didn't change.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?
> 
> 
> 
> Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.
> 
> Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The surest path to mass starvation is democratic control over the economy.  "a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders" means more numskulls having a say in how a company is run.  We're talking about giving the kind of people who think Obama is going to pay their mortgage a say in running billion dollar companies.
Click to expand...

*Actually, numskull, we're talking about a co-op:*

"So then, what is the co-op? 

"How does it work? He smiles and says 'It would take me days to get it through to you but I'm going to give you a few examples. See those two women over there?' 

"He points to these two women working on an assembly line. 

"He says 'They're about done, in about 15 minutes they will be done with two hours of work. In every factory, at the end of two hours, you do something else. No worker is kept on the same job for more than two hours.'

"I asked why, and he said because it's stultifying, it makes you a zombie. He used all kinds of colorful language to say that the workers don't want to do the same thing every day, it's not healthy, and it's not good for morale. 

"So every two hours a little bell goes off, and they'll do similar work but it's a different machine, different action, different body movement, different workers to coordinate with, that's what a co-op does.

"He said, 'I'll give you another example. Once a month we have a meeting where we make a whole lot of decisions. The meeting is on company time; workers get paid their regular wage, because this is considered an essential part of the business.' 

"They're also paid to read the reports that they need to read to take part in the meeting. Financial decisions that have to be made, production decisions. 

"Because, he said, if you do not provide pay you teach people that the running of the enterprise, your role in that, is not as important as your role making widgets on an assembly line. 

"That would be counterproductive to the whole thing. 

"They wouldn't then participate. 

"A co-op requires that."

Richard D. Wolff: Can We Remake Our Workplaces To Be More Democratic? | Professor Richard D. Wolff


----------



## KNB

If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?
> 
> 
> 
> Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.
> 
> Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine.  You have a right to your opinion.    But your opinion is not based on evidence, history, or rational thought.
> 
> That does not mean you are not entitled to your opinion.   By all means.   But the rest of us need something more than some idealized mythical "workers paradise" of economic democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These empty shelves are from Venezuela.  Above the shelves it says Made in Socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three million 'unable to get NHS dentistry appointment' - Telegraph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Three million people in England have been unable to get an appointment with an NHS dentist in the last two years, according to a new study. "
> 
> Economic Democracy.
> 
> And I could go down the list of hundreds of examples.   Socialized anything, never works.   Only the free-market Capitalist system, provides the most benefit to the most people.   Not perfectly, because there is no perfect.    But it provides the *MOST* benefit to the *MOST* people.    Far better than your "economic democracy" system ever has.
> 
> Equality, is only equally impoverished.
Click to expand...

Capitalism isn't currently providing the MOST benefit to the MOST people in the US since 95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.

While you may be happy with your economic situation, tens of millions of others aren't, and most of them aren't seeking a workers' paradise either; they simply want a job that provides a decent standard of living for themselves and their families that capitalism is no longer willing (or able) to provide.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KNB said:


> If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?



$15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
On sales of nearly $447 billion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.
> 
> Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine.  You have a right to your opinion.    But your opinion is not based on evidence, history, or rational thought.
> 
> That does not mean you are not entitled to your opinion.   By all means.   But the rest of us need something more than some idealized mythical "workers paradise" of economic democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These empty shelves are from Venezuela.  Above the shelves it says Made in Socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three million 'unable to get NHS dentistry appointment' - Telegraph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Three million people in England have been unable to get an appointment with an NHS dentist in the last two years, according to a new study. "
> 
> Economic Democracy.
> 
> And I could go down the list of hundreds of examples.   Socialized anything, never works.   Only the free-market Capitalist system, provides the most benefit to the most people.   Not perfectly, because there is no perfect.    But it provides the *MOST* benefit to the *MOST* people.    Far better than your "economic democracy" system ever has.
> 
> Equality, is only equally impoverished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism isn't currently providing the MOST benefit to the MOST people in the US since 95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.
> 
> While you may be happy with your economic situation, tens of millions of others aren't, and most of them aren't seeking a workers' paradise either; they simply want a job that provides a decent standard of living for themselves and their families that capitalism is no longer willing (or able) to provide.
Click to expand...


* 95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.*

The worst President in living memory makes things difficult for many Americans.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.
> 
> Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The surest path to mass starvation is democratic control over the economy.  "a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders" means more numskulls having a say in how a company is run.  We're talking about giving the kind of people who think Obama is going to pay their mortgage a say in running billion dollar companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, numskull, we're talking about a co-op:*
> 
> "So then, what is the co-op?
> 
> "How does it work? He smiles and says 'It would take me days to get it through to you but I'm going to give you a few examples. See those two women over there?'
> 
> "He points to these two women working on an assembly line.
> 
> "He says 'They're about done, in about 15 minutes they will be done with two hours of work. In every factory, at the end of two hours, you do something else. No worker is kept on the same job for more than two hours.'
> 
> "I asked why, and he said because it's stultifying, it makes you a zombie. He used all kinds of colorful language to say that the workers don't want to do the same thing every day, it's not healthy, and it's not good for morale.
> 
> "So every two hours a little bell goes off, and they'll do similar work but it's a different machine, different action, different body movement, different workers to coordinate with, that's what a co-op does.
> 
> "He said, 'I'll give you another example. Once a month we have a meeting where we make a whole lot of decisions. The meeting is on company time; workers get paid their regular wage, because this is considered an essential part of the business.'
> 
> "They're also paid to read the reports that they need to read to take part in the meeting. Financial decisions that have to be made, production decisions.
> 
> "Because, he said, if you do not provide pay you teach people that the running of the enterprise, your role in that, is not as important as your role making widgets on an assembly line.
> 
> "That would be counterproductive to the whole thing.
> 
> "They wouldn't then participate.
> 
> "A co-op requires that."
> 
> Richard D. Wolff: Can We Remake Our Workplaces To Be More Democratic? | Professor Richard D. Wolff
Click to expand...


So, numskull, where's t the proof that this type of organization produces superior results?  No one is stopping anyone from establishing coops.  They're entirely legal.  Why isn't the United States overpopulated with coops beating the pants off those corporate bully boys?


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Capitalism that ultimately funds redistribution.
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism begins with a fundamental redistribution:*
> 
> "Surplus labour is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy.
> 
> "It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ('necessary labour').
> 
> "According to Marxian economics, surplus labour is usually 'unpaid labour'.
> 
> "Marxian economics regards surplus labour as the ultimate source of capitalist profits."
> 
> Surplus labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marxist economics has been proven over and over again to be pure horseshit.   You know that, don't you?
> 
> Just take the labor theory of value.  It's obviously false.  One day the price of oranges is $0.50/lb.  Then a severe frost hits Florida and the next day the price of oranges is $2.00/lb.  The exact same oranges are four times more expensive the following day.  The amount of labor required to produce them didn't change.
Click to expand...

So, if the amount of labor didn't change, which of the other two factors of production accounted for the price increase?


----------



## Andylusion

bripat9643 said:


> Marxist economics has been proven over and over again to be pure horseshit.   You know that, don't you?
> 
> Just take the labor theory of value.  It's obviously false.  One day the price of oranges is $0.50/lb.  Then a severe frost hits Florida and the next day the price of oranges is $2.00/lb.  The exact same oranges are four times more expensive the following day.  The amount of labor required to produce them didn't change.



Using logic and rational thinking on a leftist?  Careful you might break him.

I said the same thing back in 2009 when the GM Hummer drastically declined in value, to the point the company was giving them away at below cost, just to sell off what they had.

By the Marxist stupidity argument, since the value of the product declined while the cost of materials did not, by that theory Marxist should have been demanding all those Union guys take a huge pay cut.    You should have seen them twisting bending and contorting themselves to explain away why it didn't apply in that particular case... but of course all others it was true.... der der der.....


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine.  You have a right to your opinion.    But your opinion is not based on evidence, history, or rational thought.
> 
> That does not mean you are not entitled to your opinion.   By all means.   But the rest of us need something more than some idealized mythical "workers paradise" of economic democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These empty shelves are from Venezuela.  Above the shelves it says Made in Socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three million 'unable to get NHS dentistry appointment' - Telegraph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Three million people in England have been unable to get an appointment with an NHS dentist in the last two years, according to a new study. "
> 
> Economic Democracy.
> 
> And I could go down the list of hundreds of examples.   Socialized anything, never works.   Only the free-market Capitalist system, provides the most benefit to the most people.   Not perfectly, because there is no perfect.    But it provides the *MOST* benefit to the *MOST* people.    Far better than your "economic democracy" system ever has.
> 
> Equality, is only equally impoverished.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism isn't currently providing the MOST benefit to the MOST people in the US since 95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.
> 
> While you may be happy with your economic situation, tens of millions of others aren't, and most of them aren't seeking a workers' paradise either; they simply want a job that provides a decent standard of living for themselves and their families that capitalism is no longer willing (or able) to provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * 95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.*
> 
> The worst President in living memory makes things difficult for many Americans.
Click to expand...

Not for the richest 1% of Americans, just like his predecessor and successor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism isn't currently providing the MOST benefit to the MOST people in the US since 95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.
> 
> While you may be happy with your economic situation, tens of millions of others aren't, and most of them aren't seeking a workers' paradise either; they simply want a job that provides a decent standard of living for themselves and their families that capitalism is no longer willing (or able) to provide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * 95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.*
> 
> The worst President in living memory makes things difficult for many Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not for the richest 1% of Americans, just like his predecessor and successor.
Click to expand...


The top 1% wouldn't do even better without Obama and his trampling of the law?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.
> 
> Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The surest path to mass starvation is democratic control over the economy.  "a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders" means more numskulls having a say in how a company is run.  We're talking about giving the kind of people who think Obama is going to pay their mortgage a say in running billion dollar companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, numskull, we're talking about a co-op:*
> 
> "So then, what is the co-op?
> 
> "How does it work? He smiles and says 'It would take me days to get it through to you but I'm going to give you a few examples. See those two women over there?'
> 
> "He points to these two women working on an assembly line.
> 
> "He says 'They're about done, in about 15 minutes they will be done with two hours of work. In every factory, at the end of two hours, you do something else. No worker is kept on the same job for more than two hours.'
> 
> "I asked why, and he said because it's stultifying, it makes you a zombie. He used all kinds of colorful language to say that the workers don't want to do the same thing every day, it's not healthy, and it's not good for morale.
> 
> "So every two hours a little bell goes off, and they'll do similar work but it's a different machine, different action, different body movement, different workers to coordinate with, that's what a co-op does.
> 
> "He said, 'I'll give you another example. Once a month we have a meeting where we make a whole lot of decisions. The meeting is on company time; workers get paid their regular wage, because this is considered an essential part of the business.'
> 
> "They're also paid to read the reports that they need to read to take part in the meeting. Financial decisions that have to be made, production decisions.
> 
> "Because, he said, if you do not provide pay you teach people that the running of the enterprise, your role in that, is not as important as your role making widgets on an assembly line.
> 
> "That would be counterproductive to the whole thing.
> 
> "They wouldn't then participate.
> 
> "A co-op requires that."
> 
> Richard D. Wolff: Can We Remake Our Workplaces To Be More Democratic? | Professor Richard D. Wolff
Click to expand...


Um....  I did that years ago at a factory.  We all rotated around from job to job, so that no one did the same job for more than about 3 to 4 hours tops, depending on the job.   There was no bell, we were not in elementary school.   You just changed up what you did.      In fact, I do that at my manufacturing job now.

We also get paid a decent wage for what we do, and we get paid to read the company fiscal reports at the meetings.   Though we don't have decision making power, and none of us would know what decisions to make anyway.

Co-ops are not any better than regular companies.    This guy is pretending like his experience is 'special' or different, and the truth is, it's not.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism begins with a fundamental redistribution:*
> 
> "Surplus labour is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy.
> 
> "It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ('necessary labour').
> 
> "According to Marxian economics, surplus labour is usually 'unpaid labour'.
> 
> "Marxian economics regards surplus labour as the ultimate source of capitalist profits."
> 
> Surplus labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist economics has been proven over and over again to be pure horseshit.   You know that, don't you?
> 
> Just take the labor theory of value.  It's obviously false.  One day the price of oranges is $0.50/lb.  Then a severe frost hits Florida and the next day the price of oranges is $2.00/lb.  The exact same oranges are four times more expensive the following day.  The amount of labor required to produce them didn't change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, if the amount of labor didn't change, which of the other two factors of production accounted for the price increase?
Click to expand...


You are making the unsupportable assumption that price is determined by production.

The value of the product is determined by the customer, regardless of cost of labor, or cost of materials. Supply and demand of the product.

Equally the value of the labor is determined by supply and demand.


----------



## hunarcy

KNB said:


> If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?



Walmart has a duty to make profit.  To do that, they pay the "market rate" to their workers.  If the worker is worth more, they get paid more.  If someone else can do the same job and will work for less, then the worker can be replaced.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism begins with a fundamental redistribution:*
> 
> "Surplus labour is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy.
> 
> "It means labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ('necessary labour').
> 
> "According to Marxian economics, surplus labour is usually 'unpaid labour'.
> 
> "Marxian economics regards surplus labour as the ultimate source of capitalist profits."
> 
> Surplus labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist economics has been proven over and over again to be pure horseshit.   You know that, don't you?
> 
> Just take the labor theory of value.  It's obviously false.  One day the price of oranges is $0.50/lb.  Then a severe frost hits Florida and the next day the price of oranges is $2.00/lb.  The exact same oranges are four times more expensive the following day.  The amount of labor required to produce them didn't change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, if the amount of labor didn't change, which of the other two factors of production accounted for the price increase?
Click to expand...


Neither. The supply changed because a lot of it was destroyed.  It's a perfect example of how the laws of supply and demand determine the price of a good, not the amount of labor required to produce it.


----------



## gnarlylove

hunarcy said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart has a duty to make profit.  To do that, they pay the "market rate" to their workers.  If the worker is worth more, they get paid more.  If someone else can do the same job and will work for less, then the worker can be replaced.
Click to expand...


Well put. It is the duty, the legal obligation of the CEO to generate maximum quarterly profits. If he fails to do so they are generally exchanged for a better CEO at Q profits.

This is the system we must change. Despite the fact CEOs know their efforts for profit (and pollution and climate change etc.) are helping destroy the world, they must dismiss this for they live in a system that demands they externalize these factors for the short term.
Economic growth is not worth risking the species, is it?


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.
> 
> Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shifting control of the means of production from a relatively small group of private shareholders to a much larger group of public stakeholders is the exact opposite of monopoly.
Click to expand...


I guess it depends on what you're talking about. If you're referring to voluntarily organized co-ops and the like, you're right. That wouldn't necessarily be monopolistic, and might work quite well. 

If, on the other hand, you're talking about putting capital and means of production under government control, democratic or not, it seems very monopolistic to me. If you claim it's not, I see no point in quibbling over the definition monopoly. But it would put control under one entity, and it's that centralized, monolithic control I'm concerned with. It puts all our eggs in one basket and dangerously limits diversity. I don't think it's good for individual freedom nor, in the long run, good for society.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart has a duty to make profit.  To do that, they pay the "market rate" to their workers.  If the worker is worth more, they get paid more.  If someone else can do the same job and will work for less, then the worker can be replaced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well put. It is the duty, the legal obligation of the CEO to generate maximum quarterly profits. If he fails to do so they are generally exchanged for a better CEO at Q profits.
> 
> This is the system we must change. Despite the fact CEOs know their efforts for profit (and pollution and climate change etc.) are helping destroy the world, they must dismiss this for they live in a system that demands they externalize these factors for the short term.
> Economic growth is not worth risking the species, is it?
Click to expand...


Ask those in Russia prior to 1991.   Ask those in North Korea today.

Millions of people died AND there was heavy pollution.

See here's the problem....  All companies, regardless of what system you have, try to maximize profits.

The US Post Office has tried to maximize profits, by using the government to crush competition.   At one point they tried to charge a fee on E-mail.

Socialized systems are just as profit maximizing as Capitalist systems.   The difference is, in a Capitalist system Wal-Mart increases profits by providing more goods, to more people, at a lower cost.

In a Socialized system, the US Post Office tries to legally prevent other companies from offering the same service, to fewer people, at a higher cost.

Which one of those do you want?    Would you suggest that the US Post Office with millions of aircraft flights, and millions of CJ-5 crappy Jeeps delivering mail, produces less pollution?

So your "socialism to save the planet" theory is garbage.






Soviet Era pollution.   Wrangel Island.








> Untreated sewage and mercury-contaminated sludge flow into a water system at Sumgayit, Azerbaijan, in this undated photo. (See a map of Azerbaijan.)
> 
> A major industrial center of the former Soviet Union and erstwhile home to more than 40 chemical factories, Sumagayit was recently named one of the ten most polluted cities in the world by the nonprofit Blacksmith Institute.



Of the top 10 Most Polluted locations around the world, how many got that way under Free-Market Capitalism?

Three of them are from Soviet Era Russia.
Two of them are from India, which was very Socialist up till the 90s.
One is from Maoist China.

The last two, Peru and Zambia.   Not exactly icons of Capitalism either.

See here's the deal......

I *WANT* business and the government to be in adversarial relationships.

When you have business and government lumped together, you end up with Fannie and Freddie.

[ame=http://youtu.be/IyqYY72PeRM]Democrats in their own words Covering up Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac scandal - YouTube[/ame]

Democrats defending Fannie and Freddie, no matter what they do.  Actually attacking FHEO for bringing up the accounting errors.   Saying that Franklin Raines was conducting "outstanding leadership", then later hearing Raines suggest that the securities he had Fannie Mae purchase were "risk-less" at 7:45, that Fannie Mae should only be required to hold 2% capital to loan ratio.   Of course there's B. Frank saying there is no safety and soundness issues at Fannie and Freddie.

[ame=http://youtu.be/vIhxzNX738s]Barney Frank Does Not Believe a Housing Bubble Exists Although He Created it - YouTube[/ame]

Then you have him on the floor of the Senate in 2005, saying there is no bubble, there is no price inflation, there won't be a crash, and he is going to push for higher levels of home ownership.

See, I want them dragging in the accountants at Aurthor Anderson, and the CEO of Enron, and carting them off to jail.  I want them giving fines for millions.   I want them fighting with companies.

Instead, all these people, all of them involved with Freddie and Fannie, nothing happened.   Nothing happened to "there is no bubble" Barney Frank.   Nothing happened to "Risk-less" Franklin Raine.    Nothing happened to all the accountants with their magic profit margin, that happen to go right down to the very penny required, to trigger massive bonuses for Fannie Mae.

Why?   Because the people in government, and the people at Freddie and Fannie, are the same.  They are intertwined together.

Franklin Raine was part of the Carter Administration, then put as a board member of Fannie Mae, then a member of the Clinton Administration, and then placed as CEO of Fannie Mae.

So when the Democrats were defending him, they were defending "one of their own".

Compare that to Jeffrey Skilling.  Toss his butt in Jail.

You want more of the prior.  I want more of that.

There is going to be corruption, and failures, and problems, no matter what system you have.    The question isn't "what system will have no problems?"  because no such system exists.

The question is, which system handles problems better?   Free-Market Capitalism, by far.   Not socialist-capitalism, or Marxist-capitalism, or flat out Socialism.     Just Free-Market Capitalism, where the government is an adversary to business.  That's the best system.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?
> 
> 
> 
> Shifting control of the means of production from a relatively small group of private shareholders to a much larger group of public stakeholders is the exact opposite of monopoly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it depends on what you're talking about. If you're referring to voluntarily organized co-ops and the like, you're right. That wouldn't necessarily be monopolistic, and might work quite well.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you're talking about putting capital and means of production under government control, democratic or not, it seems very monopolistic to me. If you claim it's not, I see no point in quibbling over the definition monopoly. But it would put control under one entity, and it's that centralized, monolithic control I'm concerned with. It puts all our eggs in one basket and dangerously limits diversity. I don't think it's good for individual freedom nor, in the long run, good for society.
Click to expand...

*Putting the means of production under any centralized control, be it government, banking, or industry seems anti-democratic (at least) to me.

CH Douglas had similar thoughts during the period between the two World Wars:*

"According to Douglas, the true purpose of production is consumption, and production must serve the genuine, freely expressed interests of consumers. 

"In order to accomplish this objective, he believed that each citizen should have a beneficial, not direct, inheritance in the communal capital conferred by complete access to consumer goods assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price.[6] 

"Douglas thought that consumers, fully provided with adequate purchasing power, will establish the policy of production through exercise of their monetary vote.[6] 

"In this view, the term economic democracy does not mean worker control of industry, but democratic control of credit.[6] 

"Removing the policy of production from banking institutions, government, and industry, Social Credit envisages an '*aristocracy of producers, serving and accredited by a democracy of consumers*.'"[6]

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## kucing

Good I like this


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
> On sales of nearly $447 billion.
Click to expand...

*Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:*

"Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year. 

"The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S. 

"Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here. 

"That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593. 

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.

"That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315. 

"Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is. 

"But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.

"The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year. 

"And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * 95% of income gains since the alleged end of our Great Recession have gone to 1% of Americans.*
> 
> The worst President in living memory makes things difficult for many Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Not for the richest 1% of Americans, just like his predecessor and successor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The top 1% wouldn't do even better without Obama and his trampling of the law?
Click to expand...

How much better are the 1% entitled to, 96%, 97% of all economic gains since the latest in a long line of Wall Street puppets moved into the White House?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
> On sales of nearly $447 billion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:*
> 
> "Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.
> 
> "The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.
> 
> "Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.
> 
> "That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.
> 
> "The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.
> 
> "That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.
> 
> "Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.
> 
> "But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.
> 
> "The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.
> 
> "And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
Click to expand...


2/3rds of what is spent on worker compensation?  When you say "the rest of the money" you're forgetting the fact that Walmart has to purchase all the items it sells in its stores.  It also has to pay for overhead like heating, water, sewage, electricity and maintenance.  So exactly 2/3rds of what amount are you referring to?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for the richest 1% of Americans, just like his predecessor and successor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 1% wouldn't do even better without Obama and his trampling of the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much better are the 1% entitled to, 96%, 97% of all economic gains since the latest in a long line of Wall Street puppets moved into the White House?
Click to expand...


People are entitled to whatever they earn through voluntary exchange.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shifting control of the means of production from a relatively small group of private shareholders to a much larger group of public stakeholders is the exact opposite of monopoly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it depends on what you're talking about. If you're referring to voluntarily organized co-ops and the like, you're right. That wouldn't necessarily be monopolistic, and might work quite well.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you're talking about putting capital and means of production under government control, democratic or not, it seems very monopolistic to me. If you claim it's not, I see no point in quibbling over the definition monopoly. But it would put control under one entity, and it's that centralized, monolithic control I'm concerned with. It puts all our eggs in one basket and dangerously limits diversity. I don't think it's good for individual freedom nor, in the long run, good for society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Putting the means of production under any centralized control, be it government, banking, or industry seems anti-democratic (at least) to me.
> 
> CH Douglas had similar thoughts during the period between the two World Wars:*
> 
> "According to Douglas, the true purpose of production is consumption, and production must serve the genuine, freely expressed interests of consumers.
> 
> "In order to accomplish this objective, he believed that each citizen should have a beneficial, not direct, inheritance in the communal capital conferred by complete access to consumer goods assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price.[6]
> 
> "Douglas thought that consumers, fully provided with adequate purchasing power, will establish the policy of production through exercise of their monetary vote.[6]
> 
> "In this view, the term economic democracy does not mean worker control of industry, but democratic control of credit.[6]
> 
> "Removing the policy of production from banking institutions, government, and industry, Social Credit envisages an '*aristocracy of producers, serving and accredited by a democracy of consumers*.'"[6]
> 
> Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


In other words you want to put the means of production under centralized control, only pretend that you aren't.  That's a typical fascist government plan.


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for the richest 1% of Americans, just like his predecessor and successor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 1% wouldn't do even better without Obama and his trampling of the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much better are the 1% entitled to, 96%, 97% of all economic gains since the latest in a long line of Wall Street puppets moved into the White House?
Click to expand...


That's the problem - in your infinite ignorance you think people are "entitled". The "1%" is entitled to shit. They *earned* it.


----------



## P@triot

[ame=http://youtu.be/3h8O7V-WxWQ]Reagan Vs. Obama - Social Economics 101 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RKMBrown

Androw said:


> Free-Market Capitalism, where the government is an adversary to business.  That's the best system.



Ding ding... govco's focus wrt. business should be as the strong arm of contract law and property rights, and the regulator of production to ensure no one is screwing up the environment (polluting), harming the workers, or monopolizing a market.

Throwing out free-markets for government run markets cause the unproductive lazy do nothing good for nothing bums are jealous of the rich is just plain nuts.


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> Reagan Vs. Obama - Social Economics 101 - YouTube



Love the video... echo's my life.  This government stole my ambition. I have no desire whatsoever to row the boat for the moocher class.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shifting control of the means of production from a relatively small group of private shareholders to a much larger group of public stakeholders is the exact opposite of monopoly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it depends on what you're talking about. If you're referring to voluntarily organized co-ops and the like, you're right. That wouldn't necessarily be monopolistic, and might work quite well.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you're talking about putting capital and means of production under government control, democratic or not, it seems very monopolistic to me. If you claim it's not, I see no point in quibbling over the definition monopoly. But it would put control under one entity, and it's that centralized, monolithic control I'm concerned with. It puts all our eggs in one basket and dangerously limits diversity. I don't think it's good for individual freedom nor, in the long run, good for society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Putting the means of production under any centralized control, be it government, banking, or industry seems anti-democratic (at least) to me.
Click to expand...


Democracy produces consensus rule. That means we vote and then use government to compel everyone to follow the wishes of the majority. Banks and industry have no such power to compel us. If we don't want to play along, we don't have to. It might not be easy, we might have to do a lot more ourselves, without the support offered by these institutions, but we're not forced to follow their script. We can go our own way and we won't be imprisoned or killed. Government control offers no such leeway. That's the crucial difference that socialists usually fail to recognize, or choose to ignore, but it's real. 

As I've said elsewhere, if we can devise socialist structures (like the aforementioned co-ops) that are voluntary, that's great. But that's not, really, what we're taking about, is it?


----------



## laziale

Geaux4it said:


> Income inequality builds ambition which makes for a strong United States
> 
> -Geaux



Exactly


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
> On sales of nearly $447 billion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:*
> 
> "Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.
> 
> "The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.
> 
> "Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.
> 
> "That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.
> 
> "The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.
> 
> "That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.
> 
> "Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.
> 
> "But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.
> 
> "The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.
> 
> "And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
Click to expand...


Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.

He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.

*The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.*

Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.


----------



## Wake

When people have the freedom to guide their own financial destinies, there's going to be inequality. You're not going to find equality in all aspects of life. I would rather have the freedom to make my own future, than be controlled, regulated, and taxed so I'm "more equal" with everyone else. This punishes people from lower and middle classes who work real hard to accrue wealth.


----------



## RKMBrown

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> $15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
> On sales of nearly $447 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> *Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:*
> 
> "Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.
> 
> "The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.
> 
> "Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.
> 
> "That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.
> 
> "The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.
> 
> "That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.
> 
> "Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.
> 
> "But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.
> 
> "The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.
> 
> "And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.
> 
> He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
> 
> *The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.*
> 
> Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.
Click to expand...


Not just that.  But then the libtards would come out and increase the corporate and capital gains tax rates to make up for the loss in tax revenue.  ROFL  

I don't link libtards understand the concept of investing.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> $15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
> On sales of nearly $447 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> *Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:*
> 
> "Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.
> 
> "The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.
> 
> "Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.
> 
> "That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.
> 
> "The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.
> 
> "That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.
> 
> "Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.
> 
> "But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.
> 
> "The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.
> 
> "And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.
> 
> He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
> 
> *The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.*
> 
> Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.
Click to expand...

*Where might we find $15.4 billion without tanking Wal-Mart stock?*

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Waltons descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

*Silly Question.*

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:*
> 
> "Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.
> 
> "The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.
> 
> "Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.
> 
> "That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.
> 
> "The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.
> 
> "That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.
> 
> "Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.
> 
> "But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.
> 
> "The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.
> 
> "And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.
> 
> He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
> 
> *The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.*
> 
> Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just that.  But then the libtards would come out and increase the corporate and capital gains tax rates to make up for the loss in tax revenue.  ROFL
> 
> I don't link libtards understand the concept of investing.
Click to expand...


Of course they don't understand. If you go to his link, he rambles on and on to make his silly case. Only an idiot liberal would fall for his claim.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.
> 
> He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
> 
> *The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.*
> 
> Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just that.  But then the libtards would come out and increase the corporate and capital gains tax rates to make up for the loss in tax revenue.  ROFL
> 
> I don't link libtards understand the concept of investing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they don't understand. If you go to his link, he rambles on and on to make his silly case. Only an idiot liberal would fall for his claim.
Click to expand...

*Only an anonymous internet troll would discount his claim of peer review:*

"I came up with what I feel is a better, more scientific way to determine the answer. 

"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed. 

"Sendhil Mullainathan, who teaches at MIT and received a MacArthur genius grant for his work in behavioral economics a few years ago, said he basically came to a similar conclusion as mine a few years ago. 

"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. 'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.

"Wal-Mart didn't respond to requests for comment."

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:*
> 
> "Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.
> 
> "The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.
> 
> "Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.
> 
> "That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.
> 
> "The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.
> 
> "That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.
> 
> "Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.
> 
> "But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.
> 
> "The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.
> 
> "And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.
> 
> He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
> 
> *The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.*
> 
> Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Where might we find $15.4 billion without tanking Wal-Mart stock?*
> 
> "But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Waltons descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:
> 
> No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
> 
> No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
> 
> No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
> 
> No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
> 
> No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
> 
> No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
> 
> Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."
> 
> *Silly Question.*
> 
> Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin
Click to expand...


Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.
> 
> He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
> 
> *The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.*
> 
> Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.
> 
> 
> 
> *Where might we find $15.4 billion without tanking Wal-Mart stock?*
> 
> "But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Waltons descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:
> 
> No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
> 
> No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
> 
> No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
> 
> No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
> 
> No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
> 
> No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
> 
> Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."
> 
> *Silly Question.*
> 
> Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
Click to expand...

Tax them at the same rate FDR or Eisenhower did.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just that.  But then the libtards would come out and increase the corporate and capital gains tax rates to make up for the loss in tax revenue.  ROFL
> 
> I don't link libtards understand the concept of investing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they don't understand. If you go to his link, he rambles on and on to make his silly case. Only an idiot liberal would fall for his claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Only an anonymous internet troll would discount his claim of peer review:*
> 
> "I came up with what I feel is a better, more scientific way to determine the answer.
> 
> "Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed.
> 
> "Sendhil Mullainathan, who teaches at MIT and received a MacArthur genius grant for his work in behavioral economics a few years ago, said he basically came to a similar conclusion as mine a few years ago.
> 
> "He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. 'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.
> 
> "Wal-Mart didn't respond to requests for comment."
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
Click to expand...


*"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed. *

Peer reviewed? LOL!

WalMart can pay what they like.
Stephen Gandel can make any silly claim he'd like about a decrease of earnings of $15.4 billion not dropping the stock price. He'd have a stronger case if he listed companies where earnings dropped 60% without the stock falling. I'll wait. 


*"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. *

As I said, WalMart can pay what they'd like.

*'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.*

Why? Because they don't want their stock to tank. Because they don't need to, to retain employees.
This guy got a genius grant? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where might we find $15.4 billion without tanking Wal-Mart stock?*
> 
> "But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Waltons descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:
> 
> No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
> 
> No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
> 
> No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
> 
> No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
> 
> No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
> 
> No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
> 
> Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."
> 
> *Silly Question.*
> 
> Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tax them at the same rate FDR or Eisenhower did.
Click to expand...


They didn't get their wealth from income, how is a higher income tax rate going to take it away?
You really don't think this stuff through, do you?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they don't understand. If you go to his link, he rambles on and on to make his silly case. Only an idiot liberal would fall for his claim.
> 
> 
> 
> *Only an anonymous internet troll would discount his claim of peer review:*
> 
> "I came up with what I feel is a better, more scientific way to determine the answer.
> 
> "Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed.
> 
> "Sendhil Mullainathan, who teaches at MIT and received a MacArthur genius grant for his work in behavioral economics a few years ago, said he basically came to a similar conclusion as mine a few years ago.
> 
> "He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. 'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.
> 
> "Wal-Mart didn't respond to requests for comment."
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed. *
> 
> Peer reviewed? LOL!
> 
> WalMart can pay what they like.
> Stephen Gandel can make any silly claim he'd like about a decrease of earnings of $15.4 billion not dropping the stock price. He'd have a stronger case if he listed companies where earnings dropped 60% without the stock falling. I'll wait.
> 
> 
> *"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. *
> 
> As I said, WalMart can pay what they'd like.
> 
> *'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.*
> 
> Why? Because they don't want their stock to tank. Because they don't need to, to retain employees.
> This guy got a genius grant? LOL!
Click to expand...

What was Wall-Mart's gross profit for 2013, Genius?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Only an anonymous internet troll would discount his claim of peer review:*
> 
> "I came up with what I feel is a better, more scientific way to determine the answer.
> 
> "Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed.
> 
> "Sendhil Mullainathan, who teaches at MIT and received a MacArthur genius grant for his work in behavioral economics a few years ago, said he basically came to a similar conclusion as mine a few years ago.
> 
> "He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. 'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.
> 
> "Wal-Mart didn't respond to requests for comment."
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed. *
> 
> Peer reviewed? LOL!
> 
> WalMart can pay what they like.
> Stephen Gandel can make any silly claim he'd like about a decrease of earnings of $15.4 billion not dropping the stock price. He'd have a stronger case if he listed companies where earnings dropped 60% without the stock falling. I'll wait.
> 
> 
> *"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. *
> 
> As I said, WalMart can pay what they'd like.
> 
> *'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.*
> 
> Why? Because they don't want their stock to tank. Because they don't need to, to retain employees.
> This guy got a genius grant? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was Wall-Mart's gross profit for 2013, Genius?
Click to expand...


I haven't seen the 2013 numbers yet.
In 2012, gross profit was $116.674 billion.
Operating profit was $27.8 billion.
Net income was $16.999 billion.

WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed. *
> 
> Peer reviewed? LOL!
> 
> WalMart can pay what they like.
> Stephen Gandel can make any silly claim he'd like about a decrease of earnings of $15.4 billion not dropping the stock price. He'd have a stronger case if he listed companies where earnings dropped 60% without the stock falling. I'll wait.
> 
> 
> *"He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. *
> 
> As I said, WalMart can pay what they'd like.
> 
> *'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.*
> 
> Why? Because they don't want their stock to tank. Because they don't need to, to retain employees.
> This guy got a genius grant? LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> What was Wall-Mart's gross profit for 2013, Genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the 2013 numbers yet.
> In 2012, gross profit was $116.674 billion.
> Operating profit was $27.8 billion.
> Net income was $16.999 billion.
> 
> WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance
Click to expand...

$127.26 billion is the number I've seen for 2013.
Shouldn't the $11,000/year increase for 1.4 million Wall Mart workers ($15.4 billion) be subtracted from $127.26 billion and not the $25.7 billion figure you used?

Gross Profit for Wal-Mart (WMT) - Wikinvest


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was Wall-Mart's gross profit for 2013, Genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the 2013 numbers yet.
> In 2012, gross profit was $116.674 billion.
> Operating profit was $27.8 billion.
> Net income was $16.999 billion.
> 
> WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> $127.26 billion is the number I've seen for 2013.
> Shouldn't the $11,000/year increase for 1.4 million Wall Mart workers ($15.4 billion) be subtracted from $127.26 billion and not the $25.7 billion figure you used?
> 
> Gross Profit for Wal-Mart (WMT) - Wikinvest
Click to expand...


Subtract it first, subtract it in the middle, subtract it last. No difference.
The final result would drop their net income by about 60%.


----------



## georgephillip

Wake said:


> When people have the freedom to guide their own financial destinies, there's going to be inequality. You're not going to find equality in all aspects of life. I would rather have the freedom to make my own future, than be controlled, regulated, and taxed so I'm "more equal" with everyone else. This punishes people from lower and middle classes who work real hard to accrue wealth.


Maybe equality of opportunity which you seem to be endorsing can't be separated from equality of outcome. Rich parents purchase test prep that poor parents can't afford; they usher their children in privileged social networks and make donations to elite universities that the poor parent can't match.

"The inequalities of the parents always and everywhere become the inequalities of the children."

Possibly, sufficiency of opportunity is some common ground between the two political poles; however, it appears many of the programs that help the poor surmount their initial inequality of opportunity (universal pre-kindergarten) are on the chopping block.

No one really believes in ?equality of opportunity?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the 2013 numbers yet.
> In 2012, gross profit was $116.674 billion.
> Operating profit was $27.8 billion.
> Net income was $16.999 billion.
> 
> WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> 
> 
> $127.26 billion is the number I've seen for 2013.
> Shouldn't the $11,000/year increase for 1.4 million Wall Mart workers ($15.4 billion) be subtracted from $127.26 billion and not the $25.7 billion figure you used?
> 
> Gross Profit for Wal-Mart (WMT) - Wikinvest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subtract it first, subtract it in the middle, subtract it last. No difference.
> The final result would drop their net income by about 60%.
Click to expand...

Only if you're subtracting the annual cost of raises from quarterly gross profit.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> Maybe equality of opportunity which you seem to be endorsing can't be separated from equality of outcome. Rich parents purchase test prep that poor parents can't afford; they usher their children in privileged social networks and make donations to elite universities that the poor parent can't match.
> 
> "The inequalities of the parents always and everywhere become the inequalities of the children."



There's a lot of confusion about what equality, equality of opportunity, and equal rights are all supposed to mean. The important distinction, from a political perspective, is between equal rights under the law, and equal empowerment in society. You seem to be arguing for the latter, rather than the former. The problem is, you can't have both. A government focused on ensuring equal empowerment will, by necessity protect our rights unequally and protecting our rights equally will allow different levels of empowerment.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Banks and industry have no such power to compel us. If we don't want to play along, we don't have to. It might not be easy, we might have to do a lot more ourselves, without the support offered by these institutions, but we're not forced to follow their script. We can go our own way and we won't be imprisoned or killed. Government control offers no such leeway. That's the crucial difference that socialists usually fail to recognize, or choose to ignore, but it's real.
> 
> As I've said elsewhere, if we can devise socialist structures (like the aforementioned co-ops) that are voluntary, that's great. But that's not, really, what we're taking about, is it?



In principle you are correct. I also agree we will have to do a lot more ourselves. However, the situation of many people are forced into wage labor and obedience (to maintain the job). Their choice is between wage labor or abject circumstances.

Is this a genuine choice? No. People must survive first and foremost. If they can only find work for low wage dead end jobs, is it a choice? They will either It seems a lot more like a forced hand. So those of us who can recognize this corporate domination backed by government authority, we need to attack and undermine both systems since they compliment the function of one another. Although corporate rule does not involve the sword, it leaves people without options that have no capital to begin with--and that's a huge portion of the population.

So while we are technically, philosophically free, many fellow citizens lack the basic ability to subsist without joining wage slavery.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> $127.26 billion is the number I've seen for 2013.
> Shouldn't the $11,000/year increase for 1.4 million Wall Mart workers ($15.4 billion) be subtracted from $127.26 billion and not the $25.7 billion figure you used?
> 
> Gross Profit for Wal-Mart (WMT) - Wikinvest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subtract it first, subtract it in the middle, subtract it last. No difference.
> The final result would drop their net income by about 60%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you're subtracting the annual cost of raises from quarterly gross profit.
Click to expand...


No matter where you subtract it, you are lowering their net income.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banks and industry have no such power to compel us. If we don't want to play along, we don't have to. It might not be easy, we might have to do a lot more ourselves, without the support offered by these institutions, but we're not forced to follow their script. We can go our own way and we won't be imprisoned or killed. Government control offers no such leeway. That's the crucial difference that socialists usually fail to recognize, or choose to ignore, but it's real.
> 
> As I've said elsewhere, if we can devise socialist structures (like the aforementioned co-ops) that are voluntary, that's great. But that's not, really, what we're taking about, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In principle you are correct. I also agree we will have to do a lot more ourselves. However, the situation of many people are forced into wage labor and obedience (to maintain the job). Their choice is between wage labor or abject circumstances.
Click to expand...


Slavery should definitely be against the law. If anyone is being forced into wage labor, I'll be happy to join the fight to stop it.



> Is this a genuine choice? No. People must survive first and foremost. If they can only find work for low wage dead end jobs, is it a choice?



Of course it is. I, for one, have made the choice often. I'd much rather be free and poor, than a well-off slave. Some people won't make that choice, but it is a choice. 



> So those of us who can recognize this corporate domination backed by government authority, we need to attack and undermine both systems since they compliment the function of one another.



I'm completely in favor of ending corporate dominance backed by government authority. But what I see in your suggestions, and those of others here, is an utter concession to this collusion; throwing in the towel on freedom altogether enshrining the collusion in a state monopoly on economic decisions. That's like saying the only way we can be all be 'equally free' is for everyone to be in prison.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subtract it first, subtract it in the middle, subtract it last. No difference.
> The final result would drop their net income by about 60%.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you're subtracting the annual cost of raises from quarterly gross profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter where you subtract it, you are lowering their net income.
Click to expand...

By what percentage?
Show the math.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you're subtracting the annual cost of raises from quarterly gross profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter where you subtract it, you are lowering their net income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what percentage?
> Show the math.
Click to expand...


Any low grade moron can understand that when you subtract 'A' from 'B' you end up with less of 'B'


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you're subtracting the annual cost of raises from quarterly gross profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter where you subtract it, you are lowering their net income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what percentage?
> Show the math.
Click to expand...


Showed you in post #2611.

He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:*
> 
> "Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.
> 
> "The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.
> 
> "Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.
> 
> "That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.
> 
> "The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.
> 
> "That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.
> 
> "Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.
> 
> "But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.
> 
> "The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.
> 
> "And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.
> 
> He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
> 
> *The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.*
> 
> Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Where might we find $15.4 billion without tanking Wal-Mart stock?*
> 
> "But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Waltons descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:
> 
> No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
> 
> No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
> 
> No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
> 
> No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
> 
> No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
> 
> No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
> 
> Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."
> 
> *Silly Question.*
> 
> Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin
Click to expand...


So blatant theft is your solution?  Ever heard of the 5th Amendment?  It would rule out your scheme to rob people of their property.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just that.  But then the libtards would come out and increase the corporate and capital gains tax rates to make up for the loss in tax revenue.  ROFL
> 
> I don't link libtards understand the concept of investing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they don't understand. If you go to his link, he rambles on and on to make his silly case. Only an idiot liberal would fall for his claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Only an anonymous internet troll would discount his claim of peer review:*
> 
> "I came up with what I feel is a better, more scientific way to determine the answer.
> 
> "Then I called a couple of really smart economists to get it 'peer'-reviewed.
> 
> "Sendhil Mullainathan, who teaches at MIT and received a MacArthur genius grant for his work in behavioral economics a few years ago, said he basically came to a similar conclusion as mine a few years ago.
> 
> "He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. 'Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don't do it [this way],' says Mullainathan.
> 
> "Wal-Mart didn't respond to requests for comment."
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
Click to expand...


You mean he called a couple of his leftwing croanies whose full time job is pumping out statist propaganda?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where might we find $15.4 billion without tanking Wal-Mart stock?*
> 
> "But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Waltons descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:
> 
> No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
> 
> No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
> 
> No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
> 
> No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
> 
> No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
> 
> No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
> 
> Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."
> 
> *Silly Question.*
> 
> Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tax them at the same rate FDR or Eisenhower did.
Click to expand...


Go fuck yourself, you greedy thieving asshole.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe equality of opportunity which you seem to be endorsing can't be separated from equality of outcome. Rich parents purchase test prep that poor parents can't afford; they usher their children in privileged social networks and make donations to elite universities that the poor parent can't match.
> 
> "The inequalities of the parents always and everywhere become the inequalities of the children."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of confusion about what equality, equality of opportunity, and equal rights are all supposed to mean. The important distinction, from a political perspective, is between equal rights under the law, and equal empowerment in society. You seem to be arguing for the latter, rather than the former. The problem is, you can't have both. A government focused on ensuring equal empowerment will, by necessity protect our rights unequally and protecting our rights equally will allow different levels of empowerment.
Click to expand...

When unequal opportunity for a quality education is passed from one generation to the next, across class lines, it denies individuals the right to succeed or fail based on their own efforts and substitutes extraneous circumstances like having wealthy, well-connected parents. My goal is to remove the arbitrariness of birth and base the level of empowerment on some pre-agreed basis of human development which provides all people with the ability to realize their potential within society.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe equality of opportunity which you seem to be endorsing can't be separated from equality of outcome. Rich parents purchase test prep that poor parents can't afford; they usher their children in privileged social networks and make donations to elite universities that the poor parent can't match.
> 
> "The inequalities of the parents always and everywhere become the inequalities of the children."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of confusion about what equality, equality of opportunity, and equal rights are all supposed to mean. The important distinction, from a political perspective, is between equal rights under the law, and equal empowerment in society. You seem to be arguing for the latter, rather than the former. The problem is, you can't have both. A government focused on ensuring equal empowerment will, by necessity protect our rights unequally and protecting our rights equally will allow different levels of empowerment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When unequal opportunity for a quality education is passed from one generation to the next, across class lines, it denies individuals the right to succeed or fail based on their own efforts and substitutes extraneous circumstances like having wealthy, well-connected parents. My goal is to remove the arbitrariness of birth and base the level of empowerment on some pre-agreed basis of human development which provides all people with the ability to realize their potential within society.
Click to expand...


How do you plan to equalize genetics?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter where you subtract it, you are lowering their net income.
> 
> 
> 
> By what percentage?
> Show the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Showed you in post #2611.
> 
> He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
Click to expand...

Except Wall-Mart's gross income was $127.26 billion in 2013 which would drop to $111.86 billion or about 12% after providing 1.4 million workers with a living wage.


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan Vs. Obama - Social Economics 101 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love the video... echo's my life.  This government stole my ambition. I have no desire whatsoever to row the boat for the moocher class.
Click to expand...


Nor should you RKM. Sadly, half of the parasite class is going to be furious that you won't provide for them anymore. The other will celebrate the fact that government tore you down until you were in poverty like them.

Either way, the left is completely despicable and a cancer that is destroying this nation.


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:*
> 
> "Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.
> 
> "The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.
> 
> "Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.
> 
> "That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.
> 
> "The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.
> 
> "That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.
> 
> "Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.
> 
> "But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.
> 
> "The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.
> 
> "And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! He masked his mumbo-jumbo with a lot of numbers....still didn't make his case.
> 
> He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
> 
> *The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true.*
> 
> Drop their earnings by 60%, I guarantee you will tank their stock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just that.  But then the libtards would come out and increase the corporate and capital gains tax rates to make up for the loss in tax revenue.  ROFL
> 
> I don't link libtards understand the concept of investing.
Click to expand...


Lets be honest - the left is completely baffled by basic economics. That's why Obama stands around scratching his head at his 8% unemployment despite getting 100% of his policies implemented and his only response is "well if I didn't unconstitutionally spend $1 trillion in stimulus - *it could have been worse*"


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of confusion about what equality, equality of opportunity, and equal rights are all supposed to mean. The important distinction, from a political perspective, is between equal rights under the law, and equal empowerment in society. You seem to be arguing for the latter, rather than the former. The problem is, you can't have both. A government focused on ensuring equal empowerment will, by necessity protect our rights unequally and protecting our rights equally will allow different levels of empowerment.
> 
> 
> 
> When unequal opportunity for a quality education is passed from one generation to the next, across class lines, it denies individuals the right to succeed or fail based on their own efforts and substitutes extraneous circumstances like having wealthy, well-connected parents. My goal is to remove the arbitrariness of birth and base the level of empowerment on some pre-agreed basis of human development which provides all people with the ability to realize their potential within society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you plan to equalize genetics?
Click to expand...

By Cloning George W. Bush?

If your concept of empowerment includes the idea "where society is seen as a fair system of cooperation over time, from one generation to the next," ensuring equality of opportunity for those without the foresight to pick the richest ancestors would logically entail taxing elites to pay for past advantages that had little to do with merit and everything to do with corruption and privilege.

Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> When unequal opportunity for a quality education is passed from one generation to the next, across class lines, it denies individuals the right to succeed or fail based on their own efforts and substitutes extraneous circumstances like having wealthy, well-connected parents. My goal is to remove the arbitrariness of birth and base the level of empowerment on some pre-agreed basis of human development which provides all people with the ability to realize their potential within society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you plan to equalize genetics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By Cloning George W. Bush?
> If your concept of empowerment includes the idea "where society is seen as a fair system of cooperation over time, from one generation to the next," ensuring equality of opportunity for those without the foresight to pick the richest ancestors would logically entail taxing elites to pay for past advantages that had little to do with merit and everything to do with corruption and privilege.
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Yeah. The last thing I want is government dispensing 'social justice'. I want them to stick to legal justice, and leave the distribution of economic power and social influence up to voluntary interactions - each of us, distributing our portion of those as we see fit, according to our own values and virtues.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> By what percentage?
> Show the math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Showed you in post #2611.
> 
> He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except Wall-Mart's gross income was $127.26 billion in 2013 which would drop to $111.86 billion or about 12% after providing 1.4 million workers with a living wage.
Click to expand...


Great. Use the link in post #2622 to get the 2012 WalMart Income Statement.

You dropped 2012 gross income to $101.3 billion.
Now subtract $88.9 billion in Selling General and Administrative Expenses.
Leaving Operating Income at $12.4 billion.
Subtract Interest Expense of $2.25 billion 
Add Total Other Income/Expenses Net of $187 million
Leaving Income Before Tax at about $10.3 billion

$25.7 billion before the change down to $10.3 billion after the change is about a 60% decline.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter where you subtract it, you are lowering their net income.
> 
> 
> 
> By what percentage?
> Show the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any low grade moron can understand that when you subtract 'A' from 'B' you end up with less of 'B'
Click to expand...

*Thank you, Milton Friedman.
Now, can you also understand the difference between quarterly and annual gross profit?*

"$127.26 billion


----------



## BlackSand

georgephillip said:


> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



Growth is the result of more factors than Capitalism.
If the idea is to stifle growth in attempts to balance inequality ... Then that is a foolish endeavor by all measures.
People are upset because "greed" has replaced the term "prosperity" ... And greed is not a necessity of success.

.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you plan to equalize genetics?
> 
> 
> 
> By Cloning George W. Bush?
> If your concept of empowerment includes the idea "where society is seen as a fair system of cooperation over time, from one generation to the next," ensuring equality of opportunity for those without the foresight to pick the richest ancestors would logically entail taxing elites to pay for past advantages that had little to do with merit and everything to do with corruption and privilege.
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. The last thing I want is government dispensing 'social justice'. I want them to stick to legal justice, and leave the distribution of economic power and social influence up to voluntary interactions - each of us, distributing our portion of those as we see fit, according to our own values and virtues.
Click to expand...

*You're defining "Social Justice" as "the distribution of economic power and social influence"?

How did that work out for the victims of "legal justice" in Dixie prior to 1965?*

"The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with, starting in 1890, a 'separate but equal' status for African Americans. 

"The separation in practice led to conditions for African Americans that tended to be inferior to those provided for white Americans, *systematizing a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages*."

Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> By Cloning George W. Bush?
> If your concept of empowerment includes the idea "where society is seen as a fair system of cooperation over time, from one generation to the next," ensuring equality of opportunity for those without the foresight to pick the richest ancestors would logically entail taxing elites to pay for past advantages that had little to do with merit and everything to do with corruption and privilege.
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. The last thing I want is government dispensing 'social justice'. I want them to stick to legal justice, and leave the distribution of economic power and social influence up to voluntary interactions - each of us, distributing our portion of those as we see fit, according to our own values and virtues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're defining "Social Justice" as "the distribution of economic power and social influence"?
Click to expand...

 Not necessarily, just recognizing the usual means of effecting it.

Jim Crow was a matter of legal justice (equal rights). What are you getting at?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Showed you in post #2611.
> 
> He wants to increase the salary of WalMart's 1.4 million workers by about $11,000 a year, or about $15.4 billion. That would drop their income, before tax, from $25.7 billion to $10.3 billion, a drop of about 60%.
> 
> 
> 
> Except Wall-Mart's gross income was $127.26 billion in 2013 which would drop to $111.86 billion or about 12% after providing 1.4 million workers with a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great. Use the link in post #2622 to get the 2012 WalMart Income Statement.
> 
> You dropped 2012 gross income to $101.3 billion.
> Now subtract $88.9 billion in Selling General and Administrative Expenses.
> Leaving Operating Income at $12.4 billion.
> Subtract Interest Expense of $2.25 billion
> Add Total Other Income/Expenses Net of $187 million
> Leaving Income Before Tax at about $10.3 billion
> 
> $25.7 billion before the change down to $10.3 billion after the change is about a 60% decline.
Click to expand...

"Start with Wal-Mart's sales, and then subtract what it has to pay the suppliers that make all the stuff on its shelves. 

"Last quarter that number was $28.7 billion.

"What remains is Wal-Mart's gross profit. 

"Wal-Mart, like all companies, has to split that between three groups -- bondholders, stockholders, and employees. How much should go to each? Bondholders are easy. 

"They've agreed in advance to an interest rate. Last quarter, Wal-Mart's interest payments were $553 million. 

"That leaves us with $28.2 billion, based on last quarter, or $112.8 billion a year.

How much to pay stockholders is a little bit trickier. But you can figure it out by looking at the market. Here's where my math comes in. Stock market valuations and return on equity (ROE) tend to go hand in hand. 

"ROE is the measure of how much income a company makes compared to a company's net worth, which is also sometimes called shareholder's equity. Charles Lee, a finance professor at Stanford -- my second peer reviewer -- has done a lot of research that shows investors are willing to pay more for companies that can produce higher returns on shareholders' equity.

"But you can also use Lee's research to figure out just what returns Wal-Mart's investors are looking for. The average ROE of retailers in the S&P 500 (SPX) is 16.95%. 

"Their shares trade at price-to-book ratio of 2.9. Wal-Mart's price-to-book ratio of 3.5 is 20% higher than the group, which means that investors, based on Wal-Mart's current $79 share price, are expecting it to produce a higher-than-average ROE. 

"How much higher? Lee says the relationship is not linear, or one for one. Let's call it 18%. 

"That means, based on Wal-Mart's current stock price, investors are signaling that they are looking for a return of 20%.

"Remember, that's not money that Wal-Mart actually pays out to investors. 

"Most of that money is reinvested in its business. But it does pay out some in the form of dividends. And Wal-Mart has a higher dividend yield than the average retailer in the S&P 500 -- 2.4% vs. 1.3%. 

"Adjust that for Wal-Mart's valuation vs. other retailers, and that means 4.6% of the return shareholders are looking for comes from the giant retailer's outsized dividend. 

"That means the ROE it has to satisfy investors after dividends is 15.4%. 

"Wal-Mart's actual current ROE is 21%. 'What that suggests is that even Wal-Mart's investors think the company should pay its employees more, or at least expects it will,' says Lee.

"How much more? 

"Wal-Mart has a book value of $76.7 billion. 

"Take 15.4% of that, and that means investors are looking to get paid $11.8 billion a year. 

"*That leaves $101 billion to pay employees*.

Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except Wall-Mart's gross income was $127.26 billion in 2013 which would drop to $111.86 billion or about 12% after providing 1.4 million workers with a living wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Use the link in post #2622 to get the 2012 WalMart Income Statement.
> 
> You dropped 2012 gross income to $101.3 billion.
> Now subtract $88.9 billion in Selling General and Administrative Expenses.
> Leaving Operating Income at $12.4 billion.
> Subtract Interest Expense of $2.25 billion
> Add Total Other Income/Expenses Net of $187 million
> Leaving Income Before Tax at about $10.3 billion
> 
> $25.7 billion before the change down to $10.3 billion after the change is about a 60% decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Start with Wal-Mart's sales, and then subtract what it has to pay the suppliers that make all the stuff on its shelves.
> 
> "Last quarter that number was $28.7 billion.
> 
> "What remains is Wal-Mart's gross profit.
> 
> "Wal-Mart, like all companies, has to split that between three groups -- bondholders, stockholders, and employees. How much should go to each? Bondholders are easy.
> 
> "They've agreed in advance to an interest rate. Last quarter, Wal-Mart's interest payments were $553 million.
> 
> "That leaves us with $28.2 billion, based on last quarter, or $112.8 billion a year.
> 
> How much to pay stockholders is a little bit trickier. But you can figure it out by looking at the market. Here's where my math comes in. Stock market valuations and return on equity (ROE) tend to go hand in hand.
> 
> "ROE is the measure of how much income a company makes compared to a company's net worth, which is also sometimes called shareholder's equity. Charles Lee, a finance professor at Stanford -- my second peer reviewer -- has done a lot of research that shows investors are willing to pay more for companies that can produce higher returns on shareholders' equity.
> 
> "But you can also use Lee's research to figure out just what returns Wal-Mart's investors are looking for. The average ROE of retailers in the S&P 500 (SPX) is 16.95%.
> 
> "Their shares trade at price-to-book ratio of 2.9. Wal-Mart's price-to-book ratio of 3.5 is 20% higher than the group, which means that investors, based on Wal-Mart's current $79 share price, are expecting it to produce a higher-than-average ROE.
> 
> "How much higher? Lee says the relationship is not linear, or one for one. Let's call it 18%.
> 
> "That means, based on Wal-Mart's current stock price, investors are signaling that they are looking for a return of 20%.
> 
> "Remember, that's not money that Wal-Mart actually pays out to investors.
> 
> "Most of that money is reinvested in its business. But it does pay out some in the form of dividends. And Wal-Mart has a higher dividend yield than the average retailer in the S&P 500 -- 2.4% vs. 1.3%.
> 
> "Adjust that for Wal-Mart's valuation vs. other retailers, and that means 4.6% of the return shareholders are looking for comes from the giant retailer's outsized dividend.
> 
> "That means the ROE it has to satisfy investors after dividends is 15.4%.
> 
> "Wal-Mart's actual current ROE is 21%. 'What that suggests is that even Wal-Mart's investors think the company should pay its employees more, or at least expects it will,' says Lee.
> 
> "How much more?
> 
> "Wal-Mart has a book value of $76.7 billion.
> 
> "Take 15.4% of that, and that means investors are looking to get paid $11.8 billion a year.
> 
> "*That leaves $101 billion to pay employees*.
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
Click to expand...


$25.7 billion before the change down to $10.3 billion after the change is about a 60% decline.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. The last thing I want is government dispensing 'social justice'. I want them to stick to legal justice, and leave the distribution of economic power and social influence up to voluntary interactions - each of us, distributing our portion of those as we see fit, according to our own values and virtues.
> 
> 
> 
> You're defining "Social Justice" as "the distribution of economic power and social influence"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessarily, just recognizing the usual means of effecting it.
> 
> Jim Crow was a matter of legal justice (equal rights). What are you getting at?
Click to expand...

You claimed the last thing you wanted was government dispensing social justice: "I want them to stick to legal justice..." Jim Crow was an example of government following exactly that philosophy.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're defining "Social Justice" as "the distribution of economic power and social influence"?
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, just recognizing the usual means of effecting it.
> 
> Jim Crow was a matter of legal justice (equal rights). What are you getting at?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the last thing you wanted was government dispensing social justice: "I want them to stick to legal justice..." Jim Crow was an example of government following exactly that philosophy.
Click to expand...


No, JC laws were reactionary social engineering. They represented real injustice. They were abolished via legal remedies (Constitutionally protected equal rights), not "social justice".


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Use the link in post #2622 to get the 2012 WalMart Income Statement.
> 
> You dropped 2012 gross income to $101.3 billion.
> Now subtract $88.9 billion in Selling General and Administrative Expenses.
> Leaving Operating Income at $12.4 billion.
> Subtract Interest Expense of $2.25 billion
> Add Total Other Income/Expenses Net of $187 million
> Leaving Income Before Tax at about $10.3 billion
> 
> $25.7 billion before the change down to $10.3 billion after the change is about a 60% decline.
> 
> 
> 
> "Start with Wal-Mart's sales, and then subtract what it has to pay the suppliers that make all the stuff on its shelves.
> 
> "Last quarter that number was $28.7 billion.
> 
> "What remains is Wal-Mart's gross profit.
> 
> "Wal-Mart, like all companies, has to split that between three groups -- bondholders, stockholders, and employees. How much should go to each? Bondholders are easy.
> 
> "They've agreed in advance to an interest rate. Last quarter, Wal-Mart's interest payments were $553 million.
> 
> "That leaves us with $28.2 billion, based on last quarter, or $112.8 billion a year.
> 
> How much to pay stockholders is a little bit trickier. But you can figure it out by looking at the market. Here's where my math comes in. Stock market valuations and return on equity (ROE) tend to go hand in hand.
> 
> "ROE is the measure of how much income a company makes compared to a company's net worth, which is also sometimes called shareholder's equity. Charles Lee, a finance professor at Stanford -- my second peer reviewer -- has done a lot of research that shows investors are willing to pay more for companies that can produce higher returns on shareholders' equity.
> 
> "But you can also use Lee's research to figure out just what returns Wal-Mart's investors are looking for. The average ROE of retailers in the S&P 500 (SPX) is 16.95%.
> 
> "Their shares trade at price-to-book ratio of 2.9. Wal-Mart's price-to-book ratio of 3.5 is 20% higher than the group, which means that investors, based on Wal-Mart's current $79 share price, are expecting it to produce a higher-than-average ROE.
> 
> "How much higher? Lee says the relationship is not linear, or one for one. Let's call it 18%.
> 
> "That means, based on Wal-Mart's current stock price, investors are signaling that they are looking for a return of 20%.
> 
> "Remember, that's not money that Wal-Mart actually pays out to investors.
> 
> "Most of that money is reinvested in its business. But it does pay out some in the form of dividends. And Wal-Mart has a higher dividend yield than the average retailer in the S&P 500 -- 2.4% vs. 1.3%.
> 
> "Adjust that for Wal-Mart's valuation vs. other retailers, and that means 4.6% of the return shareholders are looking for comes from the giant retailer's outsized dividend.
> 
> "That means the ROE it has to satisfy investors after dividends is 15.4%.
> 
> "Wal-Mart's actual current ROE is 21%. 'What that suggests is that even Wal-Mart's investors think the company should pay its employees more, or at least expects it will,' says Lee.
> 
> "How much more?
> 
> "Wal-Mart has a book value of $76.7 billion.
> 
> "Take 15.4% of that, and that means investors are looking to get paid $11.8 billion a year.
> 
> "*That leaves $101 billion to pay employees*.
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $25.7 billion before the change down to $10.3 billion after the change is about a 60% decline.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with the reality that Wall-Mart can pay its 1.4 million employees an additional $11,000/ year after satisfying bondholders and stockholders.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Start with Wal-Mart's sales, and then subtract what it has to pay the suppliers that make all the stuff on its shelves.
> 
> "Last quarter that number was $28.7 billion.
> 
> "What remains is Wal-Mart's gross profit.
> 
> "Wal-Mart, like all companies, has to split that between three groups -- bondholders, stockholders, and employees. How much should go to each? Bondholders are easy.
> 
> "They've agreed in advance to an interest rate. Last quarter, Wal-Mart's interest payments were $553 million.
> 
> "That leaves us with $28.2 billion, based on last quarter, or $112.8 billion a year.
> 
> How much to pay stockholders is a little bit trickier. But you can figure it out by looking at the market. Here's where my math comes in. Stock market valuations and return on equity (ROE) tend to go hand in hand.
> 
> "ROE is the measure of how much income a company makes compared to a company's net worth, which is also sometimes called shareholder's equity. Charles Lee, a finance professor at Stanford -- my second peer reviewer -- has done a lot of research that shows investors are willing to pay more for companies that can produce higher returns on shareholders' equity.
> 
> "But you can also use Lee's research to figure out just what returns Wal-Mart's investors are looking for. The average ROE of retailers in the S&P 500 (SPX) is 16.95%.
> 
> "Their shares trade at price-to-book ratio of 2.9. Wal-Mart's price-to-book ratio of 3.5 is 20% higher than the group, which means that investors, based on Wal-Mart's current $79 share price, are expecting it to produce a higher-than-average ROE.
> 
> "How much higher? Lee says the relationship is not linear, or one for one. Let's call it 18%.
> 
> "That means, based on Wal-Mart's current stock price, investors are signaling that they are looking for a return of 20%.
> 
> "Remember, that's not money that Wal-Mart actually pays out to investors.
> 
> "Most of that money is reinvested in its business. But it does pay out some in the form of dividends. And Wal-Mart has a higher dividend yield than the average retailer in the S&P 500 -- 2.4% vs. 1.3%.
> 
> "Adjust that for Wal-Mart's valuation vs. other retailers, and that means 4.6% of the return shareholders are looking for comes from the giant retailer's outsized dividend.
> 
> "That means the ROE it has to satisfy investors after dividends is 15.4%.
> 
> "Wal-Mart's actual current ROE is 21%. 'What that suggests is that even Wal-Mart's investors think the company should pay its employees more, or at least expects it will,' says Lee.
> 
> "How much more?
> 
> "Wal-Mart has a book value of $76.7 billion.
> 
> "Take 15.4% of that, and that means investors are looking to get paid $11.8 billion a year.
> 
> "*That leaves $101 billion to pay employees*.
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $25.7 billion before the change down to $10.3 billion after the change is about a 60% decline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has nothing to do with the reality that Wall-Mart can pay its 1.4 million employees an additional $11,000/ year after satisfying bondholders and stockholders.
Click to expand...


The reality is that WalMart can pay what they'd like.
They can pay so much that they lose money every year. I doubt they will.

The claim that they can reduce before tax income by 60% and still satisfy the shareholders is so silly I can't believe I even have to respond.

Tell you what, save your nickels, buy the company and pay the employees as much as you want.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, just recognizing the usual means of effecting it.
> 
> Jim Crow was a matter of legal justice (equal rights). What are you getting at?
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the last thing you wanted was government dispensing social justice: "I want them to stick to legal justice..." Jim Crow was an example of government following exactly that philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, JC laws were reactionary social engineering. They represented real injustice. They were abolished via legal remedies (Constitutionally protected equal rights), not "social justice".
Click to expand...

"The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with, starting in 1890, a 'separate but equal' status for African Americans."

*Laws that support segregation are Social justice issues.
In the US during the 60s millions of Americans protested against the unfair treatment of Blacks in the South, and it was their commitment to Social justice that forced the federal government's intervention to roll back the unequal distribution of justice and resources in that part of the country*

"The United Nations 2006 document Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations, states that 'Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth...'[39] 

"The same document reports, 'From the comprehensive global perspective shaped by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, neglect of the pursuit of social justice in all its dimensions translates into de facto acceptance of a future marred by violence, repression and chaos.[40] 

"The report concludes, *'Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies."*

Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the last thing you wanted was government dispensing social justice: "I want them to stick to legal justice..." Jim Crow was an example of government following exactly that philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, JC laws were reactionary social engineering. They represented real injustice. They were abolished via legal remedies (Constitutionally protected equal rights), not "social justice".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with, starting in 1890, a 'separate but equal' status for African Americans."
> 
> *Laws that support segregation are Social justice issues.
> In the US during the 60s millions of Americans protested against the unfair treatment of Blacks in the South, and it was their commitment to Social justice that forced the federal government's intervention to roll back the unequal distribution of justice and resources in that part of the country*
> 
> "The United Nations 2006 document Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations, states that 'Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth...'[39]
> 
> "The same document reports, 'From the comprehensive global perspective shaped by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, neglect of the pursuit of social justice in all its dimensions translates into de facto acceptance of a future marred by violence, repression and chaos.[40]
> 
> "The report concludes, *'Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies."*
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Enough with the quotes and links already. I'm interested in what you think. That's meant as a compliment.

Anyway, abolishing those laws had nothing to do with "fair distribution off the fruits of economic growth." It was a matter of equal rights under the law.


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan Vs. Obama - Social Economics 101 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love the video... echo's my life.  This government stole my ambition. I have no desire whatsoever to row the boat for the moocher class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor should you RKM. Sadly, half of the parasite class is going to be furious that you won't provide for them anymore. The other will celebrate the fact that government tore you down until you were in poverty like them.
> 
> Either way, the left is completely despicable and a cancer that is destroying this nation.
Click to expand...



Oh I'm not in poverty... I'm just done rowing   I'll let them decide what level of income is "to" much "to" rich and keep under that amount.  I've got enough stuff to last me, anything extra is just gravy.  Why work twice as hard and they take 50% of the extra in the form of AMT tax, and lost deductions, and other taxes when you buy stuff. Makes no sense whatsoever. I used to pay more in taxes than I currently earn.  I used to have to travel 25% and the hours were > 70 a week.  Used to own two homes...  Now I work at home, set my own hours.  Sold one of the houses... less expenses.  I mean what's the point screw it.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Slavery should definitely be against the law. If anyone is being forced into wage labor, I'll be happy to join the fight to stop it.



This is welcomed news. If there is compelled subservience, then we ought to resist that institution(s).



dblack said:


> Of course it is. I, for one, have made the choice often. I'd much rather be free and poor, than a well-off slave. Some people won't make that choice, but it is a choice. .



I have no concern disputing your level of freedom. You choose to be humble yet jobless (I can only assume), you are obviously still accessing the internet with reliability and so it would appear your circumstances are stable insofar as you eat, sleep, and live.

My interest lies with my neighbors and fellow citizens who are born into circumstance X. In this circumstance, a near infinite variety of issues arise and many as a result of inheritance (a system of industrial fuedalism controls the masses). These inherited issues can be categorized, and I will highlight just one, denoting serious form of abjection.

Circumstance X often has forced food scarcity upon the family. For some eve_ accessing_ quality food (food desert as they're known in inner city minority communities). We wouldn't do this to normal decent people would we? I can assure you I've been all over Chicago and West of the Rockies while having grown up in America's forgotten land: Appalachia. here poverty and unemployment are and have been much higher than national averages but there has been the smallest proportional federal aide. Why? Issues like this must remain undiscussed for if we begin to require everyone be treated as a human who must be free to choose a life of systemic labor or not without the very real threat of homelessness and food scarcity.

Wage labor means oftentimes the parents go off to work at different hours (midnight shift) unable to visit with each other or play with their kid(s). They must make the choice to offer the last available food or sandwich for their child's lunch and go without as the adult while they work overtime or have not had decent sleep in months. This is a sacrifice not uncommon. It's uncommon with respect to journalism, but not in my community, not in the thousands of communities across America and the 100 or so communities I have personally witnessed. I'm sure you can find some quality journalism on this but you need to pay attention to local papers and alternative media sources. NYtimes and others will not dispense this material often and this shapes our understanding.

So if my neighbors are unable to acquire the food they need, what can they do? Garden? How can they when the don't don't have land to till with debt or rent due without knowing how to come up with it? How can they do anything about food scarcity but steal or buy it in a private grocer? These are the only options.

SNAP program in many states, since Clinton, require one to be working in a matter of a few months or at least seeking work weekly and reporting back. This is not a choice: its compelled subservience.

I appreciate your honesty of willing to recognize IFF this is going on it is a problem. I can say with categorical certainty, this is a vast problem. In my own life or more accurately my parent's life this plays out daily and the struggle poverty presents leads to all sorts of desperate measures that create health and spiritual issues short and long term. If you are white and are capable of buying groceries when you need them, I doubt the full meaning of poverty is understood. People are being treated as means to an end and it turns out when they agree to this, they get to eat more often and fulfill a modicum of desires inculcated from public view but I doubt they can say with conviction they are better off there their parents--a perennial idea.

So while you have a clear choice, many people must engage in wage slavery in order to eat. This is compelled subservience. Industrial feudalism. I'm glad you agree it is unacceptable to treat humans in a manner that stifles their sense of creativity and humanity. Everyone who gets off work is not inclined to research the truth, they are inclined to flip on the tube and pass out on the couch. Work suffocates inspiration for human creativity. Can it be balanced? Of course! But is it? NO--the whole point is our current circumstances (not some counterfactual you imagine) is a grave injustice on the lot of humans!! The tyranny moved from outright slavery to wage slavery--we must continue towards a society that flourishes, not a society of elite success beyond imagination upon the backs of millions and billions of the same basic thinking and feeling creature.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery should definitely be against the law. If anyone is being forced into wage labor, I'll be happy to join the fight to stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is welcomed news. If there is compelled subservience, then we ought to resist that institution(s).
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is. I, for one, have made the choice often. I'd much rather be free and poor, than a well-off slave. Some people won't make that choice, but it is a choice. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no concern disputing your level of freedom. You choose to be humble yet jobless (I can only assume), you are obviously still accessing the internet with reliability and so it would appear your circumstances are stable insofar as you eat, sleep, and live.
> 
> My interest lies with my neighbors and fellow citizens who are born into circumstance X. In this circumstance, a near infinite variety of issues arise and many as a result of inheritance (a system of industrial fuedalism controls the masses). These inherited issues can be categorized, and I will highlight just one, denoting serious form of abjection.
> 
> Circumstance X often has forced food scarcity upon the family. For some eve_ accessing_ quality food (food desert as they're known in inner city minority communities). We wouldn't do this to normal decent people would we? I can assure you I've been all over Chicago and West of the Rockies while having grown up in America's forgotten land: Appalachia. here poverty and unemployment are and have been much higher than national averages but there has been the smallest proportional federal aide. Why? Issues like this must remain undiscussed for if we begin to require everyone be treated as a human who must be free to choose a life of systemic labor or not without the very real threat of homelessness and food scarcity.
> 
> Wage labor means oftentimes the parents go off to work at different hours (midnight shift) unable to visit with each other or play with their kid(s). They must make the choice to offer the last available food or sandwich for their child's lunch and go without as the adult while they work overtime or have not had decent sleep in months. This is a sacrifice not uncommon. It's uncommon with respect to journalism, but not in my community, not in the thousands of communities across America and the 100 or so communities I have personally witnessed. I'm sure you can find some quality journalism on this but you need to pay attention to local papers and alternative media sources. NYtimes and others will not dispense this material often and this shapes our understanding.
> 
> So if my neighbors are unable to acquire the food they need, what can they do? Garden? How can they when the don't don't have land to till with debt or rent due without knowing how to come up with it? How can they do anything about food scarcity but steal or buy it in a private grocer? These are the only options.
> 
> SNAP program in many states, since Clinton, require one to be working in a matter of a few months or at least seeking work weekly and reporting back. This is not a choice: its compelled subservience.
Click to expand...


No. It's not. And suggesting it is, is utterly insulting to the memory of victims of *real* slavery.

I see, in everything you've been posting, an undercurrent of an insatiable desire to control people, to dictate their circumstances and rule them "for their own good". I can't subscribe to that kind of ideology.


----------



## kucing

The richest man is amazing, who the hell? such as whether the person is?


----------



## gipper

RKMBrown said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love the video... echo's my life.  This government stole my ambition. I have no desire whatsoever to row the boat for the moocher class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor should you RKM. Sadly, half of the parasite class is going to be furious that you won't provide for them anymore. The other will celebrate the fact that government tore you down until you were in poverty like them.
> 
> Either way, the left is completely despicable and a cancer that is destroying this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I'm not in poverty... I'm just done rowing   I'll let them decide what level of income is "to" much "to" rich and keep under that amount.  I've got enough stuff to last me, anything extra is just gravy.  Why work twice as hard and they take 50% of the extra in the form of AMT tax, and lost deductions, and other taxes when you buy stuff. Makes no sense whatsoever. I used to pay more in taxes than I currently earn.  I used to have to travel 25% and the hours were > 70 a week.  Used to own two homes...  Now I work at home, set my own hours.  Sold one of the houses... less expenses.  I mean what's the point screw it.
Click to expand...


Yes...many Americans are done with busting their ass just to support big government programs that even a low IQ person can determine are completely ineffective, but do buy votes and privileges for the power elite.

Peggy Noonan's column this week gets to the heart of the matter....



> *The constant mischief of the progressive left is hurting the nation's morale. *There are few areas of national life left in which they are not busy, and few in which they're not making it worse. There are always more regulations, fees and fiats, always more cultural pressure and insistence.
> 
> But to American morale. Here one refers to recent polling data. *Gallup in December had 72% of those polled saying big government is a bigger threat to the future than big business and big labora record high.* This may be connected to ObamaCare, an analyst ventured. Rasmussen this week had only 32% of those polled saying the country is headed in the right direction, with 61% saying we're on the wrong track. Both numbers fluctuate, but the right track is down two points since this time last year and the wrong track up three. Gallup also had only 39% of respondents saying they saw America in a positive position, with less than half thinking it will be better in five years.
> 
> *We are suffering in great part from the politicization of everything and the spread of government not in a useful way but a destructive one.* Everyone wants to help the poor, the old and the sick; the safety net exists because we want it. But voters and taxpayers feel bullied, burdened and jerked around, which again is not new but feels more intense every day. Common sense and native wit tell them America is losing the most vital part of itself in the continuing shift of power from private to public. Rules, regulations, many of them stupid, from all the agencieslocal, state, federalon the building of a house, or the starting of a business. You can only employ so many before the new insurance rules kick in so don't employ too many, don't take a chance! Which means: Don't grow. It takes the utmost commitment to start a school or improve an existing one because you'll come up against the unions, which own the politicians.
> Peggy Noonan: America and the Aggressive Left - WSJ.com



Big unlimited government not only sucks for all but those at the top, it is extremely dangerous.

I am an optimist in my own life, but a terrible pessimist when it comes to the future of my country.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, JC laws were reactionary social engineering. They represented real injustice. They were abolished via legal remedies (Constitutionally protected equal rights), not "social justice".
> 
> 
> 
> "The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with, starting in 1890, a 'separate but equal' status for African Americans."
> 
> *Laws that support segregation are Social justice issues.
> In the US during the 60s millions of Americans protested against the unfair treatment of Blacks in the South, and it was their commitment to Social justice that forced the federal government's intervention to roll back the unequal distribution of justice and resources in that part of the country*
> 
> "The United Nations 2006 document Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations, states that 'Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth...'[39]
> 
> "The same document reports, 'From the comprehensive global perspective shaped by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, neglect of the pursuit of social justice in all its dimensions translates into de facto acceptance of a future marred by violence, repression and chaos.[40]
> 
> "The report concludes, *'Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies."*
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enough with the quotes and links already. I'm interested in what you think. That's meant as a compliment.
> 
> Anyway, abolishing those laws had nothing to do with "fair distribution off the fruits of economic growth." It was a matter of equal rights under the law.
Click to expand...

Thanks (I think)
Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with, starting in 1890, a 'separate but equal' status for African Americans."
> 
> *Laws that support segregation are Social justice issues.
> In the US during the 60s millions of Americans protested against the unfair treatment of Blacks in the South, and it was their commitment to Social justice that forced the federal government's intervention to roll back the unequal distribution of justice and resources in that part of the country*
> 
> "The United Nations&#8217; 2006 document Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations, states that 'Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth...'[39]
> 
> "The same document reports, 'From the comprehensive global perspective shaped by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, neglect of the pursuit of social justice in all its dimensions translates into de facto acceptance of a future marred by violence, repression and chaos.&#8221;[40]
> 
> "The report concludes, *'Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies."*
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enough with the quotes and links already. I'm interested in what you think. That's meant as a compliment.
> 
> Anyway, abolishing those laws had nothing to do with "fair distribution off the fruits of economic growth." It was a matter of equal rights under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks (I think)
> Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?
Click to expand...


I don't think we can. In fact, I think that's exactly where we're disagreeing. Being 'underprivileged', or otherwise lacking the power and resources to exercise one's rights, is a separate issue from whether those rights are protected. That's what I was focusing on with the distinction between equal rights and equal empowerment. You seem to be taking the position that unequal empowerment is the equivalent of unequal rights. In my view, the job of government is to ensure equal rights, but not equal empowerment.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> No. It's not. And suggesting it is, is utterly insulting to the memory of victims of *real* slavery.
> 
> I see, in everything you've been posting, an undercurrent of an insatiable desire to control people, to dictate their circumstances and rule them "for their own good". I can't subscribe to that kind of ideology.



By identifying the institutional demands on millions of Americans, you call this a insult to slaves or their decedents. It's clear you have little interest in what's happening in our times then. You take an ideologues stance, not a humanitarian one, and then have the audacity to say I want to control people. You continually neglect my signature that I stand for wholeheartedly which states the only type of freedom worth mentioning is genuine freedom for all. And here I thought your comments demonstrated concern in the last post. You care insofar as it fits your ideology. So you say *if *people are treated this way we, *then *should do something. Then you backtrack saying there is no lack of choice because you can make the choice. That is a shoddy inductive argument and commits the hasty generalization fallacy. When it comes to genuinely being concerned and offering real defense against wage labor that takes away freedom for many, you completely ignore it and throw in a red herring, accusing me of the same desires of our institutions and elites. Incredible. Wage labor is the next step up from chattel slavery. There is much more to do and human history does not cease with most of humanity toiling in wage labor for elite surplus.

When millions of Americans, blacks whites and minorities have no option but to work for food under corporate policy (e.g. Walmart, McDonalds etc.) you keep repeating how YOU can make the choice so _everyone must be able to_. You have your white blinders on if you think something so egocentric as that poor inductive argument.

A near majority of the black population *still suffers* from a form of institutional dominance, whether prison or wage labor--most in prison are there for nonviolent crimes.

Do you think that slavery--identified as the most essential institution to man in history--is just going to completely vanish with the stroke of the pen? Are you so penchant to think choice was lacking one day and then suddenly choice began available for all? The first 100 years of America promised freedom for all. This was totally ignored by President and Congress despite the obvious lying that must take place to claim freedom for all. Moreover, neither appeared eager to enforce it. Then the people resisted first and Lincoln caught on to this movement. He helped regulate chattel slavery but then came along wage slavery: it is a injustice to the history to think slavery was immediately abolished or does not exist today. It is still real even today!

All human actions come in tides and then after having a small victory against seemingly unmovable institutions, then it settles before a new wave challenges other forms of domination. The fact is you are an ideolgue concerned for ideas, not people--don't get me wrong I was one too back in the day. You can say whatever you want on the internet but what you do is what matters and what you do is maintain ideals of genuine freedom for all at the expense of actual freedom of millions. I cannot stand by and watch my community suffer (due to wage slavery) while people are so ideological they ignore the realities before them. It's pretty insular to say I'm fighting for greater control when all I have said is people should be permitted the choice to live in wage labor or not without the real threat of circumstances that abject poverty presents.

You undermine all trust in your pursuit for justice. When you say everyone has a choice you can only say such indefensible shit through an ideological lens that says the means of wage labor/slavery justifies the ends of the elite class having abundance and here's the kicker: the only real importance is for YOU to have freedom and since you think you do the question is obsolete. Well, it doesn't work this way. All people should be free and addressing wage labor is a good start. But it's ok in your world to think I want to control people. What is that if it isn't a total distraction?


----------



## gnarlylove

gipper said:


> I am an optimist in my own life, but a terrible pessimist when it comes to the future of my country.



There's a saying from Antonio Gramsci that goes "we should have pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will."


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enough with the quotes and links already. I'm interested in what you think. That's meant as a compliment.
> 
> Anyway, abolishing those laws had nothing to do with "fair distribution off the fruits of economic growth." It was a matter of equal rights under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks (I think)
> Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think we can. In fact, I think that's exactly where we're disagreeing. Being 'underprivileged', or otherwise lacking the power and resources to exercise one's rights, is a separate issue from whether those rights are protected. That's what I was focusing on with the distinction between equal rights and equal empowerment. You seem to be taking the position that unequal empowerment is the equivalent of unequal rights. In my view, the job of government is to ensure equal rights, but not equal empowerment.
Click to expand...


The talk of "rights" undermines our discussion. Socialists have advocated that economic rights are essential as civil rights. Indeed, how can one be free and to flourish as humans are designed without having adequate sustenance? By thinking the rights of freedom of speech is different from the right to food, we are engaging in 18th century language. That language worked then when chattel slavery was abundant. It's time to update our notion of what humans need in order to contribute to society, and more importantly, what it means to be human.


----------



## kaz

gipper said:


> I am an optimist in my own life, but a terrible pessimist when it comes to the future of my country.



Man, that's for sure.

Love your username, I was so optimistic when Reagan was President.  The left is just shameless, appealing to greed, wealth envy, bigotry and fear.  And it works by larger and larger margins.  It shows how truly manipulatable people are by the great evil empires of history and how little people have changed.  Even in the greatest, richest, freest country in the history of man, you appeal to their base selfish desires and it works.

Capitalism is just a term for economic freedom.  And yet that's somehow bad.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?



No, because money isn't "distributed" it's earned.  Distributed is one of your code words for justifying government confiscation and "re" distribution of money.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks (I think)
> Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we can. In fact, I think that's exactly where we're disagreeing. Being 'underprivileged', or otherwise lacking the power and resources to exercise one's rights, is a separate issue from whether those rights are protected. That's what I was focusing on with the distinction between equal rights and equal empowerment. You seem to be taking the position that unequal empowerment is the equivalent of unequal rights. In my view, the job of government is to ensure equal rights, but not equal empowerment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The talk of "rights" undermines our discussion. Socialists have advocated that economic rights are essential as civil rights. Indeed, how can one be free and to flourish as humans are designed without having adequate sustenance? By thinking the rights of freedom of speech is different from the right to food, we are engaging in 18th century language. That language worked then when chattel slavery was abundant. It's time to update our notion of what humans need in order to contribute to society, and more importantly, what it means to be human.
Click to expand...


There are no economic rights.  The concept is absurd.  Rights are something you are born with.   You certainly aren't born with a right to food, education or medical care.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an optimist in my own life, but a terrible pessimist when it comes to the future of my country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a saying from Antonio Gramsci that goes "we should have pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will."
Click to expand...


That's the usual leftist swill, which is utterly meaningless.  Yet, it passes for profundity among the left.


----------



## georgephillip

BlackSand said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Growth is the result of more factors than Capitalism.
> If the idea is to stifle growth in attempts to balance inequality ... Then that is a foolish endeavor by all measures.
> People are upset because "greed" has replaced the term "prosperity" ... And greed is not a necessity of success.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

*Capitalism as we've always known it doesn't just require growth, it requires infinite growth on a finite planet which would seem to qualify as greed:*

"Capitalism, at least as we know it, requires infinite growth. 

"For-profit companies have to continue to grow in size and increase their profits year after year or risk losing investment money. 

"Many people have gotten very wealthy with this economic model and the rest of us, at least in industrialized countries, have benefited greatly as well. We have many modern conveniences and most of us are quite disconnected from the natural world in a way that would have been unimaginable to people only a few centuries ago. 

"This is certainly good from the standpoint of making our lives easier but its not good when you look at the long term picture.

"The problem in the long term is that an economic model of infinite growth requires the use of natural resources at increasing rates. 

"The most obvious of these natural resources is petroleum or oil. 

"But many other resources like water and coal are being used at increasing rates to sustain growth in population. 

"This growth in population is fueled by the continued increase in use of natural resources. 

"Its a cycle of infinite growth that is simply unsustainable on a planet of finite resources."

Infinite Growth Is Unsustainable


----------



## RKMBrown

gipper said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor should you RKM. Sadly, half of the parasite class is going to be furious that you won't provide for them anymore. The other will celebrate the fact that government tore you down until you were in poverty like them.
> 
> Either way, the left is completely despicable and a cancer that is destroying this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I'm not in poverty... I'm just done rowing   I'll let them decide what level of income is "to" much "to" rich and keep under that amount.  I've got enough stuff to last me, anything extra is just gravy.  Why work twice as hard and they take 50% of the extra in the form of AMT tax, and lost deductions, and other taxes when you buy stuff. Makes no sense whatsoever. I used to pay more in taxes than I currently earn.  I used to have to travel 25% and the hours were > 70 a week.  Used to own two homes...  Now I work at home, set my own hours.  Sold one of the houses... less expenses.  I mean what's the point screw it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...many Americans are done with busting their ass just to support big government programs that even a low IQ person can determine are completely ineffective, but do buy votes and privileges for the power elite.
> 
> Peggy Noonan's column this week gets to the heart of the matter....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The constant mischief of the progressive left is hurting the nation's morale. *There are few areas of national life left in which they are not busy, and few in which they're not making it worse. There are always more regulations, fees and fiats, always more cultural pressure and insistence.
> 
> But to American morale. Here one refers to recent polling data. *Gallup in December had 72% of those polled saying big government is a bigger threat to the future than big business and big labora record high.* This may be connected to ObamaCare, an analyst ventured. Rasmussen this week had only 32% of those polled saying the country is headed in the right direction, with 61% saying we're on the wrong track. Both numbers fluctuate, but the right track is down two points since this time last year and the wrong track up three. Gallup also had only 39% of respondents saying they saw America in a positive position, with less than half thinking it will be better in five years.
> 
> *We are suffering in great part from the politicization of everything and the spread of government not in a useful way but a destructive one.* Everyone wants to help the poor, the old and the sick; the safety net exists because we want it. But voters and taxpayers feel bullied, burdened and jerked around, which again is not new but feels more intense every day. Common sense and native wit tell them America is losing the most vital part of itself in the continuing shift of power from private to public. Rules, regulations, many of them stupid, from all the agencieslocal, state, federalon the building of a house, or the starting of a business. You can only employ so many before the new insurance rules kick in so don't employ too many, don't take a chance! Which means: Don't grow. It takes the utmost commitment to start a school or improve an existing one because you'll come up against the unions, which own the politicians.
> Peggy Noonan: America and the Aggressive Left - WSJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big unlimited government not only sucks for all but those at the top, it is extremely dangerous.
> 
> I am an optimist in my own life, but a terrible pessimist when it comes to the future of my country.
Click to expand...


The less money I earn the more optimistic I become.  I'm becoming more and more self-reliant.  More and more disconnected from the libtardian society.. moving more and more to a system of bartering and off grid living where I, quite frankly, don't need to participate in the exchange of US dollars.


----------



## RKMBrown

georgephillip said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Growth is the result of more factors than Capitalism.
> If the idea is to stifle growth in attempts to balance inequality ... Then that is a foolish endeavor by all measures.
> People are upset because "greed" has replaced the term "prosperity" ... And greed is not a necessity of success.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Capitalism as we've always known it doesn't just require growth, it requires infinite growth on a finite planet which would seem to qualify as greed:*
> 
> "Capitalism, at least as we know it, requires infinite growth.
> 
> "For-profit companies have to continue to grow in size and increase their profits year after year or risk losing investment money.
> 
> "Many people have gotten very wealthy with this economic model and the rest of us, at least in industrialized countries, have benefited greatly as well. We have many modern conveniences and most of us are quite disconnected from the natural world in a way that would have been unimaginable to people only a few centuries ago.
> 
> "This is certainly good from the standpoint of making our lives easier but its not good when you look at the long term picture.
> 
> "The problem in the long term is that an economic model of infinite growth requires the use of natural resources at increasing rates.
> 
> "The most obvious of these natural resources is petroleum or oil.
> 
> "But many other resources like water and coal are being used at increasing rates to sustain growth in population.
> 
> "This growth in population is fueled by the continued increase in use of natural resources.
> 
> "Its a cycle of infinite growth that is simply unsustainable on a planet of finite resources."
> 
> Infinite Growth Is Unsustainable
Click to expand...

ROFL strawman BS


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks (I think)
> Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we can. In fact, I think that's exactly where we're disagreeing. Being 'underprivileged', or otherwise lacking the power and resources to exercise one's rights, is a separate issue from whether those rights are protected. That's what I was focusing on with the distinction between equal rights and equal empowerment. You seem to be taking the position that unequal empowerment is the equivalent of unequal rights. In my view, the job of government is to ensure equal rights, but not equal empowerment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The talk of "rights" undermines our discussion.
Click to expand...


I suppose it does at that.



> Socialists have advocated that economic rights are essential as civil rights. Indeed, how can one be free and to flourish as humans are designed without having adequate sustenance? By thinking the rights of freedom of speech is different from the right to food, we are engaging in 18th century language. That language worked then when chattel slavery was abundant. It's time to update our notion of what humans need in order to contribute to society, and more importantly, what it means to be human.



The right to free speech is, very fundamentally, different than the "right to food".


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because money isn't "distributed" it's earned.  Distributed is one of your code words for justifying government confiscation and "re" distribution of money.
Click to expand...

*What happens when a group is denied an equal opportunity to earn money?
The quote of mine you snipped was in reference to Jim Crow laws in the US which legally deprived Blacks of equal access to education, for example.
Education has a big impact on the amount of money individuals earn
Do you believe conservative bigots in the southern US would have democratized educational opportunity without the federal government's confiscation of States' Rights?*

"Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.

Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Growth is the result of more factors than Capitalism.
> If the idea is to stifle growth in attempts to balance inequality ... Then that is a foolish endeavor by all measures.
> People are upset because "greed" has replaced the term "prosperity" ... And greed is not a necessity of success.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Capitalism as we've always known it doesn't just require growth, it requires infinite growth on a finite planet which would seem to qualify as greed:*
> 
> "Capitalism, at least as we know it, requires infinite growth.
> 
> "For-profit companies have to continue to grow in size and increase their profits year after year or risk losing investment money.
> 
> "Many people have gotten very wealthy with this economic model and the rest of us, at least in industrialized countries, have benefited greatly as well. We have many modern conveniences and most of us are quite disconnected from the natural world in a way that would have been unimaginable to people only a few centuries ago.
> 
> "This is certainly good from the standpoint of making our lives easier but its not good when you look at the long term picture.
> 
> "The problem in the long term is that an economic model of infinite growth requires the use of natural resources at increasing rates.
> 
> "The most obvious of these natural resources is petroleum or oil.
> 
> "But many other resources like water and coal are being used at increasing rates to sustain growth in population.
> 
> "This growth in population is fueled by the continued increase in use of natural resources.
> 
> "Its a cycle of infinite growth that is simply unsustainable on a planet of finite resources."
> 
> Infinite Growth Is Unsustainable
Click to expand...



Capitalism doesn't require infinite growth.  This claim has no visible means of support.  Leftists keep repeating it without offering a shred of proof.

Advances in technology means new materials replace old and old ones are used much more efficiently.  It used to be we had telephone cables strung all over the world to send phone calls.  this required millions of tons of copper.  Now telephone calls are transmitted over fiber optic cables, which are made from one of the most common substances on earth:  silicon.  Infinite economic growth does not require infinite consumption of natural resources.

Growth occurs under capitalism because there are billions of people on earth living in abject poverty.  halting growth means condemning these people to an eternity of squalor and material deprivation.

What's wrong with infinite growth?


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we can. In fact, I think that's exactly where we're disagreeing. Being 'underprivileged', or otherwise lacking the power and resources to exercise one's rights, is a separate issue from whether those rights are protected. That's what I was focusing on with the distinction between equal rights and equal empowerment. You seem to be taking the position that unequal empowerment is the equivalent of unequal rights. In my view, the job of government is to ensure equal rights, but not equal empowerment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The talk of "rights" undermines our discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose it does at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialists have advocated that economic rights are essential as civil rights. Indeed, how can one be free and to flourish as humans are designed without having adequate sustenance? By thinking the rights of freedom of speech is different from the right to food, we are engaging in 18th century language. That language worked then when chattel slavery was abundant. It's time to update our notion of what humans need in order to contribute to society, and more importantly, what it means to be human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to free speech is, very fundamentally, different than the "right to food".
Click to expand...


That's because the latter is a fiction.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because money isn't "distributed" it's earned.  Distributed is one of your code words for justifying government confiscation and "re" distribution of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What happens when a group is denied an equal opportunity to earn money?
> The quote of mine you snipped was in reference to Jim Crow laws in the US which legally deprived Blacks of equal access to education, for example.
> Education has a big impact on the amount of money individuals earn
> Do you believe conservative bigots in the southern US would have democratized educational opportunity without the federal government's confiscation of States' Rights?*
> 
> "Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Jim Crow laws are a clear violation of individual rights, so that's hardly a good example.


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!
Click to expand...


They also have homes, automobiles, color televisions and a huge (pun intended) obesity problem.  Did you know if you make median income in this country, you're an evil one percenter of the world's population?

If you're at the poverty level in this country, you're easily in the top 10% of the world.  Liberals are soft and lazy.  You worry about trivialities like making sure town squares don't have manger scenes and making sure that government validates gay marriage as if they are critical issues and you have no idea of the world around you.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because money isn't "distributed" it's earned.  Distributed is one of your code words for justifying government confiscation and "re" distribution of money.
> 
> 
> 
> *What happens when a group is denied an equal opportunity to earn money?
> The quote of mine you snipped was in reference to Jim Crow laws in the US which legally deprived Blacks of equal access to education, for example.
> Education has a big impact on the amount of money individuals earn
> Do you believe conservative bigots in the southern US would have democratized educational opportunity without the federal government's confiscation of States' Rights?*
> 
> "Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jim Crow laws are a clear violation of individual rights, so that's hardly a good example.
Click to expand...


Leftists don't grasp the difference between the right to make our choices and our right to not have other people make our choices for us, do they?


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because money isn't "distributed" it's earned.  Distributed is one of your code words for justifying government confiscation and "re" distribution of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What happens when a group is denied an equal opportunity to earn money?
> The quote of mine you snipped was in reference to Jim Crow laws in the US which legally deprived Blacks of equal access to education, for example.
> Education has a big impact on the amount of money individuals earn
> Do you believe conservative bigots in the southern US would have democratized educational opportunity without the federal government's confiscation of States' Rights?*
> 
> "Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.&#8221;
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Think about your logic here.

- You're against capitalism because it's not fair.

- As proof of that, you used Jim Crow laws, which is government.

- Your solution to unfair capitalism which was proven by your pointing to what government did is government.



Do you feel me?


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What happens when a group is denied an equal opportunity to earn money?
> The quote of mine you snipped was in reference to Jim Crow laws in the US which legally deprived Blacks of equal access to education, for example.
> Education has a big impact on the amount of money individuals earn
> Do you believe conservative bigots in the southern US would have democratized educational opportunity without the federal government's confiscation of States' Rights?*
> 
> "Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.&#8221;
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow laws are a clear violation of individual rights, so that's hardly a good example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leftists don't grasp the difference between the right to make our choices and our right to not have other people make our choices for us, do they?
Click to expand...


No they clearly don't.  They believe majority rule justifies anything, except when it goes against their agenda, of course.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow laws are a clear violation of individual rights, so that's hardly a good example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists don't grasp the difference between the right to make our choices and our right to not have other people make our choices for us, do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they clearly don't.  They believe majority rule justifies anything, except when it goes against their agenda, of course.
Click to expand...


Yes, majority rule when that yields the result they want, judicial dictatorship when it doesn't.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Growth is the result of more factors than Capitalism.
> If the idea is to stifle growth in attempts to balance inequality ... Then that is a foolish endeavor by all measures.
> People are upset because "greed" has replaced the term "prosperity" ... And greed is not a necessity of success.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism as we've always known it doesn't just require growth, it requires infinite growth on a finite planet which would seem to qualify as greed:*
> 
> "Capitalism, at least as we know it, requires infinite growth.
> 
> "For-profit companies have to continue to grow in size and increase their profits year after year or risk losing investment money.
> 
> "Many people have gotten very wealthy with this economic model and the rest of us, at least in industrialized countries, have benefited greatly as well. We have many modern conveniences and most of us are quite disconnected from the natural world in a way that would have been unimaginable to people only a few centuries ago.
> 
> "This is certainly good from the standpoint of making our lives easier but its not good when you look at the long term picture.
> 
> "The problem in the long term is that an economic model of infinite growth requires the use of natural resources at increasing rates.
> 
> "The most obvious of these natural resources is petroleum or oil.
> 
> "But many other resources like water and coal are being used at increasing rates to sustain growth in population.
> 
> "This growth in population is fueled by the continued increase in use of natural resources.
> 
> "Its a cycle of infinite growth that is simply unsustainable on a planet of finite resources."
> 
> Infinite Growth Is Unsustainable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't require infinite growth.  This claim has no visible means of support.  Leftists keep repeating it without offering a shred of proof.
> 
> Advances in technology means new materials replace old and old ones are used much more efficiently.  It used to be we had telephone cables strung all over the world to send phone calls.  this required millions of tons of copper.  Now telephone calls are transmitted over fiber optic cables, which are made from one of the most common substances on earth:  silicon.  Infinite economic growth does not require infinite consumption of natural resources.
> 
> Growth occurs under capitalism because there are billions of people on earth living in abject poverty.  halting growth means condemning these people to an eternity of squalor and material deprivation.
> 
> What's wrong with infinite growth?
Click to expand...

How many planets the size of earth would be required to give those billions of people living in abject poverty the same standard of living as yours?

Sooner or later, by choice or by force, humanity will need to build an economic model built of the idea of sustainability and not on infinite growth. This will require embracing an idea of collectivism and shared commons, a line of thought that's fully compatible with democracy but not with capitalism.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we can. In fact, I think that's exactly where we're disagreeing. Being 'underprivileged', or otherwise lacking the power and resources to exercise one's rights, is a separate issue from whether those rights are protected. That's what I was focusing on with the distinction between equal rights and equal empowerment. You seem to be taking the position that unequal empowerment is the equivalent of unequal rights. In my view, the job of government is to ensure equal rights, but not equal empowerment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The talk of "rights" undermines our discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose it does at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialists have advocated that economic rights are essential as civil rights. Indeed, how can one be free and to flourish as humans are designed without having adequate sustenance? By thinking the rights of freedom of speech is different from the right to food, we are engaging in 18th century language. That language worked then when chattel slavery was abundant. It's time to update our notion of what humans need in order to contribute to society, and more importantly, what it means to be human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to free speech is, very fundamentally, different than the "right to food".
Click to expand...

Without food how useful is "free speech?"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism as we've always known it doesn't just require growth, it requires infinite growth on a finite planet which would seem to qualify as greed:*
> 
> "Capitalism, at least as we know it, requires infinite growth.
> 
> "For-profit companies have to continue to grow in size and increase their profits year after year or risk losing investment money.
> 
> "Many people have gotten very wealthy with this economic model and the rest of us, at least in industrialized countries, have benefited greatly as well. We have many modern conveniences and most of us are quite disconnected from the natural world in a way that would have been unimaginable to people only a few centuries ago.
> 
> "This is certainly good from the standpoint of making our lives easier but its not good when you look at the long term picture.
> 
> "The problem in the long term is that an economic model of infinite growth requires the use of natural resources at increasing rates.
> 
> "The most obvious of these natural resources is petroleum or oil.
> 
> "But many other resources like water and coal are being used at increasing rates to sustain growth in population.
> 
> "This growth in population is fueled by the continued increase in use of natural resources.
> 
> "Its a cycle of infinite growth that is simply unsustainable on a planet of finite resources."
> 
> Infinite Growth Is Unsustainable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't require infinite growth.  This claim has no visible means of support.  Leftists keep repeating it without offering a shred of proof.
> 
> Advances in technology means new materials replace old and old ones are used much more efficiently.  It used to be we had telephone cables strung all over the world to send phone calls.  this required millions of tons of copper.  Now telephone calls are transmitted over fiber optic cables, which are made from one of the most common substances on earth:  silicon.  Infinite economic growth does not require infinite consumption of natural resources.
> 
> Growth occurs under capitalism because there are billions of people on earth living in abject poverty.  halting growth means condemning these people to an eternity of squalor and material deprivation.
> 
> What's wrong with infinite growth?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many planets the size of earth would be required to give those billions of people living in abject poverty the same standard of living as yours?
> 
> Sooner or later, by choice or by force, humanity will need to build an economic model built of the idea of sustainability and not on infinite growth. This will require embracing an idea of collectivism and shared commons, a line of thought that's fully compatible with democracy but not with capitalism.
Click to expand...


*How many planets the size of earth would be required to give those billions of people living in abject poverty the same standard of living as yours?*

Just one.


----------



## P@triot

georgephillip said:


> Tax them at the same rate FDR or Eisenhower did.



And then Dumbocrats always wonder why unemployment exists between 8% - 10% when they are in charge.

Furthermore, this kind of ignorant thinking (fuck success - tax the shit out of success) is what drives jobs overseas. Then ignorant Dumbocrats stand around scratching their heads and trying to blame outsourcing on Mitt Romney...


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> The less money I earn the more optimistic I become.  I'm becoming more and more self-reliant.  More and more disconnected from the libtardian society.. moving more and more to a system of bartering and off grid living where I, quite frankly, don't need to participate in the exchange of US dollars.



 

Libtards collapsed Detroit - they _will_ collapse the U.S. And the more we barter and live outside of the system, the more we _piss_ them off something fierce because they can't mooch off of our efforts.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. And that is what the Dumbocrats have done for over 100 years now with their ignorant socialism. They just keep collapsing city, states, and nations and then they declare that the collapse was the result of not enough spending and socialism...


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> The talk of "rights" undermines our discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it does at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialists have advocated that economic rights are essential as civil rights. Indeed, how can one be free and to flourish as humans are designed without having adequate sustenance? By thinking the rights of freedom of speech is different from the right to food, we are engaging in 18th century language. That language worked then when chattel slavery was abundant. It's time to update our notion of what humans need in order to contribute to society, and more importantly, what it means to be human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to free speech is, very fundamentally, different than the "right to food".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without food how useful is "free speech?"
Click to expand...


Well, I suppose it could be quite useful, if you're asking someone for a meal, or a job. But I assume you mean to point out that the necessities of life are more important than freedom. And with that I would agree. But we don't create government to acquire food for us. Or to supply us with all of our wants and needs. We create to defend our freedom.


----------



## Steinlight

What's wrong with inequality? You know who tried to eliminate inequality? The Soviet Union, how did that turn out?

States that push an egalitarian model don't survive in the long run.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> No. It's not. And suggesting it is, is utterly insulting to the memory of victims of *real* slavery..



Here is the short reply: read some history. Back in the 1800s in USA and Britain compared slavery to wage slavery quite vigorously. History sometimes makes ideology obsolete. 

History or Wage Labor:
Wage slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 



> The similarities between chattel and wage slavery were noticed by the workers themselves, according to Noam Chomsky. The 19th century Lowell Mill Girls, who, without any reported knowledge of European marxism or anarchism, condemned the "degradation and subordination" of the newly emerging industrial system, and the "new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self", maintaining that "those who work in the mills should own them



Oh, and don't think slavery is over. What we are taught can be false information. There is a thriving industry of sex slaves being trafficked heavily across the globe. Furthermore, here in the USA we still have good old fashion slavery, except many are minorities of all varieties, not just Africans!
https://www.freetheslaves.net/sslpage.aspx?pid=348
http://ciw-online.org/slavery/


----------



## Quinnj

georgephillip8708925 said:
			
		

> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Growth is the result of more factors than Capitalism.
> If the idea is to stifle growth in attempts to balance inequality ... Then that is a foolish endeavor by all measures.
> People are upset because "greed" has replaced the term "prosperity" ... And greed is not a necessity of success.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Capitalism as we've always known it doesn't just require growth, it requires infinite growth on a finite planet which would seem to qualify as greed:*
> 
> "Capitalism, at least as we know it, requires infinite growth.
> 
> "For-profit companies have to continue to grow in size and increase their profits year after year or risk losing investment money.
> 
> "Many people have gotten very wealthy with this economic model and the rest of us, at least in industrialized countries, have benefited greatly as well. We have many modern conveniences and most of us are quite disconnected from the natural world in a way that would have been unimaginable to people only a few centuries ago.
> 
> "This is certainly good from the standpoint of making our lives easier but its not good when you look at the long term picture.
> 
> "The problem in the long term is that an economic model of infinite growth requires the use of natural resources at increasing rates.
> 
> "The most obvious of these natural resources is petroleum or oil.
> 
> "But many other resources like water and coal are being used at increasing rates to sustain growth in population.
> 
> "This growth in population is fueled by the continued increase in use of natural resources.
> 
> "Its a cycle of infinite growth that is simply unsustainable on a planet of finite resources."
Click to expand...


Hi georgephillip, 

I'm new here & I thought I might just jump in & respond to your post.  I think what makes the 'infinite growth model' sustainable is the concept of debt.  

The underlying assumption that makes Capitalism as we know it unsustainable is the idea that 'people acting in their own self-interest will, magically, result in mutual benefit for the community.'  A good example of this is the recent global financial imbroglio.  Many individuals were acting in their own self-interest with little or no regard to the bigger community.  

There is no 'Invisible Hand' & there is no such thing as a Free Market.  Myths & illusions, smoke & mirrors, et cetera.  

This type of Capitalism has succeeded in focusing the concentration of wealth & power to ever increasing smaller numbers of people.  & the merger of our Government aristocracy with the Financial Sector aristocracy guarantees this will continue along the same trajectory  indefinitely.


----------



## Quinnj

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's not. And suggesting it is, is utterly insulting to the memory of victims of *real* slavery..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the short reply: read some history. Back in the 1800s in USA and Britain compared slavery to wage slavery quite vigorously. History sometimes makes ideology obsolete.
> 
> History or Wage Labor:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The similarities between chattel and wage slavery were noticed by the workers themselves, according to Noam Chomsky. The 19th century Lowell Mill Girls, who, without any reported knowledge of European marxism or anarchism, condemned the "degradation and subordination" of the newly emerging industrial system, and the "new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self", maintaining that "those who work in the mills should own them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and don't think slavery is over. What we are taught can be false information. There is a thriving industry of sex slaves being trafficked heavily across the globe. Furthermore, here in the USA we still have good old fashion slavery, except many are minorities of all varieties, not just Africans!
Click to expand...


I always think it's a strange premise when folks extol the virtues of Capitalism by claiming it's the reason the US grew to be the largest economy in a little over 200 years.  Are they forgetting it was one of the biggest 'land grabs' in history?  Are they forgetting the folks that were brought here as slaves & helped to build the economy?  It's denial at best, & the worst kind of propaganda at worst.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's not. And suggesting it is, is utterly insulting to the memory of victims of *real* slavery..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the short reply: read some history. Back in the 1800s in USA and Britain compared slavery to wage slavery quite vigorously. History sometimes makes ideology obsolete.
> 
> History or Wage Labor:
> Wage slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The similarities between chattel and wage slavery were noticed by the workers themselves, according to Noam Chomsky. The 19th century Lowell Mill Girls, who, without any reported knowledge of European marxism or anarchism, condemned the "degradation and subordination" of the newly emerging industrial system, and the "new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self", maintaining that "those who work in the mills should own them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and don't think slavery is over. What we are taught can be false information. There is a thriving industry of sex slaves being trafficked heavily across the globe. Furthermore, here in the USA we still have good old fashion slavery, except many are minorities of all varieties, not just Africans!
> https://www.freetheslaves.net/sslpage.aspx?pid=348
> Anti-Slavery Campaign | Coalition of Immokalee Workers
Click to expand...


All you proved is that Marxist morons existed in the 19th Century as well as the 21st Century.  Working for wages is not slavery, by any rational definition of the term.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it does at that.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to free speech is, very fundamentally, different than the "right to food".
> 
> 
> 
> Without food how useful is "free speech?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I suppose it could be quite useful, if you're asking someone for a meal, or a job. But I assume you mean to point out that the necessities of life are more important than freedom. And with that I would agree. But we don't create government to acquire food for us. Or to supply us with all of our wants and needs. We create to defend our freedom.
Click to expand...

Once society reaches a certain level of complexity we expect government to ensure our food is safe to consume and those providing the food are not subjecting us to artificial shortages. You're conception of human rights hasn't advanced much from the 18th century model.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without food how useful is "free speech?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I suppose it could be quite useful, if you're asking someone for a meal, or a job. But I assume you mean to point out that the necessities of life are more important than freedom. And with that I would agree. But we don't create government to acquire food for us. Or to supply us with all of our wants and needs. We create to defend our freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once society reaches a certain level of complexity we expect government to ensure our food is safe to consume and those providing the food are not subjecting us to artificial shortages. You're conception of human rights hasn't advanced much from the 18th century model.
Click to expand...


It seems to me the debate is really about the purpose of government.


----------



## bripat9643

Quinnj said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's not. And suggesting it is, is utterly insulting to the memory of victims of *real* slavery..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the short reply: read some history. Back in the 1800s in USA and Britain compared slavery to wage slavery quite vigorously. History sometimes makes ideology obsolete.
> 
> History or Wage Labor:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The similarities between chattel and wage slavery were noticed by the workers themselves, according to Noam Chomsky. The 19th century Lowell Mill Girls, who, without any reported knowledge of European marxism or anarchism, condemned the "degradation and subordination" of the newly emerging industrial system, and the "new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self", maintaining that "those who work in the mills should own them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and don't think slavery is over. What we are taught can be false information. There is a thriving industry of sex slaves being trafficked heavily across the globe. Furthermore, here in the USA we still have good old fashion slavery, except many are minorities of all varieties, not just Africans!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always think it's a strange premise when folks extol the virtues of Capitalism by claiming it's the reason the US grew to be the largest economy in a little over 200 years.  Are they forgetting it was one of the biggest 'land grabs' in history?  Are they forgetting the folks that were brought here as slaves & helped to build the economy?  It's denial at best, & the worst kind of propaganda at worst.
Click to expand...


You're forgetting the other "biggest land grab in history:"  Russia, and most of the population were serfs - virtual slaves, in other words.

Your theory doesn't hold water.

If you want a clearer example, just consider North Korea and South Korea.  How do you explain the difference there?  How about East and West Germany?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without food how useful is "free speech?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I suppose it could be quite useful, if you're asking someone for a meal, or a job. But I assume you mean to point out that the necessities of life are more important than freedom. And with that I would agree. But we don't create government to acquire food for us. Or to supply us with all of our wants and needs. We create to defend our freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once society reaches a certain level of complexity we expect government to ensure our food is safe to consume and those providing the food are not subjecting us to artificial shortages. You're conception of human rights hasn't advanced much from the 18th century model.
Click to expand...


That's what statists like you expect.  People who understand economics understand that government won't do any better of a job than private organizations - worse, in fact.  As for "artificial shortages," where do we see those?  Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, Argentina - all the socialists utopias in the world.


----------



## Quinnj

bripat9643 said:


> Quinnj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the short reply: read some history. Back in the 1800s in USA and Britain compared slavery to wage slavery quite vigorously. History sometimes makes ideology obsolete.
> 
> History or Wage Labor:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and don't think slavery is over. What we are taught can be false information. There is a thriving industry of sex slaves being trafficked heavily across the globe. Furthermore, here in the USA we still have good old fashion slavery, except many are minorities of all varieties, not just Africans!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always think it's a strange premise when folks extol the virtues of Capitalism by claiming it's the reason the US grew to be the largest economy in a little over 200 years.  Are they forgetting it was one of the biggest 'land grabs' in history?  Are they forgetting the folks that were brought here as slaves & helped to build the economy?  It's denial at best, & the worst kind of propaganda at worst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forgetting the other "biggest land grab in history:"  Russia, and most of the population were serfs - virtual slaves, in other words.
> 
> Your theory doesn't hold water.
> 
> If you want a clearer example, just consider North Korea and South Korea.  How do you explain the difference there?  How about East and West Germany?
Click to expand...


I explain the difference by pointing to how the United States of America began with an intent to be different from that which we claimed our independence:



> "For all (...of Americans'...) differences, they shared that one brave idea (...of the United States as a new world to start again...), and that idea became the point around which they gathered. After two hundred years this is still the glue that keeps the nation together. It&#8217;s a fragile construct. And the constant American need for reaffirmation of America&#8217;s greatness - their exceptionalism - affirms its fragility."
> -from A Look At American Exceptionalism by Martin Sellevold, (2003). Australian Rationalist (Croydon, Victoria, Australia: Rationalist Association of Australia, Ltd.) (65): 46&#8211;48.



& to claim that Capitalism is the sole reason for the US being the largest economy in the world is an extraordinary claim.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


----------



## bripat9643

Quinnj said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quinnj said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always think it's a strange premise when folks extol the virtues of Capitalism by claiming it's the reason the US grew to be the largest economy in a little over 200 years.  Are they forgetting it was one of the biggest 'land grabs' in history?  Are they forgetting the folks that were brought here as slaves & helped to build the economy?  It's denial at best, & the worst kind of propaganda at worst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgetting the other "biggest land grab in history:"  Russia, and most of the population were serfs - virtual slaves, in other words.
> 
> Your theory doesn't hold water.
> 
> If you want a clearer example, just consider North Korea and South Korea.  How do you explain the difference there?  How about East and West Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explain the difference by pointing to how the United States of America began with an intent to be different from that which we claimed our independence:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For all (...of Americans'...) differences, they shared that one brave idea (...of the United States as a new world to start again...), and that idea became the point around which they gathered. After two hundred years this is still the glue that keeps the nation together. Its a fragile construct. And the constant American need for reaffirmation of Americas greatness - their exceptionalism - affirms its fragility."
> -from A Look At American Exceptionalism by Martin Sellevold, (2003). Australian Rationalist (Croydon, Victoria, Australia: Rationalist Association of Australia, Ltd.) (65): 4648.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> & to claim that Capitalism is the sole reason for the US being the largest economy in the world is an extraordinary claim.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Click to expand...


I just posted the evidence.  Explain the difference between North Korea and South Korea if it isn't capitalism.

Whatever the original intent of the Founding Fathers was is irrelevant.  Economics doesn't care about intentions.  It only cares about how the social order affects output.  Socialism produces poverty.  Capitalism produces wealth.  The evidence is irrefutable.


----------



## Quinnj

bripat9643 said:


> Quinnj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're forgetting the other "biggest land grab in history:"  Russia, and most of the population were serfs - virtual slaves, in other words.
> 
> Your theory doesn't hold water.
> 
> If you want a clearer example, just consider North Korea and South Korea.  How do you explain the difference there?  How about East and West Germany?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explain the difference by pointing to how the United States of America began with an intent to be different from that which we claimed our independence:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "For all (...of Americans'...) differences, they shared that one brave idea (...of the United States as a new world to start again...), and that idea became the point around which they gathered. After two hundred years this is still the glue that keeps the nation together. Its a fragile construct. And the constant American need for reaffirmation of Americas greatness - their exceptionalism - affirms its fragility."
> -from A Look At American Exceptionalism by Martin Sellevold, (2003). Australian Rationalist (Croydon, Victoria, Australia: Rationalist Association of Australia, Ltd.) (65): 4648.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> & to claim that Capitalism is the sole reason for the US being the largest economy in the world is an extraordinary claim.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just posted the evidence.  Explain the difference between North Korea and South Korea if it isn't capitalism.
> 
> Whatever the original intent of the Founding Fathers was is irrelevant.  Economics doesn't care about intentions.  It only cares about how the social order affects output.  Socialism produces poverty.  Capitalism produces wealth.  The evidence is irrefutable.
Click to expand...


I would prefer to speak about the United States of America.  We have a mixed market economy as do most advanced industrial Countries.  We don't have pure Capitalism or pure Socialism here or elsewhere.  It's not irrelevant that what we have here is approaching a modern day Feudal System.


----------



## Quinnj

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I suppose it could be quite useful, if you're asking someone for a meal, or a job. But I assume you mean to point out that the necessities of life are more important than freedom. And with that I would agree. But we don't create government to acquire food for us. Or to supply us with all of our wants and needs. We create to defend our freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> Once society reaches a certain level of complexity we expect government to ensure our food is safe to consume and those providing the food are not subjecting us to artificial shortages. You're conception of human rights hasn't advanced much from the 18th century model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to me the debate is really about the purpose of government.
Click to expand...


I think it very often comes down to that.  Capitalism or Socialism are economic systems.  Democracies, Representative Republics, Dictatorships, et cetera are systems of government.  I know that may be stating the obvious but sometimes it needs to be said.  The mixed economic system co-exists with various forms of Government.

Mussolini said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state & corporate power."


----------



## Jazzper

Firstly, you talk as if there was some big "pie" that everyone has to share. Wealth is created, by individuals with talent and knowledge-it doesn't just exist, and it's not up to you and your politicians to distribute it "equally". Which leads me to a second point. Capitalism is not just an economic system. It's a social system which promotes and protects individuals and their property. It is a system designed to reward honesty and hard work, not those seeking handouts for some supposed "equality". Your system has been tried countless times, under different guises, and has always led to failure. Often with a bloody ending. See any communist or socialist state in world history for the details.


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> Once society reaches a certain level of complexity we expect government to ensure our food is safe to consume and those providing the food are not subjecting us to artificial shortages. You're conception of human rights hasn't advanced much from the 18th century model.



As you well know the damned socialist nations have citizens with a free education (including Uni), most are healthy with free access to health care and much cheaper prescriptions (no obesity crisis), and are happy workers with mandatory weeks of vacation (unemployment ~3%). Don't forget lower rates of poverty, crime etc. and advancing rapidly (e.g. increasing R&D). In other words, large nanny state programs are working well for the nations that actually aim to take care of ALL their citizens. They were affected less by the recent Great Depression with safety nets that help when people need it.
http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/no...ness-washington-world-happiest-countries.html

Herein lies real discussion and progress for humans. Contrast those facts with the USA, which has cut back on R&D by 25% over the last decade and other policies have exacerbated human suffering at home, having been majorly affected by the Great Depression--mostly the vulnerable population. 

Good thing "rights" do not pertain to survival (the most essential) but in the secondary qualities of speech, forming a sentence without being beaten. Those "rights" of speech, gun ownership etc. are relatively easy to grant widely and have little cost to the business class and their power. However, providing citizens life through food and shelter is unthinkable. It undermines significant quarterly profits. It undermines the reason for sharp inequality.

Of course most people are willing to work for this food--normally agriculture work was life for most; now a variety of work should be on the table to offer citizens satisfactory opportunity (esp. among the working class) to meet the needs of the society GIVEN THE RESOURCES AMERICA HAS. But alas this is not the case.

Hmm. Rights. Maybe everyone should be allowed to participate in society instead of being dragged along by corporate and business fancies just to survive. Nah, that would mean everyone could choose their own destiny and we wouldn't want that--who would choose to work to pay off debt most of their life? The American worker, that's who (household median debt: $70,000 in 2012).


----------



## georgephillip

Quinnj said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once society reaches a certain level of complexity we expect government to ensure our food is safe to consume and those providing the food are not subjecting us to artificial shortages. You're conception of human rights hasn't advanced much from the 18th century model.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me the debate is really about the purpose of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it very often comes down to that.  Capitalism or Socialism are economic systems.  Democracies, Representative Republics, Dictatorships, et cetera are systems of government.  I know that may be stating the obvious but sometimes it needs to be said.  The mixed economic system co-exists with various forms of Government.
> 
> Mussolini said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state & corporate power."
Click to expand...

*The obvious is often a good starting point.
In addition to seeing how our opinions regarding the purpose of government differ, we might also consider the purpose of an economy.
CH Douglas was a British engineer who asked that question during the period between the two Great Wars of the 20th century:*

"Douglas claimed there were three possible policy alternatives with respect to the economic system:

1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.

2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.

3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services"

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

Rottweiler said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax them at the same rate FDR or Eisenhower did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then Dumbocrats always wonder why unemployment exists between 8% - 10% when they are in charge.
> 
> Furthermore, this kind of ignorant thinking (fuck success - tax the shit out of success) is what drives jobs overseas. Then ignorant Dumbocrats stand around scratching their heads and trying to blame outsourcing on Mitt Romney...
Click to expand...

How did unemployment under Truman/Clinton compare to Reagan/BushI?
Mental defectives who imagine there's any difference between Republocrap and Democrap really shouldn't be wasting bandwidth.


----------



## bripat9643

Quinnj said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quinnj said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explain the difference by pointing to how the United States of America began with an intent to be different from that which we claimed our independence:
> 
> 
> 
> & to claim that Capitalism is the sole reason for the US being the largest economy in the world is an extraordinary claim.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just posted the evidence.  Explain the difference between North Korea and South Korea if it isn't capitalism.
> 
> Whatever the original intent of the Founding Fathers was is irrelevant.  Economics doesn't care about intentions.  It only cares about how the social order affects output.  Socialism produces poverty.  Capitalism produces wealth.  The evidence is irrefutable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would prefer to speak about the United States of America.  We have a mixed market economy as do most advanced industrial Countries.  We don't have pure Capitalism or pure Socialism here or elsewhere.  It's not irrelevant that what we have here is approaching a modern day Feudal System.
Click to expand...


Yeah, right, let's not discuss the examples the prove beyond all doubt that your lame theory is wrong.  Land doesn't make a country rich.  Japan has very little land, but it's very wealthy.  Slavery doesn't make a country rich.  In the U.S. the North, which didn't have slavery, was far richer than the South, which did.

I've heard the "land and slavery" argument a thousand times.  It's easily refuted. 

What we have here isn't anything close to Feudalism.  You don't even know what Feudalism is.  You're just spewing talking points your Marxist professors pumped into you.  You don't know jack about history or economics.  You've already proven that.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Quinnj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me the debate is really about the purpose of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it very often comes down to that.  Capitalism or Socialism are economic systems.  Democracies, Representative Republics, Dictatorships, et cetera are systems of government.  I know that may be stating the obvious but sometimes it needs to be said.  The mixed economic system co-exists with various forms of Government.
> 
> Mussolini said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state & corporate power."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The obvious is often a good starting point.
> In addition to seeing how our opinions regarding the purpose of government differ, we might also consider the purpose of an economy.
> CH Douglas was a British engineer who asked that question during the period between the two Great Wars of the 20th century:*
> 
> "Douglas claimed there were three possible policy alternatives with respect to the economic system:
> 
> 1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.
> 
> 2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.
> 
> 3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services"
> 
> Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


You're misusing several terms interchangeably.  The term "industrial system" is meaningless.  Countries have varying amounts of industry.  There is no "system" involved.  The term isn't synonymous with "economy."  And the economy and the government are two separate things.  The economy is the result of government policy.  How can the result of government policy be a government?  According to the definition of government, there can only be one government.  There can only be one monopoly of force.  If it's not a monopoly, it's not government.

Talking about the purpose of an "economy" is like talking about the purpose of the color green.  The economy is whatever humans do to survive.  Lack of one would mean no living humans.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax them at the same rate FDR or Eisenhower did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then Dumbocrats always wonder why unemployment exists between 8% - 10% when they are in charge.
> 
> Furthermore, this kind of ignorant thinking (fuck success - tax the shit out of success) is what drives jobs overseas. Then ignorant Dumbocrats stand around scratching their heads and trying to blame outsourcing on Mitt Romney...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did unemployment under Truman/Clinton compare to Reagan/BushI?
> Mental defectives who imagine there's any difference between Republocrap and Democrap really shouldn't be wasting bandwidth.
Click to expand...


Reagan had to clean up the mess Jimmy Carter made.  Bush I was a liberal who foolishly followed Democrat advice and raised taxes thereby causing a recession.  He was as big a moron as any Democrat.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> Quinnj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me the debate is really about the purpose of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it very often comes down to that.  Capitalism or Socialism are economic systems.  Democracies, Representative Republics, Dictatorships, et cetera are systems of government.  I know that may be stating the obvious but sometimes it needs to be said.  The mixed economic system co-exists with various forms of Government.
> 
> Mussolini said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state & corporate power."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The obvious is often a good starting point.*
Click to expand...


Is it obvious? What _is_ obvious is that there is widely disparate disagreement on the topic. It's really the core of the political gulf in the US right now. Here, on a political discussion board, it's the unstated premise of every thread, yet we hardly ever talk about it. We end up wasting a lot of time talking past each other because we're each making unstated assumptions that are, all too often, in fundamental conflict. At that point, the rest of the discussion is waste of time.


----------



## gnarlylove

The purpose of government can be understood in two simple forms. The first is our opinion of it. How do we want government to function? Some think this is crucial without which  discussion becomes trivial and useless.

The second purpose is the actual purpose to which we are not privy (except through leaks). Sure, we can know "official" stances of our government, but what government does and what they say are often opposed. Thus Bradly Manning is serving time in prison for revealing facts about what our government does.

So certainty regarding the purpose of the gov't is not widely discernible since we lack access to the billions of still classified documents. Throughout history and esp. through wikileaks, we have come to know governments are eager to NOT share their genuine purpose. Why is that? I thought governments were established for the people.

So we can engage in the petty philosophical discussion that government's are established to provide citizens basic rights and try to define them even though governments are not historically known for this (hence rebellion in every era). Or we can take time to research what it is that governments tend to have in common across the globe--with the US at the fore of most international decisions. Why is that? Does this secure rights at home? Clearly not with millions out of work and/or homeless. But it does tend to help a certain group (of elites).

From this approach we can put some pieces of the puzzle together and realize what governments are doing that helps and harm groups, nations and the globe. It's from this vantage point that we can understand how to concretely approach the discussion of what governments purpose is.


----------



## gnarlylove

I think we can all agree if each person has a right to speech, we *must* also _enable_ each person the ability to survive (through some agricultural work or otherwise). Currently we guarantee speech for all but are horribly lacking in providing a humanitarian means to survival for certain sectors of the population (the poor and provide scant means for most in the working class). This might demonstrate that the purpose of gov't is not so much to give each citizen, regardless of their background, a fair shot as we like to think but to ensure protection of some other population (the business class and elites).

In my research, the US gov't is engaged in most international affairs primarily to keep other governments' policy in line (e.g. keep Venezuela from imposing tariffs on their natural resources making it harder for US--or more accurately US corporations--to acquire them). Some of the world's greatest atrocities in recent decades have happened in the Congo. I thought US and the UN were watchdogs for this kind of stuff and to help countries in such turmoil. Why has nothing much been done while the US bombs Yemen and spent decades in Iraq? The Congo has corrupt leaders that keep the US business happy with cheap diamond industry etc.. The reason we invaded Iraq was not to liberate the people from Saddam, although this was the official memo. Rather, oil was the main concern. That area of the world is crucial for "critical leverage" over rest of the developed nations, Europe and Asia. So the US was against elections since Iraqis might elect an anti-US parliament that would impose tariffs or prevent US from accessing oil. But when the people of Iraq did not give up and continued to push for elections, the US saw they couldn't fight it and so they claimed to have supported elections all along. Thus we remained there "rebuilding" Iraq and making sure they follow US desires, not to own the oil but to control it.

Given these facts, a discussion about what US should provide to it's citizens seems distant from important matters. Matters that clearly show the US is not established to protect its citizens but to keep the business elite happy, including global corporate capitalism. Thus those in the financial sector have boasted record earnings year after year for decades, regardless of a financial collapse.

From this perspective, no matter the rhetoric, the US will continue to tacitly support the business class without much focus on the dire need of millions of its own citizens. How can such obvious disregard for human life (millions unemployed, 1 in 7 children exp. hunger insecurity, health outcomes are the worst among developed nations etc.) be justified under US government unless the US simply is not around "for the people?"

The purpose of government in the US is to protect and enforce the interests of the elite while seeming to care for its citizens through various underfunded programs.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Wal-Mart profited $15.7B in the last 3 months of 2011 because it pays its workers minimum wage, then couldn't Wal-Mart use some of those $15.7 Billion profits in only 3 months to increase workers' wages and benefits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $15.7 billion was their profit for the entire year.
> On sales of nearly $447 billion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which means Wall-Mart could afford to pay a living wage to its employees:*
> 
> "Wal-Mart paid its top executives and board members $66.7 million last year.
> 
> "The rest of the money has to be split among Wal-Mart's remaining roughly 2.2 million employees. Of those, about 1.4 million work in the U.S.
> 
> "Assume that Wal-Mart spends about 2/3 of that on the salaries of its U.S. employees, because salaries are generally higher here.
> 
> "That leaves $66.6 billion for the U.S. workers, or $47,593.
> 
> "The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 30% of the average U.S. workers' total compensation is spent on benefits.
> 
> "That means the average Wal-Mart employee's take home pay should be $33,315.
> 
> "Wal-Mart doesn't say what its actual average salary is.
> 
> "But Payscale estimated it to be just over $22,000 at the end of last year.
> 
> "The conventional wisdom, of course, is that if Wal-Mart were to hand out raises, its stock would tank. That may not be true. When Google (GOOG) announced a 10% raise for its employees three years ago, the stock dropped a bit but mostly recovered within a year.
> 
> "And Google's stock is 60% higher now than it was before the raise."
> 
> Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
Click to expand...


There is zero possibility that they could give a 50% raise.  Not even close.  

If you drastically raised wages on only US employees, first you are being discriminatory to all the other non-US employees.   You think the people in Canada or the UK, are going to look at a huge company wide pay hike for US Americans only, and not have a big huge problem with that?

They would.   So at the very most, if you confiscated all profits, and divide them up to *ALL* employees (15.7 Billion / 2.2 Million employees)  is about $7,000 a year.  ($3.35/hr). 

However, the guy who wrote that article forgot about taxes.   Between benefits, and additional taxes and fees, the wage that a worker is paid, is actually 20% more than what is on his check.

In other words...  If they gave all $7,000 to each employee, the company would instantly start going broke.

You make $70k but cost your boss $88k - Feb. 28, 2013

A person making only $30,000 a year, is actually costing the company about $44,000.     The other $14,000 is spent on Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Compensation, and of course all the benefits, like health insurance.

So the company can't give the employee $7,000, with incuring $2,000 to $3,000 in additional taxes regulations, and benefits costs, that the now zero profit company, can't pay.

So at the very most, very top possible amount the company could pay to each employee is a whooping $5,000.

Now... when the company needs marketing and advertising to keep customers coming to their stores, where does that money come from?   Well it doesn't come ....... so they don't.... then stores close.... employees enjoying their extra $2/hr check, now are unemployed.

Now... when the company needs to update existing stores, resurface the parking lot, re-tile the floor, or do a refurbish on an old store, where does that money come from?      Well it doesn't come.... so they don't... so customers stop shopping at the dingy in-need-of-updating store, and it closes, and all those employees enjoying their $2/hr raise are unemployed.

Now...  when the company sees another town that could use a new walmart store, where hundreds of people need a steady job with good benefits, where does the money come from to build the store, and hire everyone?      Well it doesn't come.... so they don't build it.....  so hundreds of people who could have jobs, and thousands of customers who could have a great place to shop, never do.

And there are dozens of other examples.  One of the reasons walmart has such quality cheap goods, is because they have invested hundreds of millions into building a distribution system, with regional centers, and low cost suppliers.     All of that required having big money to invest into it.  And by the way, walmart company truck drivers are some of the highest paid truckers on the roads.

Without that, thousands of jobs would not exist, and the stores would not have access to those goods, which are the very reason people shop at walmart stores.   Again, without that money invested in the distribution system, customers stop shopping, the stores close, and all those employees enjoying their $2/hr raise, are now unemployed.

And as a final note....    All of this ignores how all company chains run.  All chain companies, run basically the same way.    The company HQ, is run separately from the individual stores.  Each store, whether it's Subway, or Wendy's, or Walmart.... each individual store is its own business.

Meaning.....  Wendy's Corporate could rake in $1295871892 Trillion dollars......   Doesn't matter to the individual store.     If *YOUR STORE*, does not have the money to pay you a raise... then you can't get a raise.  Doesn't matter how much Corporate has.  Each store is its own business.

When I read that "Walmart made $17 Billion profit!"... that has no bearing whatsoever, on my local Walmart store.

This is how you can have a Wendy's down the street close up and shut down, even while Wendy's Corporate is making record profit.

Similarly, your local Walmart has to make or break, on their own, no matter what corporate does.    Walmart Corporate doesn't feed dying and failing stores with money to keep them open.   If they did that.... they wouldn't have a $17 Billion profit.

This is how the system works.   All of that is why the article is completely wrong.  No, you can't just take all the profits and give them out to the employees in wage increases.    In the short term, they'll enjoy a few bucks more an hour, but in the long term, they'll end up unemployed, earning ZERO.      Not a good trade off.   This is why you can't have the economically illiterate pundits making policy.   You'll ruin this nation, like you ruined Detroit.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> I think we can all agree if each person has a right to speech, we *must* also _enable_ each person the ability to survive (through some agricultural work or otherwise).



No, we've been disagreeing on exactly that issue.

How would you characterize a morally defensible justification for government? What justifies a public institution with the power to wield violence against any who oppose it?


----------



## gnarlylove

I don't get what you are arguing. I can only re-phrase and hope you understand. If people have inalienable anything, they must first exist in order to have them. In order to exist one absolutely must have water and food. Without which nothing matters since no human can exist.

I am not saying the state must provide food at the foot of each person every morning. I am saying they must earn it, like all people did before governments--through gathering, hunting and agriculture. In other words, a means to buy the food being sold--i.e. work. Clearly US ignores this urgent issue by dumping trillions elsewhere. I argue for a work program for every citizen that wants to buy their own food or else provide a sensible plot of land on which to raise a family and sustenance. These do not exist at present.

Bringing violence in is a separate issue that confuses matters. We can discuss that in due time, but talk of rights only make since if a person exists. So before constitutional law, say during the Magna Carta, talk of "rights" simply did not exist. Language is not fixed nor are ideas, though it appears fixed from our short life spans. Either we can update the discussion of rights showing they only make sense if a person is afforded means to exist or we can continue to miss the mark and allow unnecessary real suffering to be institutionalized.

Since we live in a government that talks of rights all the time, I think it's important to identify flaws and point out areas of improvement when human lives are at stake. But I'm assuming government is suppose to serve the people, which is not it's primary function as I tried to show above.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> I don't get what you are arguing.



I'm not necessarily arguing anything currently. I'm trying to find some common ground so we can have a useful discussion. So much of what you talk about is irrelevant to me because it's entirely outside the bounds of what I consider to be the purpose and scope of government. I don't think we create government to get us food, or otherwise 'take care of us'. We can do that without police and a military.

That's why I'm trying to get you to think about why we need a government and what we want it to be responsible for. If it helps, consider it as a thought experiment. Imagine that a group of us have landed on an uninhabited island with the intent of forging a new civilization. Would you propose the creation of a government? Why? What would it be like? What justification would you use in trying to 'sell' the idea to the other settlers?



> Bringing violence in is a separate issue that confuses matters. We can discuss that in due time ...



Well, no. On the contrary, it doesn't confuse matters; it clarifies them. The monopoly on violence is the core trait of the modern conception of government, and I'm asking you to justify that use of violence. If you contend that it's not, if your proposing a government that doesn't use the threat of violence to achieve its ends, I'm all ears. But that would be a radically different kind of government than the currently accepted definition.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quinnj said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it very often comes down to that.  Capitalism or Socialism are economic systems.  Democracies, Representative Republics, Dictatorships, et cetera are systems of government.  I know that may be stating the obvious but sometimes it needs to be said.  The mixed economic system co-exists with various forms of Government.
> 
> Mussolini said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state & corporate power."
> 
> 
> 
> *The obvious is often a good starting point.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it obvious? What _is_ obvious is that there is widely disparate disagreement on the topic. It's really the core of the political gulf in the US right now. Here, on a political discussion board, it's the unstated premise of every thread, yet we hardly ever talk about it. We end up wasting a lot of time talking past each other because we're each making unstated assumptions that are, all too often, in fundamental conflict. At that point, the rest of the discussion is waste of time.
Click to expand...

Possibly we should consider a "Purpose of Government" thread in the Clean Debate Forum?


----------



## gnarlylove

Do you really think there will be no government in your lifetime? I'm asking for an honest assessment, not fantasia.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Bringing violence in is a separate issue that confuses matters. We can discuss that in due time ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no. On the contrary, it doesn't confuse matters; it clarifies them. The monopoly on violence is the core trait of the modern conception of government, and I'm asking you to justify that use of violence. If you contend that it's not, if your proposing a government that doesn't use the threat of violence to achieve its ends, I'm all ears. But that would be a radically different kind of government than the currently accepted definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just oppose to oppose. We both want clear discussion. We can only talk about one thing at a time. We jump back and forth between theoretical discussions and concrete discussions about government. In doing so, we confuse our terms finding ourselves in the mire of equivocation making genuine debate impossible. There is no blaming, but if we aspire to clean, crisp discussion we need to keep our terms and ideas straight. Clearly you won't talk about food coming logically and temporally prior to violence as if violence was more crucial to stamping out that our prime motivation: sustenance. So I will forgo this substantive and concrete discussion in order to address a topic pertinent to your ideology, namely violence.
> 
> You talk most often in the theoretical or hypothetical realm and you so strongly connect government with violent force. You are accurate to connect governments to violence in the *real world* but your insistent connection of violence in theoretical government is just invalid. Naturally you will define governments as the sanctioned force to faciltate mass populations but this is not necessary. It's easy to imagine a hypothetical where government facilitates the lives of its population without waging violent acts against them. Indeed, this would be ideal to me.
> 
> A government's supposed function is to facilitate peoples' lifes (or address problems) that arise from mass populations like water, sanitation, transportation, farming, energy. This is government in theory, a bare bones archetype. Violence does not necessarily enter the picture. (Please hold your tongue about how private sanitation works better than government. We can only effectively communicate by talking about the same thing. Let's focus on government first, then we can discuss what a non-government society looks like).
> 
> You insist violence is categorically wrong but is it? Is jerking my daughter from running across the street justified? Yes. But anyone using force has a tremendous onus and is in most cases not justifiable.
> 
> So you must only be talking about concrete governments then since violence does not apply to theoretical gov'ts per se. So let's remember to keep our discussion with both feet planted firmly in concrete reality. So as I argued, in reality concerns of violence proceed the need of food and water. But since this board is a mix of urgent/present concerns and theoretical discussion I will say violence in our present day should cease immediately until they can be justified, which is unlikely. Would this collapse or devastate the economy? Potentially. So this is a concern, not mine of course and clearly not yours.
> 
> If I may ask, do you not read my long posts or do they get skimmed? I don't care either way, I just want to know for future replies.
Click to expand...


----------



## gnarlylove

"Purpose of Government"  Clean Debate Zone.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no. On the contrary, it doesn't confuse matters; it clarifies them. The monopoly on violence is the core trait of the modern conception of government, and I'm asking you to justify that use of violence. If you contend that it's not, if your proposing a government that doesn't use the threat of violence to achieve its ends, I'm all ears. But that would be a radically different kind of government than the currently accepted definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just oppose to oppose.
Click to expand...


If that's what you believe, then I suppose there's no point in discussing the matter further.



> A government's supposed function is to facilitate peoples' lifes (or address problems) that arise from mass populations like water, sanitation, transportation, farming, energy.



That's what you're supposing. And what I'm questioning, or, 'opposing just to oppose' as you say.



> You insist violence is categorically wrong but is it?



No, I don't. When it's in self-defense, it's reasonable and justified. It's employing violence to bully others for our convenience that I take issue with. 



> So you must only be talking about concrete governments then since violence does not apply to theoretical gov'ts per se. So let's remember to keep our discussion with both feet planted firmly in concrete reality. So as I argued, in reality concerns of violence proceed the need of food and water. But since this board is a mix of urgent/present concerns and theoretical discussion I will say violence in our present day should cease immediately until they can be justified, which is unlikely. Would this collapse or devastate the economy? Potentially. So this is a concern, not mine of course and clearly not yours.



Huh??



> If I may ask, do you not read my long posts or do they get skimmed? I don't care either way, I just want to know for future replies.



I read them, but I confess most of it seems irrelevant, because you're starting with assumptions I disagree with. The details of how government should provide for all of our needs are irrelevant to me (for example) when I don't think government should be in the business of providing for all our needs in the first place. That's why I'm focused in working through the assumptions first. So we're not wasting time talking past each other. If you think that's petty, or a 'distraction', then I guess there's not much point.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just oppose to oppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you believe, then I suppose there's no point in discussing the matter further.
Click to expand...

I admit to having been irked by your accusation of dishonoring slaves. I just didn't expect it from you. I felt it undermined respectable dialogue, but perhaps I am mistaken. You should know by now a main motivation of mine is standing up for any and all oppressed people.



dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> A government's supposed function is to facilitate peoples' lifes (or address problems) that arise from mass populations like water, sanitation, transportation, farming, energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you're supposing. And what I'm questioning, or, 'opposing just to oppose' as you say.
Click to expand...


I can't see a simpler idea of government to which we can agree. Are you inclined to re-define it? If so, I'll just use your definition but at some point we need a _working _definition to proceed.



dblack said:


> No, I don't. When it's in self-defense, it's reasonable and justified. It's employing violence to bully others for our convenience that I take issue with.



No person or gov't has innate justification for bullying another. Although it happens daily, in an ideal world any use of force would be preceded by massive justification. Otherwise, we nip it in the butt. However, I'm well aware US thinks it owns the world and can do what is pleases despite popular opposition at home to bullying. Nor do I think US has the right to bully at home without serious justification, this includes jailing people for nonviolent, "victimless" crimes. To me, this is ignoring democracy for the sake of international and domestic bullying. But the fact is our gov't is far less concerned with democracy than achieving it's narrow interests of dominating the world.

So where do we differ? I certainly don't condone any violence that has not been rigorously justified which is probably 100%.



> So you must only be talking about concrete governments then since violence does not apply to theoretical gov'ts per se. So let's remember to keep our discussion with both feet planted firmly in concrete reality... the rest of this paragraph was not well organized and irrelevant anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh??
Click to expand...


We both want to rid the dialogue of confusion. By agreeing to our terms, we can avoid equivocation. I noticed we both would weave in and out of governments as they exist (concrete) and governments as we wish (hypothetical) and using them interchangeably. Naturally if a government is to exist our hope is that it carries out no unjustified violence ever but this doesn't exist in the real world (yet).

I advocate for a society without government but this is what I wish for but this is not really feasible given my understanding of gov't. What we are stuck with is a pretty foul gov't. Thus discussion that matters should centers around gradually changing gov't since it's probably too powerful to dismantle in a generation. So to keep our dialogue open and free of confusion and equivocation, lets be clear whether we are talking about theoretical government or concrete government. 



> If I may ask, do you not read my long posts or do they get skimmed? I don't care either way, I just want to know for future replies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read them, but I confess most of it seems irrelevant, because you're starting with *assumptions I disagree with*. The details of how government should provide for all of our needs are irrelevant to me (for example) when *I don't think government should be in the business of providing for all our needs in the first place*. That's why I'm focused in working through the assumptions first. So we're not wasting time talking past each other. If you think that's petty, or a 'distraction', then I guess there's not much point.
Click to expand...


I continue to stress access and not providence. You take my proposition to be gov't is suppose to feed clothe and bathe everyone whether they earned it or not. Your crucial concern is whether someone earned it. Right? If yes, I have been agreeing with you post after post on this point that no one should be given sustenance for simply existing in America.

An able bodied person in a gov't like ours with similar resources should be able to provide work to all who seek it, i.e. a means to earn their sustenance. Although many Scandinavian countries more or less do this (unemployment ~3%) the US fails and has the highest rates of homelessness among any developed nation. Having been homeless, few people choose to live chronically homeless and chronically hungry but no one will hire them. Can you please stop disagreeing with a strawman version of my position? If you still disagree with me it's not because I think gov't should just give away food, which you keep repeating. You disagree because you don't think gov't should exist in the first place. But this goes back to my point about interchanging between concrete gov't as it exists and hypothetical gov't as you wish it existed (or rather didn't exist). So let me offer the concrete side of things:

I don't think we should have gov't either but the fact remains we have the US gov't and it isn't going anywhere. So since I care about all human beings (and supposedly you do too) the very real and immediate problem of insufficient opportunities for a large sector of the pop. must be addressed because not only does this improve the lives of individuals allowing them to be productive, but it literally improves society and its function (for a number of reasons, reduction in murder, crime, drug abuse, hunger, illness/disease, even unclutters streets from camping like SF, NY, LA). Charity is not and will not be sufficient nor is the city mission--these things are in full swing now and are doing tons of good but it pales in comparison to the abjection that exists. These people live well below any acceptable standard of living and this population is continuing to grow at unprecedented rates. These are people too who can provide a productive service to society but instead we literally caste them from society. They drain tax payer dollars and city resources by tickets from police for "trespassing" (i.e. sleeping on a sidewalk or being in a park after hours) and other petty survival necessities that I have 18 warrants for--for no contribution to society other than draining its resources.

So if we are concerned with human beings and improving society within the framework we have, we need use gov't to ensure these people can exist without constant food and water insecurity. Even if we aren't concerned with human beings, a society functions better when more people are able to be productive instead of drain city resources. Otherwise I can't help think you prefer an ideological stance over using the means available (gov't) to make people's lives tolerable and improve society by offering jobs so the streets are safer etc etc.. I promise you if you lived homelessly and experienced the contrast of nothingness and regular hunger for months on end all the while the surrounding affluence glares at you in a downtown region, you would drop you anti-gov't ideology and advocate for better conditions for human beings or at least a better society for yourself.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> I don't get what you are arguing. I can only re-phrase and hope you understand. If people have inalienable anything, they must first exist in order to have them. In order to exist one absolutely must have water and food. Without which nothing matters since no human can exist.
> 
> I am not saying the state must provide food at the foot of each person every morning. I am saying they must earn it, like all people did before governments--through gathering, hunting and agriculture. In other words, a means to buy the food being sold--i.e. work. Clearly US ignores this urgent issue by dumping trillions elsewhere. I argue for a work program for every citizen that wants to buy their own food or else provide a sensible plot of land on which to raise a family and sustenance. These do not exist at present.
> 
> Bringing violence in is a separate issue that confuses matters. We can discuss that in due time, but talk of rights only make since if a person exists. So before constitutional law, say during the Magna Carta, talk of "rights" simply did not exist. Language is not fixed nor are ideas, though it appears fixed from our short life spans. Either we can update the discussion of rights showing they only make sense if a person is afforded means to exist or we can continue to miss the mark and allow unnecessary real suffering to be institutionalized.
> 
> Since we live in a government that talks of rights all the time, I think it's important to identify flaws and point out areas of improvement when human lives are at stake. But I'm assuming government is suppose to serve the people, which is not it's primary function as I tried to show above.



You can exist, without government giving you anything.   Hundreds of thousands of people get free food from shelters every day.   So that's not an argument. 

Further, your plan directly involves violence and coercion.   It's not a "separate issue", it's directly tied to it.

I don't support your plan.   If government didn't have the force and coercion, and violence, to force me to pay for it... I wouldn't.      But if you win, and they start make-work programs, can I choose to not fund those programs?   If I refuse to pay the taxes to fund those programs, the government comes and takes my stuff away.   If I try and stop them, they'll shoot me.

Violence and coercion are directly related to your plan, because without them, your plan won't happen.   None of us are going to pay for it, if we are not forced to.

Lastly, your plan ignores how wealth is created.

Wealth is not made by shuffling money around.   Wealth is either created or it is consumed.

When I work at my job, I am building a product.   That product has value to the market place.   That is wealth being created.   Something that was worth less... is now worth more.   Thus wealth and value is created.

During the 1930s make work program, one example was of bricks being moved.... by hand.... across a street.    Then after that shift was done, another group showed up and moved the bricks back to the other side of the street.

What value was being created?  Nothing.   What wealth was created?  None.

But was wealth consumed?   Of course.   The money given to these 'workers' who produced nothing of value, bought stuff and consumed it.  If they bought a car, they drove the car and ruined it.  Or if they bought food they ate it.   In every case, they were consumed wealth, while producing nothing.    Society was poorer because of this program.

That's why the recession, was stretched out into a depression.    The more people you have producing nothing, and consuming wealth, the worse off the country as a whole will be.

And the negative aspects do not end there either.   In order to pay for those projects, the government had to raise taxes on those who created real jobs which growth wealth.    Of course with less money in the hands of those who make wealth and create jobs, fewer of both were made.

If you want to ruin a country, just walk the path of government make work.  Have we learned nothing from the Soviets?  50 Years of economic history, and we're still pushing for country wide destruction through bad policy.


----------



## kucing

A believer, because the economy is so like this


----------



## editec

Yes CAPITALISM guarantees wealth inequity.

_Without doubt._

How can I say this with absolute certainty?

Look at any and every nation where some form of capitalism is practiced.

Of course CIVLIIATION ITSELF ALSO guarantees wealth inequity, too.

How do I know that?

Look at every civilization in history.

_Every one has wealth inequity_


----------



## georgephillip

editec said:


> Yes CAPITALISM guarantees wealth inequity.
> 
> _Without doubt._
> 
> How can I say this with absolute certainty?
> 
> Look at any and every nation where some form of capitalism is practiced.
> 
> Of course CIVLIIATION ITSELF ALSO guarantees wealth inequity, too.
> 
> How do I know that?
> 
> Look at every civilization in history.
> 
> _Every one has wealth inequity_


And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes CAPITALISM guarantees wealth inequity.
> 
> _Without doubt._
> 
> How can I say this with absolute certainty?
> 
> Look at any and every nation where some form of capitalism is practiced.
> 
> Of course CIVLIIATION ITSELF ALSO guarantees wealth inequity, too.
> 
> How do I know that?
> 
> Look at every civilization in history.
> 
> _Every one has wealth inequity_
> 
> 
> 
> And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
> The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
> Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?
Click to expand...


Horseshit.  Marxists keep saying this, but there's no empirical evidence for it.  Name one civilization that has disappeared because of wealth inequality.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> I admit to having been irked by your accusation of dishonoring slaves.



That certainly wasn't meant as a personal comment. I've just always felt the attempt to equate wage-earners with slaves to be insulting to those who were shackled in all-too-real chains. That said, I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that, for hundreds of years, the 'money-masters' have been working to create a debt culture that, in many respects, replaces slavery, and it's repugnant to me. But you continue to see government as the solution to that problem without, in my view, recognizing the ways government is used to maintain it. I see the kind of control and dependency you advocate for directly feeding and contributing to the goals and ambitions of the corporatists.



> I can't see a simpler idea of government to which we can agree. Are you inclined to re-define it? If so, I'll just use your definition but at some point we need a _working _definition to proceed.



In my view the primary purpose of government is to resolve disputes non-violently. I see it as a 'servant' to keep the peace so that we may work together, voluntarily, as a society. I don't want to government to 'manage' society like a business or attempt to push us toward any particular goals. It should be up to individuals and communities to decide their own visions of the good life and pursue them as they will. It's not a decision for government to make and then impose on the unwilling.



> I continue to stress access and not providence. You take my proposition to be gov't is suppose to feed clothe and bathe everyone whether they earned it or not. Your crucial concern is whether someone earned it. Right?



No, this is not my view. I realize it's a common theme among conservatives, which is one reason I don't consider myself a 'conservative', but I'm not concerned with whether people are getting what they 'deserve'. I'm not preoccupied with supporting the 'work ethic', or punishing people who don't live up to my standards of virtuous industry.

My concerns about welfare state dependency are solely with control it represents. Call me paranoid, but I see a pretty consistent effort among ambitious leaders to centralize control of our basic needs. They've got education, for the most part. They're taking over health care. I suspect the food supply will be next. At the risk of going 'Godwin', I find the specter of fascism still lurking. It will continue to be a threat as long as our world is comprised of balkanized nations struggling for dominance. The nations that can organize violence most effectively will 'win', and fascism seems to be the most effective in that regard.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes CAPITALISM guarantees wealth inequity.
> 
> _Without doubt._
> 
> How can I say this with absolute certainty?
> 
> Look at any and every nation where some form of capitalism is practiced.
> 
> Of course CIVLIIATION ITSELF ALSO guarantees wealth inequity, too.
> 
> How do I know that?
> 
> Look at every civilization in history.
> 
> _Every one has wealth inequity_
> 
> 
> 
> And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
> The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
> Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Marxists keep saying this, but there's no empirical evidence for it.  Name one civilization that has disappeared because of wealth inequality.
Click to expand...

Rome.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
> The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
> Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Marxists keep saying this, but there's no empirical evidence for it.  Name one civilization that has disappeared because of wealth inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rome.
Click to expand...


No, Rome collapsed because of massive welfare programs and debasing the currency.  It could no longer afford an effective military because all the government revenue went to bribing the parasite class.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> But you continue to see government as the solution to that problem without, in my view, recognizing the ways government is used to maintain it. I see the kind of control and dependency you advocate for directly feeding and contributing to the goals and ambitions of the corporatists.



I understand your concern. Any bolstering of gov't programs seems to contribute to corporatists dominance. So when I advocate for gov't intervention_ at any point_, even building opportunities, you identify this as further establishing corporate power. If this is your point I don't see it as feeding corporate power. Take for example my point about increasing opportunities. By doing so, it takes away a certain desperation of people who need work but can't find a satisfactory job and so they take anything. This is the basis of wage labor: desperation and you readily accept poor working conditions and pay just so you can provide food for the family.

There are many things the gov't does or rather can do that minimizes elite control and providing work to all who want it is a great way to reduce desperation leading to wage slavery. 



> I can't see a simpler idea of government to which we can agree. Are you inclined to re-define it? If so, I'll just use your definition but at some point we need a _working _definition to proceed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view the primary purpose of government is to resolve disputes non-violently. I see it as a 'servant' to keep the peace so that we may work together, voluntarily, as a society. I don't want to government to 'manage' society like a business or attempt to push us toward any particular goals. It should be up to individuals and communities to decide their own visions of the good life and pursue them as they will. It's not a decision for government to make and then impose on the unwilling.
Click to expand...


That's a fine distinction. I shall keep it in mind.



> I continue to stress access and not providence. You take my proposition to be gov't is suppose to feed clothe and bathe everyone whether they earned it or not. Your crucial concern is whether someone earned it. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, this is not my view. I realize it's a common theme among conservatives, which is one reason I don't consider myself a 'conservative', but I'm not concerned with whether people are getting what they 'deserve'. I'm not preoccupied with supporting the 'work ethic', or punishing people who don't live up to my standards of virtuous industry.
> 
> My concerns about welfare state dependency are solely with control it represents. Call me paranoid, but I see a pretty consistent effort among ambitious leaders to centralize control of our basic needs. They've got education, for the most part. They're taking over health care. I suspect the food supply will be next. At the risk of going 'Godwin', I find the specter of fascism still lurking. It will continue to be a threat as long as our world is comprised of balkanized nations struggling for dominance. The nations that can organize violence most effectively will 'win', and fascism seems to be the most effective in that regard.
Click to expand...


As I understand it, education is being dismantled through defunding and privatized options are springing up all over. Health care is currently engaged in the opposite direction but the insurance companies more so than the gov't are benefiting in that scenario. So health care too supports major corporate interests, just like defunding education does and hence our current situation where public education is in crisis. When you have a private school, the curriculum is exactly as they want. I think you can see what that can lead to--shutting out information at the behest of private owners. I'm not saying this does't happen in the public system, but it is certainly more public and those on the board can be normal people. Hell, my dad knowns friends on the board. In a privatized system, no normal joe like that would be doling out policy. Public education has some semblance of public involvement in the curriculum. Private schools can shut this out completely if they wish. It doesn't take a genius to see how wrong that could go--advertising would abound in all schools and you might take a break during class to hear a commercial. This is brainwashing. This concept is nothing new, see Channel One.

I agree fascism lurks in America and throughout the world. But fascism of the normal person is a partial result from dissatisfaction with the current system. Their answers fascists have are bad but they identify correctly the terrible nature of corporate dominance and America's democratic deficit. America's constant ignoring of democracy while claiming to be democratic is a good way to insight violence against them/us. Since America regularly engages in violent force, many think violence is the only valid response. That is very understandable since the US gov't is dominating every region of the world it wishes despite efforts at home to protest against wars.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you continue to see government as the solution to that problem without, in my view, recognizing the ways government is used to maintain it. I see the kind of control and dependency you advocate for directly feeding and contributing to the goals and ambitions of the corporatists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your concern. Any bolstering of gov't programs seems to contribute to corporatists dominance. So when I advocate for gov't intervention_ at any point_, even building opportunities, you identify this as further establishing corporate power. If this is your point I don't see it as feeding corporate power. Take for example my point about increasing opportunities. By doing so, it takes away a certain desperation of people who need work but can't find a satisfactory job and so they take anything. This is the basis of wage labor: desperation and you readily accept poor working conditions and pay just so you can provide food for the family.
> 
> There are many things the gov't does or rather can do that minimizes elite control and providing work to all who want it is a great way to reduce desperation leading to wage slavery.
Click to expand...


Government doesn't provide "opportunity."  It can only dispense checks.  Government can crate make-work jobs, but the minute the funding dries up, those jobs go away.  There is no career path for make-work jobs.  Expanding the government workforce is not a desirable option, because that just means a greater burden on taxpayers.

Your theory about employment is based on the idea that people appear in the workforce as if they were teleported from an alien planet.  People start working when they are still in school.  They have their entire lives to develop their skills and choose their career paths.   If someone isn't making a decent income by the time he is 25, then he's been very foolish and irresponsible.  Anyone who puts a modicum of effort into improving his income can do so.  When people are "desperate," it's only because they have maladaptive behavior patterns.  They are probably ex felons or women who had children out of wedlock.  The free market isn't to blame.



gnarlylove said:


> As I understand it, education is being dismantled through defunding and privatized options are springing up all over. Health care is currently engaged in the opposite direction but the insurance companies more so than the gov't are benefiting in that scenario. So health care too supports major corporate interests, just like defunding education does and hence our current situation where public education is in crisis. When you have a private school, the curriculum is exactly as they want. I think you can see what that can lead to--shutting out information at the behest of private owners. I'm not saying this does't happen in the public system, but it is certainly more public and those on the board can be normal people. Hell, my dad knowns friends on the board. In a privatized system, no normal joe like that would be doling out policy. Public education has some semblance of public involvement in the curriculum. Private schools can shut this out completely if they wish. It doesn't take a genius to see how wrong that could go--advertising would abound in all schools and you might take a break during class to hear a commercial. This is brainwashing. This concept is nothing new, see Channel One.



Government is spending more money on education than it ever has, so that claim is pure bullshit.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes CAPITALISM guarantees wealth inequity.
> 
> _Without doubt._
> 
> How can I say this with absolute certainty?
> 
> Look at any and every nation where some form of capitalism is practiced.
> 
> Of course CIVLIIATION ITSELF ALSO guarantees wealth inequity, too.
> 
> How do I know that?
> 
> Look at every civilization in history.
> 
> _Every one has wealth inequity_
> 
> 
> 
> And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
> The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
> Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?
Click to expand...




georgephillip said:


> Rome.



Somehow I knew something funny would be said.   And oddly, I even guessed that someone would say Rome.

Rome did not fall from property rights.  In fact, by any rational logic, it was the destruction of property rights that killed off the Roman Republic.

Before falling into a tyranny of the Caesars dictatorship, they were a Republic, much like our own, with an aspect that the rule of law came above the rule of the people.

However, over time the will of the people over government, became stronger, and populist politicians using sway over the mob, increased their personal gain, by handing out gifts from the public treasury.

At one point, the government was broke, and started declaring individual citizens as traitors to Roma, having them killed, and confiscating all their money, property and wealth, to pay for the public hand outs to the masses.

DOES THAT SOUND LIKE CAPITALISM AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TO YOU?!?

Of course not.   It's more like Marxist Socialism, and a push towards "equality".    Of course as one might expect, the wealth business and property owners left Roma in mass, which of course dried up jobs, dried up production, dried up wealth, and Roma became poorer.

Of course once you teach people the way to get free stuff is to riot and mob violence (which is how they got the original hand outs), then guess what the citizens of Roma did when the city started falling into poverty?   They rioted more.   Eventually this led to the dictatorship of the Caesars.

So no, I'm sorry.   Roma is not an example of a country where "property rights killed the country!".  Complete and utter crap.

*However, I want to back up to your previous statement.
"And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity."*

Here's the problem...   Let's even pretend for a moment that what you said was true.    Let's pretend that possibly some countries have disappeared from "inequality". (total crap claim).

Can you name for me a single nation, anywhere in the world, at any time in history or the present, which has grown to G10 levels, or 1st world standards, with zero inequality?

North and South Korea?    Venezuela?   Cuba?  Soviet Russia?   Maoist China vs Hong Kong?    The Philippines?   Vietnam?

Name the country you would claim is the Workers Paradise?

Of course it doesn't exist.   Every country that has advanced and progressed, and grown into a high standard of living, has been a nation of inequality.

Nor can you find a country with poor property rights, that had been successful.    Just look at Haiti.

The property ownership laws in Haiti are so ambiguous and pro-squatters, that when charities went to Haiti specifically to build houses, they ended up building nothing, because they could never nail down who owned the lots.

In fact there were stories of people who fled their homes fearing the Earthquake had made the home unsafe, only to return to find someone living in their home, and they had no legal right to remove them.

This alone prevented the rebuilding of Haiti, because why would you do repairs on a home that you could no longer live in?   Of course the Squatters themselves also had no legal right to the home, and thus they could not repair the home either.

Then some idiot socialists stands around and claims that 'property rights are the problem'?     Can you not see the misery that lack of property rights has created?






Haiti today.

Can Haiti Close Its Tent Camps By 2015?

To this day, nearly 4 years after the Earth quake, there are STILL 150,000 people living in tents.

That's where your anti-property-rights mantra gets you.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> I understand your concern. Any bolstering of gov't programs seems to contribute to corporatists dominance. So when I advocate for gov't intervention_ at any point_, even building opportunities, you identify this as further establishing corporate power. If this is your point I don't see it as feeding corporate power. Take for example my point about increasing opportunities. By doing so, it takes away a certain desperation of people who need work but can't find a satisfactory job and so they take anything. This is the basis of wage labor: desperation and you readily accept poor working conditions and pay just so you can provide food for the family.
> 
> There are many things the gov't does or rather can do that minimizes elite control and providing work to all who want it is a great way to reduce desperation leading to wage slavery.



While that's a nice claim, there's no evidence of that.   I have yet to see a single example anywhere that government intervention has resulted in more opportunities, and TONS of evidence that government intervention inherently by it's very nature, benefits the wealthy elite.



> I continue to stress access and not providence. You take my proposition to be gov't is suppose to feed clothe and bathe everyone whether they earned it or not. Your crucial concern is whether someone earned it. Right?



Government has no ability to grant access.   What exactly do you think they could do?

Do you really want someone "given access" by government, to be a doctor working on you?    Do you really want someone "given access" by government, building your home?

It's not just a matter of "he earned it", as though, that in itself is the answer.   It's also because he worked hard, and learned the skills needed to do that job.    I don't want government mandating that someone has a job, and then have them build me a house that caves in on my family.

AND YOU WOULD NOT EITHER.   See it's really easy to sit there with "high sounding platitudes" about granting access, and yet when it directly effects you, it's not so great.   

Do you really want the mechanic who works on your new car, to be some guy that was 'given access" by government?  Well but he deserves a living wage!   He deserves a chance!

See it real easy to make these moral proclamations, when you are talking about some corporation somewhere.  But when it's *YOU* that has to deal with these people who were just "given access", suddenly, not so cool.



> As I understand it, education is being dismantled through defunding and privatized options are springing up all over.



We spend more on education than any other country in the world.   Many countries around the world, have a more free-market capitalist based system than the US.    I could list you numerous examples, like Finland, or Sweden, Chile even.    The move towards private schools in the US, is exclusively because our public gov-schools SUCK so badly, that people do anything to escape them.


----------



## Kosh

Voting far left is the fastest way to get income inequality.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> Lastly, your plan ignores how wealth is created.
> 
> Wealth is not made by shuffling money around.   Wealth is either created or it is consumed.
> 
> When I work at my job, I am building a product.   That product has value to the market place.   That is wealth being created.   Something that was worth less... is now worth more.   Thus wealth and value is created.
> 
> During the 1930s make work program, one example was of bricks being moved.... by hand.... across a street.    Then after that shift was done, another group showed up and moved the bricks back to the other side of the street.
> 
> What value was being created?  Nothing.   What wealth was created?  None.
> 
> But was wealth consumed?   Of course.   The money given to these 'workers' who produced nothing of value, bought stuff and consumed it.  If they bought a car, they drove the car and ruined it.  Or if they bought food they ate it.   In every case, they were consumed wealth, while producing nothing.    Society was poorer because of this program.
> 
> That's why the recession, was stretched out into a depression.    The more people you have producing nothing, and consuming wealth, the worse off the country as a whole will be.
> 
> And the negative aspects do not end there either.   In order to pay for those projects, the government had to raise taxes on those who created real jobs which growth wealth.    Of course with less money in the hands of those who make wealth and create jobs, fewer of both were made.
> 
> If you want to ruin a country, just walk the path of government make work.  Have we learned nothing from the Soviets?  50 Years of economic history, and we're still pushing for country wide destruction through bad policy.



I recall you saying that financial institutions were helpful or beneficial. I called them insidious or at least having low social utility. Well, I found out in economics why I'm right. I was open to the possibility of them being useful. Their use is to the detriment of billions and billions of people like you and me. Here it is,

"In 1984 James Tobin, a former member of Kennedy&#8217;s Council of Economic Advisers and winner of the Nobel Prize in economics in 1981, delivered a talk &#8220;On the Efficiency of the Financial System&#8221; in which he concluded by referring to &#8220;the casino aspect of our financial markets.&#8221; As Tobin told his audience:

I confess to an uneasy Physiocratic suspicion&#8230;that we are throwing more and more of our resources&#8230;into financial activities remote from the production of goods and services, into activities that generate high private rewards disproportionate to their social productivity. I suspect that the immense power of the computer is being harnessed to this &#8216;paper economy,&#8217; not to do the same transactions more economically but to balloon the quantity and variety of financial exchanges. For this reason perhaps, high technology has so far yielded disappointing results in economy-wide productivity. I fear that, as Keynes saw even in his day, the advantages of the liquidity and negotiability of financial instruments come at the cost of facilitating nth-degree speculation which is short-sighted and inefficient&#8230;.I suspect that Keynes was right to suggest that we should provide greater deterrents to transient holdings of financial instruments and larger rewards for long-term investors.8

Tobin&#8217;s point was that capitalism was becoming inefficient by devoting its surplus capital increasingly to speculative, casino-like pursuits, rather than long-term investment *in the real economy*." [emp. added]

'The whole context is that of a financialization so out of control that unexpected and severe shocks to the system and resulting financial contagions are looked upon as inevitable.  As historian Gabriel Kolko has written, &#8220;People who know the most about the world financial system are increasingly worried, and for very good reasons. Dire warnings are coming from the most &#8216;respectable&#8217; sources. Reality has gotten out of hand. The demons of greed are loose.&#8221;'
The Financialization of Capitalism :: Monthly Review


----------



## jasonnfree

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
> The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
> Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Marxists keep saying this, but there's no empirical evidence for it.  Name one civilization that has disappeared because of wealth inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rome.
Click to expand...


The French Monarchy and  Czarist Russia.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, your plan ignores how wealth is created.
> 
> Wealth is not made by shuffling money around.   Wealth is either created or it is consumed.
> 
> When I work at my job, I am building a product.   That product has value to the market place.   That is wealth being created.   Something that was worth less... is now worth more.   Thus wealth and value is created.
> 
> During the 1930s make work program, one example was of bricks being moved.... by hand.... across a street.    Then after that shift was done, another group showed up and moved the bricks back to the other side of the street.
> 
> What value was being created?  Nothing.   What wealth was created?  None.
> 
> But was wealth consumed?   Of course.   The money given to these 'workers' who produced nothing of value, bought stuff and consumed it.  If they bought a car, they drove the car and ruined it.  Or if they bought food they ate it.   In every case, they were consumed wealth, while producing nothing.    Society was poorer because of this program.
> 
> That's why the recession, was stretched out into a depression.    The more people you have producing nothing, and consuming wealth, the worse off the country as a whole will be.
> 
> And the negative aspects do not end there either.   In order to pay for those projects, the government had to raise taxes on those who created real jobs which growth wealth.    Of course with less money in the hands of those who make wealth and create jobs, fewer of both were made.
> 
> If you want to ruin a country, just walk the path of government make work.  Have we learned nothing from the Soviets?  50 Years of economic history, and we're still pushing for country wide destruction through bad policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recall you saying that financial institutions were helpful or beneficial. I called them insidious or at least having low social utility. Well, I found out in economics why I'm right. I was open to the possibility of them being useful. Their use is to the detriment of billions and billions of people like you and me. Here it is,
> 
> "In 1984 James Tobin, a former member of Kennedy&#8217;s Council of Economic Advisers and winner of the Nobel Prize in economics in 1981, delivered a talk &#8220;On the Efficiency of the Financial System&#8221; in which he concluded by referring to &#8220;the casino aspect of our financial markets.&#8221; As Tobin told his audience:
> 
> I confess to an uneasy Physiocratic suspicion&#8230;that we are throwing more and more of our resources&#8230;into financial activities remote from the production of goods and services, into activities that generate high private rewards disproportionate to their social productivity. I suspect that the immense power of the computer is being harnessed to this &#8216;paper economy,&#8217; not to do the same transactions more economically but to balloon the quantity and variety of financial exchanges. For this reason perhaps, high technology has so far yielded disappointing results in economy-wide productivity. I fear that, as Keynes saw even in his day, the advantages of the liquidity and negotiability of financial instruments come at the cost of facilitating nth-degree speculation which is short-sighted and inefficient&#8230;.I suspect that Keynes was right to suggest that we should provide greater deterrents to transient holdings of financial instruments and larger rewards for long-term investors.8
> 
> Tobin&#8217;s point was that capitalism was becoming inefficient by devoting its surplus capital increasingly to speculative, casino-like pursuits, rather than long-term investment *in the real economy*." [emp. added]
> 
> 'The whole context is that of a financialization so out of control that unexpected and severe shocks to the system and resulting financial contagions are looked upon as inevitable.  As historian Gabriel Kolko has written, &#8220;People who know the most about the world financial system are increasingly worried, and for very good reasons. Dire warnings are coming from the most &#8216;respectable&#8217; sources. Reality has gotten out of hand. The demons of greed are loose.&#8221;'
> The Financialization of Capitalism :: Monthly Review
Click to expand...


But it's just not true.    Yeah he said that, and yeah he predicted that, but it's simply not true.  It didn't happen.    The big disaster didn't occur, and hasn't occurred.

At the very start, he doesn't understand the markets at all, if he thinks it's like a casino.    It's not like a casino, unless you play it like one.

I've held stocks for years.   When the stock market went down, I made money.   When the stock market went up, I made money.

I know a guy that invests in realestate.   When the realestate market crashed, he made money.   When it rebounded, he made money.

The only time these investments are a gamble, is if you invest like a gamble.   If you are trying to buy something for $5 today, and sell it for $50 tomorrow, when you have no idea what the price will do between then and now.... then yes, you are gambling, and then it is a casino.

But that's a choice of the individual, not a systemic aspect of the system.  That guy is wrong.

The people who didn't touch their investments during the 2008 were more wealth than they started, by 2011.

Similarly the people in 2001 who left their money where it was, gained it all back plus more, by 2004.

How can that be?   Because those companies are still paying out dividends during the down time.

If I have 10 stocks, paying out $1 dividends, and the stock price falls from $50 to $10, I am now buying another share in the company with each dividend payment.    The number of shares I own grows faster when the stocks are on sale.

People are pulling their money out of the market, when shares are on sale, and their portfolio would be growing the fastest.

This is why the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.   When everyone else was trying to pull their money out of the market, I as dumping in as much money as I could.

When everyone else was trying to sell off these properties that were dropping in value, this other guy was buying them all up at bargain prices.

It's not a casino, not a gamble, if you are not playing it like a gamble.   It's only a gamble when you are trying to time the market, or jumping in and out of houses to flip.   That's a gamble.  That's when you screw up and ruin your life.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Marxists keep saying this, but there's no empirical evidence for it.  Name one civilization that has disappeared because of wealth inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Rome collapsed because of massive welfare programs and debasing the currency.  It could no longer afford an effective military because all the government revenue went to bribing the parasite class.
Click to expand...

Who got rich(er) from debasing the currency, bankers, oligarchs, or poor parasites?


----------



## bripat9643

jasonnfree said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Marxists keep saying this, but there's no empirical evidence for it.  Name one civilization that has disappeared because of wealth inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The French Monarchy and  Czarist Russia.
Click to expand...


Those aren't really civilizations, and the claim that they fell because of wealth inequality has no tangible means of support.  It's purely an opinion supported by left-wing ideology.  The French Monarchy and the Romanov dynasty fell because of political agitation by a group of hardened ideologues.  It was nothing more than that.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Rome collapsed because of massive welfare programs and debasing the currency.  It could no longer afford an effective military because all the government revenue went to bribing the parasite class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who got rich(er) from debasing the currency, bankers, oligarchs, or poor parasites?
Click to expand...


The government and its favored constituencies are the only parties that gain from debasing the currency.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes CAPITALISM guarantees wealth inequity.
> 
> _Without doubt._
> 
> How can I say this with absolute certainty?
> 
> Look at any and every nation where some form of capitalism is practiced.
> 
> Of course CIVLIIATION ITSELF ALSO guarantees wealth inequity, too.
> 
> How do I know that?
> 
> Look at every civilization in history.
> 
> _Every one has wealth inequity_
> 
> 
> 
> And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
> The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
> Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somehow I knew something funny would be said.   And oddly, I even guessed that someone would say Rome.
> 
> Rome did not fall from property rights.  In fact, by any rational logic, it was the destruction of property rights that killed off the Roman Republic.
> 
> Before falling into a tyranny of the Caesars dictatorship, they were a Republic, much like our own, with an aspect that the rule of law came above the rule of the people.
> 
> However, over time the will of the people over government, became stronger, and populist politicians using sway over the mob, increased their personal gain, by handing out gifts from the public treasury.
> 
> At one point, the government was broke, and started declaring individual citizens as traitors to Roma, having them killed, and confiscating all their money, property and wealth, to pay for the public hand outs to the masses.
> 
> DOES THAT SOUND LIKE CAPITALISM AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TO YOU?!?
> 
> Of course not.   It's more like Marxist Socialism, and a push towards "equality".    Of course as one might expect, the wealth business and property owners left Roma in mass, which of course dried up jobs, dried up production, dried up wealth, and Roma became poorer.
> 
> Of course once you teach people the way to get free stuff is to riot and mob violence (which is how they got the original hand outs), then guess what the citizens of Roma did when the city started falling into poverty?   They rioted more.   Eventually this led to the dictatorship of the Caesars.
> 
> So no, I'm sorry.   Roma is not an example of a country where "property rights killed the country!".  Complete and utter crap.
> 
> *However, I want to back up to your previous statement.
> "And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity."*
> 
> Here's the problem...   Let's even pretend for a moment that what you said was true.    Let's pretend that possibly some countries have disappeared from "inequality". (total crap claim).
> 
> Can you name for me a single nation, anywhere in the world, at any time in history or the present, which has grown to G10 levels, or 1st world standards, with zero inequality?
> 
> North and South Korea?    Venezuela?   Cuba?  Soviet Russia?   Maoist China vs Hong Kong?    The Philippines?   Vietnam?
> 
> Name the country you would claim is the Workers Paradise?
> 
> Of course it doesn't exist.   Every country that has advanced and progressed, and grown into a high standard of living, has been a nation of inequality.
> 
> Nor can you find a country with poor property rights, that had been successful.    Just look at Haiti.
> 
> The property ownership laws in Haiti are so ambiguous and pro-squatters, that when charities went to Haiti specifically to build houses, they ended up building nothing, because they could never nail down who owned the lots.
> 
> In fact there were stories of people who fled their homes fearing the Earthquake had made the home unsafe, only to return to find someone living in their home, and they had no legal right to remove them.
> 
> This alone prevented the rebuilding of Haiti, because why would you do repairs on a home that you could no longer live in?   Of course the Squatters themselves also had no legal right to the home, and thus they could not repair the home either.
> 
> Then some idiot socialists stands around and claims that 'property rights are the problem'?     Can you not see the misery that lack of property rights has created?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haiti today.
> 
> Can Haiti Close Its Tent Camps By 2015?
> 
> To this day, nearly 4 years after the Earth quake, there are STILL 150,000 people living in tents.
> 
> That's where your anti-property-rights mantra gets you.
Click to expand...

*You appear to be sadly ignorant of how elites in the US have plundered the property rights of Haitians ever since the first (and only) successful slave revolt in human history:*

"What has become of Haiti and the Haitian people since the earthquake of 12 January 2010? It is three years since the catastrophic earthquake that killed over 300,000 Haitian people in 35 seconds; followed by the devastating loss of more than 7,800 people who have died of cholera due to UN Nepalese troops stationed in northern Haiti since October 2010. 

"More than 93,000 people have become ill and some 7,500 have died from the disease. [1] The tail end of hurricane Sandy in the winter of 2012 took a further 54 lives. The last two tragedies failed to get massive Western media attention as the earthquake did in January 2010. 

"Has the world forgotten Haiti? 

"Is the world immune to the suffering of the Haitian people?"

"Africa cannot forget this island that is intrinsically part of Pan-Africa, nor its courageous people who established the worlds first black republic in 1804 under Jacque Dessalines; defiantly abolished slavery and as a consequence the United States refused to recognise this sovereign nation until 58 years later; paid a financial indemnity to its former French overlords of 150 million francs as compensation for Frances losses in slaves. 

"Haiti continues to suffer and pay for the crime of defying its former colonial masters and its new imperial masters in the form of the US, Canada and the UN. Haitis suffering remains on an incalculable human level."

Haiti: Capitalist Plunder and Empty Promises | Black Agenda Report

*Since US Capitalism took root in an economic environment when "property rights" extended to owning another human being, anyone who hasn't been ingesting corporate kool-aid all their lives can plainly see how inequality was fundamental to Haitian poverty.*


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Rome collapsed because of massive welfare programs and debasing the currency.  It could no longer afford an effective military because all the government revenue went to bribing the parasite class.
> 
> 
> 
> Who got rich(er) from debasing the currency, bankers, oligarchs, or poor parasites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government and its favored constituencies are the only parties that gain from debasing the currency.
Click to expand...

The government of Rome was controlled by rich parasites.


----------



## georgephillip

jasonnfree said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Marxists keep saying this, but there's no empirical evidence for it.  Name one civilization that has disappeared because of wealth inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The French Monarchy and  Czarist Russia.
Click to expand...

*And corporate America:*

"America has achieved the distinction of becoming the country with the highest level of income inequality among the advanced countries. 

"While there is no single number that can depict all aspects of societys inequality, matters have become worse in every dimension: more money goes to the top (more than a fifth of all income goes to the top 1%), more people are in poverty at the bottom, and the middle classlong the core strength of our societyhas seen its income stagnate. 

"Median household income, adjusted for inflation, today is lower than it was in 1989, a quarter century ago.[1] An economy in which most citizens see no progress, year after year, is an economy that is failing to perform in the way it should. 

"Indeed, there is a vicious circle: our high inequality is one of the major contributing factors to our weak economy and our low growth."

Why Inequality Matters and What Can Be Done About It


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Rome collapsed because of massive welfare programs and debasing the currency.  It could no longer afford an effective military because all the government revenue went to bribing the parasite class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who got rich(er) from debasing the currency, bankers, oligarchs, or poor parasites?
Click to expand...


I don't see any evidence that debasing the currency made bankers and oligarchs more rich.      Now it's true they did get rich, while the currency was being debased.

But correlation does not equal causation.   The fact A is true, and B is true, doesn't mean A caused B.

There's a difference.

Now if you can explicitly tell me, specifically how the debasing of currency caused the wealthy to become more wealthy, by all means do so.

But my reading is that the wealthy simply moved their investments and wealth, into other currency that wasn't being debased, and into investments outside of the economic system.

That doesn't mean debasing the currency directly caused them to be more wealthy, only that capital has the ability to move, while the poor do not have the ability to move.

And we see that today.   In France, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of France to avoid the taxes.    The result was the poor were screwed.

In Venezuela, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of Venezuela to avoid the debasing and taxes, and confiscation of the government.   The poor were screwed.

The wealthy didn't get more wealthy because of the policies directly.  They got wealthy by avoiding those policies, while the poor people can't.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
> The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
> Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somehow I knew something funny would be said.   And oddly, I even guessed that someone would say Rome.
> 
> Rome did not fall from property rights.  In fact, by any rational logic, it was the destruction of property rights that killed off the Roman Republic.
> 
> Before falling into a tyranny of the Caesars dictatorship, they were a Republic, much like our own, with an aspect that the rule of law came above the rule of the people.
> 
> However, over time the will of the people over government, became stronger, and populist politicians using sway over the mob, increased their personal gain, by handing out gifts from the public treasury.
> 
> At one point, the government was broke, and started declaring individual citizens as traitors to Roma, having them killed, and confiscating all their money, property and wealth, to pay for the public hand outs to the masses.
> 
> DOES THAT SOUND LIKE CAPITALISM AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TO YOU?!?
> 
> Of course not.   It's more like Marxist Socialism, and a push towards "equality".    Of course as one might expect, the wealth business and property owners left Roma in mass, which of course dried up jobs, dried up production, dried up wealth, and Roma became poorer.
> 
> Of course once you teach people the way to get free stuff is to riot and mob violence (which is how they got the original hand outs), then guess what the citizens of Roma did when the city started falling into poverty?   They rioted more.   Eventually this led to the dictatorship of the Caesars.
> 
> So no, I'm sorry.   Roma is not an example of a country where "property rights killed the country!".  Complete and utter crap.
> 
> *However, I want to back up to your previous statement.
> "And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity."*
> 
> Here's the problem...   Let's even pretend for a moment that what you said was true.    Let's pretend that possibly some countries have disappeared from "inequality". (total crap claim).
> 
> Can you name for me a single nation, anywhere in the world, at any time in history or the present, which has grown to G10 levels, or 1st world standards, with zero inequality?
> 
> North and South Korea?    Venezuela?   Cuba?  Soviet Russia?   Maoist China vs Hong Kong?    The Philippines?   Vietnam?
> 
> Name the country you would claim is the Workers Paradise?
> 
> Of course it doesn't exist.   Every country that has advanced and progressed, and grown into a high standard of living, has been a nation of inequality.
> 
> Nor can you find a country with poor property rights, that had been successful.    Just look at Haiti.
> 
> The property ownership laws in Haiti are so ambiguous and pro-squatters, that when charities went to Haiti specifically to build houses, they ended up building nothing, because they could never nail down who owned the lots.
> 
> In fact there were stories of people who fled their homes fearing the Earthquake had made the home unsafe, only to return to find someone living in their home, and they had no legal right to remove them.
> 
> This alone prevented the rebuilding of Haiti, because why would you do repairs on a home that you could no longer live in?   Of course the Squatters themselves also had no legal right to the home, and thus they could not repair the home either.
> 
> Then some idiot socialists stands around and claims that 'property rights are the problem'?     Can you not see the misery that lack of property rights has created?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haiti today.
> 
> Can Haiti Close Its Tent Camps By 2015?
> 
> To this day, nearly 4 years after the Earth quake, there are STILL 150,000 people living in tents.
> 
> That's where your anti-property-rights mantra gets you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You appear to be sadly ignorant of how elites in the US have plundered the property rights of Haitians ever since the first (and only) successful slave revolt in human history:*
> 
> "What has become of Haiti and the Haitian people since the earthquake of 12 January 2010? It is three years since the catastrophic earthquake that killed over 300,000 Haitian people in 35 seconds; followed by the devastating loss of more than 7,800 people who have died of cholera due to UN Nepalese troops stationed in northern Haiti since October 2010.
> 
> "More than 93,000 people have become ill and some 7,500 have died from the disease. [1] The tail end of hurricane Sandy in the winter of 2012 took a further 54 lives. The last two tragedies failed to get massive Western media attention as the earthquake did in January 2010.
> 
> "Has the world forgotten Haiti?
> 
> "Is the world immune to the suffering of the Haitian people?"
> 
> "Africa cannot forget this island that is intrinsically part of Pan-Africa, nor its courageous people who established the worlds first black republic in 1804 under Jacque Dessalines; defiantly abolished slavery and as a consequence the United States refused to recognise this sovereign nation until 58 years later; paid a financial indemnity to its former French overlords of 150 million francs as compensation for Frances losses in slaves.
> 
> "Haiti continues to suffer and pay for the crime of defying its former colonial masters and its new imperial masters in the form of the US, Canada and the UN. Haitis suffering remains on an incalculable human level."
> 
> Haiti: Capitalist Plunder and Empty Promises | Black Agenda Report
> 
> *Since US Capitalism took root in an economic environment when "property rights" extended to owning another human being, anyone who hasn't been ingesting corporate kool-aid all their lives can plainly see how inequality was fundamental to Haitian poverty.*
Click to expand...


Which ignores the fact that we have no control over their policies now, anymore than we do in the Dominican Republic. 

The DR have strong property rights, and because of that everyone is more wealthy.    Haiti does not, and because of that everyone is more poor and impoverished.

It's pretty pathetic that your only excuse for what Haiti is worse of, is because of slavery decades ago.    Then explain DR?    Slavery was abolished in Haiti, before it was abolished in DR.

Further, the evil US occupied DR in 1916, and in 1965.   After the 1965 operation, civilians wrote "yankees come back", indicating their support of us being there.

Now compare the DR to Haiti today?   Why is DR doing so well, and the other doing so badly it has masses of people flooding across the boarder every day to work in jobs in DR?   

See all your blaw blaw blaw, and all these links to intellectual idiots, can't change the facts.    DR is doing many times better than Haiti, and it all stems from the economic socialist policies that Haiti has.  The lack of property rights.  The nationalization of property and business.

Meanwhile the evil capitalist based DR, with it's pro-personal-property rights, and pro-business pro-corporation based policies, is doing far far better, and everyone in the DR, from the richest to the poorest, is doing far better than those in Haiti.  Nothing you said changes that.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow I knew something funny would be said.   And oddly, I even guessed that someone would say Rome.
> 
> Rome did not fall from property rights.  In fact, by any rational logic, it was the destruction of property rights that killed off the Roman Republic.
> 
> Before falling into a tyranny of the Caesars dictatorship, they were a Republic, much like our own, with an aspect that the rule of law came above the rule of the people.
> 
> However, over time the will of the people over government, became stronger, and populist politicians using sway over the mob, increased their personal gain, by handing out gifts from the public treasury.
> 
> At one point, the government was broke, and started declaring individual citizens as traitors to Roma, having them killed, and confiscating all their money, property and wealth, to pay for the public hand outs to the masses.
> 
> DOES THAT SOUND LIKE CAPITALISM AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TO YOU?!?
> 
> Of course not.   It's more like Marxist Socialism, and a push towards "equality".    Of course as one might expect, the wealth business and property owners left Roma in mass, which of course dried up jobs, dried up production, dried up wealth, and Roma became poorer.
> 
> Of course once you teach people the way to get free stuff is to riot and mob violence (which is how they got the original hand outs), then guess what the citizens of Roma did when the city started falling into poverty?   They rioted more.   Eventually this led to the dictatorship of the Caesars.
> 
> So no, I'm sorry.   Roma is not an example of a country where "property rights killed the country!".  Complete and utter crap.
> 
> *However, I want to back up to your previous statement.
> "And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity."*
> 
> Here's the problem...   Let's even pretend for a moment that what you said was true.    Let's pretend that possibly some countries have disappeared from "inequality". (total crap claim).
> 
> Can you name for me a single nation, anywhere in the world, at any time in history or the present, which has grown to G10 levels, or 1st world standards, with zero inequality?
> 
> North and South Korea?    Venezuela?   Cuba?  Soviet Russia?   Maoist China vs Hong Kong?    The Philippines?   Vietnam?
> 
> Name the country you would claim is the Workers Paradise?
> 
> Of course it doesn't exist.   Every country that has advanced and progressed, and grown into a high standard of living, has been a nation of inequality.
> 
> Nor can you find a country with poor property rights, that had been successful.    Just look at Haiti.
> 
> The property ownership laws in Haiti are so ambiguous and pro-squatters, that when charities went to Haiti specifically to build houses, they ended up building nothing, because they could never nail down who owned the lots.
> 
> In fact there were stories of people who fled their homes fearing the Earthquake had made the home unsafe, only to return to find someone living in their home, and they had no legal right to remove them.
> 
> This alone prevented the rebuilding of Haiti, because why would you do repairs on a home that you could no longer live in?   Of course the Squatters themselves also had no legal right to the home, and thus they could not repair the home either.
> 
> Then some idiot socialists stands around and claims that 'property rights are the problem'?     Can you not see the misery that lack of property rights has created?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haiti today.
> 
> Can Haiti Close Its Tent Camps By 2015?
> 
> To this day, nearly 4 years after the Earth quake, there are STILL 150,000 people living in tents.
> 
> That's where your anti-property-rights mantra gets you.
> 
> 
> 
> *You appear to be sadly ignorant of how elites in the US have plundered the property rights of Haitians ever since the first (and only) successful slave revolt in human history:*
> 
> "What has become of Haiti and the Haitian people since the earthquake of 12 January 2010? It is three years since the catastrophic earthquake that killed over 300,000 Haitian people in 35 seconds; followed by the devastating loss of more than 7,800 people who have died of cholera due to UN Nepalese troops stationed in northern Haiti since October 2010.
> 
> "More than 93,000 people have become ill and some 7,500 have died from the disease. [1] The tail end of hurricane Sandy in the winter of 2012 took a further 54 lives. The last two tragedies failed to get massive Western media attention as the earthquake did in January 2010.
> 
> "Has the world forgotten Haiti?
> 
> "Is the world immune to the suffering of the Haitian people?"
> 
> "Africa cannot forget this island that is intrinsically part of Pan-Africa, nor its courageous people who established the worlds first black republic in 1804 under Jacque Dessalines; defiantly abolished slavery and as a consequence the United States refused to recognise this sovereign nation until 58 years later; paid a financial indemnity to its former French overlords of 150 million francs as compensation for Frances losses in slaves.
> 
> "Haiti continues to suffer and pay for the crime of defying its former colonial masters and its new imperial masters in the form of the US, Canada and the UN. Haitis suffering remains on an incalculable human level."
> 
> Haiti: Capitalist Plunder and Empty Promises | Black Agenda Report
> 
> *Since US Capitalism took root in an economic environment when "property rights" extended to owning another human being, anyone who hasn't been ingesting corporate kool-aid all their lives can plainly see how inequality was fundamental to Haitian poverty.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ignores the fact that we have no control over their policies now, anymore than we do in the Dominican Republic.
> 
> The DR have strong property rights, and because of that everyone is more wealthy.    Haiti does not, and because of that everyone is more poor and impoverished.
> 
> It's pretty pathetic that your only excuse for what Haiti is worse of, is because of slavery decades ago.    Then explain DR?    Slavery was abolished in Haiti, before it was abolished in DR.
> 
> Further, the evil US occupied DR in 1916, and in 1965.   After the 1965 operation, civilians wrote "yankees come back", indicating their support of us being there.
> 
> Now compare the DR to Haiti today?   Why is DR doing so well, and the other doing so badly it has masses of people flooding across the boarder every day to work in jobs in DR?
> 
> See all your blaw blaw blaw, and all these links to intellectual idiots, can't change the facts.    DR is doing many times better than Haiti, and it all stems from the economic socialist policies that Haiti has.  The lack of property rights.  The nationalization of property and business.
> 
> Meanwhile the evil capitalist based DR, with it's pro-personal-property rights, and pro-business pro-corporation based policies, is doing far far better, and everyone in the DR, from the richest to the poorest, is doing far better than those in Haiti.  Nothing you said changes that.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea the US has no control over the policies of Haiti?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Rome collapsed because of massive welfare programs and debasing the currency.  It could no longer afford an effective military because all the government revenue went to bribing the parasite class.
> 
> 
> 
> Who got rich(er) from debasing the currency, bankers, oligarchs, or poor parasites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see any evidence that debasing the currency made bankers and oligarchs more rich.      Now it's true they did get rich, while the currency was being debased.
> 
> But correlation does not equal causation.   The fact A is true, and B is true, doesn't mean A caused B.
> 
> There's a difference.
> 
> Now if you can explicitly tell me, specifically how the debasing of currency caused the wealthy to become more wealthy, by all means do so.
> 
> But my reading is that the wealthy simply moved their investments and wealth, into other currency that wasn't being debased, and into investments outside of the economic system.
> 
> That doesn't mean debasing the currency directly caused them to be more wealthy, only that capital has the ability to move, while the poor do not have the ability to move.
> 
> And we see that today.   In France, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of France to avoid the taxes.    The result was the poor were screwed.
> 
> In Venezuela, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of Venezuela to avoid the debasing and taxes, and confiscation of the government.   The poor were screwed.
> 
> The wealthy didn't get more wealthy because of the policies directly.  They got wealthy by avoiding those policies, while the poor people can't.
Click to expand...

I never said debasing the currency was the only reason rich Romans prospered at the expense of the poor. Debasing contributed to inflation; once Rome stopped conquering new lands, gold imports decreased, the rich continued spending gold on luxury items, and the amount of gold used in coins decreased. Obviously, the urban decay and unemployment in Rome stemming from slavery contributed to its decline; however, all of those evils trace back to the early formations of vast, private fortunes. Similarly, large private fortunes in France and Venezuela today are trying to flee their histories of wage slavery.

The rich are the problem.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The French Monarchy and  Czarist Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't really civilizations, and the claim that they fell because of wealth inequality has no tangible means of support.  It's purely an opinion supported by left-wing ideology.  The French Monarchy and the Romanov dynasty fell because of political agitation by a group of hardened ideologues.  It was nothing more than that.
Click to expand...

"America&#8217;s new &#8216;economic guillotine&#8217; is dead ahead. 

Wealth report on inequality calls to mind French Revolution

"Credit Suisse&#8217;s new Global Wealth Report reminds us of the 1790s when inequality ignited the French Revolution and 40,000 met the guillotine. 

"Today, Credit Suisse data reveal that just 1% own 46% of the world, while two-thirds of the world&#8217;s people have less than $10,000 wealth.

"Credit Suisse predicts a world with 11 trillionaires in a couple generations, as the rich get richer and the gap widens.

"Can this trend continue? Or will it trigger an 'economic guillotine?' 

"Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, author of 'The Price of Inequality,' is not as optimistic as Credit Suisse: 'America likes to think of itself as a land of opportunity.' 

"But today the 'numbers show that the American dream is a myth &#8230; the gap&#8217;s widening &#8230; the clear trend is one of concentration of income and wealth at the top, the hollowing out of the middle, and increasing poverty at the bottom.'&#8221;

*France and Russia weren't civilizations?
What were they?*

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-wealth-and-inequality-towards-a-world-of-super-rich-trillionaires-amidst-mounting-poverty/5354454


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> *Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality
> *


*


Socialism  Guarantees equal  misery.

.*


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Socialism  Guarantees equal  misery.
> 
> .*
Click to expand...

*
Socialism guarantees shelter, employment, and medical care as human rights.
Capitalists believe they are commodities, available only to those who can afford to buy them.*


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who got rich(er) from debasing the currency, bankers, oligarchs, or poor parasites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any evidence that debasing the currency made bankers and oligarchs more rich.      Now it's true they did get rich, while the currency was being debased.
> 
> But correlation does not equal causation.   The fact A is true, and B is true, doesn't mean A caused B.
> 
> There's a difference.
> 
> Now if you can explicitly tell me, specifically how the debasing of currency caused the wealthy to become more wealthy, by all means do so.
> 
> But my reading is that the wealthy simply moved their investments and wealth, into other currency that wasn't being debased, and into investments outside of the economic system.
> 
> That doesn't mean debasing the currency directly caused them to be more wealthy, only that capital has the ability to move, while the poor do not have the ability to move.
> 
> And we see that today.   In France, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of France to avoid the taxes.    The result was the poor were screwed.
> 
> In Venezuela, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of Venezuela to avoid the debasing and taxes, and confiscation of the government.   The poor were screwed.
> 
> The wealthy didn't get more wealthy because of the policies directly.  They got wealthy by avoiding those policies, while the poor people can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said debasing the currency was the only reason rich Romans prospered at the expense of the poor. Debasing contributed to inflation; once Rome stopped conquering new lands, gold imports decreased, the rich continued spending gold on luxury items, and the amount of gold used in coins decreased. Obviously, the urban decay and unemployment in Rome stemming from slavery contributed to its decline; however, all of those evils trace back to the early formations of vast, private fortunes. Similarly, large private fortunes in France and Venezuela today are trying to flee their histories of wage slavery.
> 
> The rich are the problem.
Click to expand...


No, that's more opinion than fact.   I can make up a bunch of opinion to counter your opinion, but that doesn't change reality either way.

Again, if the real problem was the rich, then why are countries without rich, in poverty?   You can't explain that with your monolog.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You appear to be sadly ignorant of how elites in the US have plundered the property rights of Haitians ever since the first (and only) successful slave revolt in human history:*
> 
> "What has become of Haiti and the Haitian people since the earthquake of 12 January 2010? It is three years since the catastrophic earthquake that killed over 300,000 Haitian people in 35 seconds; followed by the devastating loss of more than 7,800 people who have died of cholera due to UN Nepalese troops stationed in northern Haiti since October 2010.
> 
> "More than 93,000 people have become ill and some 7,500 have died from the disease. [1] The tail end of hurricane Sandy in the winter of 2012 took a further 54 lives. The last two tragedies failed to get massive Western media attention as the earthquake did in January 2010.
> 
> "Has the world forgotten Haiti?
> 
> "Is the world immune to the suffering of the Haitian people?"
> 
> "Africa cannot forget this island that is intrinsically part of Pan-Africa, nor its courageous people who established the worlds first black republic in 1804 under Jacque Dessalines; defiantly abolished slavery and as a consequence the United States refused to recognise this sovereign nation until 58 years later; paid a financial indemnity to its former French overlords of 150 million francs as compensation for Frances losses in slaves.
> 
> "Haiti continues to suffer and pay for the crime of defying its former colonial masters and its new imperial masters in the form of the US, Canada and the UN. Haitis suffering remains on an incalculable human level."
> 
> Haiti: Capitalist Plunder and Empty Promises | Black Agenda Report
> 
> *Since US Capitalism took root in an economic environment when "property rights" extended to owning another human being, anyone who hasn't been ingesting corporate kool-aid all their lives can plainly see how inequality was fundamental to Haitian poverty.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ignores the fact that we have no control over their policies now, anymore than we do in the Dominican Republic.
> 
> The DR have strong property rights, and because of that everyone is more wealthy.    Haiti does not, and because of that everyone is more poor and impoverished.
> 
> It's pretty pathetic that your only excuse for what Haiti is worse of, is because of slavery decades ago.    Then explain DR?    Slavery was abolished in Haiti, before it was abolished in DR.
> 
> Further, the evil US occupied DR in 1916, and in 1965.   After the 1965 operation, civilians wrote "yankees come back", indicating their support of us being there.
> 
> Now compare the DR to Haiti today?   Why is DR doing so well, and the other doing so badly it has masses of people flooding across the boarder every day to work in jobs in DR?
> 
> See all your blaw blaw blaw, and all these links to intellectual idiots, can't change the facts.    DR is doing many times better than Haiti, and it all stems from the economic socialist policies that Haiti has.  The lack of property rights.  The nationalization of property and business.
> 
> Meanwhile the evil capitalist based DR, with it's pro-personal-property rights, and pro-business pro-corporation based policies, is doing far far better, and everyone in the DR, from the richest to the poorest, is doing far better than those in Haiti.  Nothing you said changes that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get the idea the US has no control over the policies of Haiti?
Click to expand...


Well by your own theory, if we had control, we would impose a capitalistic system of private property rights.  Yet we know that isn't the case.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Socialism  Guarantees equal  misery.
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Socialism guarantees shelter, employment, and medical care as human rights.
> Capitalists believe they are commodities, available only to those who can afford to buy them.*
Click to expand...

*

So there are no capitalist like "Bill Gates" who donates massive amounts of both money and time to all types of charities ... fascinating.*


----------



## Theowl32

Capitalism sells opportunity.

Life is unfair. Utopia does not exist.

Socialist sells utopia.

Which is the myth?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Socialism  Guarantees equal  misery.
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Socialism guarantees shelter, employment, and medical care as human rights.
> Capitalists believe they are commodities, available only to those who can afford to buy them.*
Click to expand...

*

But it doesn't.    See that's the problem.  It doesn't.   You look at health care around the world, and see socialized system with people waiting six years for health care.... that's a guarantee?   Then I'll pass.

I'd much rather pay for something I actually can get, than get something free that never comes.

Why are people in Venezuela starving?   That's a socialized system.   They can't even get rice.   That's a guarantee?    I'll take something I pay for and actually get, over starvation waiting for something free.

See, you come up with all these fake rationals, but when the facts of reality are faced, all your nice sounding speeches don't matter.

This has been shown hundreds of times.  You realize that in the 1950s, Cuba has a standard of health care on par with the US?

Cuba Health care today....






This is the Cuban version of an Ambulance....






And then you think that it's the evil rich doing this?   The rich have been gone from cuba for ages.   What's your excuse now?

Here's the irony....  While you keep pushing this socialist stupidity, countries that have tried it, are moving away from it.    

Cuba now has legalized property ownership.  And legalized real estate vendors.    People can now buy property, fix it up, and rent it out.

Which is causing more homes to become available.    Of course, this is also making some Cubans to become "rich" (GASP!)....

After decades of crumbling and impoverishment, Cuba is coming out of the socialist hell people like you pushed them into.    Go Cuba!*


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The French Monarchy and  Czarist Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't really civilizations, and the claim that they fell because of wealth inequality has no tangible means of support.  It's purely an opinion supported by left-wing ideology.  The French Monarchy and the Romanov dynasty fell because of political agitation by a group of hardened ideologues.  It was nothing more than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Americas new economic guillotine is dead ahead.
Click to expand...


Opinion, not fact.



> Wealth report on inequality calls to mind French Revolution
> 
> "Credit Suisses new Global Wealth Report reminds us of the 1790s when inequality ignited the French Revolution and 40,000 met the guillotine.



Which ruined France.  Go read up on what the economic results were of the French Revolution.   It ruined France, and gave way to a dictator.  That's the result of your policies.

"Today, Credit Suisse data reveal that just 1% own 46% of the world, while two-thirds of the worlds people have less than $10,000 wealth.

"Credit Suisse predicts a world with 11 trillionaires in a couple generations, as the rich get richer and the gap widens.

"Can this trend continue? Or will it trigger an 'economic guillotine?' 

"Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, author of 'The Price of Inequality,' is not as optimistic as Credit Suisse: 'America likes to think of itself as a land of opportunity.'[/QUOTE]

People come here from all over the world, because here they have more opportunity, than in other places.   It's not a "we like to think", is freakin fact dude.

When a drunk guy, can whittle duck callers on his back porch, and end up a multi-millionaire with his own TV show, it's not just "we think", it's a fact.



> "But today the 'numbers show that the American dream is a myth  the gaps widening  the clear trend is one of concentration of income and wealth at the top, the hollowing out of the middle, and increasing poverty at the bottom.'
> 
> *France and Russia weren't civilizations?
> What were they?*
> 
> Global Wealth and Inequality: Towards a World of Super Rich ?Trillionaires? Amidst Mounting Poverty | Global Research



The gap will always continue to widen.   It's called 'math'.     When people can earn more money, and the baseline is always ZERO... then yes the gap will continue to widen.

Say the top income in 1800, was $20,000 a year, and the minimum income is ZERO.

The only way that the gap would not widen, is if the top income remained $20,000.   Well that would suck.   We want a growing economy, and a growing ability to earn more.

But if the top wage earners can now earn $20 Million, what's the minimum income still?   It's still ZERO.

So logically in a growing economy, the gap should widen, and that's good.

If you people on the left push for another economic guillotine, you are not going to harm the rich.  That time is past.   They can move their money, and their businesses, and themselves, to somewhere else.

The only people slaughtered by the socialists guillotine these days, will be the socialists themselves, and the poor people who don't have the money to leave.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Socialism  Guarantees equal  misery.
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Socialism guarantees shelter, employment, and medical care as human rights.
> Capitalists believe they are commodities, available only to those who can afford to buy them.*
Click to expand...

*

Really?

So I take it that you are not posting from Cuba, Venezuela, Somalia or any of those socialist paradises?

.*


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The French Monarchy and  Czarist Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't really civilizations, and the claim that they fell because of wealth inequality has no tangible means of support.  It's purely an opinion supported by left-wing ideology.  The French Monarchy and the Romanov dynasty fell because of political agitation by a group of hardened ideologues.  It was nothing more than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Americas new economic guillotine is dead ahead.
> 
> Wealth report on inequality calls to mind French Revolution
> 
> "Credit Suisses new Global Wealth Report reminds us of the 1790s when inequality ignited the French Revolution and 40,000 met the guillotine.
> 
> "Today, Credit Suisse data reveal that just 1% own 46% of the world, while two-thirds of the worlds people have less than $10,000 wealth.
> 
> "Credit Suisse predicts a world with 11 trillionaires in a couple generations, as the rich get richer and the gap widens.
> 
> "Can this trend continue? Or will it trigger an 'economic guillotine?'
> 
> "Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, author of 'The Price of Inequality,' is not as optimistic as Credit Suisse: 'America likes to think of itself as a land of opportunity.'
> 
> "But today the 'numbers show that the American dream is a myth  the gaps widening  the clear trend is one of concentration of income and wealth at the top, the hollowing out of the middle, and increasing poverty at the bottom.'
> 
> *France and Russia weren't civilizations?
> What were they?*
> 
> Global Wealth and Inequality: Towards a World of Super Rich ?Trillionaires? Amidst Mounting Poverty | Global Research
Click to expand...


You just quoted a bunch of opinions.   They prove exactly zip.


----------



## Crystalclear

Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.


----------



## georgephillip

Crystalclear said:


> Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.


*It's true that small and mid-sized businesses are afflicted with too many regulations; however, you shouldn't lose sight of who benefits the most from bribing government to write those regulations:*

" Hundreds of millions of times a day, thirsty Americans open a can of soda, beer or juice. And every time they do it, they pay a fraction of a penny more because of a shrewd maneuver by Goldman Sachs and other financial players that ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars."

*The idea of a "free market" has two distinct meanings. Originally it was used to describe a market that was free of undue rentier influence, in other words, a market free of those interested in maximizing rent extraction.

Today, the idea has come to mean markets free of any democratic oversight, which gives rent seekers like Goldman Sachs the freedom to exploit consumers, homeowners, and investors alike.*

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=0


----------



## Andylusion

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't really civilizations, and the claim that they fell because of wealth inequality has no tangible means of support.  It's purely an opinion supported by left-wing ideology.  The French Monarchy and the Romanov dynasty fell because of political agitation by a group of hardened ideologues.  It was nothing more than that.
> 
> 
> 
> "Americas new economic guillotine is dead ahead.
> 
> Wealth report on inequality calls to mind French Revolution
> 
> "Credit Suisses new Global Wealth Report reminds us of the 1790s when inequality ignited the French Revolution and 40,000 met the guillotine.
> 
> "Today, Credit Suisse data reveal that just 1% own 46% of the world, while two-thirds of the worlds people have less than $10,000 wealth.
> 
> "Credit Suisse predicts a world with 11 trillionaires in a couple generations, as the rich get richer and the gap widens.
> 
> "Can this trend continue? Or will it trigger an 'economic guillotine?'
> 
> "Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, author of 'The Price of Inequality,' is not as optimistic as Credit Suisse: 'America likes to think of itself as a land of opportunity.'
> 
> "But today the 'numbers show that the American dream is a myth  the gaps widening  the clear trend is one of concentration of income and wealth at the top, the hollowing out of the middle, and increasing poverty at the bottom.'
> 
> *France and Russia weren't civilizations?
> What were they?*
> 
> Global Wealth and Inequality: Towards a World of Super Rich ?Trillionaires? Amidst Mounting Poverty | Global Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just quoted a bunch of opinions.   They prove exactly zip.
Click to expand...


exactly.  I've said this a number of times.    When you post your opinion, and then someone says prove it.... posting the OPINION of someone else, doesn't prove your opinion right.

It only proves someone else has the same opinion as you.    That's not proof that your opinion is right, only that your opinion is prolific.


----------



## dannyboys

Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
 'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.


----------



## georgephillip

dannyboys said:


> Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
> It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
> 'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.


Capitalism is historical, not natural.
It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.


----------



## Erand7899

georgephillip said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
> It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
> 'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is historical, not natural.
> It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.
Click to expand...


More nonsense!  Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt.  Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together.  It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth. 

Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper.  Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine.  Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any evidence that debasing the currency made bankers and oligarchs more rich.      Now it's true they did get rich, while the currency was being debased.
> 
> But correlation does not equal causation.   The fact A is true, and B is true, doesn't mean A caused B.
> 
> There's a difference.
> 
> Now if you can explicitly tell me, specifically how the debasing of currency caused the wealthy to become more wealthy, by all means do so.
> 
> But my reading is that the wealthy simply moved their investments and wealth, into other currency that wasn't being debased, and into investments outside of the economic system.
> 
> That doesn't mean debasing the currency directly caused them to be more wealthy, only that capital has the ability to move, while the poor do not have the ability to move.
> 
> And we see that today.   In France, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of France to avoid the taxes.    The result was the poor were screwed.
> 
> In Venezuela, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of Venezuela to avoid the debasing and taxes, and confiscation of the government.   The poor were screwed.
> 
> The wealthy didn't get more wealthy because of the policies directly.  They got wealthy by avoiding those policies, while the poor people can't.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said debasing the currency was the only reason rich Romans prospered at the expense of the poor. Debasing contributed to inflation; once Rome stopped conquering new lands, gold imports decreased, the rich continued spending gold on luxury items, and the amount of gold used in coins decreased. Obviously, the urban decay and unemployment in Rome stemming from slavery contributed to its decline; however, all of those evils trace back to the early formations of vast, private fortunes. Similarly, large private fortunes in France and Venezuela today are trying to flee their histories of wage slavery.
> 
> The rich are the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's more opinion than fact.   I can make up a bunch of opinion to counter your opinion, but that doesn't change reality either way.
> 
> Again, if the real problem was the rich, then why are countries without rich, in poverty?   You can't explain that with your monolog.
Click to expand...

Name a country without a single rich citizen.
Do you disagree the a large slave population in Rome created unemployment among free citizens of the time?
This is a forum that depends of many different opinions being expressed so that some consensus may occur. If you don't agree with the opinions I choose to support my beliefs, find your own experts to counter my claims. Looking for "reality" without defining what you mean by the term is an exercise in futility.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which ignores the fact that we have no control over their policies now, anymore than we do in the Dominican Republic.
> 
> The DR have strong property rights, and because of that everyone is more wealthy.    Haiti does not, and because of that everyone is more poor and impoverished.
> 
> It's pretty pathetic that your only excuse for what Haiti is worse of, is because of slavery decades ago.    Then explain DR?    Slavery was abolished in Haiti, before it was abolished in DR.
> 
> Further, the evil US occupied DR in 1916, and in 1965.   After the 1965 operation, civilians wrote "yankees come back", indicating their support of us being there.
> 
> Now compare the DR to Haiti today?   Why is DR doing so well, and the other doing so badly it has masses of people flooding across the boarder every day to work in jobs in DR?
> 
> See all your blaw blaw blaw, and all these links to intellectual idiots, can't change the facts.    DR is doing many times better than Haiti, and it all stems from the economic socialist policies that Haiti has.  The lack of property rights.  The nationalization of property and business.
> 
> Meanwhile the evil capitalist based DR, with it's pro-personal-property rights, and pro-business pro-corporation based policies, is doing far far better, and everyone in the DR, from the richest to the poorest, is doing far better than those in Haiti.  Nothing you said changes that.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get the idea the US has no control over the policies of Haiti?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well by your own theory, if we had control, we would impose a capitalistic system of private property rights.  Yet we know that isn't the case.
Click to expand...

*Do we?
Prove it.*

"In 1915 the United States, responding to complaints to President Woodrow Wilson from American banks to which Haiti was deeply in debt, occupied the country. 

"The occupation of Haiti lasted until 1934. 

"The US occupation was self-interested, sometimes brutal, and caused problems that lasted past its lifetime. 

"Reforms, though, were carried out.

"Under the supervision of the United States Marines, the Haitian National Assembly elected Philippe Sudré Dartiguenave President. 

"He signed a treaty that made Haiti a de jure US protectorate, with American officials assuming control over the Financial Adviser, Customs Receivership, the Constabulary, the Public Works Service, and the Public Health Service for a period of ten years. 

"The principal instrument of American authority was the newly created Gendarmerie d'Haïti, commanded by American officers. 

"In 1917, at the demand of US officials, the National Assembly was dissolved, and officials were designated to write a new constitution, which was largely dictated by officials in the US State Department and US Navy Department. 

"Franklin D Roosevelt, Under-Secretary for the Navy in the Wilson administration, claimed to have personally written the new constitution."

History of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

Erand7899 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
> It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
> 'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is historical, not natural.
> It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More nonsense!  Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt.  Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together.  It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth.
> 
> Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper.  Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine.  Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.
Click to expand...

*I usually have to stand in line every time I buy bread or toilet paper.
You're conflating capitalism's ability to produce goods and service with its inability to distribute surplus equitably; you're also confused about barter in hunter gather societies and modern capitalism which some believe didn't originate until the 14th century: *

"According to some historians, the modern capitalist system has its origin in the 'crisis of the fourteenth century,' a conflict between the land-owning aristocracy and the agricultural producers, the serfs. 

"Manorial arrangements inhibited the development of capitalism in a number of ways. 

"Because serfs were forced to produce for lords, they had no interest in technological innovation; because serfs produced to sustain their own families, they had no interest in co-operating with one another. 

"Because lords owned the land, they relied on force to guarantee that they were provided with sufficient food."

History of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

DrDoomNGloom said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism  Guarantees equal  misery.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism guarantees shelter, employment, and medical care as human rights.
> Capitalists believe they are commodities, available only to those who can afford to buy them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are no capitalist like "Bill Gates" who donates massive amounts of both money and time to all types of charities ... fascinating.
Click to expand...

Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history. Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and  money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is historical, not natural.
> It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More nonsense!  Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt.  Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together.  It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth.
> 
> Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper.  Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine.  Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I usually have to stand in line every time I buy bread or toilet paper.
> You're conflating capitalism's ability to produce goods and service with its inability to distribute surplus equitably; you're also confused about barter in hunter gather societies and modern capitalism which some believe didn't originate until the 14th century: *
Click to expand...


You must be joking.  Are you talking about the line at the checkout counter that has maybe 3-4 people in it?  In Venezuela the lines have hundreds of people.  Equating the two is the height of dishonesty.



georgephillip said:


> "According to some historians, the modern capitalist system has its origin in the 'crisis of the fourteenth century,' a conflict between the land-owning aristocracy and the agricultural producers, the serfs.
> 
> "Manorial arrangements inhibited the development of capitalism in a number of ways.
> 
> "Because serfs were forced to produce for lords, they had no interest in technological innovation; because serfs produced to sustain their own families, they had no interest in co-operating with one another.
> 
> "Because lords owned the land, they relied on force to guarantee that they were provided with sufficient food."
> 
> History of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



What does 14th Century Feudalism have to do with modern capitalism?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism guarantees shelter, employment, and medical care as human rights.
> Capitalists believe they are commodities, available only to those who can afford to buy them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there are no capitalist like "Bill Gates" who donates massive amounts of both money and time to all types of charities ... fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history.
Click to expand...


It doesn't depend on charity unless you are disabled and have no family that can take care of you.  That description applies to about 0.2% of the population.  It depends on work.  

Socialists are wrong:  you have no right to subsistence, medical care or education.



georgephillip said:


> Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and  money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.



That's why the more democratic solution is fucked.  Why should a mass of numskulls decide how to spend the fortune Bill Gates built?  If it was up to them, there would never have been a fortune in the first place.  They would have crapped it away long before Microsoft ever became a household name.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> *It's true that small and mid-sized businesses are afflicted with too many regulations; however, you shouldn't lose sight of who benefits the most from bribing government to write those regulations:*
> 
> " Hundreds of millions of times a day, thirsty Americans open a can of soda, beer or juice. And every time they do it, they pay a fraction of a penny more because of a shrewd maneuver by Goldman Sachs and other financial players that ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars."
> 
> *The idea of a "free market" has two distinct meanings. Originally it was used to describe a market that was free of undue rentier influence, in other words, a market free of those interested in maximizing rent extraction.
> 
> Today, the idea has come to mean markets free of any democratic oversight, which gives rent seekers like Goldman Sachs the freedom to exploit consumers, homeowners, and investors alike.*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=0
Click to expand...


This is exactly the kind of empty babble I'm talking about.

So let's review this entire deal.    Goldman Sach, which trades in commodities, and has numerous holdings for their clients of commodities, bought controlling shares in a company that operates several dozens of warehouses that store such commodities, like aluminum.

Now keep in mind, Goldman Sachs has owned this company for a long long time.   Did prices significantly rise?   Nope.   But because this is Goldman Sachs.... and there are moronic fools who hate Goldman Sachs, suddenly this is an issue.   Of course the brainless fools who follow these hateful morons, never bother to look at the reality.   All they know is Goldman Sach did something bad (allegedly), and therefore it must be true, because we're all too stupid to think for ourselves.

Now, is it true that because of regulations on commodities, that the prices charged are higher, than would be in a free-market?   Yes.   Does this benefit Goldman Sachs?   Well since they own the company, and the company is doing better because of it.... yes.

But here's the kicker.   If anyone else owned that company, it would benefit them just as much.   And this article is out of date.  Goldman Sachs sold off this company, and now a foreign company is reaping the benefits.

All these idiots on the left did, was make it so that now foriegn people are benefiting, instead of Americans.

But it does not end there... notice the commentary....

"Free-Market means...  markets free of any democratic oversight, which gives rent seekers like Goldman Sachs the freedom to exploit consumers, homeowners, and investors alike"​
But you just pointed out regulations that drive up the cost of commodities, at the cost of consumers.

Those regulations are exactly the same oversight that you say in this quote we need.

You can't have it both ways.    Either the regulations harm the consumers as your very own citation suggests, or it benefits them.

Very little shows it benefits us.   Your own link proves it doesn't.

Without those regulations, the company Goldman Sachs purchased, would not be able to charge customers more money to store their commodities there.

Why?  Because that company is less than 10% of the warehouses that store commodities.  If they had a significantly higher cost to storing commodities, customers would store their commodities elsewhere.

The ONLY reason that this company was able to charge more, was because of the very "democratic oversight" you people on the left push.   That "democratic oversight" forces all warehouses to charge more.   Thus the one Goldman Sachs owns can do so, without losing customers, because all the warehouses are charging more, thanks to Leftard "democratic oversight".


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism guarantees shelter, employment, and medical care as human rights.
> Capitalists believe they are commodities, available only to those who can afford to buy them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there are no capitalist like "Bill Gates" who donates massive amounts of both money and time to all types of charities ... fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history. Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and  money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.
Click to expand...


But here's the problem.   Bill Gates has done more to help people, then you socialists have ever done.

Socialists never help people themselves.  They just try and force others to help people.

Obama hasn't given money from his own pocket, nor the people in the Soviet Kremlin, nor Chairman Mao, nor Hugo Chavez, nor any of the leftists throughout history.

Even those that do help people, and call themselves leftist, are anything but.   Warren Buffet, may vote democrap, and may support socialism, and he may give his wealth to Charity....... but the fact is, Warren Buffet, and Ted Turner, and all the other leftists, have all made their fortunes as Free-market Capitalists.

Free-market Capitalists have done more for the middle and lower income people of the entire world, than you socialists have done throughout all human history combined.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
> It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
> 'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is historical, not natural.
> It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.
Click to expand...


LOL you are so full of it.    Capitalism has always existed.    6,000 years ago there were people who owned land, and rented it out to be farmed.   They owned mills, and rented them out to produce food.   They owned blacksmith shops, and used them to hire more black smiths to make more swords and things.

Capitalism.... personal property, has existed since the dawn of human kind.


----------



## Moxie2

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



Wow, someone in Los Angeles that thinks Capitalism is evil!  And we wonder why California is almost bankrupt.  Yet another reason why I am getting the HELL OUT OF HERE!


----------



## Crystalclear

Erand7899 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
> It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
> 'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is historical, not natural.
> It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More nonsense!  Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt.  Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together.  It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth.
> 
> Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper.  Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine.  Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.
Click to expand...

True, human nature is not socialistic. Everyone wants to get rich and most people do also not want to live in some socialist dictature.


----------



## georgephillip

Moxie2 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, someone in Los Angeles that thinks Capitalism is evil!  And we wonder why California is almost bankrupt.  Yet another reason why I am getting the HELL OUT OF HERE!
Click to expand...

*I hear Bismarck is booming:*

"The Bank of North Dakota, or BND, is a state-owned and -run financial institution, based in Bismarck, North Dakota.

"Under state law, the bank is the State of North Dakota doing business as the Bank of North Dakota.[1] The state and its agencies are required to place their funds in the bank, but local governments are not required to do so..."

"The Bank of North Dakota was established by legislative action in 1919 to promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota.[3] 

"Though initially conceived by populists in the Non-Partisan League, or NPL, as a credit union-style institution to free the farmers of the state from predatory lenders, the bank's functions were largely blocked by out-of-state financial actors refusing to buy the bonds the bank issued to finance its lending, lending that would have provided competition to the commercial banks.[4]" 

*Wall Street isn't fond of competition either.
Don't catch cold.*

Bank of North Dakota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Erand7899

georgephillip said:


> Moxie2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, someone in Los Angeles that thinks Capitalism is evil!  And we wonder why California is almost bankrupt.  Yet another reason why I am getting the HELL OUT OF HERE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I hear Bismarck is booming:*
> 
> "The Bank of North Dakota, or BND, is a state-owned and -run financial institution, based in Bismarck, North Dakota.
> 
> "Under state law, the bank is the State of North Dakota doing business as the Bank of North Dakota.[1] The state and its agencies are required to place their funds in the bank, but local governments are not required to do so..."
> 
> "The Bank of North Dakota was established by legislative action in 1919 to promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota.[3]
> 
> "Though initially conceived by populists in the Non-Partisan League, or NPL, as a credit union-style institution to free the farmers of the state from predatory lenders, the bank's functions were largely blocked by out-of-state financial actors refusing to buy the bonds the bank issued to finance its lending, lending that would have provided competition to the commercial banks.[4]"
> 
> *Wall Street isn't fond of competition either.
> Don't catch cold.*
> 
> Bank of North Dakota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


No enterprise is fond of competition.  In a capitalistic world, they get competition whether they want it or not.  That is, until government steps in to protect them from competition.


----------



## georgephillip

Crystalclear said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is historical, not natural.
> It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More nonsense!  Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt.  Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together.  It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth.
> 
> Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper.  Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine.  Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, human nature is not socialistic. Everyone wants to get rich and most people do also not want to live in some socialist dictature.
Click to expand...

*Humans are social animals with societies that depend on cooperation far more than competition. No one I know wants to live in any kind of dictatorship, yet that is exactly what we are approaching due to the unbounded greed of a few psychopaths:*

"According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP...'

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality


----------



## georgephillip

Erand7899 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moxie2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, someone in Los Angeles that thinks Capitalism is evil!  And we wonder why California is almost bankrupt.  Yet another reason why I am getting the HELL OUT OF HERE!
> 
> 
> 
> *I hear Bismarck is booming:*
> 
> "The Bank of North Dakota, or BND, is a state-owned and -run financial institution, based in Bismarck, North Dakota.
> 
> "Under state law, the bank is the State of North Dakota doing business as the Bank of North Dakota.[1] The state and its agencies are required to place their funds in the bank, but local governments are not required to do so..."
> 
> "The Bank of North Dakota was established by legislative action in 1919 to promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota.[3]
> 
> "Though initially conceived by populists in the Non-Partisan League, or NPL, as a credit union-style institution to free the farmers of the state from predatory lenders, the bank's functions were largely blocked by out-of-state financial actors refusing to buy the bonds the bank issued to finance its lending, lending that would have provided competition to the commercial banks.[4]"
> 
> *Wall Street isn't fond of competition either.
> Don't catch cold.*
> 
> Bank of North Dakota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No enterprise is fond of competition.  In a capitalistic world, they get competition whether they want it or not.  That is, until government steps in to protect them from competition.
Click to expand...

*Who controls government?
In a capitalistic world large private fortunes acquired through the control of corporations create a corporatocracy that effectively controls government. One good example of this recently took place in Las Vegas:*

The Monster on the Hill » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

"Indeed, if anyone had any illusions about American politics, they were dispelled this week.

"The casino mogul, Sheldon Adelson, organized a public display of his power.

"He summoned to his Las Vegas betting paradise the four most probable Republican candidates for the next presidential elections, in order to choose one of them. 

"All the invitees heeded the summons, of course.

"It was a shameless exhibition. The politicians groveled before the casino lord. Mighty governors of important states did their best to sell themselves like applicants at a job interview. 

"Each of them tried to trump the others in promising to do the Moguls bidding.

"Flanked by Israeli bodyguards, Adelson grilled the American hopefuls. And what was he demanding from the future president of the United States? 

"First of all and above everything else, blind and unconditional obedience to the government of another state: Israel."

*Every government yet conceived has existed to serve its rich at the expense of the majority of its citizens

Until there's a way to insulate the state from the effect of private wealth, I don't see how that will ever change.*


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More nonsense!  Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt.  Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together.  It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth.
> 
> Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper.  Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine.  Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.
> 
> 
> 
> *I usually have to stand in line every time I buy bread or toilet paper.
> You're conflating capitalism's ability to produce goods and service with its inability to distribute surplus equitably; you're also confused about barter in hunter gather societies and modern capitalism which some believe didn't originate until the 14th century: *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be joking.  Are you talking about the line at the checkout counter that has maybe 3-4 people in it?  In Venezuela the lines have hundreds of people.  Equating the two is the height of dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "According to some historians, the modern capitalist system has its origin in the 'crisis of the fourteenth century,' a conflict between the land-owning aristocracy and the agricultural producers, the serfs.
> 
> "Manorial arrangements inhibited the development of capitalism in a number of ways.
> 
> "Because serfs were forced to produce for lords, they had no interest in technological innovation; because serfs produced to sustain their own families, they had no interest in co-operating with one another.
> 
> "Because lords owned the land, they relied on force to guarantee that they were provided with sufficient food."
> 
> History of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does 14th Century Feudalism have to do with modern capitalism?
Click to expand...

*Marx called the period the "pre-history of capitalism." The 14th century saw a demographic crisis due, partially, to the Great Famine (1315-1317) and the Black Death (1348-1350). Feudalism replaced the manorial system in England in a fashion similar to how internal slavery replaced the transatlantic trade in the US 450 years later:*

"It was, in effect, feudalism that began to lay some of the foundations necessary for the development of mercantilism, a precursor to capitalism. Feudalism took place mostly in Europe and lasted from the medieval period up through the 16th century. 

"Feudal manors were almost entirely self-sufficient, and therefore limited the role of the market. This stifled the growth of capitalism. 

"However, the relatively sudden emergence of new technologies and discoveries, particularly in the industries of agriculture[9] and exploration, revitalized the growth of capitalism. 

"The most important development at the end of Feudalism was the emergence of 'the dichotomy between wage earners and capitalist merchants'.[10] 

"With mercantilism, the competitive nature means there are always winners and losers, and this is clearly evident as feudalism transitions into mercantilism, an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

History of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there are no capitalist like "Bill Gates" who donates massive amounts of both money and time to all types of charities ... fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't depend on charity unless you are disabled and have no family that can take care of you.  That description applies to about 0.2% of the population.  It depends on work.
> 
> Socialists are wrong:  you have no right to subsistence, medical care or education.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and  money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why the more democratic solution is fucked.  Why should a mass of numskulls decide how to spend the fortune Bill Gates built?  If it was up to them, there would never have been a fortune in the first place.  They would have crapped it away long before Microsoft ever became a household name.
Click to expand...

Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet. Gates is just another Greed-Head amassing a huge fortune that came from exploiting the talents of others; in other words, he didn't build it by himself. He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Moxie2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, someone in Los Angeles that thinks Capitalism is evil!  And we wonder why California is almost bankrupt.  Yet another reason why I am getting the HELL OUT OF HERE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I hear Bismarck is booming:*
> 
> "The Bank of North Dakota, or BND, is a state-owned and -run financial institution, based in Bismarck, North Dakota.
> 
> "Under state law, the bank is the State of North Dakota doing business as the Bank of North Dakota.[1] The state and its agencies are required to place their funds in the bank, but local governments are not required to do so..."
> 
> "The Bank of North Dakota was established by legislative action in 1919 to promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota.[3]
> 
> "Though initially conceived by populists in the Non-Partisan League, or NPL, as a credit union-style institution to free the farmers of the state from predatory lenders, the bank's functions were largely blocked by out-of-state financial actors refusing to buy the bonds the bank issued to finance its lending, lending that would have provided competition to the commercial banks.[4]"
> 
> *Wall Street isn't fond of competition either.
> Don't catch cold.*
> 
> Bank of North Dakota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Yes! A crony bank, putting California citizens on the hook for their crooked loans.
What could go wrong?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't depend on charity unless you are disabled and have no family that can take care of you.  That description applies to about 0.2% of the population.  It depends on work.
> 
> Socialists are wrong:  you have no right to subsistence, medical care or education.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and  money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why the more democratic solution is fucked.  Why should a mass of numskulls decide how to spend the fortune Bill Gates built?  If it was up to them, there would never have been a fortune in the first place.  They would have crapped it away long before Microsoft ever became a household name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet. Gates is just another Greed-Head amassing a huge fortune that came from exploiting the talents of others; in other words, he didn't build it by himself. He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
Click to expand...


Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?


----------



## DriftingSand

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?*
> 
> *A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?*
> 
> *Ready for the best part? *
> 
> *Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*


 
Like it or not rich folks found a way to get rich.  I have a feeling that most everyone on this site (Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, National Socialist, Libertarian, or Tea Party) would gladly put a few billion bucks in their accounts if they only could.  

If you hate successful businessmen so much then stop buying Fords, GMCs, Toyotas, Apple Computers, Microsoft products, Nike shoes, Stocks, Bonds, DuPont products, items from Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, McDonalds, Burger King, Starbucks, Shell, Chevron, General Electric, At&T, Verizon, T Mobile, Hewlett Packard, Amazon, Google, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Johnson & Johnson, Caterpillar, Pfizer, etc., etc., etc.  

Now, if for some reason you feel that you need to buy from the companies listed above then know that they are getting rich off of the profit you are freely and willingly offering.  That means that you, not they, are at "fault" for making them rich.  They're simply selling a product.  It's you, me, and the rest of the world who are buying that product.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> *It's true that small and mid-sized businesses are afflicted with too many regulations; however, you shouldn't lose sight of who benefits the most from bribing government to write those regulations:*
> 
> " Hundreds of millions of times a day, thirsty Americans open a can of soda, beer or juice. And every time they do it, they pay a fraction of a penny more because of a shrewd maneuver by Goldman Sachs and other financial players that ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars."
> 
> *The idea of a "free market" has two distinct meanings. Originally it was used to describe a market that was free of undue rentier influence, in other words, a market free of those interested in maximizing rent extraction.
> 
> Today, the idea has come to mean markets free of any democratic oversight, which gives rent seekers like Goldman Sachs the freedom to exploit consumers, homeowners, and investors alike.*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly the kind of empty babble I'm talking about.
> 
> So let's review this entire deal.    Goldman Sach, which trades in commodities, and has numerous holdings for their clients of commodities, bought controlling shares in a company that operates several dozens of warehouses that store such commodities, like aluminum.
> 
> Now keep in mind, Goldman Sachs has owned this company for a long long time.   Did prices significantly rise?   Nope.   But because this is Goldman Sachs.... and there are moronic fools who hate Goldman Sachs, suddenly this is an issue.   Of course the brainless fools who follow these hateful morons, never bother to look at the reality.   All they know is Goldman Sach did something bad (allegedly), and therefore it must be true, because we're all too stupid to think for ourselves.
> 
> Now, is it true that because of regulations on commodities, that the prices charged are higher, than would be in a free-market?   Yes.   Does this benefit Goldman Sachs?   Well since they own the company, and the company is doing better because of it.... yes.
> 
> But here's the kicker.   If anyone else owned that company, it would benefit them just as much.   And this article is out of date.  Goldman Sachs sold off this company, and now a foreign company is reaping the benefits.
> 
> All these idiots on the left did, was make it so that now foriegn people are benefiting, instead of Americans.
> 
> But it does not end there... notice the commentary....
> 
> "Free-Market means...  markets free of any democratic oversight, which gives rent seekers like Goldman Sachs the freedom to exploit consumers, homeowners, and investors alike"​
> But you just pointed out regulations that drive up the cost of commodities, at the cost of consumers.
> 
> Those regulations are exactly the same oversight that you say in this quote we need.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.    Either the regulations harm the consumers as your very own citation suggests, or it benefits them.
> 
> Very little shows it benefits us.   Your own link proves it doesn't.
> 
> Without those regulations, the company Goldman Sachs purchased, would not be able to charge customers more money to store their commodities there.
> 
> Why?  *Because that company is less than 10% of the warehouses that store commodities.  If they had a significantly higher cost to storing commodities, customers would store their commodities elsewhere.*
> 
> The ONLY reason that this company was able to charge more, was because of the very "democratic oversight" you people on the left push.   That "democratic oversight" forces all warehouses to charge more.   Thus the one Goldman Sachs owns can do so, without losing customers, because all the warehouses are charging more, thanks to Leftard "democratic oversight".
Click to expand...

"In the case of aluminum, Goldman bought Metro International Trade Services, one of the countrys biggest storers of the metal.* More than a quarter of the supply of aluminum available on the market is  kept in the companys Detroit-area warehouses.
*

"Before Goldman bought Metro International three years ago, warehouse customers used to wait an average of six weeks for their purchases to be located, retrieved by forklift and delivered to factories. 

"But now that Goldman owns the company, the wait has grown more than tenfold  to more than 16 months, according to industry records.

"Longer waits might be written off as an aggravation, but they also make aluminum more expensive nearly everywhere in the country because of the arcane formula used to determine the cost of the metal on the spot market. 

"The delays are so acute that Coca-Cola and many other manufacturers avoid buying aluminum stored here. Nonetheless, they still pay the higher price."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=1&


----------



## DriftingSand

georgephillip said:


> Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet. Gates is just another Greed-Head amassing a huge fortune that came from exploiting the talents of others; in other words, he didn't build it by himself. He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.


 
Interestingly, it's the "greed-heads" like Gates (and many other giant corporations like Home Depot, Firefox, etc.) who openly support ultra-liberal causes.  Sort of a catch 22, isn't it?  I find it funny that the Libs are so willing to bite the hands that feed them (and their pet causes).  

I'm simply opposed to this strange idea that a person who has worked his way into success is somehow evil while lazy individuals are somehow victims.  I will concede that there are some instances where a rich person got his money by dishonest means and that there are some poor people who simply ran into a streak of really bad fortune (illness, economic collapse, natural disaster, etc.) but I believe the percentages are low in either case.  

I've personally had periods of success and periods of loss.  I blame nobody for either situation.  Or, conversely, I can blame myself for either situation.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
> It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
> 'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is historical, not natural.
> It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you are so full of it.    Capitalism has always existed.    6,000 years ago there were people who owned land, and rented it out to be farmed.   They owned mills, and rented them out to produce food.   They owned blacksmith shops, and used them to hire more black smiths to make more swords and things.
> 
> Capitalism.... personal property, has existed since the dawn of human kind.
Click to expand...

Capitalism and personal property are not the same thing.
Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making a profit within a market economy.

That doesn't sound like Mesopotamia 6000 years ago:

*"Irrigated agriculture spread southwards from the Zagros foothills with the Samara and Hadji Muhammed culture, from about 5,000 BC.[36] 

"Sumerian temples functioned as banks and developed the first large-scale system of loans and credit, but the Babylonians developed the earliest system of commercial banking. 

"It was comparable in some ways to modern post-Keynesian economics, but with a more 'anything goes' approach.[31]

"In the early period down to Ur III temples owned up to one third of the available land, declining over time as royal and other private holdings increased in frequency."*

Mesopotamia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there are no capitalist like "Bill Gates" who donates massive amounts of both money and time to all types of charities ... fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history. Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and  money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But here's the problem.   Bill Gates has done more to help people, then you socialists have ever done.
> 
> Socialists never help people themselves.  They just try and force others to help people.
> 
> Obama hasn't given money from his own pocket, nor the people in the Soviet Kremlin, nor Chairman Mao, nor Hugo Chavez, nor any of the leftists throughout history.
> 
> Even those that do help people, and call themselves leftist, are anything but.   Warren Buffet, may vote democrap, and may support socialism, and he may give his wealth to Charity....... but the fact is, Warren Buffet, and Ted Turner, and all the other leftists, have all made their fortunes as Free-market Capitalists.
> 
> Free-market Capitalists have done more for the middle and lower income people of the entire world, than you socialists have done throughout all human history combined.
Click to expand...

*You shouldn't fear socialism:*

"1. The Military/Defense - The United States military is the largest and most funded socialist program in the world.  It operates thanks to our taxpayer dollars and protects the country as a whole. From the richest citizens to the homeless who sleep under the bridge. We are all protected by our military whether we pay taxes or not. This is complete socialism.

2. Highways/Roads - Those roads and highways you drive on every single day are completely taxpayer funded. Your tax dollars are used to maintain, expand, and preserve our highways and roads for every one's use. President Eisenhower was inspired by Germany's autobahn and implemented the idea right here in America. That's right, a republican president created our taxpayer funded, national highway system. This was a different time, before the republican party came down with a vicious case of rabies that never went away.

3. Public Libraries - Yes. That place where you go to check out books from conservative authors telling you how horrible socialism is, is in fact socialism. Libraries are taxpayer funded. You pay a few bucks to get a library card and you can read books for free for the rest of your life.

4. Police - Ever had a situation where you had to call the police? Then you have used a taxpayer funded socialist program. Anyone can call the police whether they pay taxes or not. They are there to protect and serve the community, not individuals. This is complete socialism on a state level, but still socialism all the same. Would you rather have to swipe your credit card before the police will help you?

5. Fire Dept. - Hopefully you have never had a fire in your home. But if you have, you probably called your local taxpayer-funded fire department to put the fire out. Like police, this is state socialism. You tax dollars are used to rescue your entire community in case of a fire."

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't depend on charity unless you are disabled and have no family that can take care of you.  That description applies to about 0.2% of the population.  It depends on work.
> 
> Socialists are wrong:  you have no right to subsistence, medical care or education.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and  money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why the more democratic solution is fucked.  Why should a mass of numskulls decide how to spend the fortune Bill Gates built?  If it was up to them, there would never have been a fortune in the first place.  They would have crapped it away long before Microsoft ever became a household name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet.
Click to expand...


The internet was built with private money, and buying a copy of Windows entitles you to nothing more than a copy of Windows.



georgephillip said:


> Gates is just another Greed-Head amassing a huge fortune that came from exploiting the talents of others; in other words, he didn't build it by himself. .



Everyone involve was paid handsomely.  10,000 people became millionaires working for Microsoft.  However, you think some clueless tick on the ass of society living in Hoboken New Jersey is entitled to tell Bill Gates how to spend his fortune.  I can't imagine anything more idiotic than that.



georgephillip said:


> He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.



How did Gates "manipulate the economic system?"  He played by the rules and became wealthy.  That why you and the other ticks on the ass of society hate him.  You understand perfectly that you don't have what it takes to accomplish what he did.


----------



## Crystalclear

georgephillip said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More nonsense!  Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt.  Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together.  It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth.
> 
> Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper.  Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine.  Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.
> 
> 
> 
> True, human nature is not socialistic. Everyone wants to get rich and most people do also not want to live in some socialist dictature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Humans are social animals with societies that depend on cooperation far more than competition. No one I know wants to live in any kind of dictatorship, yet that is exactly what we are approaching due to the unbounded greed of a few psychopaths:*
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP...'
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


Look at people, they are more competitive than social. Really social, but still more competitive. And in a free country, inequality will always exist. Our freedom decreases when a government tries (too hard, a little is always good) to decrease the gaps between different groups of wealth.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said debasing the currency was the only reason rich Romans prospered at the expense of the poor. Debasing contributed to inflation; once Rome stopped conquering new lands, gold imports decreased, the rich continued spending gold on luxury items, and the amount of gold used in coins decreased. Obviously, the urban decay and unemployment in Rome stemming from slavery contributed to its decline; however, all of those evils trace back to the early formations of vast, private fortunes. Similarly, large private fortunes in France and Venezuela today are trying to flee their histories of wage slavery.
> 
> The rich are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's more opinion than fact.   I can make up a bunch of opinion to counter your opinion, but that doesn't change reality either way.
> 
> Again, if the real problem was the rich, then why are countries without rich, in poverty?   You can't explain that with your monolog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name a country without a single rich citizen.
> Do you disagree the a large slave population in Rome created unemployment among free citizens of the time?
> This is a forum that depends of many different opinions being expressed so that some consensus may occur. If you don't agree with the opinions I choose to support my beliefs, find your own experts to counter my claims. Looking for "reality" without defining what you mean by the term is an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...


How many rich North Koreans are there, not tied to government?  Or Cuba?

How about you do the same.  You never seem to post anything, except someone else's opinion article.


----------



## editec

Crystalclear said:


> Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.



That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the _IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR_

CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.

*Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.*

But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.

No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get the idea the US has no control over the policies of Haiti?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well by your own theory, if we had control, we would impose a capitalistic system of private property rights.  Yet we know that isn't the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do we?
> Prove it.*
> 
> "In 1915 the United States, responding to complaints to President Woodrow Wilson from American banks to which Haiti was deeply in debt, occupied the country.
> 
> "The occupation of Haiti lasted until 1934.
> 
> "The US occupation was self-interested, sometimes brutal, and caused problems that lasted past its lifetime.
> 
> "Reforms, though, were carried out.
> 
> "Under the supervision of the United States Marines, the Haitian National Assembly elected Philippe Sudré Dartiguenave President.
> 
> "He signed a treaty that made Haiti a de jure US protectorate, with American officials assuming control over the Financial Adviser, Customs Receivership, the Constabulary, the Public Works Service, and the Public Health Service for a period of ten years.
> 
> "The principal instrument of American authority was the newly created Gendarmerie d'Haïti, commanded by American officers.
> 
> "In 1917, at the demand of US officials, the National Assembly was dissolved, and officials were designated to write a new constitution, which was largely dictated by officials in the US State Department and US Navy Department.
> 
> "Franklin D Roosevelt, Under-Secretary for the Navy in the Wilson administration, claimed to have personally written the new constitution."
> 
> History of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


From your link:



> The occupation greatly improved some of Haiti's infrastructure and centralized power in Port-au-Prince. Infrastructure improvements were particularly impressive: 1700 km of roads were made usable, 189 bridges were built, many irrigation canals were rehabilitated, hospitals, schools, and public buildings were constructed, and drinking water was brought to the main cities. Port-au-Prince became the first Caribbean city to have an available phone service with automatic dialing. Agricultural education was organized with a central school of agriculture and 69 farms in the country



Further.... you ignore what happened after the occupation was over.



> President Vincent took advantage of the comparative national stability, which was being maintained by a professionalized military, to gain absolute power. A plebiscite permitted the transfer of all authority in economic matters from the legislature to the executive, but Vincent was not content with this expansion of his power. In 1935 he forced through the legislature a new constitution, which was also approved by plebiscite. The constitution praised Vincent, and it granted the executive sweeping powers to dissolve the legislature at will, to reorganize the judiciary, to appoint ten of twenty-one senators (and to recommend the remaining eleven to the lower house), and to rule by decree when the legislature was not in session. Although Vincent implemented some improvements in infrastructure and services, he brutally repressed his opposition, censored the press, and governed largely to benefit himself and a clique of merchants and corrupt military officers



So let's recap....

Unlike the DR which still has the American modeled Constitution, the constitution in Haiti was completely replaced by a more socialist model of government control.    All of the property rights the American one put in place, were swept away, with a pro-government Constitution with nearly unlimited power.

The result has been an unlimited stream of dictatorships wrapped up as democratically elected governments, which nationalized business and destroyed those businesses, and drove away the rich, which killed off jobs and growth, and resulted in the impoverished hopeless Haiti we have today.

About the only thing you can point to, as being an example of American caused destruction in Haiti, was the insistence by the United States Agency for International Development, that pigs be slaughtered in order to stop the spread of the Swine Fever Virus.


----------



## Crystalclear

editec said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the _IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR_
> 
> CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.
> 
> *Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.*
> 
> But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.
> 
> No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)
Click to expand...


This will be really bad for the image of the big business. And what exactly do you mean by crushing? If it is violence, the company will be punished. If economically, why? Small businesses have an advantage by means of lower costs so can ask lower prices for their products.


----------



## bripat9643

editec said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the _IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR_
> 
> CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.
> 
> *Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.*
> 
> But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.
> 
> No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)
Click to expand...


Capitalism existed in this country for about 140 years without any regulation.  It thrived, so your claim is obvious horse manure.


----------



## Crystalclear

Oh, I see crime, but free market is economically. I'm for minimal government (so libertarian, not anarchist) and in that situation there is always a government to punish crimes committed. Even by businesses, because crushing like you mean has nothing to do with market or trade, but just criminal activity.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the _IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR_
> 
> CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.
> 
> *Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.*
> 
> But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.
> 
> No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalism existed in this country for about 140 years without any regulation.  It thrived, so your claim is obvious horse manure.
Click to expand...

Capitalism grew in this country behind heavy tariffs, just as it did in England.
Capitalism can't exist without government providing regulations since the greed of elite capitalists becomes self-destructive to the entire system.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the _IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR_
> 
> CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.
> 
> *Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.*
> 
> But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.
> 
> No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism existed in this country for about 140 years without any regulation.  It thrived, so your claim is obvious horse manure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism grew in this country behind heavy tariffs, just as it did in England.
> Capitalism can't exist without government providing regulations since the greed of elite capitalists becomes self-destructive to the entire system.
Click to expand...


Tariffs is your idea of "heavy regulation?"  Within the Common wealth of Great Britain, there were no tariffs.  Capitalism thrived.   Also, neither Hong Kong or Singapore have any tariffs, yet they are thriving.    The idea that capitalism requires tariffs is obviously false.  Free market economists have argued against tariffs ever since the days of David Ricardo.


----------



## Andylusion

editec said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the _IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR_
> 
> CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.
> 
> *Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.*
> 
> But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.
> 
> No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)
Click to expand...


And you are apparently confusing crime and justice, with regulation.   The two are not the same.    Regulation has nothing to do with crime and justice.  Yes, I know they claim they do, and they pretend they do, and they will monologue about how they do.... but they don't.

If anything, regulation is simply legalizing companies not playing fair.  But regulation has NEVER stopped a company or business from committing crime or fraud or anything.   Two examples.

Enron.   Enron is a perfect example of regulation not preventing crime, AND regulation being used to cover for that crime.

Before Enron went bust, various investors met with Enron executives and even pointed out that it seemed like they were hiding something.   People were questioning Enron long before they crashed.

What did Enron do?  They pointed to their SEC filings.  Hey we followed regulations.  We followed the rules.  We filed our financials.  The SEC stamped their approval.    We're good!

They directly used the regulations to hide their Fraud.

By the way... When Jeffrey Skilling offered to run Enron, he had at least one condition.  They had to use "mark-to-market accounting", now without going deep into that system, suffice it to say, that system is what allowed Skilling to hide their fraud.   Want to know who approved the use of mark-to-market?   The SEC.  They approved that accounting method.

Regulation doesn't have anything to do with justice or crime.   Regulation will not prevent a single criminal act.   Logically it isn't even supposed to.  Regulation limits legal actions.   You can sell x y and z, and now regulation says you can't sell z.

But that doesn't fix anything.    Perfect example is this.....  Out of 1st world countries, name one with the least banking regulations, and yet had no bank failures during the crashes of 1930, or 2008?

Canada.   Canada has less regulations than almost anywhere else in the world, and yet has had no bank failures during the recent crash, nor in the great depression era of the 1930s.

There is no Glass-Steagal act, and never was.   Banks can engage freely in Commercial, Retail, Investment, and insurance, without any regulation.   They also don't have the leverage requirements we have.  Banks in Canada routinely to this day, have 30-1 and even 40-1, leverage ratios, something prohibited in the US.

Yet where did banks fail?  The US.  Not Canada.   And that's just two examples of the lower regulations.

So why is that true?  I suggest that regulations create an impression of safety that is not true.   As a result, people operating inside regulations, assume everything is safe, and they do not scrutinize their choice, as much as they would in a more free system, where there wasn't this fiction of regulation safety.

Banks in Canada didn't have the luxury of saying "Here's our SEC filing, so clearly everything we're doing is safe", unlike Countrywide, who followed regulations to the letter, and was even celebrated by Fannie Mae as being a primary partner.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the _IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR_
> 
> CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.
> 
> *Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.*
> 
> But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.
> 
> No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism existed in this country for about 140 years without any regulation.  It thrived, so your claim is obvious horse manure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism grew in this country behind heavy tariffs, just as it did in England.
> Capitalism can't exist without government providing regulations since the greed of elite capitalists becomes self-destructive to the entire system.
Click to expand...


That's not exactly true.   Capitalism grows any time people are able to freely engage in business... that *IS* true.

However, correlation does not equal causation.   There is no evidence that tariffs directly helped capitalism, and actually quite a bit to suggest otherwise.

The Truth about Trade in History | Cato Institute

Frank Taussig, wrote in The Tariff History of the United States in 1931:

 &#8220;Little, if anything, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained&#8221; in the first part of the 19th century, he concluded. That finding considerably questioned the validity of the infant industry argument. &#8220;The intrinsic soundness of the argument for protection to young industries therefore may not be touched by the conclusions drawn from the history of its trial in the United States, which shows only that the intentional protection of the tariffs of 1816, 1824, and 1828 had little effect,&#8221;

Thus, the early experience of the United States confirms the weakness of the idea that protection can aid infant industries. In practice, so-called infant industries never grow competitive behind trade barriers, but, instead, remain perpetually underdeveloped, thus requiring protection to be extended indefinitely.​
Gottfried von Haberler wrote in The Theory of International Trade 1936:



> Nearly every industrial tariff was first imposed as an infant-industry tariff under the promise that in a few years, when the industry had grown sufficiently to face foreign competition, it would be removed. But, in fact, this moment never arrives. The interested parties are never willing to have the duty removed. Thus temporary infant-industry duties are transformed into permanent duties to preserve the industries they protect



A perfect example of this is India.  A car company Hindustan Motors, purchased the rights to a car design from a British motor company, and began selling the car under the name Ambassador in 1958.

India put in place severe protections on the auto industry, almost completely prohibiting imports, and even in the 1980s, it only allowed Porsche (if I remember right) in, and even then, it dictated what models, and how many of them, could be sold.

Behind that wall of protectionism, there was no reason to improve the car.  No reason to introduce new models.  No reason to change the design, or even the cosmetics.







This.... is a new Hindustan Ambassador.   They are still making the exact same car they were back in 1958.   It drives about the same.  Handles about the same.  Has about the same acceleration at a 1958 model would.   Of course now with free open markets, the Ambassador is falling off the market, as newer, better, nicer, cars availible to the public, and the public is better off because of it.

Even Hindustan Motors is forced to change their "1950s model forever" plan, and has created a joint venture with Mitsubishi.  They now make the Pajero (Mitsubishi Montero) and the Outlander.

But that is ONLY because of free-market Capitalism, and would never have happened behind the wall of protectionism.

Protectionism, only forced people to buy a very bad, very old, very slow, very crappy 1958 Car that was never updated.   Protectionism made everyone poorer, than they are today with far more options.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't depend on charity unless you are disabled and have no family that can take care of you.  That description applies to about 0.2% of the population.  It depends on work.
> 
> Socialists are wrong:  you have no right to subsistence, medical care or education.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why the more democratic solution is fucked.  Why should a mass of numskulls decide how to spend the fortune Bill Gates built?  If it was up to them, there would never have been a fortune in the first place.  They would have crapped it away long before Microsoft ever became a household name.
> 
> 
> 
> Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The internet was built with private money, and buying a copy of Windows entitles you to nothing more than a copy of Windows.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gates is just another Greed-Head amassing a huge fortune that came from exploiting the talents of others; in other words, he didn't build it by himself. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone involve was paid handsomely.  10,000 people became millionaires working for Microsoft.  However, you think some clueless tick on the ass of society living in Hoboken New Jersey is entitled to tell Bill Gates how to spend his fortune.  I can't imagine anything more idiotic than that.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did Gates "manipulate the economic system?"  He played by the rules and became wealthy.  That why you and the other ticks on the ass of society hate him.  You understand perfectly that you don't have what it takes to accomplish what he did.
Click to expand...

It takes a willingness to exploit elaborate systems of intellectual property protection or limited-liability corporate structures that have been put in place over the last few hundred years specifically to enable a handful of parasites (like Bill) to privatize profit by socializing loss. Obviously, two-bit wanna-bees like you suck down every table scrap the parasites flick your way. Congratulations.


----------



## georgephillip

Crystalclear said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, human nature is not socialistic. Everyone wants to get rich and most people do also not want to live in some socialist dictature.
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans are social animals with societies that depend on cooperation far more than competition. No one I know wants to live in any kind of dictatorship, yet that is exactly what we are approaching due to the unbounded greed of a few psychopaths:*
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP...'
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at people, they are more competitive than social. Really social, but still more competitive. And in a free country, inequality will always exist. Our freedom decreases when a government tries (too hard, a little is always good) to decrease the gaps between different groups of wealth.
Click to expand...

*Our freedom also decreases when government tries too hard to redistribute wealth upward, from workers to wealth extractors, for example. That seems to be where we are today in the US.*

"The world of income and wealth inequality is awash with shocking statistics. 

"Figures disclosed by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, and reported by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, are shocking and revealing: 'Eight per cent of humanity takes home 50 per cent of global income, the top 1 per cent alone takes home 15 percent.' 

"America, he states, 'provides a particularly grim example for the world.' It is where income and wealth inequality reach their zenith, and where one in four children live in poverty. 

"The countrys wealthiest 1 per cent (incomes above 394,000 dollars) take 'home 22 per cent of the nations income; the top 0.1 per cent, make do with a colossal 11 per cent. Stiglitz goes on to make the staggering point that an average American worker earns less today than he did 45 years ago (inflation adjusted), and that men without a university degree earn 'almost 40 per cent less than they did four decades ago'.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's more opinion than fact.   I can make up a bunch of opinion to counter your opinion, but that doesn't change reality either way.
> 
> Again, if the real problem was the rich, then why are countries without rich, in poverty?   You can't explain that with your monolog.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a country without a single rich citizen.
> Do you disagree the a large slave population in Rome created unemployment among free citizens of the time?
> This is a forum that depends of many different opinions being expressed so that some consensus may occur. If you don't agree with the opinions I choose to support my beliefs, find your own experts to counter my claims. Looking for "reality" without defining what you mean by the term is an exercise in futility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many rich North Koreans are there, not tied to government?  Or Cuba?
> 
> How about you do the same.  You never seem to post anything, except someone else's opinion article.
Click to expand...

How many North Koreans or Cubans increased their wealth by killing civilians in your home town? Rich Americans are tethered to their government by elaborate systems of intellectual property protection and limited liability corporations. FWIW, I think the Right is correct to say big business and big government are colluding under Obama, but what they don't mention is the collusion has been taking place for the last five or six centuries.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The internet was built with private money, and buying a copy of Windows entitles you to nothing more than a copy of Windows.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone involve was paid handsomely.  10,000 people became millionaires working for Microsoft.  However, you think some clueless tick on the ass of society living in Hoboken New Jersey is entitled to tell Bill Gates how to spend his fortune.  I can't imagine anything more idiotic than that.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did Gates "manipulate the economic system?"  He played by the rules and became wealthy.  That why you and the other ticks on the ass of society hate him.  You understand perfectly that you don't have what it takes to accomplish what he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes a willingness to exploit elaborate systems of intellectual property protection or limited-liability corporate structures that have been put in place over the last few hundred years specifically to enable a handful of parasites (like Bill) to privatize profit by socializing loss. Obviously, two-bit wanna-bees like you suck down every table scrap the parasites flick your way. Congratulations.
Click to expand...


Socializing loss? LOL!

Sounds like something government, not Bill Gates, would do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans are social animals with societies that depend on cooperation far more than competition. No one I know wants to live in any kind of dictatorship, yet that is exactly what we are approaching due to the unbounded greed of a few psychopaths:*
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP...'
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at people, they are more competitive than social. Really social, but still more competitive. And in a free country, inequality will always exist. Our freedom decreases when a government tries (too hard, a little is always good) to decrease the gaps between different groups of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our freedom also decreases when government tries too hard to redistribute wealth upward, from workers to wealth extractors, for example. That seems to be where we are today in the US.*
> 
> "The world of income and wealth inequality is awash with shocking statistics.
> 
> "Figures disclosed by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, and reported by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, are shocking and revealing: 'Eight per cent of humanity takes home 50 per cent of global income, the top 1 per cent alone takes home 15 percent.'
> 
> "America, he states, 'provides a particularly grim example for the world.' It is where income and wealth inequality reach their zenith, and where one in four children live in poverty.
> 
> "The countrys wealthiest 1 per cent (incomes above 394,000 dollars) take 'home 22 per cent of the nations income; the top 0.1 per cent, make do with a colossal 11 per cent. Stiglitz goes on to make the staggering point that an average American worker earns less today than he did 45 years ago (inflation adjusted), and that men without a university degree earn 'almost 40 per cent less than they did four decades ago'.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


* 'Eight per cent of humanity takes home 50 per cent of global income, the top 1 per cent alone takes home 15 percent.' *

It's true, people who aren't very productive don't make very much income.


----------



## Erand7899

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The internet was built with private money, and buying a copy of Windows entitles you to nothing more than a copy of Windows.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone involve was paid handsomely.  10,000 people became millionaires working for Microsoft.  However, you think some clueless tick on the ass of society living in Hoboken New Jersey is entitled to tell Bill Gates how to spend his fortune.  I can't imagine anything more idiotic than that.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did Gates "manipulate the economic system?"  He played by the rules and became wealthy.  That why you and the other ticks on the ass of society hate him.  You understand perfectly that you don't have what it takes to accomplish what he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes a willingness to exploit elaborate systems of intellectual property protection or limited-liability corporate structures that have been put in place over the last few hundred years specifically to enable a handful of parasites (like Bill) to privatize profit by socializing loss. Obviously, two-bit wanna-bees like you suck down every table scrap the parasites flick your way. Congratulations.
Click to expand...


You don't even understand the propaganda that you regurgitate.  Intellectual property rights, protect individuals from having their work stolen.  Bill Gates did steal intellectual property from a corporation (IBM, I believe) through a legal manipulation, and did use the talents of others, but those others were well compensated for their efforts.  Without Bill Gates, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

Incorporation does not socialize losses, since the losses, if they occur, are limited to the capitalists who invested in, or loaned capital to, the corporation.  Capitalists take those risks, and are therefore entitled to the rewards when their investments are successful.  They are exploiting no one.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's true that small and mid-sized businesses are afflicted with too many regulations; however, you shouldn't lose sight of who benefits the most from bribing government to write those regulations:*
> 
> " Hundreds of millions of times a day, thirsty Americans open a can of soda, beer or juice. And every time they do it, they pay a fraction of a penny more because of a shrewd maneuver by Goldman Sachs and other financial players that ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars."
> 
> *The idea of a "free market" has two distinct meanings. Originally it was used to describe a market that was free of undue rentier influence, in other words, a market free of those interested in maximizing rent extraction.
> 
> Today, the idea has come to mean markets free of any democratic oversight, which gives rent seekers like Goldman Sachs the freedom to exploit consumers, homeowners, and investors alike.*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the kind of empty babble I'm talking about.
> 
> So let's review this entire deal.    Goldman Sach, which trades in commodities, and has numerous holdings for their clients of commodities, bought controlling shares in a company that operates several dozens of warehouses that store such commodities, like aluminum.
> 
> Now keep in mind, Goldman Sachs has owned this company for a long long time.   Did prices significantly rise?   Nope.   But because this is Goldman Sachs.... and there are moronic fools who hate Goldman Sachs, suddenly this is an issue.   Of course the brainless fools who follow these hateful morons, never bother to look at the reality.   All they know is Goldman Sach did something bad (allegedly), and therefore it must be true, because we're all too stupid to think for ourselves.
> 
> Now, is it true that because of regulations on commodities, that the prices charged are higher, than would be in a free-market?   Yes.   Does this benefit Goldman Sachs?   Well since they own the company, and the company is doing better because of it.... yes.
> 
> But here's the kicker.   If anyone else owned that company, it would benefit them just as much.   And this article is out of date.  Goldman Sachs sold off this company, and now a foreign company is reaping the benefits.
> 
> All these idiots on the left did, was make it so that now foriegn people are benefiting, instead of Americans.
> 
> But it does not end there... notice the commentary....
> 
> "Free-Market means...  markets free of any democratic oversight, which gives rent seekers like Goldman Sachs the freedom to exploit consumers, homeowners, and investors alike"​
> But you just pointed out regulations that drive up the cost of commodities, at the cost of consumers.
> 
> Those regulations are exactly the same oversight that you say in this quote we need.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.    Either the regulations harm the consumers as your very own citation suggests, or it benefits them.
> 
> Very little shows it benefits us.   Your own link proves it doesn't.
> 
> Without those regulations, the company Goldman Sachs purchased, would not be able to charge customers more money to store their commodities there.
> 
> Why?  *Because that company is less than 10% of the warehouses that store commodities.  If they had a significantly higher cost to storing commodities, customers would store their commodities elsewhere.*
> 
> The ONLY reason that this company was able to charge more, was because of the very "democratic oversight" you people on the left push.   That "democratic oversight" forces all warehouses to charge more.   Thus the one Goldman Sachs owns can do so, without losing customers, because all the warehouses are charging more, thanks to Leftard "democratic oversight".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "In the case of aluminum, Goldman bought Metro International Trade Services, one of the countrys biggest storers of the metal.* More than a quarter of the supply of aluminum available on the market is  kept in the companys Detroit-area warehouses.
> *
> 
> "Before Goldman bought Metro International three years ago, warehouse customers used to wait an average of six weeks for their purchases to be located, retrieved by forklift and delivered to factories.
> 
> "But now that Goldman owns the company, the wait has grown more than tenfold  to more than 16 months, according to industry records.
> 
> "Longer waits might be written off as an aggravation, but they also make aluminum more expensive nearly everywhere in the country because of the arcane formula used to determine the cost of the metal on the spot market.
> 
> "The delays are so acute that Coca-Cola and many other manufacturers avoid buying aluminum stored here. Nonetheless, they still pay the higher price."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=1&
Click to expand...


That's irrelevant.  This is why people on the right, think people on the left are absolutely economically illiterate.    Because you think what you posted there, made point.   That's sad.   Because it doesn't.

*"Metro International Trade Services, one of the countrys biggest storers of the metal"*

So.... ?       You realize that Toyota is the biggest car makers in the world, right?   Biggest profits, biggest unit sales, biggest capitalization.    They are number one on the world market.

That means they can charge anything they want.... Right?  Yet the Toyota Camry is priced almost exactly the same as the comparable Ford Fusion.

*"More than a quarter of the supply of aluminum available on the market is kept in the companys Detroit-area warehouses"*

So...  ?    Again, they are still only 10% of the warehouses out there.    Yes, they have 25% of the aluminum stored there.   Doesn't matter.   First, they don't OWN the aluminum.  They are storing it.    There's a difference.  Second, simply storing it doesn't give them any control over the market.    If they were to drive up their prices for storing the aluminum, the customers would move their stocks.

Within 5 minutes of where I live, there are two public storage places.  If I had all my stuff at one, and they raised their rates, I would move my stuff to the other one that didn't.

Metro International Trade Services, only owns about 10% of the warehouses, that are listed on the London Metal Exchange.   Those are just the 'official' warehouses.  You can store your metal ANYWHERE.

Point being, one company owning a fraction of the warehouses, doesn't mean jack squat.

Look at this......

Aluminum Lines Still Trouble the London Metal Exchange - WSJ.com



> For years, consumers have complained of problems in procuring metals at five locations around the world: Detroit; Vlissingen, the Netherlands; New Orleans; Johor, Malaysia; and Antwerp, Belgium. At each of those cities, there has been one warehousing company with a wait of more than 100 days for metal delivery. In November, the LME said it would tackle backlogs at any warehouse with waits of 50 days or more.



If the problem was Metro International Trade Services, then why are long waits happening in other countries, like Netherlands, Malaysia, Belgium?

What's your excuse for how Goldman Sach, directing Metro to hold back deliveries, is magically causing warehouses on the other side of the planet, not connected at all with Metro, to have the same issue?

Or why are the Metro warehouses in Italy not having those problems?   

Again... the ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because some idiot hates Goldman Sachs, and the lemmings are mindlessly following them.

If you have REAL evidence that Goldman Sachs has directly ordered Metro to deny service, post it.   Bring them up on charges.     But I highly doubt you people have anything in support, and that's why you keep posting meaningless crap, thinking it makes a point.  "They store 25% of blaw blaw blaw" as if.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well by your own theory, if we had control, we would impose a capitalistic system of private property rights.  Yet we know that isn't the case.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do we?
> Prove it.*
> 
> "In 1915 the United States, responding to complaints to President Woodrow Wilson from American banks to which Haiti was deeply in debt, occupied the country.
> 
> "The occupation of Haiti lasted until 1934.
> 
> "The US occupation was self-interested, sometimes brutal, and caused problems that lasted past its lifetime.
> 
> "Reforms, though, were carried out.
> 
> "Under the supervision of the United States Marines, the Haitian National Assembly elected Philippe Sudré Dartiguenave President.
> 
> "He signed a treaty that made Haiti a de jure US protectorate, with American officials assuming control over the Financial Adviser, Customs Receivership, the Constabulary, the Public Works Service, and the Public Health Service for a period of ten years.
> 
> "The principal instrument of American authority was the newly created Gendarmerie d'Haïti, commanded by American officers.
> 
> "In 1917, at the demand of US officials, the National Assembly was dissolved, and officials were designated to write a new constitution, which was largely dictated by officials in the US State Department and US Navy Department.
> 
> "Franklin D Roosevelt, Under-Secretary for the Navy in the Wilson administration, claimed to have personally written the new constitution."
> 
> History of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The occupation greatly improved some of Haiti's infrastructure and centralized power in Port-au-Prince. Infrastructure improvements were particularly impressive: 1700 km of roads were made usable, 189 bridges were built, many irrigation canals were rehabilitated, hospitals, schools, and public buildings were constructed, and drinking water was brought to the main cities. Port-au-Prince became the first Caribbean city to have an available phone service with automatic dialing. Agricultural education was organized with a central school of agriculture and 69 farms in the country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Further.... you ignore what happened after the occupation was over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Vincent took advantage of the comparative national stability, which was being maintained by a professionalized military, to gain absolute power. A plebiscite permitted the transfer of all authority in economic matters from the legislature to the executive, but Vincent was not content with this expansion of his power. In 1935 he forced through the legislature a new constitution, which was also approved by plebiscite. The constitution praised Vincent, and it granted the executive sweeping powers to dissolve the legislature at will, to reorganize the judiciary, to appoint ten of twenty-one senators (and to recommend the remaining eleven to the lower house), and to rule by decree when the legislature was not in session. Although Vincent implemented some improvements in infrastructure and services, he brutally repressed his opposition, censored the press, and governed largely to benefit himself and a clique of merchants and corrupt military officers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's recap....
> 
> Unlike the DR which still has the American modeled Constitution, the constitution in Haiti was completely replaced by a more socialist model of government control.    All of the property rights the American one put in place, were swept away, with a pro-government Constitution with nearly unlimited power.
> 
> The result has been an unlimited stream of dictatorships wrapped up as democratically elected governments, which nationalized business and destroyed those businesses, and drove away the rich, which killed off jobs and growth, and resulted in the impoverished hopeless Haiti we have today.
> 
> About the only thing you can point to, as being an example of American caused destruction in Haiti, was the insistence by the United States Agency for International Development, that pigs be slaughtered in order to stop the spread of the Swine Fever Virus.
Click to expand...

*Why would you believe the US has a right to author the constitution of another sovereign state?*

"Philippe Sudré Dartiguenave, the mulatto president of the Senate, agreed to accept the presidency of Haiti after several other candidates had refused. In 1917, President Dartiguenave dissolved the legislature after its members refused to approve a constitution written by Franklin D. Roosevelt (then Assistant Secretary of the Navy)[11][12] 

"However, a referendum subsequently approved the new constitution in 1918 (by a vote of 98&#8239;225 to 768). It was a generally a liberal document. The constitution allowed foreigners to purchase land. Jean-Jacques Dessalines had forbidden land ownership by foreigners, and since 1804, some Haitians had viewed foreign ownership as anathema.[13]

*Government and opposition[edit]*

"In September 1915, the United States Senate ratified the Haitian-American Convention, a treaty granting the United States security and economic oversight of Haiti for a 10-year period.[14] 

"Representatives from the United States wielded veto power over all governmental decisions in Haiti, and Marine Corps commanders served as administrators in the provinces"

*Your recap makes the claim Haiti imposed "a more socialist model of government control." 

Can you provide any evidence for that statement?*

United States occupation of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

Erand7899 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The internet was built with private money, and buying a copy of Windows entitles you to nothing more than a copy of Windows.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone involve was paid handsomely.  10,000 people became millionaires working for Microsoft.  However, you think some clueless tick on the ass of society living in Hoboken New Jersey is entitled to tell Bill Gates how to spend his fortune.  I can't imagine anything more idiotic than that.
> 
> 
> 
> How did Gates "manipulate the economic system?"  He played by the rules and became wealthy.  That why you and the other ticks on the ass of society hate him.  You understand perfectly that you don't have what it takes to accomplish what he did.
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a willingness to exploit elaborate systems of intellectual property protection or limited-liability corporate structures that have been put in place over the last few hundred years specifically to enable a handful of parasites (like Bill) to privatize profit by socializing loss. Obviously, two-bit wanna-bees like you suck down every table scrap the parasites flick your way. Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't even understand the propaganda that you regurgitate.  Intellectual property rights, protect individuals from having their work stolen.  Bill Gates did steal intellectual property from a corporation (IBM, I believe) through a legal manipulation, and did use the talents of others, but those others were well compensated for their efforts.  Without Bill Gates, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> 
> Incorporation does not socialize losses, since the losses, if they occur, are limited to the capitalists who invested in, or loaned capital to, the corporation.  Capitalists take those risks, and are therefore entitled to the rewards when their investments are successful.  They are exploiting no one.
Click to expand...

*So, without Bill the internet would not exist, right?
Corporations exploit the commons by inflicting their negative externalities on taxpayers: *

"For example, air pollution is usually a negative externality.

"Air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels causes damage to public health, crops, and the overall environment. But do the oil or coal or natural gas companies pay for these costs? 

"No, of course not  they externalize them to us. 

"You and I are forced to play for the cleanup of this pollution and the damage and cancers that it causes, while the corporations that pump it out increase their profits because we're picking up the bill for the externality of pollution.

"Other examples of negative externalities include things like noise pollution, water pollution, and the over-harvesting of fish. 

"All of these are byproducts of corporations doing business, are harmful and expensive to the rest of society, and are usually externalized by corporations so you and I pay the cost and the corporation keeps the profits."

How Big Business Robs Us With "Externalities"


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is historical, not natural.
> It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you are so full of it.    Capitalism has always existed.    6,000 years ago there were people who owned land, and rented it out to be farmed.   They owned mills, and rented them out to produce food.   They owned blacksmith shops, and used them to hire more black smiths to make more swords and things.
> 
> Capitalism.... personal property, has existed since the dawn of human kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism and personal property are not the same thing.
> Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making a profit within a market economy.
> 
> That doesn't sound like Mesopotamia 6000 years ago:
> 
> *"Irrigated agriculture spread southwards from the Zagros foothills with the Samara and Hadji Muhammed culture, from about 5,000 BC.[36]
> 
> "Sumerian temples functioned as banks and developed the first large-scale system of loans and credit, but the Babylonians developed the earliest system of commercial banking.
> 
> "It was comparable in some ways to modern post-Keynesian economics, but with a more 'anything goes' approach.[31]
> 
> "In the early period down to Ur III temples owned up to one third of the available land, declining over time as royal and other private holdings increased in frequency."*
> 
> Mesopotamia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Capitalism requires personal property.  You can't have Capitalism without personal property rights.    And inherently if you have personal property rights, you automatically end up with capitalism.

If I don't own this thing I have, I can't sell it to you.  If you can't own it, you can't buy it from me.    If you don't own this bit of ground, you can't build a house on it.   Or you would be stupid to do so, since the moment you finished, someone could take it from you.

The moment that Cuba allowed people to buy property, people started buying property, fixing it up, and renting it out.    Capitalism started the instant they were allowed ownership.

Further, you seem to contradict yourself in your post.  You describe Capitalism, then say it's not like Mesopotamia, and yet your link suggests the opposite of that.

Why did the farms grow more crops than they could eat?   Why did the farmers invest in irrigation, when they had more than enough to sustain themselves?

Because they want to profit.   Profit in this case, was the trading of their goods for other goods that benefited them.

Have you read "Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History"  ?

Some quick highlights....

Page 91 talks about how all property was kept 100% within the family, and passed on from generation to generation.    No inheritance tax here.

Page 94 talks about the absolute nature of land ownership.  So absolute were these transactions, that they would be carved on stone, and placed on the land, so that everyone everywhere knew exactly who this bit of land was owned by.

Page 96 talks about Field-Leases.   My company leases a building right now.    Same thing.  Exact same thing.

Page 196 talks about the Code of Hammurabi, and hiring farmers, hiring boat workers, hiring oxen.    Sounds exactly like capitalism.

Why did the guy breed oxen, and rent them out to people?   To make a profit, and the Code protects that.

So, no, you don't know what you are talking about.   The whole system of writing, and sealing written contracts in wax....  that's Capitalism at work.


----------



## Crystalclear

georgephillip said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans are social animals with societies that depend on cooperation far more than competition. No one I know wants to live in any kind of dictatorship, yet that is exactly what we are approaching due to the unbounded greed of a few psychopaths:*
> 
> "According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP...'
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at people, they are more competitive than social. Really social, but still more competitive. And in a free country, inequality will always exist. Our freedom decreases when a government tries (too hard, a little is always good) to decrease the gaps between different groups of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Our freedom also decreases when government tries too hard to redistribute wealth upward, from workers to wealth extractors, for example. That seems to be where we are today in the US.*
> 
> "The world of income and wealth inequality is awash with shocking statistics.
> 
> "Figures disclosed by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, and reported by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, are shocking and revealing: 'Eight per cent of humanity takes home 50 per cent of global income, the top 1 per cent alone takes home 15 percent.'
> 
> "America, he states, 'provides a particularly grim example for the world.' It is where income and wealth inequality reach their zenith, and where one in four children live in poverty.
> 
> "The countrys wealthiest 1 per cent (incomes above 394,000 dollars) take 'home 22 per cent of the nations income; the top 0.1 per cent, make do with a colossal 11 per cent. Stiglitz goes on to make the staggering point that an average American worker earns less today than he did 45 years ago (inflation adjusted), and that men without a university degree earn 'almost 40 per cent less than they did four decades ago'.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's capitalism. One earns more than another, that's freedom as well. If you own a good business or have a good-paid job, you have the right to earn that money and not redistribute to half the population as in a socialistic state.  The poor people do already get government benefits, it's not so much, but something. Except communist countries (where almost everyone is poor) and Europe, a poor person can live nowhere in the world better than the US.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism existed in this country for about 140 years without any regulation.  It thrived, so your claim is obvious horse manure.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism grew in this country behind heavy tariffs, just as it did in England.
> Capitalism can't exist without government providing regulations since the greed of elite capitalists becomes self-destructive to the entire system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tariffs is your idea of "heavy regulation?"  Within the Common wealth of Great Britain, there were no tariffs.  Capitalism thrived.   Also, neither Hong Kong or Singapore have any tariffs, yet they are thriving.    The idea that capitalism requires tariffs is obviously false.  Free market economists have argued against tariffs ever since the days of David Ricardo.
Click to expand...

The textile industry in the US and England depended on two things during their early years: high tariffs and slave labor. Capitalism grew up behind heavy tariffs, slavery, and military savagery, as places like India, the Congo, Mississippi, and Somalia prove. Capitalism thrives wherever property rights trump human rights.


----------



## georgephillip

Crystalclear said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at people, they are more competitive than social. Really social, but still more competitive. And in a free country, inequality will always exist. Our freedom decreases when a government tries (too hard, a little is always good) to decrease the gaps between different groups of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> *Our freedom also decreases when government tries too hard to redistribute wealth upward, from workers to wealth extractors, for example. That seems to be where we are today in the US.*
> 
> "The world of income and wealth inequality is awash with shocking statistics.
> 
> "Figures disclosed by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, and reported by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, are shocking and revealing: 'Eight per cent of humanity takes home 50 per cent of global income, the top 1 per cent alone takes home 15 percent.'
> 
> "America, he states, 'provides a particularly grim example for the world.' It is where income and wealth inequality reach their zenith, and where one in four children live in poverty.
> 
> "The countrys wealthiest 1 per cent (incomes above 394,000 dollars) take 'home 22 per cent of the nations income; the top 0.1 per cent, make do with a colossal 11 per cent. Stiglitz goes on to make the staggering point that an average American worker earns less today than he did 45 years ago (inflation adjusted), and that men without a university degree earn 'almost 40 per cent less than they did four decades ago'.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's capitalism. One earns more than another, that's freedom as well. If you own a good business or have a good-paid job, you have the right to earn that money and not redistribute to half the population as in a socialistic state.  The poor people do already get government benefits, it's not so much, but something. Except communist countries (where almost everyone is poor) and Europe, a poor person can live nowhere in the world better than the US.
Click to expand...

Do you believe America's richest one percent work three times harder today while "earning" 22% of US income compared to forty years ago when they took home about 8%, or is it more likely they are donating three times as much to elected Republicans AND Democrats today?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history. Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and  money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But here's the problem.   Bill Gates has done more to help people, then you socialists have ever done.
> 
> Socialists never help people themselves.  They just try and force others to help people.
> 
> Obama hasn't given money from his own pocket, nor the people in the Soviet Kremlin, nor Chairman Mao, nor Hugo Chavez, nor any of the leftists throughout history.
> 
> Even those that do help people, and call themselves leftist, are anything but.   Warren Buffet, may vote democrap, and may support socialism, and he may give his wealth to Charity....... but the fact is, Warren Buffet, and Ted Turner, and all the other leftists, have all made their fortunes as Free-market Capitalists.
> 
> Free-market Capitalists have done more for the middle and lower income people of the entire world, than you socialists have done throughout all human history combined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You shouldn't fear socialism:*
> 
> "1. The Military/Defense - The United States military is the largest and most funded socialist program in the world.  It operates thanks to our taxpayer dollars and protects the country as a whole. From the richest citizens to the homeless who sleep under the bridge. We are all protected by our military whether we pay taxes or not. This is complete socialism.
> 
> 2. Highways/Roads - Those roads and highways you drive on every single day are completely taxpayer funded. Your tax dollars are used to maintain, expand, and preserve our highways and roads for every one's use. President Eisenhower was inspired by Germany's autobahn and implemented the idea right here in America. That's right, a republican president created our taxpayer funded, national highway system. This was a different time, before the republican party came down with a vicious case of rabies that never went away.
> 
> 3. Public Libraries - Yes. That place where you go to check out books from conservative authors telling you how horrible socialism is, is in fact socialism. Libraries are taxpayer funded. You pay a few bucks to get a library card and you can read books for free for the rest of your life.
> 
> 4. Police - Ever had a situation where you had to call the police? Then you have used a taxpayer funded socialist program. Anyone can call the police whether they pay taxes or not. They are there to protect and serve the community, not individuals. This is complete socialism on a state level, but still socialism all the same. Would you rather have to swipe your credit card before the police will help you?
> 
> 5. Fire Dept. - Hopefully you have never had a fire in your home. But if you have, you probably called your local taxpayer-funded fire department to put the fire out. Like police, this is state socialism. You tax dollars are used to rescue your entire community in case of a fire."
> 
> 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America
Click to expand...


Here's the difference.   On a purely technical grounds....  Yes, the military is socialism.

A socialistic policy that we on the right, oppose, is the policies that try and change the economy, try and modify society.

Military does not do that.   The military is economically neutral.  It's there to protect the country as a whole.   It's there to keep everyone, form the homeless beggar, to the rich CEO, safe.    It provides for the "General Welfare".   Not the welfare of one person, at the expense of the other.

Same with the Police and Fire Departments.  Everyone benefits from the city not burning down, or over run with anarchy.

Roads and highways, same thing.  Everyone benefits.  It's not just rich, or just the political, or just whoever.   Everyone benefits.  Even the homeless beggar benefits from the charity food, delivered by truck to the shelter.

(by the way....   all the road around where I live were built by private money.  So the claim isn't even true)

As for Libraries....  Are you telling me you don't buy anything?  All the books in my house, I bought.  Maybe the reason you seem to know so little is because you need to buy more books.

Back to the beginning, the problem with all of this is... if you total up all the expenses for all of these things, they are tiny tiny insignificant fraction of the tax cost.

The entire Library expenses for the whole state of Ohio, is $350 Million.
The total police spending for the state, including all jails, prisons, is $1.7 Billion.
The total cost of running the entire Ohio State government, including all courts, is $300 Million.
The total cost of the entire department of Transportation, all roads and bridges in the entire state, is $400 Million.

That totals up to $2.75 Billion dollars.    How much is the Ohio State Budget?  $30.57 Billion.

We could cut taxes by 90% and fund everything you outlined.

Similarly at the Federal level....

The DOD costs $673 Billion.
The DHS costs $55 Billion.
The DOJ costs $37 Billion.
The DOT costs $98 Billion.

Let's even toss in there, Veteran Affairs and Intelligence.  That's another $192 Billion.

That total adds up to only one $1 Trillion.

The budget is $3.8 Trillion.   The tax revenue is $2.9 Trillion.    You could cut the budget to 27%, and cut taxes to 35%, and still cover MORE than what you suggest.   Most of that DOT budget isn't going 'roads and bridges'.

All the rest of that tax money spent at the State and Federal level... that's all leftists socialists policies, blowing our money on crap.    If you people didn't blow our money, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and all of us would be far more wealthy than we are today.

I sure would.   I only made $18,000 last year, and I had to cough up $3,000 in taxes.   Very little of that money went to Fire, Police, Roads and Bridges, Public Libraries, and military.    I wouldn't be nearly as mad about it, if it did.   But the fact is, most of it went to a bunch of stupid leftard crap.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our freedom also decreases when government tries too hard to redistribute wealth upward, from workers to wealth extractors, for example. That seems to be where we are today in the US.*
> 
> "The world of income and wealth inequality is awash with shocking statistics.
> 
> "Figures disclosed by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, and reported by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, are shocking and revealing: 'Eight per cent of humanity takes home 50 per cent of global income, the top 1 per cent alone takes home 15 percent.'
> 
> "America, he states, 'provides a particularly grim example for the world.' It is where income and wealth inequality reach their zenith, and where one in four children live in poverty.
> 
> "The countrys wealthiest 1 per cent (incomes above 394,000 dollars) take 'home 22 per cent of the nation&#8217;s income; the top 0.1 per cent, make do with a colossal 11 per cent. Stiglitz goes on to make the staggering point that an average American worker earns less today than he did 45 years ago (inflation adjusted), and that men without a university degree earn 'almost 40 per cent less than they did four decades ago'&#8221;.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's capitalism. One earns more than another, that's freedom as well. If you own a good business or have a good-paid job, you have the right to earn that money and not redistribute to half the population as in a socialistic state.  The poor people do already get government benefits, it's not so much, but something. Except communist countries (where almost everyone is poor) and Europe, a poor person can live nowhere in the world better than the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe America's richest one percent work three times harder today while "earning" 22% of US income compared to forty years ago when they took home about 8%, or is it more likely they are donating three times as much to elected Republicans AND Democrats today?
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter.  I believe that only greedy and envious people care how much the wealthiest 1% did or did not work.

None of your business.   Yet another difference between me and you, the right and the left.

If Warren Buffet doubles his income tomorrow, what difference does that make to me?   None.   My life will get worse or better because of Warren Buffet doubling his income.   The only reason why I would care, is because I was a greedy envious person who thought that if I can't get it, then Warren shouldn't either.

If Warren Buffet was kicked out of Berkshire Hathaway, and ended up a greeter at Walmart, what difference would that make to me?  None.  My life will not get one bit better, or worse, from Warren earning minimum wage tomorrow.     The only reason why I would care, is if I was a greedy envious person that was glad when someone else is doing worse, because I'm not doing so much better.

That's the difference.   We're not evil people on the right.  We don't rejoice when people do worse, and get angry when people do better.   We're not leftard bits of human trash, that get happy when others suffer, because we have are head shoved so far up our own greedy, envious beliefs.

That's the difference between us.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism grew in this country behind heavy tariffs, just as it did in England.
> Capitalism can't exist without government providing regulations since the greed of elite capitalists becomes self-destructive to the entire system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tariffs is your idea of "heavy regulation?"  Within the Common wealth of Great Britain, there were no tariffs.  Capitalism thrived.   Also, neither Hong Kong or Singapore have any tariffs, yet they are thriving.    The idea that capitalism requires tariffs is obviously false.  Free market economists have argued against tariffs ever since the days of David Ricardo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The textile industry in the US and England depended on two things during their early years: high tariffs and slave labor. Capitalism grew up behind heavy tariffs, slavery, and military savagery, as places like India, the Congo, Mississippi, and Somalia prove. Capitalism thrives wherever property rights trump human rights.
Click to expand...


First off, I have already posted links to several economists, who have shown that tariffs didn't benefit early textiles.  It was only after tariffs were eliminated that the textile industry modernized.  Just like it was only after protectionism ended, that the Auto Industry in India stopped producing a car form the 1950s.

Second of all....  Slavery was an institution throughout human history, regardless of economic system.

Capitalism had thrived in places without slavery, just as much as places with slavery.   Capitalism ALWAYS works.

If anything, Capitalism works even better without slavery, because then the people who would have been slaves, can now engage in capitalism themselves, thus benefiting the economy.   Even back in our history, there were freemen, free former slaves, that owned and operated businesses, and even plantations.

Only if you take a myopic one sided view of all history, can you even attempt to make some brainless connection between Capitalism and slavery.    Correlation, in a institution that has existed since the cave man, and Capitalism, is not causation.   If you were really knowledgeable on this, you'd know that.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's capitalism. One earns more than another, that's freedom as well. If you own a good business or have a good-paid job, you have the right to earn that money and not redistribute to half the population as in a socialistic state.  The poor people do already get government benefits, it's not so much, but something. Except communist countries (where almost everyone is poor) and Europe, a poor person can live nowhere in the world better than the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe America's richest one percent work three times harder today while "earning" 22% of US income compared to forty years ago when they took home about 8%, or is it more likely they are donating three times as much to elected Republicans AND Democrats today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  I believe that only greedy and envious people care how much the wealthiest 1% did or did not work.
> 
> None of your business.   Yet another difference between me and you, the right and the left.
> 
> If Warren Buffet doubles his income tomorrow, what difference does that make to me?   None.   My life will get worse or better because of Warren Buffet doubling his income.   The only reason why I would care, is because I was a greedy envious person who thought that if I can't get it, then Warren shouldn't either.
> 
> If Warren Buffet was kicked out of Berkshire Hathaway, and ended up a greeter at Walmart, what difference would that make to me?  None.  My life will not get one bit better, or worse, from Warren earning minimum wage tomorrow.     The only reason why I would care, is if I was a greedy envious person that was glad when someone else is doing worse, because I'm not doing so much better.
> 
> That's the difference.   We're not evil people on the right.  We don't rejoice when people do worse, and get angry when people do better.   We're not leftard bits of human trash, that get happy when others suffer, because we have are head shoved so far up our own greedy, envious beliefs.
> 
> That's the difference between us.
Click to expand...

Here's another difference:
I'm not stupid enough to believe the richest 1% increased their share of US income from 8% to 22% over the past forty years through hard work. Forty years ago a single minimum wage job paid me enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Today a single minimum wage jobs pays about 60% of the rent of any one bedroom apartment.
That makes it my business, in spite of what ignorant home-schooled right-wing tools have been brainwashed into believing.


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  I believe that only greedy and envious people care how much the wealthiest 1% did or did not work.
> 
> None of your business.   Yet another difference between me and you, the right and the left.
> 
> That's the difference between us.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another difference:
> I'm not stupid enough to believe the richest 1% increased their share of US income from 8% to 22% over the past forty years through hard work. Forty years ago a single minimum wage job paid me enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Today a single minimum wage jobs pays about 60% of the rent of any one bedroom apartment.
> That makes it my business, in spite of what ignorant home-schooled right-wing tools have been brainwashed into believing.
Click to expand...



Androw is essentially saying that whether our society is concerned with human dignity is irrelevant. He might say something like "If you can read this than you aren't without capital and you aren't Warren Buffet. So get your ass in gear and make money! Make as much as you can and stop worrying about what conditions you live under or what pre-determines your standard of living. Just go baby go!"

Yeah, you'd expect that from a brain-dead investor who has checked out his moral compass and set it on "ego-overdrive." I mean who is so silly as to think the conditions under which humans exist, thrive and suffer are irrelevant to existing, thriving or suffering.

Yeah, clearly george and I are the greedy ones! We actually care that people exactly like us are forced to live under conditions that shorten their life by decades by mere circumstance of their birth. How fucking greedy I am!

George, to be honest, I'd really recommend not engaging with such a non-reality based thinker. I've tried more recently with highly articulated replies and references and they just zoomed over his head. Brainwashed surely explains such behavior. The love of money is the root of all evil, as we both know, and evil is very infectious. I might also ask what your criteria for replying is or do you just reply as much as possible? It is a noble goal and maybe Androw is being impregnated with new ideas but no empirical evidence exists that shows he cares (about those new seeds of thought).


----------



## gnarlylove

"Captialism thrives with or without slavery. It always works."

Do you really think we are free people? If billions of people worldwide stopped working, they would not be ok. They would starve and die. They must continue to rent their self for money. Is that much different than chattel slavery? If the slave stopped working, they would likely die too. The only difference is that it's temporary and you get to go home at the end of the day, most of the time anyways. If you don't work up to their standards, you are fired and thus shut off from income and thus sustenance. The differences are few, the similarities are striking!

Moreover, shouldn't we be dubious of a system that thrives with slavery? Slavery is literally the most heinous institution. Slavery was driven by expansion, capitalism is a supposedly efficient expansion. The two exist in tandem and the fact that slavery still exists today   is a serious problem because we also happen to have "capitalism." Is there any connecting the dots? That they feed into the loop of expansion and therefore destruction?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism grew in this country behind heavy tariffs, just as it did in England.
> Capitalism can't exist without government providing regulations since the greed of elite capitalists becomes self-destructive to the entire system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tariffs is your idea of "heavy regulation?"  Within the Common wealth of Great Britain, there were no tariffs.  Capitalism thrived.   Also, neither Hong Kong or Singapore have any tariffs, yet they are thriving.    The idea that capitalism requires tariffs is obviously false.  Free market economists have argued against tariffs ever since the days of David Ricardo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The textile industry in the US and England depended on two things during their early years: high tariffs and slave labor. Capitalism grew up behind heavy tariffs, slavery, and military savagery, as places like India, the Congo, Mississippi, and Somalia prove. Capitalism thrives wherever property rights trump human rights.
Click to expand...


Your claim that the textile industry depended on those thing is obviously false since somehow it managed to get along without slaver after the war.  It manages to survive without high tariffs now.

Your concept "military savagery" is utterly meaningless.


----------



## Crystalclear

gnarlylove said:


> "Captialism thrives with or without slavery. It always works."
> 
> Do you really think we are free people? If billions of people worldwide stopped working, they would not be ok. They would starve and die. They must continue to rent their self for money. Is that much different than chattel slavery? If the slave stopped working, they would likely die too. The only difference is that it's temporary and you get to go home at the end of the day, most of the time anyways. If you don't work up to their standards, you are fired and thus shut off from income and thus sustenance. The differences are few, the similarities are striking!
> 
> Moreover, shouldn't we be dubious of a system that thrives with slavery? Slavery is literally the most heinous institution. Slavery was driven by expansion, capitalism is a supposedly efficient expansion. The two exist in tandem and the fact that slavery still exists today   is a serious problem because we also happen to have "capitalism." Is there any connecting the dots? That they feed into the loop of expansion and therefore destruction?



No, not slavery, but real life. You have to do something to earn something. If you don't want to work, don't work and don't be "a slave", but you must also deal with the consequences and shoudn't expect society's support. People like you shouldn't receive any form of benefit.


----------



## gnarlylove

There is absolutely no comparison between what it takes to live well and what it takes to sustain participation in capitalist productive consumption in the 21st century. I don't think you meant this anyway, because it literally makes no sense. Capitalist drudgery is far different than a holistic life. One has to make the choice between them. Sadly, not many people are free to make this choice. They have no capital and therefore no access to land to sustain themselves. They must pay for cheap food in stores, otherwise they don't eat. This requires money and money can only be obtained by legal work (renting the self) or illegal sales. Not working within the system of money if possible frees one to life that is unencumbered by unnatural demands (9-5, etc.) that sustain natural demands of food etc. These conditions required to sustain the majority of human beings resemble slavery very much. When at work one must abide by company policy that often requires ignoring natural demands of the body, against one's will or one is fired and ceases to earn life sustaining money. Thus wage slavery is considered real and effective.

I really hope you don't think "slavery" is a loose term regarding modern day chattel enslavement. Go click the link, but since you didn't, I'll quote:


			
				CIW said:
			
		

> Modern-day slavery is a violation of the 13th Amendment. When the CIW uses the word slavery, we do not mean &#8220;slave-like&#8221; or &#8220;resembling slavery"&#8212;rather, we are referring to conditions that meet the high standard of proof and definition of slavery under U.S. federal laws.
> 
> The cases we have helped bring to justice have been prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division either under laws forbidding peonage and indentured servitude passed just after the Civil War during Reconstruction (18 U.S.C. Sections 1581-9) or under the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, which prohibits the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> "Captialism thrives with or without slavery. It always works."
> 
> Do you really think we are free people? If billions of people worldwide stopped working, they would not be ok. They would starve and die. They must continue to rent their self for money. Is that much different than chattel slavery? If the slave stopped working, they would likely die too. The only difference is that it's temporary and you get to go home at the end of the day, most of the time anyways. If you don't work up to their standards, you are fired and thus shut off from income and thus sustenance. The differences are few, the similarities are striking!
> 
> Moreover, shouldn't we be dubious of a system that thrives with slavery? Slavery is literally the most heinous institution. Slavery was driven by expansion, capitalism is a supposedly efficient expansion. The two exist in tandem and the fact that slavery still exists today   is a serious problem because we also happen to have "capitalism." Is there any connecting the dots? That they feed into the loop of expansion and therefore destruction?



*If billions of people worldwide stopped working, they would not be ok. They would starve and die. They must continue to rent their self for money. Is that much different than chattel slavery?*

Shit, you're stupid.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> "Captialism thrives with or without slavery. It always works."
> 
> Do you really think we are free people? If billions of people worldwide stopped working, they would not be ok. They would starve and die. They must continue to rent their self for money. Is that much different than chattel slavery? If the slave stopped working, they would likely die too. The only difference is that it's temporary and you get to go home at the end of the day, most of the time anyways. If you don't work up to their standards, you are fired and thus shut off from income and thus sustenance. The differences are few, the similarities are striking!
> 
> Moreover, shouldn't we be dubious of a system that thrives with slavery? Slavery is literally the most heinous institution. Slavery was driven by expansion, capitalism is a supposedly efficient expansion. The two exist in tandem and the fact that slavery still exists today   is a serious problem because we also happen to have "capitalism." Is there any connecting the dots? That they feed into the loop of expansion and therefore destruction?



You are changing the context of the discussion.

If you want a broad context, of are we free of needing the inter-human production and cooperation.  That of course will never happen.

There is no economic system, where everyone everywhere, is completely and totally independent.

If you divided up all the land of the world, equally among all the people's of the world, and had everyone tilling and cultivating their own land, there still wouldn't be enough food, because without other people building farm equipment, people would be so unproductive, many would starve.

But in the context of freedom to choose, we have that.   We choose to trade between ourselves for our own benefit, and and it benefits everyone.

However, the fact is, it is in fact a choice.   You don't have to work anywhere in this country.   We know this, because there are people who intentionally choose to not work.

It's not slavery if you have a choice, and you do have a choice.  I know. I've quit jobs.   Nothing happened.  No one came.  You can't force me to do diddly jack squat.     Nothing.  No one can.   In pre-78 China, they could.   The Chinese police would show up, and demand you go to the Co-ops.    Not in America.  We have Freedom.

Voluntary employment is not comparable to Slavery.  The differences are striking, the similarities are few!

How many slaves can sue their masters for non-payment?   How many employees are routinely whipped if they fail to produce?

You trying to connect the two, is pathetic and ridiculous.   Slavery does exist today in places like the middle east.  A real slave confronted by you making this point, would laugh you off the forum.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> There is absolutely no comparison between what it takes to live well and what it takes to sustain participation in capitalist productive consumption in the 21st century. I don't think you meant this anyway, because it literally makes no sense. Capitalist drudgery is far different than a holistic life. One has to make the choice between them. Sadly, not many people are free to make this choice. They have no capital and therefore no access to land to sustain themselves. They must pay for cheap food in stores, otherwise they don't eat. This requires money and money can only be obtained by legal work (renting the self) or illegal sales. Not working within the system of money if possible frees one to life that is unencumbered by unnatural demands (9-5, etc.) that sustain natural demands of food etc. These conditions required to sustain the majority of human beings resemble slavery very much. When at work one must abide by company policy that often requires ignoring natural demands of the body, against one's will or one is fired and ceases to earn life sustaining money. Thus wage slavery is considered real and effective.
> 
> I really hope you don't think "slavery" is a loose term regarding modern day chattel enslavement. Go click the link, but since you didn't, I'll quote:
> 
> 
> 
> CIW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern-day slavery is a violation of the 13th Amendment. When the CIW uses the word slavery, we do not mean slave-like or resembling slavery"rather, we are referring to conditions that meet the high standard of proof and definition of slavery under U.S. federal laws.
> 
> The cases we have helped bring to justice have been prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division either under laws forbidding peonage and indentured servitude passed just after the Civil War during Reconstruction (18 U.S.C. Sections 1581-9) or under the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, which prohibits the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.
Click to expand...


No, that's just stupidity.  Leftist stupidity.  Again, if you ever were confronted by someone who has actually been a slave, and you told them this, they would laugh you off this forum.   There are real slaves, and they would do absolutely anything to be in a 1st world Capitalist based country.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Shit, you're stupid.



This is your best argument to date. I am very serious when I say it would benefit us all if you stuck to this single, simple reply for any rebuttal you have. It is _your_ most effective means of arguing and the rest of your posts are utter disasters compared to this sharp and hollow critique.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit, you're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your best argument to date. I am very serious when I say it would benefit us all if you stuck to this single, simple reply for any rebuttal you have. It is _your_ most effective means of arguing and the rest of your posts are utter disasters compared to this sharp and hollow critique.
Click to expand...


*This is your best argument to date.*

I'd take the time to logically dissect your post, but your post didn't contain any logic.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit, you're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your best argument to date. I am very serious when I say it would benefit us all if you stuck to this single, simple reply for any rebuttal you have. It is _your_ most effective means of arguing and the rest of your posts are utter disasters compared to this sharp and hollow critique.
Click to expand...


At some point, people get tired of trying to rationally respond, to your irrational, illogical posts.    Anyone that compares voluntary employment, to forced slavery, is between willful idiocy and Forest Gump ignorance.   It gets old seeing arguments over and over, that my 8 year old nephew is wise enough to see how dumb it is.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> There is absolutely no comparison between what it takes to live well and what it takes to sustain participation in capitalist productive consumption in the 21st century. I don't think you meant this anyway, because it literally makes no sense. Capitalist drudgery is far different than a holistic life. One has to make the choice between them. Sadly, not many people are free to make this choice. They have no capital and therefore no access to land to sustain themselves. They must pay for cheap food in stores, otherwise they don't eat. This requires money and money can only be obtained by legal work (renting the self) or illegal sales. Not working within the system of money if possible frees one to life that is unencumbered by unnatural demands (9-5, etc.) that sustain natural demands of food etc. These conditions required to sustain the majority of human beings resemble slavery very much. When at work one must abide by company policy that often requires ignoring natural demands of the body, against one's will or one is fired and ceases to earn life sustaining money. Thus wage slavery is considered real and effective.



All you've said is that people are slaves because they have to work for a living.  That means that 99.9% of all the people who have ever lived are/were slaves.  That makes the term meaningless.



gnarlylove said:


> I really hope you don't think "slavery" is a loose term regarding modern day chattel enslavement. Go click the link, but since you didn't, I'll quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CIW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern-day slavery is a violation of the 13th Amendment. When the CIW uses the word slavery, we do not mean slave-like or resembling slavery"rather, we are referring to conditions that meet the high standard of proof and definition of slavery under U.S. federal laws.
> 
> The cases we have helped bring to justice have been prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division either under laws forbidding peonage and indentured servitude passed just after the Civil War during Reconstruction (18 U.S.C. Sections 1581-9) or under the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, which prohibits the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.
Click to expand...


What does the above have to do with working for a wage voluntarily?


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit, you're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your best argument to date. I am very serious when I say it would benefit us all if you stuck to this single, simple reply for any rebuttal you have. It is _your_ most effective means of arguing and the rest of your posts are utter disasters compared to this sharp and hollow critique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point, people get tired of trying to rationally respond, to your irrational, illogical posts.    Anyone that compares voluntary employment, to forced slavery, is between willful idiocy and Forest Gump ignorance.   It gets old seeing arguments over and over, that my 8 year old nephew is wise enough to see how dumb it is.
Click to expand...


Do you really think calling someone dumb reveals intelligence from you? It says quite the opposite. And just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I am making illogical claims. That is a total non-sequitur.

I'll only offer what I have before: When you want to talk about reality instead of your extremely narrow world of you and your friends who do not comprise broader society, we can do that. Until then, anything I say is defined as unsupported assertions because it doesn't fit within your paradigm of experience--which has no resemblance of the experience the average human being world wide experiences. You don't consider my assertions based in reality because you continue to refuse the scholarly worked I referenced. I could offer 5 economists who sharply disagree with your narrow paradigm but by definition you throw that outside the realm of "supportable assertions."

You offer no place to participate in rational debate when you assume your opponent is illogical or stupid. You have no evidence that I'm stupid, dumb whatever base grunt response you wish to make. Your only evidence is that it falls outside your paradigm. Let me repeat: your paradigm is extremely narrow and does not reflect what is going on in normal society. And the fact is, there's no good reason to listen to your advice to pursue self-interest and money through capitalist enterprise: its another paradigm that is narrow and unquestionably unsustainable.

You have constantly admitted your alliance to money and I have no reason to believe you have a credible understanding of justice for all unless it means "'more equal' justice for some than others."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your best argument to date. I am very serious when I say it would benefit us all if you stuck to this single, simple reply for any rebuttal you have. It is _your_ most effective means of arguing and the rest of your posts are utter disasters compared to this sharp and hollow critique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, people get tired of trying to rationally respond, to your irrational, illogical posts.    Anyone that compares voluntary employment, to forced slavery, is between willful idiocy and Forest Gump ignorance.   It gets old seeing arguments over and over, that my 8 year old nephew is wise enough to see how dumb it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think calling someone dumb reveals intelligence from you? It says quite the opposite. And just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I am making illogical claims. That is a total non-sequitur.
> 
> I'll only offer what I have before: When you want to talk about reality instead of your extremely narrow world of you and your friends who do not comprise broader society, we can do that. Until then, anything I say is defined as unsupported assertions because it doesn't fit within your paradigm of experience--which has no resemblance of the experience the average human being world wide experiences. You don't consider my assertions based in reality because you continue to refuse the scholarly worked I referenced. I could offer 5 economists who sharply disagree with your narrow paradigm but by definition you throw that outside the realm of "supportable assertions."
> 
> You offer no place to participate in rational debate when you assume your opponent is illogical or stupid. You have no evidence that I'm stupid, dumb whatever base grunt response you wish to make. Your only evidence is that it falls outside your paradigm. Let me repeat: your paradigm is extremely narrow and does not reflect what is going on in normal society. And the fact is, there's no good reason to listen to your advice to pursue self-interest and money through capitalist enterprise: its another paradigm that is narrow and unquestionably unsustainable.
> 
> You have constantly admitted your alliance to money and I have no reason to believe you have a credible understanding of justice for all unless it means "'more equal' justice for some than others."
Click to expand...


*
When you want to talk about reality instead of your extremely narrow world of you and your friends who do not comprise broader society,*

Broader society doesn't think employment is akin to slavery.

*You offer no place to participate in rational debate when you assume your opponent is illogical or stupid.*

And when my opponent proves they are illogical or stupid?


----------



## gnarlylove

My broader society comment has no bearing and has no relation to what people think about their conditions. It is a factual statement that Androw does not co-mingle with people that are not broadly like him and those who do not go to the same places he goes. It happens that his natural sphere of experience does not reflect broader society's. I don't think Androw thinks he's better or arrogant, only that he rightly asserts only what he's come to know: which furthermore does not represent broader society and therefore as a narrow paradigm fails to account for a full picture of reality. In other words, a one sided view.


----------



## The Rabbi

gnarlylove said:


> My broader society comment has no bearing and has no relation to what people think about their conditions. It is a factual statement that Androw does not co-mingle with people that are not broadly like him and those who do not go to the same places he goes. It happens that his natural sphere of experience does not reflect broader society's. I don't think Androw thinks he's better or arrogant, only that he rightly asserts only what he's come to know: which furthermore does not represent broader society and therefore as a narrow paradigm fails to account for a full picture of reality. In other words, a one sided view.



And you're different from him, how exactly?


----------



## gnarlylove

Good question. It looks like you picked up on what I'm saying instead of being brain dead like some other people. So that's a start. Glad you can ask a coherent question.

As for the answer, as humans we tend to interact with people of similar status and the like. This is almost axiomatic. But I know I reflect  broader society because I have worked and walked among those with power, I've worked at over 30 types of businesses, warehouses, in communities that encountered diverse populations from children, teens, drug addicts, young adults, rich local community members and the elderly. I have lived as a vagrant for 4 years, homelessly for many months coming to know why people are homeless, and I grew up in the lower working class, and have seen it throughout my life and my community. The majority of Americans and certainly the majority of the globe deal with poverty at some part in their life (60% of Americans will live in poverty at least a year) if it isn't the defining characteristic of their condition. I've made it my goal to interact with those who are not likely to further my monetary worth, which is often counter-intuitive in our egotistical society. Moreover, I've ready widely on the conditions of other people outside America and inside by sociologists and others. This does indeed reflect what much of the world bears.

Androw is an outspoken investor and obviously a good one. Androw refers to friends that are doing well in this global stagnation and offers no counter because his day to day life does not find time for those who aren't making money. He tends to be around those well off because capital attracts capital. 

I didn't just come to know Androw today. This comes from a history of reading his posts.


----------



## AntiParty

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*




Regulated Capitalism is a great base for any Society (the constitution regulates it)

Yet our Capitalism is regulated largely and we see a large amount of people wanting to live like China where there is almost no regulation. We even see people and parties that say we shouldn't listen to the Constitution and we shouldn't regulate at all. We should just be a profit driven nation.


----------



## Crystalclear

AntiParty said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regulated Capitalism is a great base for any Society (the constitution regulates it)
> 
> Yet our Capitalism is regulated largely and we see a large amount of people wanting to live like China where there is almost no regulation. We even see people and parties that say we shouldn't listen to the Constitution and we shouldn't regulate at all. We should just be a profit driven nation.
Click to expand...


No, a free market nation. Private sector includes charity as well.


----------



## elektra

Capitalism never lived very long in the USA, I have not seen it in decades. Now we just milk the baby boomers of their wealth through liberal/democrat government rules and regulations. 

Capitalism is my labor, my work, my private property, taxed and regulated to death, I enjoy maybe 15% of my labor, you steal the rest.


----------



## editec

Androw opines 




> And you are apparently confusing crime and justice, with regulation. The two are not the same. Regulation has nothing to do with crime and justice.



No actually I am not.

I am completely aware that today monopolies exist BECAUSE of regulations.

You see we're in that stage where INSIDER (CORPORATIONS)  _CONTROL GOVERNMENT._

Now, when we speak of corporations and government as being two different things we are mistaken.

Insider corporations own our government.

But ALSO, without any government, corporations _are government_.

And when corporations control the law (either openly as in fascism or secretly as in our shamocracy)  then there is NO REAL CAPITALISM, either.

*Yeah its a complex world where simple pronouncements are usually wrong.*

You were right to call me on my post and demand clarification.

I should have written:  *Capitalism without just and fair regulations is not possible *


----------



## georgephillip

AntiParty said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regulated Capitalism is a great base for any Society (the constitution regulates it)
> 
> Yet our Capitalism is regulated largely and we see a large amount of people wanting to live like China where there is almost no regulation. We even see people and parties that say we shouldn't listen to the Constitution and we shouldn't regulate at all. We should just be a profit driven nation.
Click to expand...

Originally, the US Constitution had little to say about the dominant capitalistic organ of our time, the corporation. Elected representatives of both major political parties in the US depend on the richest 1% of citizens to fund their campaigns and retirements, and the richest 1% depend on corporations to supply their incomes. IMHO, a Second Constitutional Convention would be required to limit corporate influence, but not if Republicans AND Democrats controlled the convention.


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  I believe that only greedy and envious people care how much the wealthiest 1% did or did not work.
> 
> None of your business.   Yet another difference between me and you, the right and the left.
> 
> That's the difference between us.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another difference:
> I'm not stupid enough to believe the richest 1% increased their share of US income from 8% to 22% over the past forty years through hard work. Forty years ago a single minimum wage job paid me enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Today a single minimum wage jobs pays about 60% of the rent of any one bedroom apartment.
> That makes it my business, in spite of what ignorant home-schooled right-wing tools have been brainwashed into believing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Androw is essentially saying that whether our society is concerned with human dignity is irrelevant. He might say something like "If you can read this than you aren't without capital and you aren't Warren Buffet. So get your ass in gear and make money! Make as much as you can and stop worrying about what conditions you live under or what pre-determines your standard of living. Just go baby go!"
> 
> Yeah, you'd expect that from a brain-dead investor who has checked out his moral compass and set it on "ego-overdrive." I mean who is so silly as to think the conditions under which humans exist, thrive and suffer are irrelevant to existing, thriving or suffering.
> 
> Yeah, clearly george and I are the greedy ones! We actually care that people exactly like us are forced to live under conditions that shorten their life by decades by mere circumstance of their birth. How fucking greedy I am!
> 
> George, to be honest, I'd really recommend not engaging with such a non-reality based thinker. I've tried more recently with highly articulated replies and references and they just zoomed over his head. Brainwashed surely explains such behavior. The love of money is the root of all evil, as we both know, and evil is very infectious. I might also ask what your criteria for replying is or do you just reply as much as possible? It is a noble goal and maybe Androw is being impregnated with new ideas but no empirical evidence exists that shows he cares (about those new seeds of thought).
Click to expand...

The biggest advantage I've found over the past four years that I've been posting here comes from exchanging political and economic opinions with individuals I probably couldn't spend five minutes with in the same room; too many of us waste our time communicating solely with those we agree with. Hopefully, future events will give all of us more reason to find common ground instead of simply repeating our historical biases.


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> The biggest advantage I've found over the past four years that I've been posting here comes from exchanging political and economic opinions with individuals I probably couldn't spend five minutes with in the same room; too many of us waste our time communicating solely with those we agree with. Hopefully, future events will give all of us more reason to find common ground instead of simply repeating our historical biases.



That inability to spend time in a room with them, the inability to find genuine relation is at once frustrating and terrifying. I wonder if it will ever be overcome or will it be our doom? Some assert intelligence of a human sort is a defect--leading to the species own annihilation. That fact that people are so convinced of their ideas is precisely how every destructive historical event has occurred, and yet we can't seem to untangle from misguided thoughts and deeds that assert dominance over others and claims it's their right.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Elected representatives of both major political parties in the US depend on the richest 1% of citizens to fund their campaigns and retirements, and the richest 1% depend on corporations to supply their incomes. IMHO, a Second Constitutional Convention would be required to limit corporate influence, but not if Republicans AND Democrats controlled the convention.



Yeah man, I agree. 

A 2nd Constitutional Convention is necessary to give more power to the Parasitic Faction, make Karl Marx a Founding Father and officially change our name to the United States of Somalia.

Yep, that's the ticket.

.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest advantage I've found over the past four years that I've been posting here comes from exchanging political and economic opinions with individuals I probably couldn't spend five minutes with in the same room; too many of us waste our time communicating solely with those we agree with. Hopefully, future events will give all of us more reason to find common ground instead of simply repeating our historical biases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That inability to spend time in a room with them, the inability to find genuine relation is at once frustrating and terrifying. I wonder if it will ever be overcome or will it be our doom? Some assert intelligence of a human sort is a defect--leading to the species own annihilation. That fact that people are so convinced of their ideas is precisely how every destructive historical event has occurred, and yet we can't seem to untangle from misguided thoughts and deeds that assert dominance over others and claims it's their right.
Click to expand...


Our doom will come when a sufficient number of numskulls fall for the bullshit you're spewing.  Anyone who "finds common ground" with you is just hastening the fall.


----------



## bripat9643

editec said:


> Androw opines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are apparently confusing crime and justice, with regulation. The two are not the same. Regulation has nothing to do with crime and justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually I am not.
> 
> I am completely aware that today monopolies exist BECAUSE of regulations.
> 
> You see we're in that stage where INSIDER (CORPORATIONS)  _CONTROL GOVERNMENT._
> 
> Now, when we speak of corporations and government as being two different things we are mistaken.
> 
> Insider corporations own our government.
> 
> But ALSO, without any government, corporations _are government_.
> 
> And when corporations control the law (either openly as in fascism or secretly as in our shamocracy)  then there is NO REAL CAPITALISM, either.
> 
> *Yeah its a complex world where simple pronouncements are usually wrong.*
> 
> You were right to call me on my post and demand clarification.
> 
> I should have written:  *Capitalism without just and fair regulations is not possible *
Click to expand...


The delusions on display in this forum are truly awe inspiring for their total lack of connection with reality.

Corporations don't control government.  The don't own government.  The later claim is utterly meaningless.  Politicians shake down corporations for cash.  The money corporations donate to Washington is ransom money.  Fascism is where corporations are mere extensions of the government.  They don't control the government.

I could go on an on pointing out all the idiocies in your post, but there are only so many hours in the day.


----------



## gnarlylove

bri, what is the shit I'm spewing? That people should not be treated as objects to be discarded on the side of the road of corporate capitalism? You are a fascist who wishes I was in jail for believing that people should not be mistreated. You are incredible.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bri, what is the shit I'm spewing? That people should not be treated as objects to be discarded on the side of the road of corporate capitalism? You are a fascist who wishes I was in jail for believing that people should not be mistreated. You are incredible.



Your idea of being "mistreated" means getting paid what their skills are worth.  You want to put everyone on welfare and have government run everyone's life.   You think capitalism is responsible for the fact that people have to work for a living.  That's why it's so cruel.  Your ideals wouldn't even work in La-La Land, let alone here on Earth.


----------



## gnarlylove

That's a non-sequitur. I don't believe most should be dependent on gov't. They should be given opportunities to sustain themselves (in other words earn their living), but that will not happen under corporate capitalism. corporate capitalism functions in a way that gobbles up all property and charges everyone a fee for living. Those who don't pay don't matter. But is it there fault they can't pay? No. They were born into those circumstances. There is no physical law that says humans must be prodded into demeaning positions and work under wage slavery. Those are decisions made by people. Your charge of fantasy is just false. You have no idea that other governments and populations have different laws and treat their citizens differently, and they do it in a way that makes the people happier. Saying its fantasy and la la land to imagine a few different policies shows how addicted to your fantasy is that America is the only possible way.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/christo...e-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> That's a non-sequitur. I don't believe most should be dependent on gov't. They should be given opportunities to sustain themselves (in other words earn their living), but that will not happen under corporate capitalism. corporate capitalism functions in a way that gobbles up all property and charges everyone a fee for living. There is no physical law that says humans must be prodded into demeaning positions and work under wage slavery. Those are decisions made by people. Your charge of fantasy is just false. You have no idea that other governments and populations have different laws and treat their citizens differently, and they do it in a way that makes the people happier.The World's Happiest (And Saddest) Countries, 2013 - Forbes



*There is no physical law that says humans must be prodded into demeaning positions and work under wage slavery. *

You're right, people with no marketable skills, like you, should just be given stuff, to make things fair.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *There is no physical law that says humans must be prodded into demeaning positions and work under wage slavery. *
> 
> You're right, people with no marketable skills, like you, should just be given stuff, to make things fair.



I don't think that. But I know you don't care about that, it gets in the way of your gut reaction.

Your evaluation of human beings is based on nothing. No person is inherently more valuable than others. Only upon exploration and acquisition do people come to possess marketable skills. But that isn't determined by innate abilities, it is determined by what the parents can afford for the child, which has nothing to do with the value of the child.  Often the parent's ability to afford for the child hinges upon the wealth of the previous generations and yet you think a person who doesn't have a job doesn't have one because they are not marketable. Ever wonder why there is unemployment? It's a result of too few jobs for the amount of people. Make sense? So why do you think it's appropriate to blame people for poverty when they aren't inherently less valuable, only that they were born to the wrong family and the wrong location.

I appreciate your blatant dis-respect. You have literally no clue what I do, who I am and what skills I have. You are about as apprehensive as a sloth but you mouth off like what you say has any meaning. I don't expect you to produce meaningful posts so this latest one comes of no surprise.


----------



## elektra

There is no bigger expense in life than the private property I am forced to give to the government, my labor in the form of taxation. Not just taxation but also fees, fees hidden into everything. The government rules and dictates, that is what and where lawyers are created, through rules and regulations in which lawyers are the arbitrators.

Corporations exist as created and defined by our government, in the form of laws, codes, regulations, etc..

Corporations are nothing more than the legal definition that lawyers and judges countless argue and define.  

Capitalism seems a gross misuse of the word as used to describe our government dictates to private citizens.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no physical law that says humans must be prodded into demeaning positions and work under wage slavery. *
> 
> You're right, people with no marketable skills, like you, should just be given stuff, to make things fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that. But I know you don't care about that, it gets in the way of your gut reaction.
> 
> Your evaluation of human beings is based on nothing. No person is inherently more valuable than others. Only upon exploration and acquisition do people come to possess marketable skills. But that isn't determined by innate abilities, it is determined by what the parents can afford for the child, which has nothing to do with the value of the child.  Often the parent's ability to afford for the child hinges upon the wealth of the previous generations and yet you think a person who doesn't have a job doesn't have one because they are not marketable. Ever wonder why there is unemployment? It's a result of too few jobs for the amount of people. Make sense? So why do you think it's appropriate to blame people for poverty when they aren't inherently less valuable, only that they were born to the wrong family and the wrong location.
> 
> I appreciate your blatant dis-respect. You have literally no clue what I do, who I am and what skills I have. You are about as apprehensive as a sloth but you mouth off like what you say has any meaning. I don't expect you to produce meaningful posts so this latest one comes of no surprise.
Click to expand...


*No person is inherently more valuable than others.*

You're correct and I've never claimed otherwise.

The work some people do, or don't do, does have different values.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tariffs is your idea of "heavy regulation?"  Within the Common wealth of Great Britain, there were no tariffs.  Capitalism thrived.   Also, neither Hong Kong or Singapore have any tariffs, yet they are thriving.    The idea that capitalism requires tariffs is obviously false.  Free market economists have argued against tariffs ever since the days of David Ricardo.
> 
> 
> 
> The textile industry in the US and England depended on two things during their early years: high tariffs and slave labor. Capitalism grew up behind heavy tariffs, slavery, and military savagery, as places like India, the Congo, Mississippi, and Somalia prove. Capitalism thrives wherever property rights trump human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim that the textile industry depended on those thing is obviously false since somehow it managed to get along without slaver after the war.  It manages to survive without high tariffs now.
> 
> Your concept "military savagery" is utterly meaningless.
Click to expand...

*Not to its victims:*

"On September 8, 2000, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) formally apologized for the agency's participation in the 'ethnic cleansing' of Western tribes."

Population history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*My claim was the textile industry depended on slave labor and high tariffs during its formation which it did. Capitalism thrives in climates of free labor and government protected monopolies.*


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the kind of empty babble I'm talking about.
> 
> So let's review this entire deal.    Goldman Sach, which trades in commodities, and has numerous holdings for their clients of commodities, bought controlling shares in a company that operates several dozens of warehouses that store such commodities, like aluminum.
> 
> Now keep in mind, Goldman Sachs has owned this company for a long long time.   Did prices significantly rise?   Nope.   But because this is Goldman Sachs.... and there are moronic fools who hate Goldman Sachs, suddenly this is an issue.   Of course the brainless fools who follow these hateful morons, never bother to look at the reality.   All they know is Goldman Sach did something bad (allegedly), and therefore it must be true, because we're all too stupid to think for ourselves.
> 
> Now, is it true that because of regulations on commodities, that the prices charged are higher, than would be in a free-market?   Yes.   Does this benefit Goldman Sachs?   Well since they own the company, and the company is doing better because of it.... yes.
> 
> But here's the kicker.   If anyone else owned that company, it would benefit them just as much.   And this article is out of date.  Goldman Sachs sold off this company, and now a foreign company is reaping the benefits.
> 
> All these idiots on the left did, was make it so that now foriegn people are benefiting, instead of Americans.
> 
> But it does not end there... notice the commentary....
> 
> "Free-Market means...  markets free of any democratic oversight, which gives rent seekers like Goldman Sachs the freedom to exploit consumers, homeowners, and investors alike"​
> But you just pointed out regulations that drive up the cost of commodities, at the cost of consumers.
> 
> Those regulations are exactly the same oversight that you say in this quote we need.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.    Either the regulations harm the consumers as your very own citation suggests, or it benefits them.
> 
> Very little shows it benefits us.   Your own link proves it doesn't.
> 
> Without those regulations, the company Goldman Sachs purchased, would not be able to charge customers more money to store their commodities there.
> 
> Why?  *Because that company is less than 10% of the warehouses that store commodities.  If they had a significantly higher cost to storing commodities, customers would store their commodities elsewhere.*
> 
> The ONLY reason that this company was able to charge more, was because of the very "democratic oversight" you people on the left push.   That "democratic oversight" forces all warehouses to charge more.   Thus the one Goldman Sachs owns can do so, without losing customers, because all the warehouses are charging more, thanks to Leftard "democratic oversight".
> 
> 
> 
> "In the case of aluminum, Goldman bought Metro International Trade Services, one of the countrys biggest storers of the metal.* More than a quarter of the supply of aluminum available on the market is  kept in the companys Detroit-area warehouses.
> *
> 
> "Before Goldman bought Metro International three years ago, warehouse customers used to wait an average of six weeks for their purchases to be located, retrieved by forklift and delivered to factories.
> 
> "But now that Goldman owns the company, the wait has grown more than tenfold  to more than 16 months, according to industry records.
> 
> "Longer waits might be written off as an aggravation, but they also make aluminum more expensive nearly everywhere in the country because of the arcane formula used to determine the cost of the metal on the spot market.
> 
> "The delays are so acute that Coca-Cola and many other manufacturers avoid buying aluminum stored here. Nonetheless, they still pay the higher price."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=1&
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's irrelevant.  This is why people on the right, think people on the left are absolutely economically illiterate.    Because you think what you posted there, made point.   That's sad.   Because it doesn't.
> 
> *"Metro International Trade Services, one of the countrys biggest storers of the metal"*
> 
> So.... ?       You realize that Toyota is the biggest car makers in the world, right?   Biggest profits, biggest unit sales, biggest capitalization.    They are number one on the world market.
> 
> That means they can charge anything they want.... Right?  Yet the Toyota Camry is priced almost exactly the same as the comparable Ford Fusion.
> 
> *"More than a quarter of the supply of aluminum available on the market is kept in the companys Detroit-area warehouses"*
> 
> So...  ?    Again, they are still only 10% of the warehouses out there.    Yes, they have 25% of the aluminum stored there.   Doesn't matter.   First, they don't OWN the aluminum.  They are storing it.    There's a difference.  Second, simply storing it doesn't give them any control over the market.    If they were to drive up their prices for storing the aluminum, the customers would move their stocks.
> 
> Within 5 minutes of where I live, there are two public storage places.  If I had all my stuff at one, and they raised their rates, I would move my stuff to the other one that didn't.
> 
> Metro International Trade Services, only owns about 10% of the warehouses, that are listed on the London Metal Exchange.   Those are just the 'official' warehouses.  You can store your metal ANYWHERE.
> 
> Point being, one company owning a fraction of the warehouses, doesn't mean jack squat.
> 
> Look at this......
> 
> Aluminum Lines Still Trouble the London Metal Exchange - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For years, consumers have complained of problems in procuring metals at five locations around the world: Detroit; Vlissingen, the Netherlands; New Orleans; Johor, Malaysia; and Antwerp, Belgium. At each of those cities, there has been one warehousing company with a wait of more than 100 days for metal delivery. In November, the LME said it would tackle backlogs at any warehouse with waits of 50 days or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the problem was Metro International Trade Services, then why are long waits happening in other countries, like Netherlands, Malaysia, Belgium?
> 
> What's your excuse for how Goldman Sach, directing Metro to hold back deliveries, is magically causing warehouses on the other side of the planet, not connected at all with Metro, to have the same issue?
> 
> Or why are the Metro warehouses in Italy not having those problems?
> 
> Again... the ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because some idiot hates Goldman Sachs, and the lemmings are mindlessly following them.
> 
> If you have REAL evidence that Goldman Sachs has directly ordered Metro to deny service, post it.   Bring them up on charges.     But I highly doubt you people have anything in support, and that's why you keep posting meaningless crap, thinking it makes a point.  "They store 25% of blaw blaw blaw" as if.
Click to expand...

*You wouldn't recognize real evidence; were you homeschooled?*

"The story of how this works begins in 27 industrial warehouses in the Detroit area where a Goldman subsidiary stores customers aluminum. 

"Each day, a fleet of trucks shuffles 1,500-pound bars of the metal among the warehouses. 

"Two or three times a day, sometimes more, the drivers make the same circuits. 

"They load in one warehouse. 

"They unload in another. 

"And then they do it again.

"This industrial dance has been choreographed by Goldman to exploit pricing regulations set up by an overseas commodities exchange, an investigation by The New York Times has found. 

"The back-and-forth lengthens the storage time. And that adds many millions a year to the coffers of Goldman, which owns the warehouses and charges rent to store the metal. 

"It also increases prices paid by manufacturers and consumers across the country.

"Tyler Clay, a forklift driver who worked at the Goldman warehouses until early this year, called the process 'a merry-go-round of metal.'

"Only a tenth of a cent or so of an aluminum cans purchase price can be traced back to the strategy. 

"But multiply that amount by the 90 billion aluminum cans consumed in the United States each year  and add the tons of aluminum used in things like cars, electronics and house siding  and the efforts by Goldman and other financial players *has cost American consumers more than $5 billion over the last three years*, say former industry executives, analysts and consultants."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=2&


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But here's the problem.   Bill Gates has done more to help people, then you socialists have ever done.
> 
> Socialists never help people themselves.  They just try and force others to help people.
> 
> Obama hasn't given money from his own pocket, nor the people in the Soviet Kremlin, nor Chairman Mao, nor Hugo Chavez, nor any of the leftists throughout history.
> 
> Even those that do help people, and call themselves leftist, are anything but.   Warren Buffet, may vote democrap, and may support socialism, and he may give his wealth to Charity....... but the fact is, Warren Buffet, and Ted Turner, and all the other leftists, have all made their fortunes as Free-market Capitalists.
> 
> Free-market Capitalists have done more for the middle and lower income people of the entire world, than you socialists have done throughout all human history combined.
> 
> 
> 
> *You shouldn't fear socialism:*
> 
> "1. The Military/Defense - The United States military is the largest and most funded socialist program in the world.  It operates thanks to our taxpayer dollars and protects the country as a whole. From the richest citizens to the homeless who sleep under the bridge. We are all protected by our military whether we pay taxes or not. This is complete socialism.
> 
> 2. Highways/Roads - Those roads and highways you drive on every single day are completely taxpayer funded. Your tax dollars are used to maintain, expand, and preserve our highways and roads for every one's use. President Eisenhower was inspired by Germany's autobahn and implemented the idea right here in America. That's right, a republican president created our taxpayer funded, national highway system. This was a different time, before the republican party came down with a vicious case of rabies that never went away.
> 
> 3. Public Libraries - Yes. That place where you go to check out books from conservative authors telling you how horrible socialism is, is in fact socialism. Libraries are taxpayer funded. You pay a few bucks to get a library card and you can read books for free for the rest of your life.
> 
> 4. Police - Ever had a situation where you had to call the police? Then you have used a taxpayer funded socialist program. Anyone can call the police whether they pay taxes or not. They are there to protect and serve the community, not individuals. This is complete socialism on a state level, but still socialism all the same. Would you rather have to swipe your credit card before the police will help you?
> 
> 5. Fire Dept. - Hopefully you have never had a fire in your home. But if you have, you probably called your local taxpayer-funded fire department to put the fire out. Like police, this is state socialism. You tax dollars are used to rescue your entire community in case of a fire."
> 
> 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the difference.   On a purely technical grounds....  Yes, the military is socialism.
> 
> A socialistic policy that we on the right, oppose, is the policies that try and change the economy, try and modify society.
> 
> Military does not do that.   The military is economically neutral.  It's there to protect the country as a whole.   It's there to keep everyone, form the homeless beggar, to the rich CEO, safe.    It provides for the "General Welfare".   Not the welfare of one person, at the expense of the other.
> 
> Same with the Police and Fire Departments.  Everyone benefits from the city not burning down, or over run with anarchy.
> 
> Roads and highways, same thing.  Everyone benefits.  It's not just rich, or just the political, or just whoever.   Everyone benefits.  Even the homeless beggar benefits from the charity food, delivered by truck to the shelter.
> 
> (by the way....   all the road around where I live were built by private money.  So the claim isn't even true)
> 
> As for Libraries....  Are you telling me you don't buy anything?  All the books in my house, I bought.  Maybe the reason you seem to know so little is because you need to buy more books.
> 
> Back to the beginning, the problem with all of this is... if you total up all the expenses for all of these things, they are tiny tiny insignificant fraction of the tax cost.
> 
> The entire Library expenses for the whole state of Ohio, is $350 Million.
> The total police spending for the state, including all jails, prisons, is $1.7 Billion.
> The total cost of running the entire Ohio State government, including all courts, is $300 Million.
> The total cost of the entire department of Transportation, all roads and bridges in the entire state, is $400 Million.
> 
> That totals up to $2.75 Billion dollars.    How much is the Ohio State Budget?  $30.57 Billion.
> 
> We could cut taxes by 90% and fund everything you outlined.
> 
> Similarly at the Federal level....
> 
> The DOD costs $673 Billion.
> The DHS costs $55 Billion.
> The DOJ costs $37 Billion.
> The DOT costs $98 Billion.
> 
> Let's even toss in there, Veteran Affairs and Intelligence.  That's another $192 Billion.
> 
> That total adds up to only one $1 Trillion.
> 
> The budget is $3.8 Trillion.   The tax revenue is $2.9 Trillion.    You could cut the budget to 27%, and cut taxes to 35%, and still cover MORE than what you suggest.   Most of that DOT budget isn't going 'roads and bridges'.
> 
> All the rest of that tax money spent at the State and Federal level... that's all leftists socialists policies, blowing our money on crap.    If you people didn't blow our money, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and all of us would be far more wealthy than we are today.
> 
> I sure would.   I only made $18,000 last year, and I had to cough up $3,000 in taxes.   Very little of that money went to Fire, Police, Roads and Bridges, Public Libraries, and military.    I wouldn't be nearly as mad about it, if it did.   But the fact is, most of it went to a bunch of stupid leftard crap.
Click to expand...

*Anyone paying you $18 a year is pissing his money away.
Buy a few more books (you won't appear homeschooled)*

"Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

"The Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding includes the monthly interest for:

"U.S. Treasury notes and bonds
Foreign and domestic series certificates of indebtedness, notes and bonds
Savings bonds
Government Account Series (GAS)
State and Local Government series (SLGs) and other special purpose securities.
Amortized discount or premium on bills, notes and bonds is also included in the monthly interest expense.

"The fiscal year represents the total interest expense on the Debt Outstanding for a given fiscal year. This includes the months of October through September. View current month details (XLS Format, File size 188KB, uploaded 04/04/2014).

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elected representatives of both major political parties in the US depend on the richest 1% of citizens to fund their campaigns and retirements, and the richest 1% depend on corporations to supply their incomes. IMHO, a Second Constitutional Convention would be required to limit corporate influence, but not if Republicans AND Democrats controlled the convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah man, I agree.
> 
> A 2nd Constitutional Convention is necessary to give more power to the Parasitic Faction, make Karl Marx a Founding Father and officially change our name to the United States of Somalia.
> 
> Yep, that's the ticket.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

*Or maybe both extremes of the political spectrum are collectivist?*

"On the other hand, it may be observed that both the extreme right and the extreme left of the 
conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example, 
the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the Communist) both recommend 
totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and 
individual coercion. *Both systems require monopoly control of society.* While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J. P. Morgan and J. D. Rockefeller, by the late 
nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to 
gain an unchallenged monopoly was to 'go political' and make society go to work for the 
monopolists  under the name of the public good and the public interest. This strategy was 
detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his Confessions of a Monopolist.1 Howe, by the way, 
is also a figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution."

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Androw opines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are apparently confusing crime and justice, with regulation. The two are not the same. Regulation has nothing to do with crime and justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually I am not.
> 
> I am completely aware that today monopolies exist BECAUSE of regulations.
> 
> You see we're in that stage where INSIDER (CORPORATIONS)  _CONTROL GOVERNMENT._
> 
> Now, when we speak of corporations and government as being two different things we are mistaken.
> 
> Insider corporations own our government.
> 
> But ALSO, without any government, corporations _are government_.
> 
> And when corporations control the law (either openly as in fascism or secretly as in our shamocracy)  then there is NO REAL CAPITALISM, either.
> 
> *Yeah its a complex world where simple pronouncements are usually wrong.*
> 
> You were right to call me on my post and demand clarification.
> 
> I should have written:  *Capitalism without just and fair regulations is not possible *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delusions on display in this forum are truly awe inspiring for their total lack of connection with reality.
> 
> Corporations don't control government.  The don't own government.  The later claim is utterly meaningless.  Politicians shake down corporations for cash.  The money corporations donate to Washington is ransom money.  Fascism is where corporations are mere extensions of the government.  They don't control the government.
> 
> I could go on an on pointing out all the idiocies in your post, but there are only so many hours in the day.
Click to expand...

Corporations generate the private fortunes that buy and sell Republicans AND Democrats like toilet paper; the solution is to tax the rich citizens (corporate and natural) instead of borrowing from them.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The textile industry in the US and England depended on two things during their early years: high tariffs and slave labor. Capitalism grew up behind heavy tariffs, slavery, and military savagery, as places like India, the Congo, Mississippi, and Somalia prove. Capitalism thrives wherever property rights trump human rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that the textile industry depended on those thing is obviously false since somehow it managed to get along without slaver after the war.  It manages to survive without high tariffs now.
> 
> Your concept "military savagery" is utterly meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not to its victims:*
> 
> "On September 8, 2000, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) formally apologized for the agency's participation in the 'ethnic cleansing' of Western tribes."
> 
> Population history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *My claim was the textile industry depended on slave labor and high tariffs during its formation which it did. Capitalism thrives in climates of free labor and government protected monopolies.*
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with the textile industry?

BTW, the greatest slaughters of the Indians were perpetrated by General Sherman.  You know, they guy Lincoln promoted to general and put in charge of laying waste to the Confederate states.  Lincoln is one of your heroes, isn't he?


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> No person is inherently more valuable than others.
> 
> But that isn't determined by innate abilities, it is determined by what the parents can afford for the child, which has nothing to do with the value of the child.



I have problems with both of these claims, and since the rest of your argument hinges on these two statements... let's deal with these first.

*Is no person inherently more valuable than another?*

Well that depends on what the context of "value" is.  Are you talking about basic human value?

Then the answer is yes, you are correct.   We're all equally human, and have equal value to G-d, and under the law.

This is why if a homeless person is murdered, they still investigate, and if they find out who killed him, that individual is put to death, or imprisoned.

But Human value, and Market value, are two different things.  If you doubt that, tell your auto mechanic that you are only going to pay him $35 because that's how much you pay the guy who mows your lawn, and since they both have the same value as a human being, that he shouldn't get paid more.

Or better still, if you have a brain tumor, go to the brain surgeon and tell him that you are only going to pay him a few hundred bucks, because he has no more value as a human than your auto mechanic, and you only pay him a few hundred.

In either case, both of them will laugh at you, and neither you, nor your car will get fixed.

There is a difference in market value.    No difference in human value, but a massive market value difference.

I suspect that you likely earn more money than myself.   It has never occurred to me that this indicates you have more value as a human.  You have more value in the market, but not as human.   If both of us are robbed, the police will come and help both of us.    But that doesn't mean my employer pays me the same as yours pays you, because you likely have higher value skills than I do.

*Now is that market value.... not tied to innate ability?*

I find this crazy.   So you are suggesting that Forest Gump (any real life equivalent), had the exact same potential as Thomas Sowell, Paul Krugman, or Milton Friedman?

That's nutz.   So anyone can be Michael Jordan, and innate ability has nothing to do with it?

And not even limiting this to physical attributes either.   Obviously someone that is 4'11" is not going to make it to the NBA.   Innate ability is a factor there... .but it's not even just that.   There were MANY NBA players that had the same height and strength of Michael Jordan, even on the very teams that Michael Jordan played on, there were players... and they had the exact same coach.    Yet Michael Jordan out played even those on his own team, routinely.

There is innate ability.  It's not all down to getting the best training.   Again Jordan had the same coach as the rest of his team.  Why didn't they all play exactly as good as him?

*Lastly, is it all about the education....?*

Ugh..... gah.....     You would think that urban legends at some point would die out.    Out of all the topis on this forum, there are dozens that can be debated until the end of time without a conclusion.

But then you have things like this, that have been completely proven false over and over and over, and yet it still never dies.

Way back in the late 1960s, we had numerous ivy league institutions, based on this theory, allow so-called "under privileged" students come and be educated at Ivy League universities for free.

Now in theory the only reason why students do well is because their parents can afford it, then by allowing students in whose parents could not afford it, they should be able to do just as well.

Instead... they failed.   They failed out.  The theory proved wrong.

On the opposite side of this....
The Ivy League Earnings Myth - US News


> Here, however, is what was explosive: Dale and Krueger concluded that students, who were accepted into elite schools, but went to less selective institutions, earned salaries just as high as Ivy League grads. For instance, if a teenager gained entry to Harvard, but ended up attending Penn State, his or her salary prospects would be the same.
> 
> In the pair's newest study, the findings are even more amazing. Applicants, who shared similar high SAT scores with Ivy League applicants could have been rejected from the elite schools that they applied to and yet they still enjoyed similar average salaries as the graduates from elite schools



These two economists, did two seperate reports.

In the first report, they traced students who applied for, and were accepted at Ivy League schools, but made the choice to instead go to State schools.

Those students had the exact same average earnings, as their Ivy League contemporaries.

In the second report, they additionally traced students who had the exact same SAT scores, but were rejected from Ivy League schools.

Those student ALSO had the exact same average earnings, as their Ivy League contemporaries.

What's the clear point?    It's the ability of the student.    A good student at a low-buck State school, will fair just as well as a good student at the Ivy League high-buck school.

It's the student.  Not the school.  Not the money.

I had to laugh today at work, because I just saw your post on my way out the door, and on my Ipod, was EconTalk Podcast, and the topic this week was.......  College, Signaling and Human Capital, which is exactly this point here.

The whole podcast was about how it's not about the quality of the education so much, as the quality of the students.

Bryan Caplan on College, Signaling and Human Capital | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

I would encourage you to get the podcast, if you are brave enough to listen to alternative evidence to the thoroughly disproved theory of it's all about education money.

Bryan Caplan is coming out with a book on this topic, but it's not out yet, so I can't link you to that.

But for heaven sakes, this urban legend has to die at some point.  It's getting stupid.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The textile industry in the US and England depended on two things during their early years: high tariffs and slave labor. Capitalism grew up behind heavy tariffs, slavery, and military savagery, as places like India, the Congo, Mississippi, and Somalia prove. Capitalism thrives wherever property rights trump human rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that the textile industry depended on those thing is obviously false since somehow it managed to get along without slaver after the war.  It manages to survive without high tariffs now.
> 
> Your concept "military savagery" is utterly meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not to its victims:*
> 
> "On September 8, 2000, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) formally apologized for the agency's participation in the 'ethnic cleansing' of Western tribes."
> 
> Population history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *My claim was the textile industry depended on slave labor and high tariffs during its formation which it did. Capitalism thrives in climates of free labor and government protected monopolies.*
Click to expand...


Protection from what?  The textile industry in the Britain which... DID NOT have slave labor.

Again, I already posted links to several economists which concluded that protection did not cause the industry to grow.   In fact, the industry did not modernize until after the protection was removed... proving it COULD survive without protection.

Correlation does not equal causation.   Learn that first, then try and argue a better point.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the case of aluminum, Goldman bought Metro International Trade Services, one of the countrys biggest storers of the metal.* More than a quarter of the supply of aluminum available on the market is  kept in the companys Detroit-area warehouses.
> *
> 
> "Before Goldman bought Metro International three years ago, warehouse customers used to wait an average of six weeks for their purchases to be located, retrieved by forklift and delivered to factories.
> 
> "But now that Goldman owns the company, the wait has grown more than tenfold  to more than 16 months, according to industry records.
> 
> "Longer waits might be written off as an aggravation, but they also make aluminum more expensive nearly everywhere in the country because of the arcane formula used to determine the cost of the metal on the spot market.
> 
> "The delays are so acute that Coca-Cola and many other manufacturers avoid buying aluminum stored here. Nonetheless, they still pay the higher price."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=1&
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's irrelevant.  This is why people on the right, think people on the left are absolutely economically illiterate.    Because you think what you posted there, made point.   That's sad.   Because it doesn't.
> 
> *"Metro International Trade Services, one of the countrys biggest storers of the metal"*
> 
> So.... ?       You realize that Toyota is the biggest car makers in the world, right?   Biggest profits, biggest unit sales, biggest capitalization.    They are number one on the world market.
> 
> That means they can charge anything they want.... Right?  Yet the Toyota Camry is priced almost exactly the same as the comparable Ford Fusion.
> 
> *"More than a quarter of the supply of aluminum available on the market is kept in the companys Detroit-area warehouses"*
> 
> So...  ?    Again, they are still only 10% of the warehouses out there.    Yes, they have 25% of the aluminum stored there.   Doesn't matter.   First, they don't OWN the aluminum.  They are storing it.    There's a difference.  Second, simply storing it doesn't give them any control over the market.    If they were to drive up their prices for storing the aluminum, the customers would move their stocks.
> 
> Within 5 minutes of where I live, there are two public storage places.  If I had all my stuff at one, and they raised their rates, I would move my stuff to the other one that didn't.
> 
> Metro International Trade Services, only owns about 10% of the warehouses, that are listed on the London Metal Exchange.   Those are just the 'official' warehouses.  You can store your metal ANYWHERE.
> 
> Point being, one company owning a fraction of the warehouses, doesn't mean jack squat.
> 
> Look at this......
> 
> Aluminum Lines Still Trouble the London Metal Exchange - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For years, consumers have complained of problems in procuring metals at five locations around the world: Detroit; Vlissingen, the Netherlands; New Orleans; Johor, Malaysia; and Antwerp, Belgium. At each of those cities, there has been one warehousing company with a wait of more than 100 days for metal delivery. In November, the LME said it would tackle backlogs at any warehouse with waits of 50 days or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the problem was Metro International Trade Services, then why are long waits happening in other countries, like Netherlands, Malaysia, Belgium?
> 
> What's your excuse for how Goldman Sach, directing Metro to hold back deliveries, is magically causing warehouses on the other side of the planet, not connected at all with Metro, to have the same issue?
> 
> Or why are the Metro warehouses in Italy not having those problems?
> 
> Again... the ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because some idiot hates Goldman Sachs, and the lemmings are mindlessly following them.
> 
> If you have REAL evidence that Goldman Sachs has directly ordered Metro to deny service, post it.   Bring them up on charges.     But I highly doubt you people have anything in support, and that's why you keep posting meaningless crap, thinking it makes a point.  "They store 25% of blaw blaw blaw" as if.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You wouldn't recognize real evidence; were you homeschooled?*
> 
> "The story of how this works begins in 27 industrial warehouses in the Detroit area where a Goldman subsidiary stores customers aluminum.
> 
> "Each day, a fleet of trucks shuffles 1,500-pound bars of the metal among the warehouses.
> 
> "Two or three times a day, sometimes more, the drivers make the same circuits.
> 
> "They load in one warehouse.
> 
> "They unload in another.
> 
> "And then they do it again.
> 
> "This industrial dance has been choreographed by Goldman to exploit pricing regulations set up by an overseas commodities exchange, an investigation by The New York Times has found.
> 
> "The back-and-forth lengthens the storage time. And that adds many millions a year to the coffers of Goldman, which owns the warehouses and charges rent to store the metal.
> 
> "It also increases prices paid by manufacturers and consumers across the country.
> 
> "Tyler Clay, a forklift driver who worked at the Goldman warehouses until early this year, called the process 'a merry-go-round of metal.'
> 
> "Only a tenth of a cent or so of an aluminum cans purchase price can be traced back to the strategy.
> 
> "But multiply that amount by the 90 billion aluminum cans consumed in the United States each year  and add the tons of aluminum used in things like cars, electronics and house siding  and the efforts by Goldman and other financial players *has cost American consumers more than $5 billion over the last three years*, say former industry executives, analysts and consultants."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=2&
Click to expand...


You are quickly proving yourself too stupid to discuss this topic.   First off, if you have to engage in personal attacks, that simply proves you don't have point.

Second, nothing you said changed anything I said.

All of that blaw blaw blaw you posted, doesn't change the fact that other cities, and other counties, have the exact same problem.

SAME PROBLEM.

Yet, Metro isn't in those cities, or controlling all the aluminum there.

Being so incredibly stupid, that posting on here "how the warehouse works", when other warehouses, in other cities, that Metro does not control, HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM.... means you are not mentally able to follow the logic of the argument.    That reflects on you... not anyone else.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You shouldn't fear socialism:*
> 
> "1. The Military/Defense - The United States military is the largest and most funded socialist program in the world.  It operates thanks to our taxpayer dollars and protects the country as a whole. From the richest citizens to the homeless who sleep under the bridge. We are all protected by our military whether we pay taxes or not. This is complete socialism.
> 
> 2. Highways/Roads - Those roads and highways you drive on every single day are completely taxpayer funded. Your tax dollars are used to maintain, expand, and preserve our highways and roads for every one's use. President Eisenhower was inspired by Germany's autobahn and implemented the idea right here in America. That's right, a republican president created our taxpayer funded, national highway system. This was a different time, before the republican party came down with a vicious case of rabies that never went away.
> 
> 3. Public Libraries - Yes. That place where you go to check out books from conservative authors telling you how horrible socialism is, is in fact socialism. Libraries are taxpayer funded. You pay a few bucks to get a library card and you can read books for free for the rest of your life.
> 
> 4. Police - Ever had a situation where you had to call the police? Then you have used a taxpayer funded socialist program. Anyone can call the police whether they pay taxes or not. They are there to protect and serve the community, not individuals. This is complete socialism on a state level, but still socialism all the same. Would you rather have to swipe your credit card before the police will help you?
> 
> 5. Fire Dept. - Hopefully you have never had a fire in your home. But if you have, you probably called your local taxpayer-funded fire department to put the fire out. Like police, this is state socialism. You tax dollars are used to rescue your entire community in case of a fire."
> 
> 75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference.   On a purely technical grounds....  Yes, the military is socialism.
> 
> A socialistic policy that we on the right, oppose, is the policies that try and change the economy, try and modify society.
> 
> Military does not do that.   The military is economically neutral.  It's there to protect the country as a whole.   It's there to keep everyone, form the homeless beggar, to the rich CEO, safe.    It provides for the "General Welfare".   Not the welfare of one person, at the expense of the other.
> 
> Same with the Police and Fire Departments.  Everyone benefits from the city not burning down, or over run with anarchy.
> 
> Roads and highways, same thing.  Everyone benefits.  It's not just rich, or just the political, or just whoever.   Everyone benefits.  Even the homeless beggar benefits from the charity food, delivered by truck to the shelter.
> 
> (by the way....   all the road around where I live were built by private money.  So the claim isn't even true)
> 
> As for Libraries....  Are you telling me you don't buy anything?  All the books in my house, I bought.  Maybe the reason you seem to know so little is because you need to buy more books.
> 
> Back to the beginning, the problem with all of this is... if you total up all the expenses for all of these things, they are tiny tiny insignificant fraction of the tax cost.
> 
> The entire Library expenses for the whole state of Ohio, is $350 Million.
> The total police spending for the state, including all jails, prisons, is $1.7 Billion.
> The total cost of running the entire Ohio State government, including all courts, is $300 Million.
> The total cost of the entire department of Transportation, all roads and bridges in the entire state, is $400 Million.
> 
> That totals up to $2.75 Billion dollars.    How much is the Ohio State Budget?  $30.57 Billion.
> 
> We could cut taxes by 90% and fund everything you outlined.
> 
> Similarly at the Federal level....
> 
> The DOD costs $673 Billion.
> The DHS costs $55 Billion.
> The DOJ costs $37 Billion.
> The DOT costs $98 Billion.
> 
> Let's even toss in there, Veteran Affairs and Intelligence.  That's another $192 Billion.
> 
> That total adds up to only one $1 Trillion.
> 
> The budget is $3.8 Trillion.   The tax revenue is $2.9 Trillion.    You could cut the budget to 27%, and cut taxes to 35%, and still cover MORE than what you suggest.   Most of that DOT budget isn't going 'roads and bridges'.
> 
> All the rest of that tax money spent at the State and Federal level... that's all leftists socialists policies, blowing our money on crap.    If you people didn't blow our money, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and all of us would be far more wealthy than we are today.
> 
> I sure would.   I only made $18,000 last year, and I had to cough up $3,000 in taxes.   Very little of that money went to Fire, Police, Roads and Bridges, Public Libraries, and military.    I wouldn't be nearly as mad about it, if it did.   But the fact is, most of it went to a bunch of stupid leftard crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Anyone paying you $18 a year is pissing his money away.
> Buy a few more books (you won't appear homeschooled)*
> 
> "Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
> 
> "The Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding includes the monthly interest for:
> 
> "U.S. Treasury notes and bonds
> Foreign and domestic series certificates of indebtedness, notes and bonds
> Savings bonds
> Government Account Series (GAS)
> State and Local Government series (SLGs) and other special purpose securities.
> Amortized discount or premium on bills, notes and bonds is also included in the monthly interest expense.
> 
> "The fiscal year represents the total interest expense on the Debt Outstanding for a given fiscal year. This includes the months of October through September. View current month details (XLS Format, File size 188KB, uploaded 04/04/2014).
> 
> https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
Click to expand...


So you can't do math either?  Really... you can't grasp this?

Everything in the Federal Budget that I outlined, totaled $1 Trillion.

Hey stupid....  we collect right now, $2.9 Trillion in taxes.   If the total budget was $1 Trillion, and we collect $2.9 Trillion.......   Can you not do math?    Is 2.9 minus 1 too hard for you?   Dude, if you don't have a calculator this difficult equation, punch "2.9 - 1" into google.  Assume you have the intellectual ability for that.  

There wouldn't be any debt under my system.  We could pay off the debt, with the interest payments, in 9 years.

The only reason have debt now, is because of leftards like you in the past, spending more than we collect for your crap programs.

You are quickly proving that your not only too stupid to be in the conversation, but now you are turning into a clown to be mocked and laughed at as well.


----------



## Andylusion

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that the textile industry depended on those thing is obviously false since somehow it managed to get along without slaver after the war.  It manages to survive without high tariffs now.
> 
> Your concept "military savagery" is utterly meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> *Not to its victims:*
> 
> "On September 8, 2000, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) formally apologized for the agency's participation in the 'ethnic cleansing' of Western tribes."
> 
> Population history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *My claim was the textile industry depended on slave labor and high tariffs during its formation which it did. Capitalism thrives in climates of free labor and government protected monopolies.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the textile industry?
> 
> BTW, the greatest slaughters of the Indians were perpetrated by General Sherman.  You know, they guy Lincoln promoted to general and put in charge of laying waste to the Confederate states.  Lincoln is one of your heroes, isn't he?
Click to expand...


It has everything to do with textiles, that bad because it was private industry, which killed the Indians, and bought of Lincoln, which should have enacted high tariffs..........

Dude, this guy is clown.  He's just a clown.  Smile and nod, and laugh about it later.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference.   On a purely technical grounds....  Yes, the military is socialism.
> 
> A socialistic policy that we on the right, oppose, is the policies that try and change the economy, try and modify society.
> 
> Military does not do that.   The military is economically neutral.  It's there to protect the country as a whole.   It's there to keep everyone, form the homeless beggar, to the rich CEO, safe.    It provides for the "General Welfare".   Not the welfare of one person, at the expense of the other.
> 
> Same with the Police and Fire Departments.  Everyone benefits from the city not burning down, or over run with anarchy.
> 
> Roads and highways, same thing.  Everyone benefits.  It's not just rich, or just the political, or just whoever.   Everyone benefits.  Even the homeless beggar benefits from the charity food, delivered by truck to the shelter.
> 
> (by the way....   all the road around where I live were built by private money.  So the claim isn't even true)
> 
> As for Libraries....  Are you telling me you don't buy anything?  All the books in my house, I bought.  Maybe the reason you seem to know so little is because you need to buy more books.
> 
> Back to the beginning, the problem with all of this is... if you total up all the expenses for all of these things, they are tiny tiny insignificant fraction of the tax cost.
> 
> The entire Library expenses for the whole state of Ohio, is $350 Million.
> The total police spending for the state, including all jails, prisons, is $1.7 Billion.
> The total cost of running the entire Ohio State government, including all courts, is $300 Million.
> The total cost of the entire department of Transportation, all roads and bridges in the entire state, is $400 Million.
> 
> That totals up to $2.75 Billion dollars.    How much is the Ohio State Budget?  $30.57 Billion.
> 
> We could cut taxes by 90% and fund everything you outlined.
> 
> Similarly at the Federal level....
> 
> The DOD costs $673 Billion.
> The DHS costs $55 Billion.
> The DOJ costs $37 Billion.
> The DOT costs $98 Billion.
> 
> Let's even toss in there, Veteran Affairs and Intelligence.  That's another $192 Billion.
> 
> That total adds up to only one $1 Trillion.
> 
> The budget is $3.8 Trillion.   The tax revenue is $2.9 Trillion.    You could cut the budget to 27%, and cut taxes to 35%, and still cover MORE than what you suggest.   Most of that DOT budget isn't going 'roads and bridges'.
> 
> All the rest of that tax money spent at the State and Federal level... that's all leftists socialists policies, blowing our money on crap.    If you people didn't blow our money, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and all of us would be far more wealthy than we are today.
> 
> I sure would.   I only made $18,000 last year, and I had to cough up $3,000 in taxes.   Very little of that money went to Fire, Police, Roads and Bridges, Public Libraries, and military.    I wouldn't be nearly as mad about it, if it did.   But the fact is, most of it went to a bunch of stupid leftard crap.
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone paying you $18 a year is pissing his money away.
> Buy a few more books (you won't appear homeschooled)*
> 
> "Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
> 
> "The Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding includes the monthly interest for:
> 
> "U.S. Treasury notes and bonds
> Foreign and domestic series certificates of indebtedness, notes and bonds
> Savings bonds
> Government Account Series (GAS)
> State and Local Government series (SLGs) and other special purpose securities.
> Amortized discount or premium on bills, notes and bonds is also included in the monthly interest expense.
> 
> "The fiscal year represents the total interest expense on the Debt Outstanding for a given fiscal year. This includes the months of October through September. View current month details (XLS Format, File size 188KB, uploaded 04/04/2014).
> 
> https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't do math either?  Really... you can't grasp this?
> 
> Everything in the Federal Budget that I outlined, totaled $1 Trillion.
> 
> Hey stupid....  we collect right now, $2.9 Trillion in taxes.   If the total budget was $1 Trillion, and we collect $2.9 Trillion.......   Can you not do math?    Is 2.9 minus 1 too hard for you?   Dude, if you don't have a calculator this difficult equation, punch "2.9 - 1" into google.  Assume you have the intellectual ability for that.
> 
> There wouldn't be any debt under my system.  We could pay off the debt, with the interest payments, in 9 years.
> 
> The only reason have debt now, is because of leftards like you in the past, spending more than we collect for your crap programs.
> 
> You are quickly proving that your not only too stupid to be in the conversation, but now you are turning into a clown to be mocked and laughed at as well.
Click to expand...

*"Everything in the Federal Budget I outlined totaled $1 trillion."
Only problem, Homeschool, the Federal Budget is $3.454 trillion.
The resulting deficit is because right-wing corporate tools, like you, would rather borrow from the rich than tax them*


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's irrelevant.  This is why people on the right, think people on the left are absolutely economically illiterate.    Because you think what you posted there, made point.   That's sad.   Because it doesn't.
> 
> *"Metro International Trade Services, one of the countrys biggest storers of the metal"*
> 
> So.... ?       You realize that Toyota is the biggest car makers in the world, right?   Biggest profits, biggest unit sales, biggest capitalization.    They are number one on the world market.
> 
> That means they can charge anything they want.... Right?  Yet the Toyota Camry is priced almost exactly the same as the comparable Ford Fusion.
> 
> *"More than a quarter of the supply of aluminum available on the market is kept in the companys Detroit-area warehouses"*
> 
> So...  ?    Again, they are still only 10% of the warehouses out there.    Yes, they have 25% of the aluminum stored there.   Doesn't matter.   First, they don't OWN the aluminum.  They are storing it.    There's a difference.  Second, simply storing it doesn't give them any control over the market.    If they were to drive up their prices for storing the aluminum, the customers would move their stocks.
> 
> Within 5 minutes of where I live, there are two public storage places.  If I had all my stuff at one, and they raised their rates, I would move my stuff to the other one that didn't.
> 
> Metro International Trade Services, only owns about 10% of the warehouses, that are listed on the London Metal Exchange.   Those are just the 'official' warehouses.  You can store your metal ANYWHERE.
> 
> Point being, one company owning a fraction of the warehouses, doesn't mean jack squat.
> 
> Look at this......
> 
> Aluminum Lines Still Trouble the London Metal Exchange - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> If the problem was Metro International Trade Services, then why are long waits happening in other countries, like Netherlands, Malaysia, Belgium?
> 
> What's your excuse for how Goldman Sach, directing Metro to hold back deliveries, is magically causing warehouses on the other side of the planet, not connected at all with Metro, to have the same issue?
> 
> Or why are the Metro warehouses in Italy not having those problems?
> 
> Again... the ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because some idiot hates Goldman Sachs, and the lemmings are mindlessly following them.
> 
> If you have REAL evidence that Goldman Sachs has directly ordered Metro to deny service, post it.   Bring them up on charges.     But I highly doubt you people have anything in support, and that's why you keep posting meaningless crap, thinking it makes a point.  "They store 25% of blaw blaw blaw" as if.
> 
> 
> 
> *You wouldn't recognize real evidence; were you homeschooled?*
> 
> "The story of how this works begins in 27 industrial warehouses in the Detroit area where a Goldman subsidiary stores customers aluminum.
> 
> "Each day, a fleet of trucks shuffles 1,500-pound bars of the metal among the warehouses.
> 
> "Two or three times a day, sometimes more, the drivers make the same circuits.
> 
> "They load in one warehouse.
> 
> "They unload in another.
> 
> "And then they do it again.
> 
> "This industrial dance has been choreographed by Goldman to exploit pricing regulations set up by an overseas commodities exchange, an investigation by The New York Times has found.
> 
> "The back-and-forth lengthens the storage time. And that adds many millions a year to the coffers of Goldman, which owns the warehouses and charges rent to store the metal.
> 
> "It also increases prices paid by manufacturers and consumers across the country.
> 
> "Tyler Clay, a forklift driver who worked at the Goldman warehouses until early this year, called the process 'a merry-go-round of metal.'
> 
> "Only a tenth of a cent or so of an aluminum cans purchase price can be traced back to the strategy.
> 
> "But multiply that amount by the 90 billion aluminum cans consumed in the United States each year  and add the tons of aluminum used in things like cars, electronics and house siding  and the efforts by Goldman and other financial players *has cost American consumers more than $5 billion over the last three years*, say former industry executives, analysts and consultants."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=2&
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are quickly proving yourself too stupid to discuss this topic.   First off, if you have to engage in personal attacks, that simply proves you don't have point.
> 
> Second, nothing you said changed anything I said.
> 
> All of that blaw blaw blaw you posted, doesn't change the fact that other cities, and other counties, have the exact same problem.
> 
> SAME PROBLEM.
> 
> Yet, Metro isn't in those cities, or controlling all the aluminum there.
> 
> Being so incredibly stupid, that posting on here "how the warehouse works", when other warehouses, in other cities, that Metro does not control, HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM.... means you are not mentally able to follow the logic of the argument.    That reflects on you... not anyone else.
Click to expand...

Efforts by Goldman Sachs and other financial players have cost US consumers over $5 billion dollars over the past five years. Does that represent a PROBLEM in your mind?


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> Efforts by Goldman Sachs and other financial players have cost US consumers over $5 billion dollars over the past five years. Does that represent a PROBLEM in your mind?




It is an appropriate question regarding AL but we know 5 billion is a hella under statement regarding their entire operations.


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Efforts by Goldman Sachs and other financial players have cost US consumers over $5 billion dollars over the past five years. Does that represent a PROBLEM in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an appropriate question regarding AL but we know 5 billion is a hella under statement regarding their entire operations.
Click to expand...

*Here's a four minute example alleging the world's richest 300 individuals have more wealth than the poorest 3,000,000,000 individuals, and this systematic disparity has only worsened over the past five hundred years:*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Efforts by Goldman Sachs and other financial players have cost US consumers over $5 billion dollars over the past five years. Does that represent a PROBLEM in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an appropriate question regarding AL but we know 5 billion is a hella under statement regarding their entire operations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Here's a four minute example alleging the world's richest 300 individuals have more wealth than the poorest 3,000,000,000 individuals, and this systematic disparity has only worsened over the past five hundred years:*
Click to expand...


*Here's a four minute example alleging the world's richest 300 individuals have more wealth than the poorest 3,000,000,000 individuals,*

People with very low productivity don't get paid very much.
Don't have much money left over to invest.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is an appropriate question regarding AL but we know 5 billion is a hella under statement regarding their entire operations.
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's a four minute example alleging the world's richest 300 individuals have more wealth than the poorest 3,000,000,000 individuals, and this systematic disparity has only worsened over the past five hundred years:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Here's a four minute example alleging the world's richest 300 individuals have more wealth than the poorest 3,000,000,000 individuals,*
> 
> People with very low productivity don't get paid very much.
> Don't have much money left over to invest.
Click to expand...


Georgie would have us believe that the 3,000,000,000 are poor because the rich guys are hogging all the money.  If they took all the money from the rich guys tomorrow and divided it up among the poor people, a year later they would still be poor.  They might even be poorer.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's a four minute example alleging the world's richest 300 individuals have more wealth than the poorest 3,000,000,000 individuals, and this systematic disparity has only worsened over the past five hundred years:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's a four minute example alleging the world's richest 300 individuals have more wealth than the poorest 3,000,000,000 individuals,*
> 
> People with very low productivity don't get paid very much.
> Don't have much money left over to invest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Georgie would have us believe that the 3,000,000,000 are poor because the rich guys are hogging all the money.  If they took all the money from the rich guys tomorrow and divided it up among the poor people, a year later they would still be poor.  They might even be poorer.
Click to expand...

Two hundred years ago, rich countries were three times richer than developing countries.
At the end of the 1960s, rich countries were thirty-five times richer than poor ones.
Today, rich countries are 80 times richer.
Rich guys are hogging all the opportunity (and Hellfire Missiles)


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Efforts by Goldman Sachs and other financial players have cost US consumers over $5 billion dollars over the past five years. Does that represent a PROBLEM in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an appropriate question regarding AL but we know 5 billion is a hella under statement regarding their entire operations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Here's a four minute example alleging the world's richest 300 individuals have more wealth than the poorest 3,000,000,000 individuals, and this systematic disparity has only worsened over the past five hundred years:*
Click to expand...


Exactly.

Androw does not ask how should we treat one another. His main concern is how can I get what I want? And he thinks everyone should ask that same question. Thus it doesn't make sense to debate about how the the world is or more specifically how the legal system is set up to prosecute the average Joe and let those at the top off virtually scott free. These are not operational thoughts in Androws limited perspective. So of course there is no problem with Goldman Sachs literally stealing through legalisms billions upon billions.

The example of disparity you mention demonstrates beyond a doubt that Democracy is fiction. There is an obvious master/slave dialectic that has seen progress at the same time of profound regression.

This balance of power has absolutely stultifying consequences for those born into an average life: one riddled with bouts of unemployment and therefore massive inefficiency on the part of capitalism to serve humanity. No one denies capitalism and global institutions directly serve affluence and by that token rob from the poor and throw them in jail.

Matt Taibbi, in an interview, notes how HBSC bank was involved in 850 million of narco trafficking. They spent 0 seconds in jail and continued in their positions. An average citizen carrying a joint in his pocket was sent to Rikers Island for 47 days. The federal prosecuter in this case identified HBSC as the wrong type of people to go to jail. Now how fucking convenient is that? This has been increasingly the case since the 70s. Crimes against humans are virtually unpunished as crimes against unjust laws are wildly punished.

Thus, according to Androw, we should go big or go home. He is insensitive to the fact that his life has few parallels with the rest of the world and how we are treated. Just because something is legal or costs a small fee does not make it in any form justified, moral or acceptable. *We have a deeply entrenched criminal class that continually rob from the poor*, whether it's subprime frauds or subsidies. And sadly this class dominates the political arena.

There is no justification for this. It is immoral and distasteful. However, it is the not that the people are immoral rather it's how the system is designed to fuck the average human being so the rich can make more. It's a fucking travesty and because people like Androw do not engage with normal society, he has no sense of how people are effected by his transactions and those of major banks and corporations.

So the debate should not be how do we get a poor person to be well-off. No no no! The debate is how do we arrest this deeply immoral system and create one that benefits all humans--not one that lavishly rewards the affluent with ever great sums of entirely unnecessary, immoral, and unjustified maneuvers.

Watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Matt Taibbi Online | Hulu

Matt Taibbi: U.S. Should Be Ashamed It Treats Pot Smokers Worse Than Wall St. Criminals


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's a four minute example alleging the world's richest 300 individuals have more wealth than the poorest 3,000,000,000 individuals,*
> 
> People with very low productivity don't get paid very much.
> Don't have much money left over to invest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgie would have us believe that the 3,000,000,000 are poor because the rich guys are hogging all the money.  If they took all the money from the rich guys tomorrow and divided it up among the poor people, a year later they would still be poor.  They might even be poorer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two hundred years ago, rich countries were three times richer than developing countries.
> At the end of the 1960s, rich countries were thirty-five times richer than poor ones.
> Today, rich countries are 80 times richer.
> Rich guys are hogging all the opportunity (and Hellfire Missiles)
Click to expand...



Yeah, productivity, the gift that keeps on giving.
Don't worry, your big government buddies are trying to nip it in the bud.
If they do, those mean rich countries will be poor in no time.
That won't help the poor countries one bit, but you'll have to find a new "whining point".


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You wouldn't recognize real evidence; were you homeschooled?*
> 
> "The story of how this works begins in 27 industrial warehouses in the Detroit area where a Goldman subsidiary stores customers&#8217; aluminum.
> 
> "Each day, a fleet of trucks shuffles 1,500-pound bars of the metal among the warehouses.
> 
> "Two or three times a day, sometimes more, the drivers make the same circuits.
> 
> "They load in one warehouse.
> 
> "They unload in another.
> 
> "And then they do it again.
> 
> "This industrial dance has been choreographed by Goldman to exploit pricing regulations set up by an overseas commodities exchange, an investigation by The New York Times has found.
> 
> "The back-and-forth lengthens the storage time. And that adds many millions a year to the coffers of Goldman, which owns the warehouses and charges rent to store the metal.
> 
> "It also increases prices paid by manufacturers and consumers across the country.
> 
> "Tyler Clay, a forklift driver who worked at the Goldman warehouses until early this year, called the process 'a merry-go-round of metal.'
> 
> "Only a tenth of a cent or so of an aluminum can&#8217;s purchase price can be traced back to the strategy.
> 
> "But multiply that amount by the 90 billion aluminum cans consumed in the United States each year &#8212; and add the tons of aluminum used in things like cars, electronics and house siding &#8212; and the efforts by Goldman and other financial players *has cost American consumers more than $5 billion over the last three years*, say former industry executives, analysts and consultants."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=2&
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quickly proving yourself too stupid to discuss this topic.   First off, if you have to engage in personal attacks, that simply proves you don't have point.
> 
> Second, nothing you said changed anything I said.
> 
> All of that blaw blaw blaw you posted, doesn't change the fact that other cities, and other counties, have the exact same problem.
> 
> SAME PROBLEM.
> 
> Yet, Metro isn't in those cities, or controlling all the aluminum there.
> 
> Being so incredibly stupid, that posting on here "how the warehouse works", when other warehouses, in other cities, that Metro does not control, HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM.... means you are not mentally able to follow the logic of the argument.    That reflects on you... not anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Efforts by Goldman Sachs and other financial players have cost US consumers over $5 billion dollars over the past five years. Does that represent a PROBLEM in your mind?
Click to expand...


If you mean that by owning a business, they are making a profit off that business, that this is a problem... no, you are wrong.  It's not a problem.

What's a problem is when they use the government, to regulate costs onto the consumer.    That is a problem.   I don't see Goldman Sachs pushing for bad regulations that drive up costs on consumers, as much as I see Democraps and LEFTIST pushing for regulations that drive up costs on consumers.

Now if you can actually make the claim that Goldman Sachs has in fact done something illegal, great.  File your court brief.  I look forward to seeing the convictions.     And don't give me excuses for how "big companies own the government", because Skilling of Enron fame, is in prison.

Just put your money where your mouth is, and prove it.

But as for your claim that somehow Goldman Sachs has manipulated something or other, I'm sorry but you have to prove it first.   The fact that other warehouses completely unconnected with Goldman Sachs, have the same problem, proves your theory false.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Efforts by Goldman Sachs and other financial players have cost US consumers over $5 billion dollars over the past five years. Does that represent a PROBLEM in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an appropriate question regarding AL but we know 5 billion is a hella under statement regarding their entire operations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Here's a four minute example alleging the world's richest 300 individuals have more wealth than the poorest 3,000,000,000 individuals, and this systematic disparity has only worsened over the past five hundred years:*
Click to expand...


It's stuff like this that bugs the snot out of me.   We as a nation, are so completely arrogant, and yet totally ignorant, that someone like you can post something like that, and have other people not laugh you off the forum.

The BBC, had recently a documentary "Notes from Kampala" in Uganda.

In this doc, they were covering a charity organization, that supplied music teaching, and instruments, to a free school in Uganda.

They had five base players, and one single base guitar.   Ten piano players, and one piano.    Not one student had ever seen a musical instrument before.

Here in America....  a popular musician (not named in the pod cast), said they were 'dirt poor' growing up.  All they had was an old piano, and his uncle gave him a saxophone.......   That's rich.    If you can have a piano and a saxophone, you are rich.
BBC - Podcasts and Downloads - Documentaries
(You have to search for "notes from Kampala" and go to 37 Minutes into the podcast)

georgephillip... You are the rich.
gnarlylove...  You are the rich.

You realize that someone earning just over $30,000 a year, is the top 1% of wage earners in the whole world?

But you people never demand that you yourself give to others.  No no, it's always someone else.  It always those "richer than you" people that should give.

Here's the kicker.   Want who built the school, funds it's operation, and donated, and paid for delivery of all the instruments?   Wanna guess?   It wasn't the US government.   It wasn't the UK government.  It wasn't some leftist program.  It certainly wasn't georgephillip or gnarlylove.  Lord knows you guys didn't do jack shit.

It was rich people.   What have you done?    The rich people you keep bad mouthing, supplied all that charity to those Ugandan kids.  What did you leftists do?   How much money did Obama donate?   Jack squat.

And in fact, most charity donations come from private individuals and companies.   Again, what have you two contributed?  What has Obama contributed other than class-warfare rhetoric?

If you leftists did half as much for people, as you blabber on about how others should do more, we wouldn't even need the rich to do charity.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's a four minute example alleging the world's richest 300 individuals have more wealth than the poorest 3,000,000,000 individuals,*
> 
> People with very low productivity don't get paid very much.
> Don't have much money left over to invest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgie would have us believe that the 3,000,000,000 are poor because the rich guys are hogging all the money.  If they took all the money from the rich guys tomorrow and divided it up among the poor people, a year later they would still be poor.  They might even be poorer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two hundred years ago, rich countries were three times richer than developing countries.
> At the end of the 1960s, rich countries were thirty-five times richer than poor ones.
> Today, rich countries are 80 times richer.
> Rich guys are hogging all the opportunity (and Hellfire Missiles)
Click to expand...


Do you really think that saying something this stupid, is going fool us?   

We've covered this already.   I'm nearing the end to a book on Exxon, which is operating in Chad Africa.   They setup a system were oil royalties are paid out to community development funds.

One of the things they did was build a hospital.    Well.... locals came and looted the hospital, even taking the doors off the building, let alone the equipment which was then sold off on the black market.

Then they engaged in Micro-Lending.   They loaned out all this money to the locals, who then purchased smokes and a local brand of whiskey, and defaulted on their loans.

Just like I pointed out last time you said this stupidity, it's not about rich doing this or that.   It's about culture, and economic choice.   Its about people who invest their money, into growing more money, verse people who consume their money, and it's gone.

I pointed this out before, and if you want the links again, I'll post them.  A lady in Canada won $10 Million dollars, and in under 10 years, was completely bankrupt.   All the money gone.

Steve Jobs got $5 Million, invested it into Pixar, made it into a box office hit making movie company, and earned $5 Billion for it.

The reason why rich countries are rich, and poor countries are poor, is the same reason rich people end up rich, and poor people end up poor.   Poor people, and poor countries, end up consuming their wealth.    Rich people, and rich countries, invest their wealth into making more wealth.

PinBall people verese the Beer Pong people.   Warren Buffet invest his high school earnings into a pinball machine, that earned him more money.   Most high school students when I was there, bought a keg of beer and played beer pong.

All this "rich people are denying other countries opportunity".... really?

Explain Brazil then.   Explain South Korea.   Explain China, India and Turkey?

Is the all powerful rich people, losing their ability to prevent opportunity in those places?

Explain how we have all these people in our country that end up rich? 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-self-made-immigrant-millionaires.html?page=all

Josie Natori.  Came here from the Philippines.   Runs her own company now.  "There is no better place in the world for an immigrant to succeed than in the U.S. Follow your dream and make it happen."

Lowell Hawthorne.   Came here from Jamaica.   Owns his own business.
"Anybody can achieve the American dream. You've got to be focused, educated, have discipline, and just go for it." 

Shama Kabani.   Came here from India.   Father drove a Taxi.   Owns her own business.   "I saw them work hard and doubly so because they were in a new country trying to adjust. They worked very long hours"

All of these people came here with nearly nothing, and made millions.

What happened?  I thought the rich had all the opportunity locked out?   I thought they couldn't succeed because evil Walmart, and Goldman Sachs was holding them down?

Thankfully they didn't get your stupid leftardian memo, and went out there and succeeded.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgie would have us believe that the 3,000,000,000 are poor because the rich guys are hogging all the money.  If they took all the money from the rich guys tomorrow and divided it up among the poor people, a year later they would still be poor.  They might even be poorer.
> 
> 
> 
> Two hundred years ago, rich countries were three times richer than developing countries.
> At the end of the 1960s, rich countries were thirty-five times richer than poor ones.
> Today, rich countries are 80 times richer.
> Rich guys are hogging all the opportunity (and Hellfire Missiles)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think that saying something this stupid, is going fool us?
> 
> We've covered this already.   I'm nearing the end to a book on Exxon, which is operating in Chad Africa.   They setup a system were oil royalties are paid out to community development funds.
> 
> One of the things they did was build a hospital.    Well.... locals came and looted the hospital, even taking the doors off the building, let alone the equipment which was then sold off on the black market.
> 
> Then they engaged in Micro-Lending.   They loaned out all this money to the locals, who then purchased smokes and a local brand of whiskey, and defaulted on their loans.
> 
> Just like I pointed out last time you said this stupidity, it's not about rich doing this or that.   It's about culture, and economic choice.   Its about people who invest their money, into growing more money, verse people who consume their money, and it's gone.
> 
> I pointed this out before, and if you want the links again, I'll post them.  A lady in Canada won $10 Million dollars, and in under 10 years, was completely bankrupt.   All the money gone.
> 
> Steve Jobs got $5 Million, invested it into Pixar, made it into a box office hit making movie company, and earned $5 Billion for it.
> 
> The reason why rich countries are rich, and poor countries are poor, is the same reason rich people end up rich, and poor people end up poor.   Poor people, and poor countries, end up consuming their wealth.    Rich people, and rich countries, invest their wealth into making more wealth.
> 
> PinBall people verese the Beer Pong people.   Warren Buffet invest his high school earnings into a pinball machine, that earned him more money.   Most high school students when I was there, bought a keg of beer and played beer pong.
> 
> All this "rich people are denying other countries opportunity".... really?
> 
> Explain Brazil then.   Explain South Korea.   Explain China, India and Turkey?
> 
> Is the all powerful rich people, losing their ability to prevent opportunity in those places?
> 
> Explain how we have all these people in our country that end up rich?
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-self-made-immigrant-millionaires.html?page=all
> 
> Josie Natori.  Came here from the Philippines.   Runs her own company now.  "There is no better place in the world for an immigrant to succeed than in the U.S. Follow your dream and make it happen."
> 
> Lowell Hawthorne.   Came here from Jamaica.   Owns his own business.
> "Anybody can achieve the American dream. You've got to be focused, educated, have discipline, and just go for it."
> 
> Shama Kabani.   Came here from India.   Father drove a Taxi.   Owns her own business.   "I saw them work hard and doubly so because they were in a new country trying to adjust. They worked very long hours"
> 
> All of these people came here with nearly nothing, and made millions.
> 
> What happened?  I thought the rich had all the opportunity locked out?   I thought they couldn't succeed because evil Walmart, and Goldman Sachs was holding them down?
> 
> Thankfully they didn't get your stupid leftardian memo, and went out there and succeeded.
Click to expand...

*Tell your Exxon pals in Chad to pay their taxes:*

"N'DJAMENA, March 11 (Reuters) - An ExxonMobil-led consortium in Chad is seeking an out-of-court settlement after the government filed a legal claim for more than $800 million in unpaid taxes, finance ministry sources said on Tuesday.

"The Central African government on March 3 filed a legal claim for 396 billion CFA francs ($837.90 million) in royalties from the consortium which also includes Chevron and Petronas.

"A representative for the Exxon consortium in the country declined to give an immediate comment. ExxonMobil's press service in Houston could not immediately be reached for comment."

*Over the past forty years the global rich have bribed politicians from Chad to DC to borrow from the rich instead of taxing them and then relying on private charity to address all the negative externalities corporations depend upon to generate their quarterly profits.

You need to broaden your reading if you're honestly confused about how wealth and income have been redistributed upward over the last four decades.*

ExxonMobil seeks settlement in $800 mln Chad tax dispute -sources | Reuters


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two hundred years ago, rich countries were three times richer than developing countries.
> At the end of the 1960s, rich countries were thirty-five times richer than poor ones.
> Today, rich countries are 80 times richer.
> Rich guys are hogging all the opportunity (and Hellfire Missiles)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think that saying something this stupid, is going fool us?
> 
> We've covered this already.   I'm nearing the end to a book on Exxon, which is operating in Chad Africa.   They setup a system were oil royalties are paid out to community development funds.
> 
> One of the things they did was build a hospital.    Well.... locals came and looted the hospital, even taking the doors off the building, let alone the equipment which was then sold off on the black market.
> 
> Then they engaged in Micro-Lending.   They loaned out all this money to the locals, who then purchased smokes and a local brand of whiskey, and defaulted on their loans.
> 
> Just like I pointed out last time you said this stupidity, it's not about rich doing this or that.   It's about culture, and economic choice.   Its about people who invest their money, into growing more money, verse people who consume their money, and it's gone.
> 
> I pointed this out before, and if you want the links again, I'll post them.  A lady in Canada won $10 Million dollars, and in under 10 years, was completely bankrupt.   All the money gone.
> 
> Steve Jobs got $5 Million, invested it into Pixar, made it into a box office hit making movie company, and earned $5 Billion for it.
> 
> The reason why rich countries are rich, and poor countries are poor, is the same reason rich people end up rich, and poor people end up poor.   Poor people, and poor countries, end up consuming their wealth.    Rich people, and rich countries, invest their wealth into making more wealth.
> 
> PinBall people verese the Beer Pong people.   Warren Buffet invest his high school earnings into a pinball machine, that earned him more money.   Most high school students when I was there, bought a keg of beer and played beer pong.
> 
> All this "rich people are denying other countries opportunity".... really?
> 
> Explain Brazil then.   Explain South Korea.   Explain China, India and Turkey?
> 
> Is the all powerful rich people, losing their ability to prevent opportunity in those places?
> 
> Explain how we have all these people in our country that end up rich?
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-self-made-immigrant-millionaires.html?page=all
> 
> Josie Natori.  Came here from the Philippines.   Runs her own company now.  "There is no better place in the world for an immigrant to succeed than in the U.S. Follow your dream and make it happen."
> 
> Lowell Hawthorne.   Came here from Jamaica.   Owns his own business.
> "Anybody can achieve the American dream. You've got to be focused, educated, have discipline, and just go for it."
> 
> Shama Kabani.   Came here from India.   Father drove a Taxi.   Owns her own business.   "I saw them work hard and doubly so because they were in a new country trying to adjust. They worked very long hours"
> 
> All of these people came here with nearly nothing, and made millions.
> 
> What happened?  I thought the rich had all the opportunity locked out?   I thought they couldn't succeed because evil Walmart, and Goldman Sachs was holding them down?
> 
> Thankfully they didn't get your stupid leftardian memo, and went out there and succeeded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Tell your Exxon pals in Chad to pay their taxes:*
> 
> "N'DJAMENA, March 11 (Reuters) - An ExxonMobil-led consortium in Chad is seeking an out-of-court settlement after the government filed a legal claim for more than $800 million in unpaid taxes, finance ministry sources said on Tuesday.
> 
> "The Central African government on March 3 filed a legal claim for 396 billion CFA francs ($837.90 million) in royalties from the consortium which also includes Chevron and Petronas.
> 
> "A representative for the Exxon consortium in the country declined to give an immediate comment. ExxonMobil's press service in Houston could not immediately be reached for comment."
> 
> *Over the past forty years the global rich have bribed politicians from Chad to DC to borrow from the rich instead of taxing them and then relying on private charity to address all the negative externalities corporations depend upon to generate their quarterly profits.
> 
> You need to broaden your reading if you're honestly confused about how wealth and income have been redistributed upward over the last four decades.*
> 
> ExxonMobil seeks settlement in $800 mln Chad tax dispute -sources | Reuters
Click to expand...


That's another thing.  If you had actually read the book, it details how, especially in Africa where corruption is rampant, governments routinely file claims of unpaid taxes all the time, hoping something will stick.  But of course, making sarcastic remarks, instead of reading, is much easier for a leftist.

And by the way, that's not to say that Exxon hasn't made mistakes too.   The difference is, when people like you make a mistake and owe taxes, you say "it's just a mistake".    When Exxon or any other big company makes a mistake, you automatically assume intentional deception.

How many Democraps in government have ended up owing tons of taxes?   The vast majority by far.

Of course it doesn't help that are tax laws are so unbelievably convoluted and crazy, that even CPAs, hire professional tax accountants do their own taxes.

But of course if taxes were simple, then companies wouldn't make mistakes, and then you wouldn't have something stupid to b!tch about.

*OF COURSE.......*    Absolutely nothing you said, changes the facts of my post.    You basically admitted you lost the argument, by tossing in a sudden topic change.     Does Exxon not paying tax (assuming it's true) change the fact that the hospital built with royalties was looted?   Nope.   Does it change the failure of the micro-lending, because people bought smokes and beer with the money?    Nope.    So what was the point?    It was a pathetic attempt at a topic change, to dodge the fact you just lost the argument.


----------



## KNB

Corporations like Exxon lobbied Congress to write the tax code to be convoluted and crazy so that they could exploit as many hidden loopholes as possible.  Poor people didn't write the tax code.

Corporations aren't "making mistakes" when they don't pay taxes.  It is done intentionally to keep as much money for the corporation as possible.  It is all very meticulous, which is why corporations like Exxon have entire teams of tax lawyers dedicated to revealing and exploiting as many of loopholes as possible.


----------



## Andylusion

KNB said:


> Corporations like Exxon lobbied Congress to write the tax code to be convoluted and crazy so that they could exploit as many hidden loopholes as possible.  Poor people didn't write the tax code.
> 
> Corporations aren't "making mistakes" when they don't pay taxes.  It is done intentionally to keep as much money for the corporation as possible.  It is all very meticulous, which is why corporations like Exxon have entire teams of tax lawyers dedicated to revealing and exploiting as many of loopholes as possible.



You just proved my whole point.   You have no idea what happened, no idea what tax laws exist in Chad, no idea what international tax laws there are.... you know absolutely nothing at all about the situation.

You know absolutely NOTHING about the situation the people or the laws, and yet instantly presume guilt automatically.

Thank you very very much.  You just provided absolute proof of what I was saying.

*Back to the Tax Code.....*

Actually... that's not true.   Unless your definition of 'poor people' is limited to those below the poverty level, then perhaps.

The first organized lobby effort, was by universities.   They pushed for charitable donations to be tax deductible, because when FDR made the 70% income tax, charitable donations to colleges and universities fell like a rock.

Similarly, most of the deductions that exist, were pushed for by middle class and small business.


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> *Over the past forty years the global rich have bribed politicians from Chad to DC to borrow from the rich instead of taxing them and then relying on private charity to address all the negative externalities corporations depend upon to generate their quarterly profits.*



I just had to reiterate this point. It is ripe with significant reflections on the current state of world affairs and capital. It is just nuts. The malfeasance of the super rich are those of an unbridled drug addict. Without restraint businesses like Exxon have utterly reversed sensible capital exchange.

In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.

Through the financialization of the economy we have seen this revolutionary shift of what you eloquently stated. Banks and the super rich have managed to re-write the tax code and laws shifting capital around so that it ends up back in the hands from which it came. Meaning the very affluent are paying fewer taxes and regular citizens have been struggling for 3 decades so the government doesn't collect from them. SO where do the taxes come from? It's borrowed from the only people with money: super rich...at interest! So the government can never pay its debts off. So the system we have in operation is de-constructing capital flow so that it stagnates in the hands of a few "masters of the universe" as they deem themselves with frightening validity. 

Do we really want an authoritarian rule because we have it. According to political philosopher Sheldon Woolin, in Democracy Incorporated, he says we live in an inverted totalitarian system. Why are lessons never learned? These authoritarians are no kinder than others. If Chevron fucked over Ecuador with no reparations going on 3 decades, if Exxon is shitting on Chad as it supposed it could get away with, then we are living in an age where Corporations are _de facto_ more sovereign and powerful than sovereign governments. Given that governments, esp the US, rely on these types of people and corporations to supply the world with the capital to operate at shitty levels (1/5 of America's resources and workforce is unused, rotting, rusting), can you imagine how this will be carried forward with the surveillance state?

It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.



But.... they didn't.    They didn't back then, nor today.

Journal of Economic PerspectivesVolume 21, Number 1Winter 2007Pages 324
How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax
System? A Historical and International
Perspective



> The larger progressivity in 1960 is not mainly due to the individual income tax. The average individual income tax rate in 1960 reached an average rate of 31 percent at the very top, only slightly above the 25 percent average rate at the very top in 2004. Within the 1960 version of the individual income tax, lower rates on realized capital gains, as well as deductions for interest payments and charitable contributions, reduced dramatically what otherwise looked like an extremely progressive tax schedule, with a top marginal tax rate on individual income of 91 percent.



The average tax rate paid by the highest income bracket, was only 31%.

This is something that is so obvious, and yet people never seem to grasp it.

You can't change how much people actually pay in tax.... only the tax rates.

But people easily, and routinely avoid tax rates.   If the rate goes too high, people hide their money.

The Grumpy Economist: How to lie with statistics


> The basic fact of the Federal taxation is that it raises about 20% of GDP despite wild variation in the statutory tax rates. In 1960 Federal tax receipts (NIPA table 3.2) divided by national income (NIPA 1.12) were 93.9/2013.9 = 19.8%. In 2004 this ratio was 2013.9/10534.0 = 19.1%.



The raw amount of income collected by tax RATES, is fairly consistent over time.  It doesn't change much, regardless of what rates are imposed.



> Through the financialization of the economy we have seen this revolutionary shift of what you eloquently stated. Banks and the super rich have managed to re-write the tax code and laws shifting capital around so that it ends up back in the hands from which it came. Meaning the very affluent are paying fewer taxes and regular citizens have been struggling for 3 decades so the government doesn't collect from them. SO where do the taxes come from? It's borrowed from the only people with money: super rich...at interest! So the government can never pay its debts off. So the system we have in operation is de-constructing capital flow so that it stagnates in the hands of a few "masters of the universe" as they deem themselves with frightening validity.



Are you telling me, that if we canceled everything, but national defense, justice, and law enforcement, that we would still be in debt?

The tax code has been changed and modified numerous times throughout history, and never once, under any system, has there been money for the programs we are blowing money on today.   Never.

The same has been true of other countries.   They raise taxes and capital leaves.    There has never been a time at any point in the history of the human race, where a government has taxed rich people, and provided for the needs of all the poor.



> Do we really want an authoritarian rule? Why are lessons never learned? These authoritarians are no kinder than others. If Chevron fucked over Ecuador with no reparations going on 3 decades, if Exxon is shitting on Chad as it supposed it could get away with, then we are living in an age where Corporations are _de facto_ more sovereign and powerful than sovereign governments. Given that governments, esp the US, rely on these types of people and corporations to supply the world with the capital to operate at shitty levels (1/5 of America's resources and workforce is unused, rotting, rusting), can you imagine how this will be carried forward with the surveillance state?



Chevron didn't screw over Ecuador or anyone else.   You don't know the history of that argument, and the counter evidence.



> It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.



There have been people like you, talking about the 'horrific ramifications' all the way back to the founding of this country, and by the way the founding of other countries.

Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world.

Yes, we see the 'unthinkable horrific ramifications', and I'm shaking in my seat, in total fear even as I type.

Look...  You have some points to be made, I will most certainly grant you that.   But seriously, this drama queen super-star act, is a bit over the top... don't you think?


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the past forty years the global rich have bribed politicians from Chad to DC to borrow from the rich instead of taxing them and then relying on private charity to address all the negative externalities corporations depend upon to generate their quarterly profits.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just had to reiterate this point. It is ripe with significant reflections on the current state of world affairs and capital. It is just nuts. The malfeasance of the super rich are those of an unbridled drug addict. Without restraint businesses like Exxon have utterly reversed sensible capital exchange.
> 
> In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.
> 
> Through the financialization of the economy we have seen this revolutionary shift of what you eloquently stated. Banks and the super rich have managed to re-write the tax code and laws shifting capital around so that it ends up back in the hands from which it came. Meaning the very affluent are paying fewer taxes and regular citizens have been struggling for 3 decades so the government doesn't collect from them. SO where do the taxes come from? It's borrowed from the only people with money: super rich...at interest! So the government can never pay its debts off. So the system we have in operation is de-constructing capital flow so that it stagnates in the hands of a few "masters of the universe" as they deem themselves with frightening validity.
> 
> Do we really want an authoritarian rule because we have it. According to political philosopher Sheldon Woolin, in Democracy Incorporated, he says we live in an inverted totalitarian system. Why are lessons never learned? These authoritarians are no kinder than others. If Chevron fucked over Ecuador with no reparations going on 3 decades, if Exxon is shitting on Chad as it supposed it could get away with, then we are living in an age where Corporations are _de facto_ more sovereign and powerful than sovereign governments. Given that governments, esp the US, rely on these types of people and corporations to supply the world with the capital to operate at shitty levels (1/5 of America's resources and workforce is unused, rotting, rusting), can you imagine how this will be carried forward with the surveillance state?
> 
> It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.
Click to expand...

*In the wake of Citizens United v. FEC, Chris Hedges used Wolin to make the point that democracy in America is a useful fiction; however, the corporate state is firmly cemented in place:*

"Inverted totalitarianism represents 'the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry,' Wolin writes in 'Democracy Incorporated.' 

"Inverted totalitarianism differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader, and finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. 

"The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, boast of replacing decaying structures with a new, revolutionary structure. 

"They purport to honor electoral politics, freedom and the Constitution. But they so corrupt and manipulate the levers of power as to make democracy impossible."

*The conflict between oligarch and democracy has gone on for thousands of years; today's multinational corporations serve as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected individuals.

I don't see how it can change as long as US voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their congressional representatives.*

Chris Hedges: Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction - Chris Hedges - Truthdig


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the past forty years the global rich have bribed politicians from Chad to DC to borrow from the rich instead of taxing them and then relying on private charity to address all the negative externalities corporations depend upon to generate their quarterly profits.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just had to reiterate this point. It is ripe with significant reflections on the current state of world affairs and capital. It is just nuts. The malfeasance of the super rich are those of an unbridled drug addict. Without restraint businesses like Exxon have utterly reversed sensible capital exchange.
> 
> In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.
> 
> Through the financialization of the economy we have seen this revolutionary shift of what you eloquently stated. Banks and the super rich have managed to re-write the tax code and laws shifting capital around so that it ends up back in the hands from which it came. Meaning the very affluent are paying fewer taxes and regular citizens have been struggling for 3 decades so the government doesn't collect from them. SO where do the taxes come from? It's borrowed from the only people with money: super rich...at interest! So the government can never pay its debts off. So the system we have in operation is de-constructing capital flow so that it stagnates in the hands of a few "masters of the universe" as they deem themselves with frightening validity.
> 
> Do we really want an authoritarian rule because we have it. According to political philosopher Sheldon Woolin, in Democracy Incorporated, he says we live in an inverted totalitarian system. Why are lessons never learned? These authoritarians are no kinder than others. If Chevron fucked over Ecuador with no reparations going on 3 decades, if Exxon is shitting on Chad as it supposed it could get away with, then we are living in an age where Corporations are _de facto_ more sovereign and powerful than sovereign governments. Given that governments, esp the US, rely on these types of people and corporations to supply the world with the capital to operate at shitty levels (1/5 of America's resources and workforce is unused, rotting, rusting), can you imagine how this will be carried forward with the surveillance state?
> 
> It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In the wake of Citizens United v. FEC, Chris Hedges used Wolin to make the point that democracy in America is a useful fiction; however, the corporate state is firmly cemented in place:*
> 
> "Inverted totalitarianism represents 'the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry,' Wolin writes in 'Democracy Incorporated.'
> 
> "Inverted totalitarianism differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader, and finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state.
> 
> "The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, boast of replacing decaying structures with a new, revolutionary structure.
> 
> "They purport to honor electoral politics, freedom and the Constitution. But they so corrupt and manipulate the levers of power as to make democracy impossible."
> 
> *The conflict between oligarch and democracy has gone on for thousands of years; today's multinational corporations serve as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected individuals.
> 
> I don't see how it can change as long as US voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their congressional representatives.*
> 
> Chris Hedges: Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
Click to expand...


Good.  I don't want a democracy.  A democracy, is just the tyranny of the majority.

We were never supposed to be a democracy, and turning into one, would destroy the entire country, and doom everyone to a tyrannical hell.

So if this guy doesn't see how it could happen...... GOOD.


----------



## georgephillip

Rule by the many or rule by the few, which do you prefer?
In a Representative Democracy decisions are made on the basis of one person, one vote.
In a corporate oligarchy, decisions are based on one dollar, one vote.
What's your choice?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Rule by the many or rule by the few, which do you prefer?
> In a Representative Democracy decisions are made on the basis of one person, one vote.
> In a corporate oligarchy, decisions are based on one dollar, one vote.
> What's your choice?



We are supposed to be a Republic.

The difference between us, is that what you want would cause the very tyranny that you think you are trying to stop.

This idea that right now we have dollars buying government... is just wrong.   It's just not true.    Bernie Madoff tossed around tons of money.  Still went to jail.    World Com was lobbying all the time.  Still went bankrupt, and Bernard Ebbers, former CEO, is in prison to this day.

Enron's Skillings, is in prison to this day, and he personally met with Clinton, and Bush.    Didn't buy him a get out of jail free card at all.  Nor did it save Enron.

It's simply not true!   All blathering crap about how corporations own the government, not true.  Just not true.

Remember ObamaCare had massive opposition from companies, and although they were invited to discuss health care reform at the beginning, the insurance companies walked out.     It was still passed!

And despite the mass of opposition from business throughout the entire country, Obama was reelected President.

Where is this great 'ownership of government' by the supposed corporate oligarchy?

See as far as I can tell, the only basis the left has to claim this "corporate oligarchy", is that businesses haven't gone bankrupt, and left the country like they did in Greece and Venezuela.

What real evidence of this do you have?   Well Exxon gave $10,000 to a already pro-oil senator last year.     Well hell... I gave money to a pro-gun senator last year.   I guess I own government too?


----------



## MikeK

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But.... they didn't.    They didn't back then, nor today.
> 
> Journal of Economic Perspectives&#8212;Volume 21, Number 1&#8212;Winter 2007&#8212;Pages 3&#8211;24
> How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax
> System? A Historical and International
> Perspective
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The larger progressivity in 1960 is not mainly due to the individual income tax. The average individual income tax rate in 1960 reached an average rate of 31 percent at the very top, only slightly above the 25 percent average rate at the very top in 2004. Within the 1960 version of the individual income tax, lower rates on realized capital gains, as well as deductions for interest payments and charitable contributions, reduced dramatically what otherwise looked like an extremely progressive tax schedule, with a top marginal tax rate on individual income of 91 percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The average tax rate paid by the highest income bracket, was only 31%.
> 
> This is something that is so obvious, and yet people never seem to grasp it.
> 
> You can't change how much people actually pay in tax.... only the tax rates.
> 
> But people easily, and routinely avoid tax rates.   If the rate goes too high, people hide their money.
> 
> The Grumpy Economist: How to lie with statistics
> 
> 
> The raw amount of income collected by tax RATES, is fairly consistent over time.  It doesn't change much, regardless of what rates are imposed.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me, that if we canceled everything, but national defense, justice, and law enforcement, that we would still be in debt?
> 
> The tax code has been changed and modified numerous times throughout history, and never once, under any system, has there been money for the programs we are blowing money on today.   Never.
> 
> The same has been true of other countries.   They raise taxes and capital leaves.    There has never been a time at any point in the history of the human race, where a government has taxed rich people, and provided for the needs of all the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we really want an authoritarian rule? Why are lessons never learned? These authoritarians are no kinder than others. If Chevron fucked over Ecuador with no reparations going on 3 decades, if Exxon is shitting on Chad as it supposed it could get away with, then we are living in an age where Corporations are _de facto_ more sovereign and powerful than sovereign governments. Given that governments, esp the US, rely on these types of people and corporations to supply the world with the capital to operate at shitty levels (1/5 of America's resources and workforce is unused, rotting, rusting), can you imagine how this will be carried forward with the surveillance state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chevron didn't screw over Ecuador or anyone else.   You don't know the history of that argument, and the counter evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been people like you, talking about the 'horrific ramifications' all the way back to the founding of this country, and by the way the founding of other countries.
> 
> Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world.
> 
> Yes, we see the 'unthinkable horrific ramifications', and I'm shaking in my seat, in total fear even as I type.
> 
> Look...  You have some points to be made, I will most certainly grant you that.   But seriously, this drama queen super-star act, is a bit over the top... don't you think?
Click to expand...

You are right -- almost.  

The fact is the present 35% tax rate is substantially hollowed by sufficient loopholes and "write-off" provisions to render it virtually non-existent if the well-connected, Princeton-educated, lawyer-accountants who serve the likes of Jamie Dimon, Sheldon Adelson, et. al., choose to reference them all.  But the simple fact is the 91% rate was not equipped with such an abundance of intricately constructed hiding places.  As a result of this confiscatory level of taxation on the super-rich of the era, FDR was able to finance his WPA and CCC _make-work_ programs, lifting my own father and millions of other willing workers from the depth of Depression-induced poverty, thereby stimulating a totally stagnant economy.

Briefly stated, what contemporary America needs is another 91% tax rate on the rich -- with a *diligently enforced minimum of allowable deductions.*  In other words, we need to start using force against these greedy bastards in the interest of preserving the America we have known and had cause to love.


----------



## gnarlylove

"Chevron didn't screw over Ecuador or anyone else. You don't know the history of that argument, and the counter evidence."

Androw Androw Androw. How do you say such absolute and utter insane comments, passing them off as resembling facts? How do you lie with such ease? You need to teach me to be a terrorist just like you so we can destroy large areas of land and water and then say it never happened.





















Decades of litigation is not a valid counter argument. It's cowardice and evasion of moral culpability based in the vast treasury of Chevron and *nothing else*. I have family and friends who live in Ecuador and have seen the devastation like former watering holes that families depended on for life totally annihilated.

Either those pictures are real and thus deserve reparations or those pictures are fake. It's such a shame that a literate person like you says things that even an illiterate tribesman knows to be flat out false.


----------



## MikeK

I wish to push the premise of my previous message a bit further by saying I believe the preservation of the America we've known and loved depends on the following actions:  



1)
Impose a maximum $20,000,000 limit on allowable accumulation of personal assets and confiscate every penny in excess of that amount.  

2)
Finance all federal, state, and municipal elections with public money and prohibit any incumbent official or candidate from accepting any form of material gift or contribution from anyone for any reason.  And impose severe criminal penalties on any violation or attempted violation by donor or recipient.  

3)
Purge all members of Congress whose personal assets exceed two million dollars.  And disqualify candidates for public office whose personal assets exceed two million dollars.

4)
Require annual disclosure of all personal assets and sources by all elected public officials.  




Comments are invited.


----------



## gnarlylove

Mike,

1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to? Personally I think to really address our crisis I would think no more than 1 million. Naturally few half millionaires would agree. But this would have to come concomitantly with an increase in open society where we value supporting one another over personal greed. It's a definite socialist model. I tend to agree with Marx though, socialism cannot be the end of history either. Eventually money will be abolished or we won't survive (well).

2. I recently heard that if we do public finance that it would likely get scooped up by the rich just as charter schools gobble up public funds. I don't quite know what to make of that argument.

3. Some argue constant rotations with no incumbent is necessary. That one term only will help solve corruption issues. Maybe it coincides with your proposal.

4. The issue isn't public officials, most of that is available if not all--maybe I'm mistaken, but: Personal Finance Disclosure | OpenSecrets

The real issue is super-pacs. Their non-disclosure allows for unlimited anonymous donation (could be just Sam Koch) to an official or candidate.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Rule by the many or rule by the few, which do you prefer?



I prefer not to be ruled at all - especially not by a mass of numskulls.



georgephillip said:


> In a Representative Democracy decisions are made on the basis of one person, one vote.  In a corporate oligarchy, decisions are based on one dollar, one vote.  What's your choice?



The idea that corporations control the government is patently absurd.  It's the other way around.  Congress continually shakes corporations down and extorts money from them.    Many of the bills are brought for a vote before Congress solely for the purpose of threatening corporations and squeezing them for campaign donations.


----------



## georgephillip

MikeK said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But.... they didn't.    They didn't back then, nor today.
> 
> Journal of Economic PerspectivesVolume 21, Number 1Winter 2007Pages 324
> How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax
> System? A Historical and International
> Perspective
> 
> 
> 
> The average tax rate paid by the highest income bracket, was only 31%.
> 
> This is something that is so obvious, and yet people never seem to grasp it.
> 
> You can't change how much people actually pay in tax.... only the tax rates.
> 
> But people easily, and routinely avoid tax rates.   If the rate goes too high, people hide their money.
> 
> The Grumpy Economist: How to lie with statistics
> 
> 
> The raw amount of income collected by tax RATES, is fairly consistent over time.  It doesn't change much, regardless of what rates are imposed.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me, that if we canceled everything, but national defense, justice, and law enforcement, that we would still be in debt?
> 
> The tax code has been changed and modified numerous times throughout history, and never once, under any system, has there been money for the programs we are blowing money on today.   Never.
> 
> The same has been true of other countries.   They raise taxes and capital leaves.    There has never been a time at any point in the history of the human race, where a government has taxed rich people, and provided for the needs of all the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Chevron didn't screw over Ecuador or anyone else.   You don't know the history of that argument, and the counter evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been people like you, talking about the 'horrific ramifications' all the way back to the founding of this country, and by the way the founding of other countries.
> 
> Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world.
> 
> Yes, we see the 'unthinkable horrific ramifications', and I'm shaking in my seat, in total fear even as I type.
> 
> Look...  You have some points to be made, I will most certainly grant you that.   But seriously, this drama queen super-star act, is a bit over the top... don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are right -- almost.
> 
> The fact is the present 35% tax rate is substantially hollowed by sufficient loopholes and "write-off" provisions to render it virtually non-existent if the well-connected, Princeton-educated, lawyer-accountants who serve the likes of Jamie Dimon, Sheldon Adelson, et. al., choose to reference them all.  But the simple fact is the 91% rate was not equipped with such an abundance of intricately constructed hiding places.  As a result of this confiscatory level of taxation on the super-rich of the era, FDR was able to finance his WPA and CCC _make-work_ programs, lifting my own father and millions of other willing workers from the depth of Depression-induced poverty, thereby stimulating a totally stagnant economy.
> 
> Briefly stated, what contemporary America needs is another 91% tax rate on the rich -- with a *diligently enforced minimum of allowable deductions.*  In other words, we need to start using force against these greedy bastards in the interest of preserving the America we have known and had cause to love.
Click to expand...

Along with a new "One Strike Law" for those inclined to cheat on their taxes, whereby those convicted of tax evasion will face a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life with the understanding convicted tax cheats will serve 25 years before becoming eligible for their first parole hearing. Can you imagine the SQUEALS from Wall Street and Hollywood? The only reason the rich can avoid paying their fair share of taxes in the US is they OWN both major political parties; that could change in a single news cycle if tens of millions of US voters ever stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their House Representatives and US Senators.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rule by the many or rule by the few, which do you prefer?
> In a Representative Democracy decisions are made on the basis of one person, one vote.
> In a corporate oligarchy, decisions are based on one dollar, one vote.
> What's your choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are supposed to be a Republic.
> 
> The difference between us, is that what you want would cause the very tyranny that you think you are trying to stop.
> 
> This idea that right now we have dollars buying government... is just wrong.   It's just not true.    Bernie Madoff tossed around tons of money.  Still went to jail.    World Com was lobbying all the time.  Still went bankrupt, and Bernard Ebbers, former CEO, is in prison to this day.
> 
> Enron's Skillings, is in prison to this day, and he personally met with Clinton, and Bush.    Didn't buy him a get out of jail free card at all.  Nor did it save Enron.
> 
> It's simply not true!   All blathering crap about how corporations own the government, not true.  Just not true.
> 
> Remember ObamaCare had massive opposition from companies, and although they were invited to discuss health care reform at the beginning, the insurance companies walked out.     It was still passed!
> 
> And despite the mass of opposition from business throughout the entire country, Obama was reelected President.
> 
> Where is this great 'ownership of government' by the supposed corporate oligarchy?
> 
> See as far as I can tell, the only basis the left has to claim this "corporate oligarchy", is that businesses haven't gone bankrupt, and left the country like they did in Greece and Venezuela.
> 
> What real evidence of this do you have?   Well Exxon gave $10,000 to a already pro-oil senator last year.     Well hell... I gave money to a pro-gun senator last year.   I guess I own government too?
Click to expand...

Depends on how often senators return your phone calls, doesn't it?
A "corporate oligarchy" centered on Wall Street and backed by the EU/IMF/Washington Consensus bankrupted Greece and Ukraine, and they're attempting the same "reforms" in Venezuela.
ObamaCare was written by a vice-president of WellPoint for the material gain of private insurance monopolies and big pharma. Those ignorant enough of Socialism to confuse Obama with the practice should be able to explain why we haven't seen hundreds or thousands of bankers prosecuted for control accounting fraud as we did during the S&L lootings of the 1980s. Maybe it's the $900,000 Goldman Sachs donated to the "socialists" 2008 campaign, or the constantly revolving door between Wall Street and the inner sanctums of power in DC regardless of who occupies the White House or controls congress?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But.... they didn't.    They didn't back then, nor today.
> 
> Journal of Economic PerspectivesVolume 21, Number 1Winter 2007Pages 324
> How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax
> System? A Historical and International
> Perspective
> 
> 
> 
> The average tax rate paid by the highest income bracket, was only 31%.
> 
> This is something that is so obvious, and yet people never seem to grasp it.
> 
> You can't change how much people actually pay in tax.... only the tax rates.
> 
> But people easily, and routinely avoid tax rates.   If the rate goes too high, people hide their money.
> 
> The Grumpy Economist: How to lie with statistics
> 
> 
> The raw amount of income collected by tax RATES, is fairly consistent over time.  It doesn't change much, regardless of what rates are imposed.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me, that if we canceled everything, but national defense, justice, and law enforcement, that we would still be in debt?
> 
> The tax code has been changed and modified numerous times throughout history, and never once, under any system, has there been money for the programs we are blowing money on today.   Never.
> 
> The same has been true of other countries.   They raise taxes and capital leaves.    There has never been a time at any point in the history of the human race, where a government has taxed rich people, and provided for the needs of all the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Chevron didn't screw over Ecuador or anyone else.   You don't know the history of that argument, and the counter evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> There have been people like you, talking about the 'horrific ramifications' all the way back to the founding of this country, and by the way the founding of other countries.
> 
> Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world.
> 
> Yes, we see the 'unthinkable horrific ramifications', and I'm shaking in my seat, in total fear even as I type.
> 
> Look...  You have some points to be made, I will most certainly grant you that.   But seriously, this drama queen super-star act, is a bit over the top... don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> You are right -- almost.
> 
> The fact is the present 35% tax rate is substantially hollowed by sufficient loopholes and "write-off" provisions to render it virtually non-existent if the well-connected, Princeton-educated, lawyer-accountants who serve the likes of Jamie Dimon, Sheldon Adelson, et. al., choose to reference them all.  But the simple fact is the 91% rate was not equipped with such an abundance of intricately constructed hiding places.  As a result of this confiscatory level of taxation on the super-rich of the era, FDR was able to finance his WPA and CCC _make-work_ programs, lifting my own father and millions of other willing workers from the depth of Depression-induced poverty, thereby stimulating a totally stagnant economy.
> 
> Briefly stated, what contemporary America needs is another 91% tax rate on the rich -- with a *diligently enforced minimum of allowable deductions.*  In other words, we need to start using force against these greedy bastards in the interest of preserving the America we have known and had cause to love.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Along with a new "One Strike Law" for those inclined to cheat on their taxes, whereby those convicted of tax evasion will face a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life with the understanding convicted tax cheats will serve 25 years before becoming eligible for their first parole hearing.
Click to expand...


People convicted of First Degree Murder have been sentenced to less time than that.  You really have to be kidding.  No one even considers cheating on your taxes to be a real crime.  I say the more people that cheat the better.  When people no longer respect this tyrannical law, then it will die.




georgephillip said:


> Can you imagine the SQUEALS from Wall Street and Hollywood? The only reason the rich can avoid paying their fair share of taxes in the US is they OWN both major political parties; that could change in a single news cycle if tens of millions of US voters ever stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their House Representatives and US Senators.



The term "fair share" is meaningless bullshit.  It only indicates the you envy the people who supposedly don't pay it.  However, income tax evasion and income tax avoidance are two separate things.   You don't seem to understand the distinction.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rule by the many or rule by the few, which do you prefer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer not to be ruled at all - especially not by a mass of numskulls.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a Representative Democracy decisions are made on the basis of one person, one vote.  In a corporate oligarchy, decisions are based on one dollar, one vote.  What's your choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that corporations control the government is patently absurd.  It's the other way around.  Congress continually shakes corporations down and extorts money from them.    Many of the bills are brought for a vote before Congress solely for the purpose of threatening corporations and squeezing them for campaign donations.
Click to expand...

Many of the bills congress votes on (like ObamaCare) are written by corporate lobbyists. Corporations pay for the election campaigns and retirements of elected and non-elected members of congress. The revolving door between public and private interests usually leads to higher levels of pay in the private sector once a public official has accumulated enough knowledge of how government works to be useful to those who "extort" the commons by socializing cost and privatizing profit. The rich have controlled every government yet devised; why do you think this one is any different?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rule by the many or rule by the few, which do you prefer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer not to be ruled at all - especially not by a mass of numskulls.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a Representative Democracy decisions are made on the basis of one person, one vote.  In a corporate oligarchy, decisions are based on one dollar, one vote.  What's your choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that corporations control the government is patently absurd.  It's the other way around.  Congress continually shakes corporations down and extorts money from them.    Many of the bills are brought for a vote before Congress solely for the purpose of threatening corporations and squeezing them for campaign donations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of the bills congress votes on (like ObamaCare) are written by corporate lobbyists. Corporations pay for the election campaigns and retirements of elected and non-elected members of congress. The revolving door between public and private interests usually leads to higher levels of pay in the private sector once a public official has accumulated enough knowledge of how government works to be useful to those who "extort" the commons by socializing cost and privatizing profit. The rich have controlled every government yet devised; why do you think this one is any different?
Click to expand...


The only solution is for the workers to seize the corporations!!!
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right -- almost.
> 
> The fact is the present 35% tax rate is substantially hollowed by sufficient loopholes and "write-off" provisions to render it virtually non-existent if the well-connected, Princeton-educated, lawyer-accountants who serve the likes of Jamie Dimon, Sheldon Adelson, et. al., choose to reference them all.  But the simple fact is the 91% rate was not equipped with such an abundance of intricately constructed hiding places.  As a result of this confiscatory level of taxation on the super-rich of the era, FDR was able to finance his WPA and CCC _make-work_ programs, lifting my own father and millions of other willing workers from the depth of Depression-induced poverty, thereby stimulating a totally stagnant economy.
> 
> Briefly stated, what contemporary America needs is another 91% tax rate on the rich -- with a *diligently enforced minimum of allowable deductions.*  In other words, we need to start using force against these greedy bastards in the interest of preserving the America we have known and had cause to love.
> 
> 
> 
> Along with a new "One Strike Law" for those inclined to cheat on their taxes, whereby those convicted of tax evasion will face a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life with the understanding convicted tax cheats will serve 25 years before becoming eligible for their first parole hearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People convicted of First Degree Murder have been sentenced to less time than that.  You really have to be kidding.  No one even considers cheating on your taxes to be a real crime.  I say the more people that cheat the better.  When people no longer respect this tyrannical law, then it will die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine the SQUEALS from Wall Street and Hollywood? The only reason the rich can avoid paying their fair share of taxes in the US is they OWN both major political parties; that could change in a single news cycle if tens of millions of US voters ever stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their House Representatives and US Senators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "fair share" is meaningless bullshit.  It only indicates the you envy the people who supposedly don't pay it.  However, income tax evasion and income tax avoidance are two separate things.   You don't seem to understand the distinction.
Click to expand...

*Tell me if you think Harvard is paying its fair share of taxes?*

"However, unlike most of us, Harvard avoids one big expense.  It pays no significant taxes: not to Uncle Sam, nor to the State of Massachusetts, nor to the cities of Cambridge and Boston where most of its real estate sits.  

"Any net operating income earned by Harvard is exempt from federal and state income taxes.  

"Likewise, Harvard is exempt from Massachusetts' sales tax.  

"In that way, Harvard is like other tax-exempt institutions (churches, charities, and schools).  

"Harvard, however, is much richer than most of them.

"Even better -- for Harvard -- is the fact that laws covering Cambridge and Boston exempt Harvard's lands and buildings from property taxes.  Harvard thus evades paying those cities the many tens of millions of dollars in annual property taxes it would otherwise have to pay if it had not long ago arranged those legal exemptions.  

"In contrast, middle and lower income owners of land, homes and cars in those cities must pay property taxes on them.  

"*Indeed, they all pay more precisely because Harvard does not pay*.  

"When Harvard utilizes the roads around the campus, calls upon local fire or police services, benefits from the public school educations provided to Harvard staff members, etc., local non-exempt taxpayers must pay for those services because Harvard does not pay the taxes to support those services.  

"In effect, Harvard obtains free government services for which the rest of us pay."

Harvard's Finances: A Tale of Two Countries | Professor Richard D. Wolff


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer not to be ruled at all - especially not by a mass of numskulls.
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that corporations control the government is patently absurd.  It's the other way around.  Congress continually shakes corporations down and extorts money from them.    Many of the bills are brought for a vote before Congress solely for the purpose of threatening corporations and squeezing them for campaign donations.
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the bills congress votes on (like ObamaCare) are written by corporate lobbyists. Corporations pay for the election campaigns and retirements of elected and non-elected members of congress. The revolving door between public and private interests usually leads to higher levels of pay in the private sector once a public official has accumulated enough knowledge of how government works to be useful to those who "extort" the commons by socializing cost and privatizing profit. The rich have controlled every government yet devised; why do you think this one is any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only solution is for the workers to seize the corporations!!!
> Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
Click to expand...

*Better yet, jail the greedy c capitalists and confiscate their treasure, starting with Christie and Jim:*

"August 2012.

"Allegretto found that the Waltons wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.

"The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population.

"But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Waltons descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."

*Call it reparations, Comrade*

Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin


----------



## freedombecki

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just had to reiterate this point. It is ripe with significant reflections on the current state of world affairs and capital. It is just nuts. The malfeasance of the super rich are those of an unbridled drug addict. Without restraint businesses like Exxon have utterly reversed sensible capital exchange.
> 
> In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.
> 
> Through the financialization of the economy we have seen this revolutionary shift of what you eloquently stated. Banks and the super rich have managed to re-write the tax code and laws shifting capital around so that it ends up back in the hands from which it came. Meaning the very affluent are paying fewer taxes and regular citizens have been struggling for 3 decades so the government doesn't collect from them. SO where do the taxes come from? It's borrowed from the only people with money: super rich...at interest! So the government can never pay its debts off. So the system we have in operation is de-constructing capital flow so that it stagnates in the hands of a few "masters of the universe" as they deem themselves with frightening validity.
> 
> Do we really want an authoritarian rule because we have it. According to political philosopher Sheldon Woolin, in Democracy Incorporated, he says we live in an inverted totalitarian system. Why are lessons never learned? These authoritarians are no kinder than others. If Chevron fucked over Ecuador with no reparations going on 3 decades, if Exxon is shitting on Chad as it supposed it could get away with, then we are living in an age where Corporations are _de facto_ more sovereign and powerful than sovereign governments. Given that governments, esp the US, rely on these types of people and corporations to supply the world with the capital to operate at shitty levels (1/5 of America's resources and workforce is unused, rotting, rusting), can you imagine how this will be carried forward with the surveillance state?
> 
> It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOEwnTPOhoM
> 
> 
> 
> *In the wake of Citizens United v. FEC, Chris Hedges used Wolin to make the point that democracy in America is a useful fiction; however, the corporate state is firmly cemented in place:*
> 
> "Inverted totalitarianism represents 'the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry,' Wolin writes in 'Democracy Incorporated.'
> 
> "Inverted totalitarianism differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader, and finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state.
> 
> "The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, boast of replacing decaying structures with a new, revolutionary structure.
> 
> "They purport to honor electoral politics, freedom and the Constitution. But they so corrupt and manipulate the levers of power as to make democracy impossible."
> 
> *The conflict between oligarch and democracy has gone on for thousands of years; today's multinational corporations serve as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected individuals.
> 
> I don't see how it can change as long as US voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their congressional representatives.*
> 
> Chris Hedges: Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. I don't want a democracy. A democracy, is just the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> We were never supposed to be a democracy, and turning into one, would destroy the entire country, and doom everyone to a tyrannical hell.
> 
> So if this guy doesn't see how it could happen...... GOOD.
Click to expand...

_"A democracy, is just the tyranny of the majority."_

 Wonder if that's what King George of England thought when he refused any representation of America in his court. He was faced with the first Tea Party Rebellion and a Revolutionary War for his omission. His colonial subjects subsequently became armed citizens determined to let the common man rule with his vote to determine their own destiny with a free world marketplace.

 At least representation is our legacy, not the king's whims and anti-American fantasies of grandeur at the expense of slave colonies around the globe.


----------



## freedombecki

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the bills congress votes on (like ObamaCare) are written by corporate lobbyists. Corporations pay for the election campaigns and retirements of elected and non-elected members of congress. The revolving door between public and private interests usually leads to higher levels of pay in the private sector once a public official has accumulated enough knowledge of how government works to be useful to those who "extort" the commons by socializing cost and privatizing profit. The rich have controlled every government yet devised; why do you think this one is any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution is for the workers to seize the corporations!!!
> Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Better yet, jail the greedy c capitalists and confiscate their treasure, starting with Christie and Jim:*
> 
> "August 2012.
> 
> "Allegretto found that the Waltons wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.
> 
> "The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population.
> 
> "But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Waltons descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:
> 
> No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
> 
> No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
> 
> No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
> 
> No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
> 
> No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
> 
> No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
> 
> Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."
> 
> *Call it reparations, Comrade*
> 
> Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin
Click to expand...


Having trouble with the tenth commandment? "Do not covet anything that is thy neighbor's...." 

 Jealousy is the root of a lot more evil than meets the eye.


----------



## Andylusion

MikeK said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But.... they didn't.    They didn't back then, nor today.
> 
> Journal of Economic PerspectivesVolume 21, Number 1Winter 2007Pages 324
> How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax
> System? A Historical and International
> Perspective
> 
> 
> 
> The average tax rate paid by the highest income bracket, was only 31%.
> 
> This is something that is so obvious, and yet people never seem to grasp it.
> 
> You can't change how much people actually pay in tax.... only the tax rates.
> 
> But people easily, and routinely avoid tax rates.   If the rate goes too high, people hide their money.
> 
> The Grumpy Economist: How to lie with statistics
> 
> 
> The raw amount of income collected by tax RATES, is fairly consistent over time.  It doesn't change much, regardless of what rates are imposed.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me, that if we canceled everything, but national defense, justice, and law enforcement, that we would still be in debt?
> 
> The tax code has been changed and modified numerous times throughout history, and never once, under any system, has there been money for the programs we are blowing money on today.   Never.
> 
> The same has been true of other countries.   They raise taxes and capital leaves.    There has never been a time at any point in the history of the human race, where a government has taxed rich people, and provided for the needs of all the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Chevron didn't screw over Ecuador or anyone else.   You don't know the history of that argument, and the counter evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been people like you, talking about the 'horrific ramifications' all the way back to the founding of this country, and by the way the founding of other countries.
> 
> Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world.
> 
> Yes, we see the 'unthinkable horrific ramifications', and I'm shaking in my seat, in total fear even as I type.
> 
> Look...  You have some points to be made, I will most certainly grant you that.   But seriously, this drama queen super-star act, is a bit over the top... don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are right -- almost.
> 
> The fact is the present 35% tax rate is substantially hollowed by sufficient loopholes and "write-off" provisions to render it virtually non-existent if the well-connected, Princeton-educated, lawyer-accountants who serve the likes of Jamie Dimon, Sheldon Adelson, et. al., choose to reference them all.  But the simple fact is the 91% rate was not equipped with such an abundance of intricately constructed hiding places.  As a result of this confiscatory level of taxation on the super-rich of the era, FDR was able to finance his WPA and CCC _make-work_ programs, lifting my own father and millions of other willing workers from the depth of Depression-induced poverty, thereby stimulating a totally stagnant economy.
> 
> Briefly stated, what contemporary America needs is another 91% tax rate on the rich -- with a *diligently enforced minimum of allowable deductions.*  In other words, we need to start using force against these greedy bastards in the interest of preserving the America we have known and had cause to love.
Click to expand...


U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) | Tax Foundation
In 1931, the top marginal rate was 25% of $100,000 and over.

Historical Tables | The White House
In 1931, the total Federal revenue was $3.1 Billion.

Herbert Hoover is who actually drove up tax rates in 1932.
In 1932, the those earning only $38K, had to pay 25%, and those earning $100K had to pay 56%,  with the top marginal rate of 63% went to those earning $1 Million.

In 1932, Federal revenue fell to $1.9 Billion, and stayed at $1.9 Billion for 1933.

Those tax rates, stay that way until 1936, when FDR increased taxes on everyone. 
The 25% bracket, is now for people earning only $32K
The tax rate of 62%, is now for people earning only $100K
The tax rate of 77% is now for people earning $1 Million.
And a tax rate of 79% is levied against those earning $5 Million.

For all of this increases in taxes, the Federal revenue, went from $3.6 Billion in '35 to $3.9 Billion in '36.   A mere $300 million dollar increase.  
In reference, 1934, the revenue was $2.9 Billion, where 1935 was a $700 Million dollar increase.

Not to mention that 1936 ended up being a recession year.   Apparently taking money out of the hands of buyers and sellers..... hurts the economy.

But even more ironic, is that the top marginal rate of 79%, and later 91%, actually didn't effect very many people.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Fear-American-Depression-1929-1945/dp/0195144031]Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945 (Oxford History of the United States): David M. Kennedy: 9780195144031: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
Pages 276 and 277.


> The final piece of the Second New Deal was a tax reform bill that unleashed a largely symbolic attack upon the wealthy. Admitting in private that the "Wealth Tax" of 1935 was aimed at "stealing Huey Long's thunder," Roosevelt boosted the top marginal tax rate for those earning more than $5 million to a staggering 79%. Considering, however, that this new tax bracket was populated by exactly one personJohn D. Rockefellerthe new tax rate had little real impact on redistributing wealth from the rich few to the poor many. One congressman accurately described the tax as "a hell raiser, not a revenue raiser."
> 
> More than 95% of American families continued to pay no federal income tax whatsoever, and even taxpayers at the 99th percentile of the income distribution faced tax rates of only 5%. Still, Roosevelt's supposed "soak the rich" plan had its desired political effect; Huey Long's "Share The Wealth" movement was pre-empted, FDR's status as a hero to the working class was cemented



Only one single individual in the entire country was even effected by the tax *RATE* of 79%.    The entire thing was an extremely effective duping of the public, into thinking that FDR was "soaking the rich".    All these years, and all your family, were played the fool, and you fell for it completely.

The real tax revenue gains came from Social Security, which came into effect in 1937.
FICA & SECA Tax Rates
With the 1% tax nailing every single poor, and middle class person in the country, the revenue went from the $3.9 Billion in '36 to the $5.3 Billion in '37.    That $1.4 Billion increase, was far greater than the mere $300 Million from the 79% tax rate that only affected one individual in the whole country.

Meanwhile, the real effective tax rate, for even the 99 percentile, was still only 5%.   Not the 91% you claim.  Not even close.   So drastically off are you, it's laughable.

*And further, that increase in tax revenue, did nothing to pay for all of FDRs programs.*   FDR paid for all his government spending programs, the same way modern Democraps have been paying them today.... by borrowing.

In fact, before 1932, the last time we had a Billion dollar deficit, was 1919.  We had a budget surplus all the way until 1931.   In 1932, when we increase those taxes I outlined above, our deficit went to $2 Billion plus, and remind that high, until 1947.     Far from providing extra cash, high tax rates ushered in 15 years of multi-Billion dollar deficits.

*And last of all, there have been many modern scholarly works that suggest that WPA and CCC, had little if any effect on the economy.*  In fact, in 1936, the economy sank into recession, all while those programs were in operation.

If anything, those programs hindered us getting out of the great depression.

*Bottom line is this...*

Super high tax rates didn't bring in tons of revenue back then.  Nor at any other time.  Nor will they today.     A tax "rate"... is just that.  It's rate.  You can set the rate, but you can't force people to pay it.     They can move their money somewhere else.  Just like Rockefeller did in the 1930s.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, *has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world*.



The poorest do not have it well-off by any measure. Please inform me, as I've lived among and as the poorest. What you say is vacuous.

Real wages have declined since the early 70s. In 1972 adjusted for inflation, wages per week were $341.73. By 1992 they had fallen to just $266.46. In 2012, compared to 72, real wages had fallen by 14%, to $294.83. What this means is the last generation will be considered the most successful generation. Where the fathers and mothers can no longer inform their child, truthfully, that they will do better than them. This reflects on society more and more as adult aged sons and daughters are living with their parents. This causes tension especially in situations where the children have children. 

Is this what you mean by a "standard of living" that's so wealthy, where the child will not do as well as their parents? Ya know, the whole point about America.


----------



## KNB

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, *has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poorest do not have it well-off by any measure. Please inform me, as I've lived among and as the poorest. What you say is vacuous.
> 
> Real wages have declined since the early 70s. In 1972 adjusted for inflation, wages per week were $341.73. By 1992 they had fallen to just $266.46. In 2012, compared to 72, real wages had fallen by 14%, to $294.83. What this means is the last generation will be considered the most successful generation. Where the fathers and mothers can no longer inform their child, truthfully, that they will do better than them. This reflects on society more and more as adult aged sons and daughters are living with their parents. This causes tension especially in situations where the children have children.
> 
> Is this what you mean by a "standard of living" that's so wealthy, where the child will not do as well as their parents? Ya know, the whole point about America.
Click to expand...

But poor people have refrigerators.  How can they be poor if they have refrigerators?
https://archive.org/details/FoxNews-AmericasPoor


----------



## gnarlylove

Something like 99.3% huh? Cool. Does having a fridge mean you have food in it? Do you think fridges come with lifetime supply of food? The poorest don't have homes to have fridges in, so you need to make that distinction.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Along with a new "One Strike Law" for those inclined to cheat on their taxes, whereby those convicted of tax evasion will face a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life with the understanding convicted tax cheats will serve 25 years before becoming eligible for their first parole hearing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People convicted of First Degree Murder have been sentenced to less time than that.  You really have to be kidding.  No one even considers cheating on your taxes to be a real crime.  I say the more people that cheat the better.  When people no longer respect this tyrannical law, then it will die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine the SQUEALS from Wall Street and Hollywood? The only reason the rich can avoid paying their fair share of taxes in the US is they OWN both major political parties; that could change in a single news cycle if tens of millions of US voters ever stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their House Representatives and US Senators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "fair share" is meaningless bullshit.  It only indicates the you envy the people who supposedly don't pay it.  However, income tax evasion and income tax avoidance are two separate things.   You don't seem to understand the distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Tell me if you think Harvard is paying its fair share of taxes?*
> 
> "However, unlike most of us, Harvard avoids one big expense.  It pays no significant taxes: not to Uncle Sam, nor to the State of Massachusetts, nor to the cities of Cambridge and Boston where most of its real estate sits.
> 
> "Any net operating income earned by Harvard is exempt from federal and state income taxes.
> 
> "Likewise, Harvard is exempt from Massachusetts' sales tax.
> 
> "In that way, Harvard is like other tax-exempt institutions (churches, charities, and schools).
> 
> "Harvard, however, is much richer than most of them.
> 
> "Even better -- for Harvard -- is the fact that laws covering Cambridge and Boston exempt Harvard's lands and buildings from property taxes.  Harvard thus evades paying those cities the many tens of millions of dollars in annual property taxes it would otherwise have to pay if it had not long ago arranged those legal exemptions.
> 
> "In contrast, middle and lower income owners of land, homes and cars in those cities must pay property taxes on them.
> 
> "*Indeed, they all pay more precisely because Harvard does not pay*.
> 
> "When Harvard utilizes the roads around the campus, calls upon local fire or police services, benefits from the public school educations provided to Harvard staff members, etc., local non-exempt taxpayers must pay for those services because Harvard does not pay the taxes to support those services.
> 
> "In effect, Harvard obtains free government services for which the rest of us pay."
> 
> Harvard's Finances: A Tale of Two Countries | Professor Richard D. Wolff
Click to expand...


I think everyone's "fair share" of income taxes is zero.  So, yes, I think Harvard is paying its fair share.  I don't share your belief that people exist to be plundered by their government.


----------



## bripat9643

KNB said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, *has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poorest do not have it well-off by any measure. Please inform me, as I've lived among and as the poorest. What you say is vacuous.
> 
> Real wages have declined since the early 70s. In 1972 adjusted for inflation, wages per week were $341.73. By 1992 they had fallen to just $266.46. In 2012, compared to 72, real wages had fallen by 14%, to $294.83. What this means is the last generation will be considered the most successful generation. Where the fathers and mothers can no longer inform their child, truthfully, that they will do better than them. This reflects on society more and more as adult aged sons and daughters are living with their parents. This causes tension especially in situations where the children have children.
> 
> Is this what you mean by a "standard of living" that's so wealthy, where the child will not do as well as their parents? Ya know, the whole point about America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But poor people have refrigerators.  How can they be poor if they have refrigerators?
> https://archive.org/details/FoxNews-AmericasPoor
Click to expand...


Compared to the poor in Gambia or Rawanda, they are fabulously wealthy.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> Something like 99.3% huh? Cool. Does having a fridge mean you have food in it? Do you think fridges come with lifetime supply of food? The poorest don't have homes to have fridges in, so you need to make that distinction.



The biggest health problem among the poor is obesity.  So it appears that having food in their refrigerators is not one of their major problems.


----------



## KNB

bripat9643 said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poorest do not have it well-off by any measure. Please inform me, as I've lived among and as the poorest. What you say is vacuous.
> 
> Real wages have declined since the early 70s. In 1972 adjusted for inflation, wages per week were $341.73. By 1992 they had fallen to just $266.46. In 2012, compared to 72, real wages had fallen by 14%, to $294.83. What this means is the last generation will be considered the most successful generation. Where the fathers and mothers can no longer inform their child, truthfully, that they will do better than them. This reflects on society more and more as adult aged sons and daughters are living with their parents. This causes tension especially in situations where the children have children.
> 
> Is this what you mean by a "standard of living" that's so wealthy, where the child will not do as well as their parents? Ya know, the whole point about America.
> 
> 
> 
> But poor people have refrigerators.  How can they be poor if they have refrigerators?
> https://archive.org/details/FoxNews-AmericasPoor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to the poor in Gambia or Rawanda, they are fabulously wealthy.
Click to expand...

And if the financial gap between the .001% and the poor in the US is so great, then that would make the gap between the .001% and the poor in Gambia or Rwanda even more atrocious.

Why do you defend the greed of the rich?  They won't defend you.


----------



## KNB

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something like 99.3% huh? Cool. Does having a fridge mean you have food in it? Do you think fridges come with lifetime supply of food? The poorest don't have homes to have fridges in, so you need to make that distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest health problem among the poor is obesity.  So it appears that having food in their refrigerators is not one of their major problems.
Click to expand...

Or it's because processed GMO pink slime costs less to produce than healthy food, and since their wages aren't going up, and their hours are being cut back so that multi-billion dollar corporations can save money on health insurance coverage, and the price of gas keeps going up, and their food stamps are being cut, it might be difficult for a struggling family to afford healthy meals.


----------



## bripat9643

KNB said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> But poor people have refrigerators.  How can they be poor if they have refrigerators?
> https://archive.org/details/FoxNews-AmericasPoor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to the poor in Gambia or Rawanda, they are fabulously wealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if the financial gap between the .001% and the poor in the US is so great, then that would make the gap between the .001% and the poor in Gambia or Rwanda even more atrocious.
> 
> Why do you defend the greed of the rich?  They won't defend you.
Click to expand...


Why do you think having money needs to be defended?  Is it a crime to have money?  Did Bill Gates steal his fortune from anyone?

Please explain why the simple fact of having money is somehow criminal.


----------



## bripat9643

KNB said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something like 99.3% huh? Cool. Does having a fridge mean you have food in it? Do you think fridges come with lifetime supply of food? The poorest don't have homes to have fridges in, so you need to make that distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest health problem among the poor is obesity.  So it appears that having food in their refrigerators is not one of their major problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or it's because processed GMO pink slime costs less to produce than healthy food, and since their wages aren't going up, and their hours are being cut back so that multi-billion dollar corporations can save money on health insurance coverage, and the price of gas keeps going up, and their food stamps are being cut, it might be difficult for a struggling family to afford healthy meals.
Click to expand...


Healthy food isn't expensive.  It's cheap.  You can buy a 10 lb. bag of rice for about $2.50.  That will last a family of four all week.  A while chicken friar is about $0.50 / lb.  You can buy fresh carrots or string beans very cheap.  With the above ingredients you can prepare a healthy filling nutritious dinner for four people for around $5.00.

Unhealthy junk food, on the other hand, is expensive.  Where do you find "pink slime?"  In McDonald's hamburgers.  Eating fast food all the time is a great way to spend a lot of money on food. Kids get fat because they sit in front of the TV or the computer all day stuffing themselves with Cheetos and soda pop.  That kind of food is expensive, not cheap.  

The number of people on food stamps is at an all time high.  They need to be cut back before this country goes bankrupt.


----------



## KNB

Actually, pink slime was estimated to be in 70% of ground beef sold nationwide at supermarkets.
Is Pink Slime in the Beef at Your Grocery Store? - ABC News

And remember that deep-fried Southern red states are the fattest and take the most Federal money, but as you can see, every American state has an obesity problem with nearly 20% in every state.  I believe Colorado has gone back down into the 15-19% range.












Which States Take the Most From the U.S. Government? - Real Time Economics - WSJ


----------



## bripat9643

KNB said:


> Actually, pink slime was estimated to be in 70% of ground beef sold nationwide at supermarkets.
> Is Pink Slime in the Beef at Your Grocery Store? - ABC News
> 
> And remember that deep-fried Southern red states are the fattest and take the most Federal money, but as you can see, every American state has an obesity problem with nearly 20% in every state.  I believe Colorado has gone back down into the 15-19% range.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which States Take the Most From the U.S. Government? - Real Time Economics - WSJ



Back to the old "Red State/Blue State" canard, eh?  Whenever a libturd does that, it's because he has no facts or logic to support his claims.  You failed to proved that poor people can't get enough food to eat.  In fact, you proved precisely the opposite.

FAIL.


----------



## Mustang

Godboy said:


> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.


 
That's funny.

Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.

No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> Healthy food isn't expensive.  It's cheap.  You can buy a 10 lb. bag of rice for about $2.50.  That will last a family of four all week.  A while chicken friar is about $0.50 / lb.



This is all very true. But the important consideration is how are the consumers reached? Americans aren't told to eat what's healthy-: they are generally informed to pick products that have low-fat, no fat, "natural" "no added sugar." But when you read the label, these supposedly healthy products are very very bad. I'd know since I'm a diet consultant and I live near Huntington WV, thee fattest city in America. Fast food is a health epidemic in my region, but few even know how to prepare healthy food (greens, vegetables, produce).

Really healthy food is not in meat and rice alone. Plus all meats unless otherwise noted are highly problematic with health, but since people eat it daily they don't notice what its like not to (I personally eat meat but couple times a week). Those chickens are loaded with hormones that can fuck with the endocrine system along with all milk based products being laced with rbht.




bripat9643 said:


> Unhealthy junk food, on the other hand, is expensive.



Total lie. Unless your going for a 2 pound bag of M and Ms, nothing exceeds 2 bucks for repeated sessions of indulgence that becomes the norm. Sugar is the undercurrent that consistently drags Americans into a bad diet--or their utter resistance to eating in general because nothing they encounter or know is healthy.  



bripat9643 said:


> Kids get fat because they sit in front of the TV or the computer all day stuffing themselves with Cheetos and soda pop.  That kind of food is expensive, not cheap.



Again, your definition of cheap and expensive is extremely shifty. 3 dollar rice is cheap. 3 dollar pop and chips is expensive. Totally untenable.


----------



## MikeK

Androw said:


> [...]
> 
> And last of all, there have been many modern scholarly works that suggest that WPA and CCC, had little if any effect on the economy.  In fact, in 1936, the economy sank into recession, all while those programs were in operation.
> 
> [...]


I was born in 1936.  According to my parents I might have been born in a hallway or in an alley if it were not for FDR's WPA and CCC programs which rescued us from the verge of homelessness, along with millions of other desperately unemployed Americans.  And, again, according to my parents, who lived it, the effect of those work programs had a clearly uplifting effect not only on the economy but on the very mood of the nation.  So believe whomever you choose to.  

So while I'm not academically capable of offering a scholarly response to those scholarly denials of the success of FDR's programs, what I'm saying here comes right from the horse's mouth.  It's from the front lines in the depth of the Great Depression.  My parents always spoke reverently of Franklin Delano Roosevelt --  and for good reason.


----------



## MikeK

gnarlylove said:


> Mike,
> 
> 1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?
> 
> [...]


It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class.  The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.  

I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation.  It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.  

Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and _reasonable_ luxury.  

Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.


----------



## bripat9643

MikeK said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike,
> 
> 1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class.  The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.
> 
> I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation.  It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.
> 
> Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and _reasonable_ luxury.
> 
> Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.
Click to expand...


Capitalism means private control of productive enterprise.  This is accomplished through the mechanism of ownership.  How are private individuals going to own all the corporations in the United States if they are only allowed to have $20 million?  Your policy would lead to communism in short order, and then mass starvation and death shortly afterwards.


----------



## The Rabbi

Mustang said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.
Click to expand...


Your statement is a tautology.
His statement is correct.  Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.


----------



## Andylusion

MikeK said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> And last of all, there have been many modern scholarly works that suggest that WPA and CCC, had little if any effect on the economy.  In fact, in 1936, the economy sank into recession, all while those programs were in operation.
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> I was born in 1936.  According to my parents I might have been born in a hallway or in an alley if it were not for FDR's WPA and CCC programs which rescued us from the verge of homelessness, along with millions of other desperately unemployed Americans.  And, again, according to my parents, who lived it, the effect of those work programs had a clearly uplifting effect not only on the economy but on the very mood of the nation.  So believe whomever you choose to.
> 
> So while I'm not academically capable of offering a scholarly response to those scholarly denials of the success of FDR's programs, what I'm saying here comes right from the horse's mouth.  It's from the front lines in the depth of the Great Depression.  My parents always spoke reverently of Franklin Delano Roosevelt --  and for good reason.
Click to expand...


Yeah....   So government screws up the economy, ruins jobs, wipes out industry............   but then comes to the rescue of WPA and CCC, and you pledge your undying favor.

Do you not see the problem here?   The Great Depression was caused by government.   When the 1932 tax increases hit, the countries economy fell like a rock.   When the tariffs were passed, the economy fell like a rock.    When the 1936 taxes hit, the country had a recession... inside the great depression...

But because FDR gave out a few bucks, to move bricks around, he saved you all?

Look... I'm not going to argue with you, or your parents.   Personal emotional connections, will always out weight facts to the people to experienced them.

But when you look at the fact, devoid of feelings and personal emotions....  FDR did not save the country.   FDR caused most of the problems in the country.      Yes, after he, and Hoover, screwed up the entire country, he did give out a few dollars here and there.

But WPA and CCC, did not boost the economy, or return the country to growth.   That's what the facts say.

I have said all I intend to say on this matter.  Believe whatever you want.  The facts are the facts.  You can't change them.


----------



## Andylusion

MikeK said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike,
> 
> 1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class.  The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.
> 
> I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation.  It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.
> 
> Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and _reasonable_ luxury.
> 
> Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.
Click to expand...


Millions would lose their jobs.

For example, many McDonald's stores are built by existing franchise owners.  The value of a McDonald's store is easily $6 Million.

What this means is, every store owner would have a dis-incentive to open new stores, and provide more jobs.

If for each store they open, the amount of personal wealth they could enjoy, would be reduced.

I own one store worth $6 Million, and I have $14 Million in other assets (house, yacht, cars, blaw blaw blaw).

But if I build a second store, now I have two worth $12 Million, now I can only have $8 Million in other assets.

The incentive would be to not provide anymore growth and jobs.

Further, this rule would be nearly impossible to enforce.   Most assets are not in personal property items anyway.   Most wealth is tied up in stocks.   Stocks go up and down in the market.

When the stock market goes up, and Bill Gates gains another $10 Million in stock price.... how do you propose we stop that?   Just outright confiscate his stocks?    We're going to be a nation built on thievery?

And wouldn't that simply encourage Bill Gates to move his assets out of the country?    Move Microsoft to another country, where his stocks are out of reach by the government?

I think it would.  And that kind of incentive would harm the middle and lower class, more than it would Bill Gates.


----------



## bripat9643

Mustang said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.
Click to expand...


That would be the poor.  Furthermore, you statement is a tautology.


----------



## bripat9643

Androw said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> And last of all, there have been many modern scholarly works that suggest that WPA and CCC, had little if any effect on the economy.  In fact, in 1936, the economy sank into recession, all while those programs were in operation.
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> I was born in 1936.  According to my parents I might have been born in a hallway or in an alley if it were not for FDR's WPA and CCC programs which rescued us from the verge of homelessness, along with millions of other desperately unemployed Americans.  And, again, according to my parents, who lived it, the effect of those work programs had a clearly uplifting effect not only on the economy but on the very mood of the nation.  So believe whomever you choose to.
> 
> So while I'm not academically capable of offering a scholarly response to those scholarly denials of the success of FDR's programs, what I'm saying here comes right from the horse's mouth.  It's from the front lines in the depth of the Great Depression.  My parents always spoke reverently of Franklin Delano Roosevelt --  and for good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah....   So government screws up the economy, ruins jobs, wipes out industry............   but then comes to the rescue of WPA and CCC, and you pledge your undying favor.
> 
> Do you not see the problem here?   The Great Depression was caused by government.   When the 1932 tax increases hit, the countries economy fell like a rock.   When the tariffs were passed, the economy fell like a rock.    When the 1936 taxes hit, the country had a recession... inside the great depression...
> 
> But because FDR gave out a few bucks, to move bricks around, he saved you all?
> 
> Look... I'm not going to argue with you, or your parents.   Personal emotional connections, will always out weight facts to the people to experienced them.
> 
> But when you look at the fact, devoid of feelings and personal emotions....  FDR did not save the country.   FDR caused most of the problems in the country.      Yes, after he, and Hoover, screwed up the entire country, he did give out a few dollars here and there.
> 
> But WPA and CCC, did not boost the economy, or return the country to growth.   That's what the facts say.
> 
> I have said all I intend to say on this matter.  Believe whatever you want.  The facts are the facts.  You can't change them.
Click to expand...


FDR was like a maniacal doctor who administered poison to his patient, gave him pain killers to relieve some of the symptoms, and then takes the credit when he failed to kill the patient.


----------



## bripat9643

Androw said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike,
> 
> 1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class.  The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.
> 
> I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation.  It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.
> 
> Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and _reasonable_ luxury.
> 
> Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Millions would lose their jobs.
> 
> For example, many McDonald's stores are built by existing franchise owners.  The value of a McDonald's store is easily $6 Million.
> 
> What this means is, every store owner would have a dis-incentive to open new stores, and provide more jobs.
> 
> If for each store they open, the amount of personal wealth they could enjoy, would be reduced.
> 
> I own one store worth $6 Million, and I have $14 Million in other assets (house, yacht, cars, blaw blaw blaw).
> 
> But if I build a second store, now I have two worth $12 Million, now I can only have $8 Million in other assets.
> 
> The incentive would be to not provide anymore growth and jobs.
> 
> Further, this rule would be nearly impossible to enforce.   Most assets are not in personal property items anyway.   Most wealth is tied up in stocks.   Stocks go up and down in the market.
> 
> When the stock market goes up, and Bill Gates gains another $10 Million in stock price.... how do you propose we stop that?   Just outright confiscate his stocks?    We're going to be a nation built on thievery?
> 
> And wouldn't that simply encourage Bill Gates to move his assets out of the country?    Move Microsoft to another country, where his stocks are out of reach by the government?
> 
> I think it would.  And that kind of incentive would harm the middle and lower class, more than it would Bill Gates.
Click to expand...


We would all be enjoying a stone age standard of living if MikeK's plan was ever implemented.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the bills congress votes on (like ObamaCare) are written by corporate lobbyists. Corporations pay for the election campaigns and retirements of elected and non-elected members of congress. The revolving door between public and private interests usually leads to higher levels of pay in the private sector once a public official has accumulated enough knowledge of how government works to be useful to those who "extort" the commons by socializing cost and privatizing profit. The rich have controlled every government yet devised; why do you think this one is any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution is for the workers to seize the corporations!!!
> Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Better yet, jail the greedy c capitalists and confiscate their treasure, starting with Christie and Jim:*
> 
> "August 2012.
> 
> "Allegretto found that the Waltons wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.
> 
> "The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population.
> 
> "But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Waltons descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:
> 
> No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
> 
> No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
> 
> No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
> 
> No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
> 
> No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
> 
> No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
> 
> Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."
> 
> *Call it reparations, Comrade*
> 
> Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin
Click to expand...


*"Allegretto found that the Waltons wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.*

It's true, success is profitable.

*Call it reparations, Comrade*

People who create jobs and save millions of people money must be punished!
Only government should do those things.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KNB said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something like 99.3% huh? Cool. Does having a fridge mean you have food in it? Do you think fridges come with lifetime supply of food? The poorest don't have homes to have fridges in, so you need to make that distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest health problem among the poor is obesity.  So it appears that having food in their refrigerators is not one of their major problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or it's because processed GMO pink slime costs less to produce than healthy food, and since their wages aren't going up, and their hours are being cut back so that multi-billion dollar corporations can save money on health insurance coverage, and the price of gas keeps going up, and their food stamps are being cut, it might be difficult for a struggling family to afford healthy meals.
Click to expand...


Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans. You should stop eating.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution is for the workers to seize the corporations!!!
> Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
> 
> 
> 
> *Better yet, jail the greedy c capitalists and confiscate their treasure, starting with Christie and Jim:*
> 
> "August 2012.
> 
> "Allegretto found that the Waltons wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.
> 
> "The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population.
> 
> "But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Waltons descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:
> 
> No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
> 
> No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
> 
> No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
> 
> No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
> 
> No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
> 
> No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
> 
> Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."
> 
> *Call it reparations, Comrade*
> 
> Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Allegretto found that the Waltons wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.*
> 
> It's true, success is profitable.
> 
> *Call it reparations, Comrade*
> 
> People who create jobs and save millions of people money must be punished!
> Only government should do those things.
Click to expand...

*Government shouldn't make success so profitable for welfare queens:*

"This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance. 

"As it turns out, McDonald's has a 'McResource' line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs. 

"It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.

"Wal-Mart, the nations largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid. 

"According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients. 

"They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients. 

"Wal-marts 'associates' are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies."

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Better yet, jail the greedy c capitalists and confiscate their treasure, starting with Christie and Jim:*
> 
> "August 2012.
> 
> "Allegretto found that the Waltons wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.
> 
> "The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population.
> 
> "But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Waltons descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:
> 
> No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
> 
> No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
> 
> No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
> 
> No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
> 
> No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
> 
> No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
> 
> Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."
> 
> *Call it reparations, Comrade*
> 
> Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Allegretto found that the Waltons wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.*
> 
> It's true, success is profitable.
> 
> *Call it reparations, Comrade*
> 
> People who create jobs and save millions of people money must be punished!
> Only government should do those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Government shouldn't make success so profitable for welfare queens:*
> 
> "This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance.
> 
> "As it turns out, McDonald's has a 'McResource' line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs.
> 
> "It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.
> 
> "Wal-Mart, the nations largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid.
> 
> "According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients.
> 
> "They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients.
> 
> "Wal-marts 'associates' are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies."
> 
> How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg
Click to expand...


I guess we'd pay less welfare if WalMart and McDonald's shut their doors.

Idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Better yet, jail the greedy c capitalists and confiscate their treasure, starting with Christie and Jim:*
> 
> "August 2012.
> 
> "Allegretto found that the Waltons wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.
> 
> "The 2010 figures are the latest available for doing comparisons with the net worth of the overall population.
> 
> "But we found, using the Forbes 400 list for 2013, that the wealth of six of Sam Waltons descendants has continued to grow. Here are their rankings and their wealth:
> 
> No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
> 
> No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
> 
> No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
> 
> No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
> 
> No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
> 
> No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
> 
> Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion."
> 
> *Call it reparations, Comrade*
> 
> Just how wealthy is the Wal-Mart Walton family? | PolitiFact Wisconsin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Allegretto found that the Waltons wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.*
> 
> It's true, success is profitable.
> 
> *Call it reparations, Comrade*
> 
> People who create jobs and save millions of people money must be punished!
> Only government should do those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Government shouldn't make success so profitable for welfare queens:*
> 
> "This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance.
> 
> "As it turns out, McDonald's has a 'McResource' line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs.
> 
> "It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.
> 
> "Wal-Mart, the nations largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid.
> 
> "According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients.
> 
> "They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients.
> 
> "Wal-marts 'associates' are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies."
> 
> How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg
Click to expand...


No one is buying this libturd campaign that claims Walmart is responsible for welfare payments to individuals.  Socialist morons don't seem to understand the concept of the freedom of contract.  That means you are free to make any agreement with another person you like.  It doesn't make that person responsible for anything except what's specified in the contract.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Allegretto found that the Waltons wealth in 2010 was valued at $89.5 billion -- equal to the entire bottom 41.5 percent of American families.*
> 
> It's true, success is profitable.
> 
> *Call it reparations, Comrade*
> 
> People who create jobs and save millions of people money must be punished!
> Only government should do those things.
> 
> 
> 
> *Government shouldn't make success so profitable for welfare queens:*
> 
> "This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance.
> 
> "As it turns out, McDonald's has a 'McResource' line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs.
> 
> "It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.
> 
> "Wal-Mart, the nations largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid.
> 
> "According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients.
> 
> "They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients.
> 
> "Wal-marts 'associates' are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies."
> 
> How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess we'd pay less welfare if WalMart and McDonald's shut their doors.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...

Rich bitches might pay even less in taxes if Wal-mart and McDonald's payed a living wage


----------



## MikeK

Androw said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike,
> 
> 1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class.  The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.
> 
> I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation.  It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.
> 
> Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and _reasonable_ luxury.
> 
> Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Millions would lose their jobs.
> 
> For example, many McDonald's stores are built by existing franchise owners.  The value of a McDonald's store is easily $6 Million.
> 
> What this means is, every store owner would have a dis-incentive to open new stores, and provide more jobs.
> 
> If for each store they open, the amount of personal wealth they could enjoy, would be reduced.
> 
> I own one store worth $6 Million, and I have $14 Million in other assets (house, yacht, cars, blaw blaw blaw).
> 
> But if I build a second store, now I have two worth $12 Million, now I can only have $8 Million in other assets.
> 
> The incentive would be to not provide anymore growth and jobs.
> 
> Further, this rule would be nearly impossible to enforce.   Most assets are not in personal property items anyway.   Most wealth is tied up in stocks.   Stocks go up and down in the market.
> 
> When the stock market goes up, and Bill Gates gains another $10 Million in stock price.... how do you propose we stop that?   Just outright confiscate his stocks?    We're going to be a nation built on thievery?
> 
> And wouldn't that simply encourage Bill Gates to move his assets out of the country?    Move Microsoft to another country, where his stocks are out of reach by the government?
> 
> I think it would.  And that kind of incentive would harm the middle and lower class, more than it would Bill Gates.
Click to expand...

Personal assets are separate from corporate holdings.  One may be the CEO of a ten billion dollar corporation but his/her personal assets must remain below twenty million.  In other words, forget the mansion on a mountain and the $40,000,000 yacht.  Those obscenities would no longer exist in America.  

There presently is an "exit tax" which once would impose effective control over what we are seeing now in terms of offshore assets and expatriating billionaires.  But the rules have been drastically softened over the years.  If it were possible to impose the twenty-million dollar limit you may take for granted the imposition of rigid laws to prevent the substance of America's wealth resources from being removed from the Country.  

Simply stated, if you manage to accumulate billions of dollars by exploiting this Nation's material, administrative, and human resources, that money stays here.  You may not remove it.  And any attempt to do so would invoke a severe criminal penalty.

My proposal is not confined to a twenty million dollar limit but would necessarily include many rules and strict laws to prevent evasion and manipulation.


----------



## gnarlylove

MikeK said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> And last of all, there have been many modern scholarly works that suggest that WPA and CCC, had little if any effect on the economy.  In fact, in 1936, the economy sank into recession, all while those programs were in operation.
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> I was born in 1936.  According to my parents I might have been born in a hallway or in an alley if it were not for FDR's WPA and CCC programs which rescued us from the verge of homelessness, along with millions of other desperately unemployed Americans.  And, again, according to my parents, who lived it, the effect of those work programs had a clearly uplifting effect not only on the economy but on the very mood of the nation.  So believe whomever you choose to.
> 
> So while I'm not academically capable of offering a scholarly response to those scholarly denials of the success of FDR's programs, what I'm saying here comes right from the horse's mouth.  It's from the front lines in the depth of the Great Depression.  My parents always spoke reverently of Franklin Delano Roosevelt --  and for good reason.
Click to expand...


I'd like to add that the CCC built the federal park system in my area (Wayne National Forest, Lake Vesuvius) that would have otherwise not existed. It obviously took work and the workers got paid. If this isn't economic facts showing the CCC benefited, nothing can.

Economics is not and should not be an utter abstraction. It dictates the lives of each and every human being so just for a second, let's consider its impact in my area. People received pay for helping create a beautiful park that is used by thousands each year for almost 100 years, and has been my personal sanctuary, then yeah, this has significant economic and health benefits on the citizens. Indeed the region at large has benefited as the park attracts tourists and is a fantastic open meeting space for family picnics and birthdays.

I guess since the idea behind the CCC and others was not to create profit and speculation, then it has no value. What utter dumb-fuckery. Ever wonder why the CCC was created in the first place? The speculation of banks. Glass steagall.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans. You should stop eating.



Does GMO mean modified by humans? Your comment only has meaning if GMO means simply modified by humans. But we all know GMO stands for something quite specific, so sadly your left stinky brown diarrhea for us all to read. Do us a favor and think before you type.


----------



## MikeK

MikeK said:


> [...]
> 
> When the stock market goes up, and Bill Gates gains another $10 Million in stock price.... how do you propose we stop that?   Just outright confiscate his stocks?


Such contingencies would be managed with a 30 day period within which Gates must dispose of excess.  He could transfer it to anyone he chooses whose assets are less then twenty million (any relative, friend, or charity).  The alternative is confiscation.



> We're going to be a nation built on thievery?


If you're one of those fanatical Libertarians who think of taxes as _thievery,_ then yes.  But I prefer to think of it as a nation built on equitable distribution of its exceptional wealth resources.


----------



## georgephillip

MikeK said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class.  The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.
> 
> I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation.  It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.
> 
> Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and _reasonable_ luxury.
> 
> Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Millions would lose their jobs.
> 
> For example, many McDonald's stores are built by existing franchise owners.  The value of a McDonald's store is easily $6 Million.
> 
> What this means is, every store owner would have a dis-incentive to open new stores, and provide more jobs.
> 
> If for each store they open, the amount of personal wealth they could enjoy, would be reduced.
> 
> I own one store worth $6 Million, and I have $14 Million in other assets (house, yacht, cars, blaw blaw blaw).
> 
> But if I build a second store, now I have two worth $12 Million, now I can only have $8 Million in other assets.
> 
> The incentive would be to not provide anymore growth and jobs.
> 
> Further, this rule would be nearly impossible to enforce.   Most assets are not in personal property items anyway.   Most wealth is tied up in stocks.   Stocks go up and down in the market.
> 
> When the stock market goes up, and Bill Gates gains another $10 Million in stock price.... how do you propose we stop that?   Just outright confiscate his stocks?    We're going to be a nation built on thievery?
> 
> And wouldn't that simply encourage Bill Gates to move his assets out of the country?    Move Microsoft to another country, where his stocks are out of reach by the government?
> 
> I think it would.  And that kind of incentive would harm the middle and lower class, more than it would Bill Gates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personal assets are separate from corporate holdings.  One may be the CEO of a ten billion dollar corporation but his/her personal assets must remain below twenty million.  In other words, forget the mansion on a mountain and the $40,000,000 yacht.  Those obscenities would no longer exist in America.
> 
> There presently is an "exit tax" which once would impose effective control over what we are seeing now in terms of offshore assets and expatriating billionaires.  But the rules have been drastically softened over the years.  If it were possible to impose the twenty-million dollar limit you may take for granted the imposition of rigid laws to prevent the substance of America's wealth resources from being removed from the Country.
> 
> Simply stated, if you manage to accumulate billions of dollars by exploiting this Nation's material, administrative, and human resources, that money stays here.  You may not remove it.  And any attempt to do so would invoke a severe criminal penalty.
> 
> My proposal is not confined to a twenty million dollar limit but would necessarily include many rules and strict laws to prevent evasion and manipulation.
Click to expand...

There have been times in the recent past when financial speculation was a capital offense. (A real death tax) I don't think we need to go that far, but the rich could be subjected to a wealth limit that would function like a speed limit on public roads; however, I don't think elected Republicans OR Democrats will connect the dots in time. IMHO, we need to break the corporate stranglehold on US politics by choosing our Representatives and Senators from established third parties instead of either wing of the Wall Street Party.


----------



## gnarlylove

MikeK said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike,
> 
> 1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class.  The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.
> 
> I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation.  It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.
> 
> Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and _reasonable_ luxury.
> 
> Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.
Click to expand...


Well put. Indeed there needs to be a transition from several multi-billionaires to less. But adjusting for inflation from around your birth, FDR proposed a 100% tax on those who earn above 300,000. It didn't become a law but it was a serious issue. A sensible yet stern cap on earnings would drastically reduce income inequality, and therefore political inequality.

Now-a-days such a cap would inflame and potentially explode the heads of people like Androw. It's truly sad how some cannot be bothered with Democracy, political equality, and legal equality due to personal pursuits. Wasn't the idea of classical liberalism at it's core the self-evident truth that it's ok to do x, y and z in private until it harms another human being?


----------



## The Rabbi

gnarlylove said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike,
> 
> 1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class.  The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.
> 
> I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation.  It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.
> 
> Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and _reasonable_ luxury.
> 
> Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well put. Indeed there needs to be a transition from several multi-billionaires to less. But adjusting for inflation from around your birth, FDR proposed a 100% tax on those who earn above 300,000. It didn't become a law but it was a serious issue. A sensible yet stern cap on earnings would drastically reduce income inequality, and therefore political inequality.
> 
> Now-a-days such a cap would inflame and potentially explode the heads of people like Androw. It's truly sad how some cannot be bothered with Democracy, political equality, and legal equality due to personal pursuits. Wasn't the idea of classical liberalism at it's core the self-evident truth that it's ok to do x, y and z in private until it harms another human being?
Click to expand...


How many multi billionaires is the right number?  Why do you want to see fewer of them?  I want more.  Lots more.


----------



## gnarlylove

What does a billionaire imply? A market that is manipulated.

CEOs and Hedge Fund managers know their job is to monopolize the market, manipulate it if they can't run a collusion and extrapolate capital by all sorts of tricks, like preferred calls, advanced information and high frequency trading.

Moreover, their campaign contributions drowns out you and me from political significance. So you prefer to have less influence in the decisions made about your life?

You sound like your'e being paid by billionaires to say they are so useful instead of being coherent.


----------



## The Rabbi

gnarlylove said:


> What does a billionaire imply? A market that is manipulated.
> 
> CEOs and Hedge Fund managers know their job is to monopolize the market, manipulate it if they can't run a collusion and extrapolate capital by all sorts of tricks, like preferred calls, advanced information and high frequency trading.
> 
> Moreover, their campaign contributions drowns out you and me from political significance. So you prefer to have less influence in the decisions made about your life?
> 
> You sound like your'e being paid by billionaires to say they are so useful instead of being coherent.



No it doesnt imply anythng of the sort.  Unless you think Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have manipulated the market for about 50 years.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Government shouldn't make success so profitable for welfare queens:*
> 
> "This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance.
> 
> "As it turns out, McDonald's has a 'McResource' line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs.
> 
> "It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.
> 
> "Wal-Mart, the nations largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid.
> 
> "According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients.
> 
> "They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients.
> 
> "Wal-marts 'associates' are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies."
> 
> How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we'd pay less welfare if WalMart and McDonald's shut their doors.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rich bitches might pay even less in taxes if Wal-mart and McDonald's payed a living wage
Click to expand...


How would that stop libturds like you from demanding higher taxes on the rich?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions would lose their jobs.
> 
> For example, many McDonald's stores are built by existing franchise owners.  The value of a McDonald's store is easily $6 Million.
> 
> What this means is, every store owner would have a dis-incentive to open new stores, and provide more jobs.
> 
> If for each store they open, the amount of personal wealth they could enjoy, would be reduced.
> 
> I own one store worth $6 Million, and I have $14 Million in other assets (house, yacht, cars, blaw blaw blaw).
> 
> But if I build a second store, now I have two worth $12 Million, now I can only have $8 Million in other assets.
> 
> The incentive would be to not provide anymore growth and jobs.
> 
> Further, this rule would be nearly impossible to enforce.   Most assets are not in personal property items anyway.   Most wealth is tied up in stocks.   Stocks go up and down in the market.
> 
> When the stock market goes up, and Bill Gates gains another $10 Million in stock price.... how do you propose we stop that?   Just outright confiscate his stocks?    We're going to be a nation built on thievery?
> 
> And wouldn't that simply encourage Bill Gates to move his assets out of the country?    Move Microsoft to another country, where his stocks are out of reach by the government?
> 
> I think it would.  And that kind of incentive would harm the middle and lower class, more than it would Bill Gates.
> 
> 
> 
> Personal assets are separate from corporate holdings.  One may be the CEO of a ten billion dollar corporation but his/her personal assets must remain below twenty million.  In other words, forget the mansion on a mountain and the $40,000,000 yacht.  Those obscenities would no longer exist in America.
> 
> There presently is an "exit tax" which once would impose effective control over what we are seeing now in terms of offshore assets and expatriating billionaires.  But the rules have been drastically softened over the years.  If it were possible to impose the twenty-million dollar limit you may take for granted the imposition of rigid laws to prevent the substance of America's wealth resources from being removed from the Country.
> 
> Simply stated, if you manage to accumulate billions of dollars by exploiting this Nation's material, administrative, and human resources, that money stays here.  You may not remove it.  And any attempt to do so would invoke a severe criminal penalty.
> 
> My proposal is not confined to a twenty million dollar limit but would necessarily include many rules and strict laws to prevent evasion and manipulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been times in the recent past when financial speculation was a capital offense. (A real death tax) I don't think we need to go that far, but the rich could be subjected to a wealth limit that would function like a speed limit on public roads; however, I don't think elected Republicans OR Democrats will connect the dots in time. IMHO, we need to break the corporate stranglehold on US politics by choosing our Representatives and Senators from established third parties instead of either wing of the Wall Street Party.
Click to expand...


The way it would function in reality is to drive all investment out of this country and reduce our standard of living to something resembling the standard of living in Somalia.  It's amazing to me that any educated person could be stupid enough to believe a plan like that would actually work.


----------



## bripat9643

MikeK said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> When the stock market goes up, and Bill Gates gains another $10 Million in stock price.... how do you propose we stop that?   Just outright confiscate his stocks?
> 
> 
> 
> Such contingencies would be managed with a 30 day period within which Gates must dispose of excess.  He could transfer it to anyone he chooses whose assets are less then twenty million (any relative, friend, or charity).  The alternative is confiscation.
Click to expand...


Aside from the fact that it's utterly idiotic, there's a small problem with your plan called the 5th Amendment.  One would almost believe that the Founding Fathers knew that there might be morons like you in the future of this country.



MikeK said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're going to be a nation built on thievery?
> 
> 
> 
> If you're one of those fanatical Libertarians who think of taxes as _thievery,_ then yes.  But I prefer to think of it as a nation built on equitable distribution of its exceptional wealth resources.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  Taxation is thievery.  Can you explain the difference between taxation and thievery?  And don't tell us it's not thievery because the government does it.  All that proves is that taxation is government thievery.

Wealth isn't a "resource."   Every dime of wealth was produced by someone.  Your premise is that it appears miraculously out of thin air and never belongs to anyone until the government "distributes" it.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans. You should stop eating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does GMO mean modified by humans? Your comment only has meaning if GMO means simply modified by humans. But we all know GMO stands for something quite specific, so sadly your left stinky brown diarrhea for us all to read. Do us a favor and think before you type.
Click to expand...


Your belief that there's some inherent difference between species modified by breeding and species modified in the laboratory is baseless.  Modern species of corn are quite incapable of breeding with Tiosinte, its ancient ancestor.  In fact, most corn isn't capable of reproducing at all.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> And last of all, there have been many modern scholarly works that suggest that WPA and CCC, had little if any effect on the economy.  In fact, in 1936, the economy sank into recession, all while those programs were in operation.
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> I was born in 1936.  According to my parents I might have been born in a hallway or in an alley if it were not for FDR's WPA and CCC programs which rescued us from the verge of homelessness, along with millions of other desperately unemployed Americans.  And, again, according to my parents, who lived it, the effect of those work programs had a clearly uplifting effect not only on the economy but on the very mood of the nation.  So believe whomever you choose to.
> 
> So while I'm not academically capable of offering a scholarly response to those scholarly denials of the success of FDR's programs, what I'm saying here comes right from the horse's mouth.  It's from the front lines in the depth of the Great Depression.  My parents always spoke reverently of Franklin Delano Roosevelt --  and for good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like to add that the CCC built the federal park system in my area (Wayne National Forest, Lake Vesuvius) that would have otherwise not existed. It obviously took work and the workers got paid. If this isn't economic facts showing the CCC benefited, nothing can.
> 
> Economics is not and should not be an utter abstraction. It dictates the lives of each and every human being so just for a second, let's consider its impact in my area. People received pay for helping create a beautiful park that is used by thousands each year for almost 100 years, and has been my personal sanctuary, then yeah, this has significant economic and health benefits on the citizens. Indeed the region at large has benefited as the park attracts tourists and is a fantastic open meeting space for family picnics and birthdays.
> 
> I guess since the idea behind the CCC and others was not to create profit and speculation, then it has no value. What utter dumb-fuckery. Ever wonder why the CCC was created in the first place? The speculation of banks. Glass steagall.
Click to expand...


You're ignoring all the goods and services that weren't produced because labor was diverted from producing goods and services to giant landscaping projects which consumers obviously did not value as highly.  What you call "abstractions" are really just facts that most people who don't study the issue thoroughly don't consider.


----------



## gnarlylove

The Rabbi said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a billionaire imply? A market that is manipulated.
> 
> CEOs and Hedge Fund managers know their job is to monopolize the market, manipulate it if they can't run a collusion and extrapolate capital by all sorts of tricks, like preferred calls, advanced information and high frequency trading.
> 
> Moreover, their campaign contributions drowns out you and me from political significance. So you prefer to have less influence in the decisions made about your life?
> 
> You sound like your'e being paid by billionaires to say they are so useful instead of being coherent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesnt imply anythng of the sort.  Unless you think Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have manipulated the market for about 50 years.
Click to expand...


Ask George about manipulation of the market. Goldman sachs knows how to do this with aluminum. High frequency trading is market manipulation and preferred calls are legalized cheating--getting information sometimes weeks before it is public. See Raj Rajaratnam but everyone on Wall St knows.

Warren Buffet insists on being taxed more than current rates out of principle.

And how did Bill Gates get his wealth? HA! The government had virtually funded 100% of these unmarketable things called computers. As the US reached Japan's computing ability in the 80s, Gates was on the scene. He was that slithering snake that has all the work done for him and gets to claim its rewards as all the publics funds that developed computers was turned into private hands, we saw the profits. The internet was a success and we know the rest of the story.


I just think you need to be more critical than stupidly announcing "I think we should have lots of billionaires." This clearly did not arise from any meaningful thought but instead a trite little retort to a comment suggesting life is not solely about money.


----------



## The Rabbi

Noam Chomsky.  Now there's an unbiased source.

Go take your class warfare success-hating bullshit and stick it up your ass.


----------



## pvsi

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*


I believe all the things that are wrong with capitalism would not exist if those with big money (CAPITALISTS OR SOCIALISTS) would not be able to buy politicians and make them pass laws favoring their interests. As you said, BALANCE, and socialists just like capitalists take advantage of our political prostitutes in Washington. If we argue about the name of the enemy THEY WIN:


----------



## gnarlylove

The Rabbi said:


> Noam Chomsky.  Now there's an unbiased source.
> 
> Go take your class warfare success-hating bullshit and stick it up your ass.



Now that's one well reasoned reply.

Can you tell me where class warfare was mentioned? Oh where was hate towards a group too? Oh, neither of your assertions have any relevancy to the matter at hand (in other words are strawman arguments)? To be expected when a child doesn't hear what it wants; adults assess claims based on their merit.


----------



## Virtual_Ego

We could try for equality but to do so would mean bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.  Jadaveon is never going to own a Wall Street bank and Rockefeller isn't about to relocate to Miami Gardens.


----------



## pvsi

gnarlylove said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noam Chomsky.  Now there's an unbiased source.
> 
> Go take your class warfare success-hating bullshit and stick it up your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's one well reasoned reply.
> 
> Can you tell me where class warfare was mentioned? Oh where was hate towards a group too? Oh, neither of your assertions have any relevancy to the matter at hand (in other words are strawman arguments)? To be expected when a child doesn't hear what it wants; adults assess claims based on their merit.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing Rabbi likes a Jew (Noam Chomsky) and I'm guessing I must be an "anti Semite" for stating that.


----------



## Kinte

I'm all  in for capital, I have my money in capital one with easy access. Every month my check gets deposited and my rent gets paid. I love this country since 2008.

About those jews, they are shady characters watch out for them. Barney Madoff that dude really had a scam going on all up in New York. Stole millions I heard.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Government shouldn't make success so profitable for welfare queens:*
> 
> "This issue has become more known as we learn just how far some companies have gone in putting their employees on public assistance. According to one study, American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion dollars in public assistance.
> 
> "As it turns out, McDonald's has a 'McResource' line that helps employees and their families enroll in various state and local assistance programs.
> 
> "It exploded into the public when a recording of the McResource line advocated that full-time employees sign up for food stamps and welfare.
> 
> "Wal-Mart, the nations largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid.
> 
> "According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients.
> 
> "They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients.
> 
> "Wal-marts 'associates' are paid so little, according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies."
> 
> How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we'd pay less welfare if WalMart and McDonald's shut their doors.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rich bitches might pay even less in taxes if Wal-mart and McDonald's payed a living wage
Click to expand...


If McDonald's doesn't pay you enough to survive, you should quit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans. You should stop eating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does GMO mean modified by humans? Your comment only has meaning if GMO means simply modified by humans. But we all know GMO stands for something quite specific, so sadly your left stinky brown diarrhea for us all to read. Do us a favor and think before you type.
Click to expand...


*Does GMO mean modified by humans? *

Most of the food you eat is genetically different than it was before man.
Do you need examples?

*Do us a favor and think before you type.*

Do me a favor and think. It would be a nice change.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> What does a billionaire imply? A market that is manipulated.
> 
> CEOs and Hedge Fund managers know their job is to monopolize the market, manipulate it if they can't run a collusion and extrapolate capital by all sorts of tricks, like preferred calls, advanced information and high frequency trading.
> 
> Moreover, their campaign contributions drowns out you and me from political significance. So you prefer to have less influence in the decisions made about your life?
> 
> You sound like your'e being paid by billionaires to say they are so useful instead of being coherent.



*What does a billionaire imply? A market that is manipulated.*

That only implies you are an idiot.


----------



## KNB

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we'd pay less welfare if WalMart and McDonald's shut their doors.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Rich bitches might pay even less in taxes if Wal-mart and McDonald's payed a living wage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If McDonald's doesn't pay you enough to survive, you should quit.
Click to expand...

And get on food stamps since the only jobs left are other minimum wage jobs.


----------



## The Rabbi

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a billionaire imply? A market that is manipulated.
> 
> CEOs and Hedge Fund managers know their job is to monopolize the market, manipulate it if they can't run a collusion and extrapolate capital by all sorts of tricks, like preferred calls, advanced information and high frequency trading.
> 
> Moreover, their campaign contributions drowns out you and me from political significance. So you prefer to have less influence in the decisions made about your life?
> 
> You sound like your'e being paid by billionaires to say they are so useful instead of being coherent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What does a billionaire imply? A market that is manipulated.*
> 
> That only implies you are an idiot.
Click to expand...

I thought it confirmed the fact.  But that's just me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KNB said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich bitches might pay even less in taxes if Wal-mart and McDonald's payed a living wage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If McDonald's doesn't pay you enough to survive, you should quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And get on food stamps since the only jobs left are other minimum wage jobs.
Click to expand...


If he blames McDonald's for being on food stamps now, is it still McDonald's fault when he quits and is on food stamps?


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans. You should stop eating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does GMO mean modified by humans? Your comment only has meaning if GMO means simply modified by humans. But we all know GMO stands for something quite specific, so sadly your left stinky brown diarrhea for us all to read. Do us a favor and think before you type.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Does GMO mean modified by humans? *
> 
> Most of the food you eat is genetically different than it was before man.
> Do you need examples?
> 
> *Do us a favor and think before you type.*
> 
> Do me a favor and think. It would be a nice change.
Click to expand...


I said it once but you didn't seem to understand because you're too busy defaming me. Use your rational faculties and pull your brain out of the murky waters of one-ups-manship.

GMO does not mean modified by humans.

GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning.

Thus, we must ask are their instances where "modification by humans" does not entail genetic modification? Does tattooing count as modification of the body? Yes. Is it genetic modification? No. Thus, your joke that someone should stop eating because all food has been "modified by humans" is inane. Of course, you don't care how imprecise you are because your arguments are fueled on misrepresentation.

The argument is not that we should not eat food because it's been "modified by humans" but we should be aware of what is GMO and is not. We don't have this option as most labels do not carry this information. And as you correctly identify most foods are GMO like corn. The argument is not to stop eating food, but it is to allow the public awareness of what they are eating. See the difference? I hope so but I doubt it because it nullifies your pointless post and inane joke.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If McDonald's doesn't pay you enough to survive, you should quit.
> 
> 
> 
> And get on food stamps since the only jobs left are other minimum wage jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he blames McDonald's for being on food stamps now, is it still McDonald's fault when he quits and is on food stamps?
Click to expand...


You mean when he gets fired.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noam Chomsky.  Now there's an unbiased source.
> 
> Go take your class warfare success-hating bullshit and stick it up your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's one well reasoned reply.
> 
> Can you tell me where class warfare was mentioned? Oh where was hate towards a group too? Oh, neither of your assertions have any relevancy to the matter at hand (in other words are strawman arguments)? To be expected when a child doesn't hear what it wants; adults assess claims based on their merit.
Click to expand...


Class warfare is all your post was about. Do you think because you didn't use that phrase that you fooled anyone?  Your hatred of success couldn't be more obvious.


----------



## auditor0007

georgephillip said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


While you are correct about the income disparity increasing, you make a very big mistake by believing that we should have no poor and that everyone should be doing exceptionally well.  Here is the truth about all societies.  They tolerate their poor.  They may try to help them to a certain extent, but unless the entire society is poor, nobody gives a rats ass.  What the majority of people care about are themselves, and that boils down to the middle class.  When the middle class eventually figures out how bad it has been getting screwed over, watch out, because all those filthy rich people will begin becoming a bit poorer themselves.  We are currently at a point where things must get a little bit worse for the middle class before the brainwashing wears off.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does GMO mean modified by humans? Your comment only has meaning if GMO means simply modified by humans. But we all know GMO stands for something quite specific, so sadly your left stinky brown diarrhea for us all to read. Do us a favor and think before you type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Does GMO mean modified by humans? *
> 
> Most of the food you eat is genetically different than it was before man.
> Do you need examples?
> 
> *Do us a favor and think before you type.*
> 
> Do me a favor and think. It would be a nice change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said it once but you didn't seem to understand because you're too busy defaming me. Use your rational faculties and pull your brain out of the murky waters of one-ups-manship.
> 
> GMO does not mean modified by humans.
> 
> GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning.
> 
> Thus, we must ask are their instances where "modification by humans" does not entail genetic modification? Does tattooing count as modification of the body? Yes. Is it genetic modification? No. Thus, your joke that someone should stop eating because all food has been "modified by humans" is inane. Of course, you don't care how imprecise you are because your arguments are fueled on misrepresentation.
> 
> The argument is not that we should not eat food because it's been "modified by humans" but we should be aware of what is GMO and is not. We don't have this option as most labels do not carry this information. And as you correctly identify most foods are GMO like corn. The argument is not to stop eating food, but it is to allow the public awareness of what they are eating. See the difference? I hope so but I doubt it because it nullifies your pointless post and inane joke.
Click to expand...


*GMO does not mean modified by humans.*







Do you think the above plant is genetically identical to the plant below?






Did Monsanto do it?


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personal assets are separate from corporate holdings.  One may be the CEO of a ten billion dollar corporation but his/her personal assets must remain below twenty million.  In other words, forget the mansion on a mountain and the $40,000,000 yacht.  Those obscenities would no longer exist in America.
> 
> There presently is an "exit tax" which once would impose effective control over what we are seeing now in terms of offshore assets and expatriating billionaires.  But the rules have been drastically softened over the years.  If it were possible to impose the twenty-million dollar limit you may take for granted the imposition of rigid laws to prevent the substance of America's wealth resources from being removed from the Country.
> 
> Simply stated, if you manage to accumulate billions of dollars by exploiting this Nation's material, administrative, and human resources, that money stays here.  You may not remove it.  And any attempt to do so would invoke a severe criminal penalty.
> 
> My proposal is not confined to a twenty million dollar limit but would necessarily include many rules and strict laws to prevent evasion and manipulation.
> 
> 
> 
> There have been times in the recent past when financial speculation was a capital offense. (A real death tax) I don't think we need to go that far, but the rich could be subjected to a wealth limit that would function like a speed limit on public roads; however, I don't think elected Republicans OR Democrats will connect the dots in time. IMHO, we need to break the corporate stranglehold on US politics by choosing our Representatives and Senators from established third parties instead of either wing of the Wall Street Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way it would function in reality is to drive all investment out of this country and reduce our standard of living to something resembling the standard of living in Somalia.  It's amazing to me that any educated person could be stupid enough to believe a plan like that would actually work.
Click to expand...


Good riddance>Expatriation Tax


----------



## KNB

Hemp seed is healthier than corn and hasn't been genetically modified by Monsanto.  Hemp can also make more ethanol than corn.  And hemp stalks can make biodegradable plastic.  And hemp makes four times more paper per acre than trees.

And more people can grow Cannabis than corn, meaning more jobs.


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a billionaire imply? A market that is manipulated.
> 
> CEOs and Hedge Fund managers know their job is to monopolize the market, manipulate it if they can't run a collusion and extrapolate capital by all sorts of tricks, like preferred calls, advanced information and high frequency trading.
> 
> Moreover, their campaign contributions drowns out you and me from political significance. So you prefer to have less influence in the decisions made about your life?
> 
> You sound like your'e being paid by billionaires to say they are so useful instead of being coherent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesnt imply anythng of the sort.  Unless you think Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have manipulated the market for about 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask George about manipulation of the market. Goldman sachs knows how to do this with aluminum. High frequency trading is market manipulation and preferred calls are legalized cheating--getting information sometimes weeks before it is public. See Raj Rajaratnam but everyone on Wall St knows.
> 
> Warren Buffet insists on being taxed more than current rates out of principle.
> 
> And how did Bill Gates get his wealth? HA! The government had virtually funded 100% of these unmarketable things called computers. As the US reached Japan's computing ability in the 80s, Gates was on the scene. He was that slithering snake that has all the work done for him and gets to claim its rewards as all the publics funds that developed computers was turned into private hands, we saw the profits. The internet was a success and we know the rest of the story.
> 
> 
> I just think you need to be more critical than stupidly announcing "I think we should have lots of billionaires." This clearly did not arise from any meaningful thought but instead a trite little retort to a comment suggesting life is not solely about money.
Click to expand...

*Billionaires (and other parasites) would not exist without government spending:*

"The reality is that there is massive state intervention in the productive economy and the free-trade agreements are anything but free-trade agreements. 

"That should be obvious.

"Just to take one example: The information technology (IT) revolution, which is driving the economy, that was based on decades of work in effectively the state sector - hard, costly, creative work substantially in the state sector, no consumer choice at all, there was entrepreneurial initiative but it was largely limited to getting government grants or bailouts or procurement..."

"After a long period - decades in fact - of hard, creative work, the primary research and development, the results are handed over to private enterprise for commercialisation and profit. 

*"That's Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and so on."*

Noam Chomsky: What I'd like to see on front pages of newspapers - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk


----------



## Mustang

The Rabbi said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statement is a tautology.
> His statement is correct. Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.
Click to expand...

 
Pishposh!

It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefitted the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.

The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Mustang said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement is a tautology.
> His statement is correct. Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pishposh!
> 
> It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefitted the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.
> 
> The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.
Click to expand...


If the wealthy benefit MORE than the poor, that doesn't mean that the poor don't benefit from capitalism.  Complaining that the rich benefit "more" is kind of akin to candy-ass pussy whining.  If the wealthy do even better when capitalism is humming along why should we get all jealous as long as the rest of us are deriving significant benefits, too?

Rising tides and all.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's one well reasoned reply.
> 
> Can you tell me where class warfare was mentioned? Oh where was hate towards a group too? Oh, neither of your assertions have any relevancy to the matter at hand (in other words are strawman arguments)? To be expected when a child doesn't hear what it wants; adults assess claims based on their merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Class warfare is all your post was about. Do you think because you didn't use that phrase that you fooled anyone?  Your hatred of success couldn't be more obvious.
Click to expand...


I was not aware of what I believe so please continue telling me what I believe.

Maybe you're not capable of distinguishing between disagreement and hatred. You're train of thought says "when I disagree with something I also hate it; when I am in conflict with someone I wish to incarcerate them."

Many people do not operate according to this principled hatred of dissent, including myself.  But it's clear from your desire to imprison dissenters (as you've mentioned in plenty of posts) that deep hatred follows dissent out of necessity. Thus your false assertion regarding how I view success makes sense to you but like I said, is false. I implore you to use evidence for once and show me where I hate success. Please keep in mind hate is not synonymous with dissent.

I'd address this further but you have yet to make a post out of your thousands that shows you're capable of respectful dialogue.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been times in the recent past when financial speculation was a capital offense. (A real death tax) I don't think we need to go that far, but the rich could be subjected to a wealth limit that would function like a speed limit on public roads; however, I don't think elected Republicans OR Democrats will connect the dots in time. IMHO, we need to break the corporate stranglehold on US politics by choosing our Representatives and Senators from established third parties instead of either wing of the Wall Street Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way it would function in reality is to drive all investment out of this country and reduce our standard of living to something resembling the standard of living in Somalia.  It's amazing to me that any educated person could be stupid enough to believe a plan like that would actually work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good riddance>Expatriation Tax
Click to expand...


You would cut off your nose to spite your own face.  Your arguing to send this country into a stone age.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Does GMO mean modified by humans? *
> 
> Most of the food you eat is genetically different than it was before man.
> Do you need examples?
> 
> *Do us a favor and think before you type.*
> 
> Do me a favor and think. It would be a nice change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said it once but you didn't seem to understand because you're too busy defaming me. Use your rational faculties and pull your brain out of the murky waters of one-ups-manship.
> 
> GMO does not mean modified by humans.
> 
> GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning.
> 
> Thus, we must ask are their instances where "modification by humans" does not entail genetic modification? Does tattooing count as modification of the body? Yes. Is it genetic modification? No. Thus, your joke that someone should stop eating because all food has been "modified by humans" is inane. Of course, you don't care how imprecise you are because your arguments are fueled on misrepresentation.
> 
> The argument is not that we should not eat food because it's been "modified by humans" but we should be aware of what is GMO and is not. We don't have this option as most labels do not carry this information. And as you correctly identify most foods are GMO like corn. The argument is not to stop eating food, but it is to allow the public awareness of what they are eating. See the difference? I hope so but I doubt it because it nullifies your pointless post and inane joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *GMO does not mean modified by humans.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the above plant is genetically identical to the plant below?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Monsanto do it?
Click to expand...


You must be far too strung out on drugs to care about making a coherent point.

Let me ask again, can you tell the difference between knowing what you're eating and not eating?

Once you can tell, let me know and I'll give you a sticker to put on your folder.


----------



## bripat9643

Mustang said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement is a tautology.
> His statement is correct. Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pishposh!
> 
> It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefitted the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.
> 
> The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.
Click to expand...


On a percentage basis, the poor benefit the most.  They have cars, houses, flat screen TVs, cell phone and the best medical care in the world.  Before capitalism, they starved, died of numerous diseases, had to undergo surgery and dental work without anesthesia, had no central hearing or plumping, no telephone, television, radio, computer, dishwasher, refrigerator, gas stove, air conditioning, electric lights, automobile, etc., etc,. etc..


----------



## georgephillip

auditor0007 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you are correct about the income disparity increasing, you make a very big mistake by believing that we should have no poor and that everyone should be doing exceptionally well.  Here is the truth about all societies.  They tolerate their poor.  They may try to help them to a certain extent, but unless the entire society is poor, nobody gives a rats ass.  What the majority of people care about are themselves, and that boils down to the middle class.  When the middle class eventually figures out how bad it has been getting screwed over, watch out, because all those filthy rich people will begin becoming a bit poorer themselves.  We are currently at a point where things must get a little bit worse for the middle class before the brainwashing wears off.
Click to expand...

*Many in the US middle class may be confused about their relative standing in the world:*

"Our middle class is falling further and further behind in comparison to the rest of the world. We keep hearing that America is number one. Well, when it comes to middle-class wealth, we're number 27."

*27 with a bullet.
Watch out Ukraine.*

Les Leopold: Big Lie: America Doesn't Have #1 Richest Middle-Class in the World... We're Ranked 27th!


----------



## MikeK

pvsi said:


> I believe all the things that are wrong with capitalism would not exist if those with big money (CAPITALISTS OR SOCIALISTS) would not be able to buy politicians and make them pass laws favoring their interests. As you said, BALANCE, and socialists just like capitalists take advantage of our political prostitutes in Washington. If we argue about the name of the enemy THEY WIN:


I agree.  

In spite of what the brainwashed corporatist toadies who post here believe, I am not anti-capitalist.  I am anti _laissez-faire_ (uncontrolled, uninhibited) capitalism.  I think capitalism is a good system provided the system is controlled by socialist regulations which prevent the kind of maneuvering, manipulation, scheming, scamming, and exploitation which has taken place over the past three decades beginning with the imposition of _Reaganomics,_ and the progression of deregulation it initiated.

History News Network | Blame Ronald Reagan For Our Current Economic Crisis

Anyone who wishes to acquire a sound awareness of what has happened to the U.S. Economy can do so by watching the video, Inside Job, offered in the signature line below.  Keep in mind that none of the maneuvers explained in this video would have been legally permissible before the progression of deregulation commenced with Reagan and continued through the presidencies of Bush 1, Bill Clinton, and Bush 2.  In fact, if most of the multi-billionaires whose fortunes were built within the past three decades had attempted to do the same things before the 1980s they would still be sitting in federal prisons.


----------



## The Rabbi

Mustang said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement is a tautology.
> His statement is correct. Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pishposh!
> 
> It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefitted the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.
> 
> The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.
Click to expand...


Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence.  In most of the world those are called luxuries.


----------



## bripat9643

MikeK said:


> pvsi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe all the things that are wrong with capitalism would not exist if those with big money (CAPITALISTS OR SOCIALISTS) would not be able to buy politicians and make them pass laws favoring their interests. As you said, BALANCE, and socialists just like capitalists take advantage of our political prostitutes in Washington. If we argue about the name of the enemy THEY WIN:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> In spite of what the brainwashed corporatist toadies who post here believe, I am not anti-capitalist.  I am anti _laissez-faire_ (uncontrolled, uninhibited) capitalism.  I think capitalism is a good system provided the system is controlled by socialist regulations which prevent the kind of maneuvering, manipulation, scheming, scamming, and exploitation which has taken place over the past three decades beginning with the imposition of _Reaganomics,_ and the progression of deregulation it initiated.
> 
> History News Network | Blame Ronald Reagan For Our Current Economic Crisis
> 
> Anyone who wishes to acquire a sound awareness of what has happened to the U.S. Economy can do so by watching the video, Inside Job, offered in the signature line below.  Keep in mind that none of the maneuvers explained in this video would have been legally permissible before the progression of deregulation commenced with Reagan and continued through the presidencies of Bush 1, Bill Clinton, and Bush 2.  In fact, if most of the multi-billionaires whose fortunes were built within the past three decades had attempted to do the same things before the 1980s they would still be sitting in federal prisons.
Click to expand...


In other words, you're a fascist.  However, the program you propose would lead immediately to communism and mass starvation.


----------



## gnarlylove

The Rabbi said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement is a tautology.
> His statement is correct. Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pishposh!
> 
> It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefitted the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.
> 
> The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence.  In most of the world those are called luxuries.
Click to expand...


Either this is flat out false or I am not American...and my passport clearly states I am.

If you weren't so dogmatic I'd tell you about it but suffice to say, have you heard of "off the grid?" Apparently not.

What appears to be the problem is you take your small sphere of experience and think it's representative of America as a whole. It doesn't take much time to ponder this and realize how massively flawed it is. Just because you don't hang around people who either opt out of (or prevented from) owning a car, house, credit card, bank account etc (like I have) doesn't mean others in America haven't.

I'm not saying go hang out with them but please be sensible and don't think you're experience represents America on the whole. So you're newsflash is really just a lack of thought, not news.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pvsi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe all the things that are wrong with capitalism would not exist if those with big money (CAPITALISTS OR SOCIALISTS) would not be able to buy politicians and make them pass laws favoring their interests. As you said, BALANCE, and socialists just like capitalists take advantage of our political prostitutes in Washington. If we argue about the name of the enemy THEY WIN:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> In spite of what the brainwashed corporatist toadies who post here believe, I am not anti-capitalist.  I am anti _laissez-faire_ (uncontrolled, uninhibited) capitalism.  I think capitalism is a good system provided the system is controlled by socialist regulations which prevent the kind of maneuvering, manipulation, scheming, scamming, and exploitation which has taken place over the past three decades beginning with the imposition of _Reaganomics,_ and the progression of deregulation it initiated.
> 
> History News Network | Blame Ronald Reagan For Our Current Economic Crisis
> 
> Anyone who wishes to acquire a sound awareness of what has happened to the U.S. Economy can do so by watching the video, Inside Job, offered in the signature line below.  Keep in mind that none of the maneuvers explained in this video would have been legally permissible before the progression of deregulation commenced with Reagan and continued through the presidencies of Bush 1, Bill Clinton, and Bush 2.  In fact, if most of the multi-billionaires whose fortunes were built within the past three decades had attempted to do the same things before the 1980s they would still be sitting in federal prisons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you're a fascist.  However, the program you propose would lead immediately to communism and mass starvation.
Click to expand...


It's funny to hear a real live fascist like yourself call someone a fascist in a pejorative sense. Also, it's funny to hear someone say black and white are the same thing, like fascism and communism. These two political systems are literally on opposite ends of the spectrum of politics.






NB: The slavery/freedom bit is not coherent but this was the simplest diagram I could find for such a person as bri.


----------



## Mustang

The Rabbi said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement is a tautology.
> His statement is correct. Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pishposh!
> 
> It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefited the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.
> 
> The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence.  In most of the world those are called luxuries.
Click to expand...


You need to get out into the real world more instead of spending so much time in the world of your imagination.  They're are PLENTY of people in this country who live paycheck to paycheck and who eat lousy food full of carbohydrates because they can't afford better food with a more expensive protein content. 

There are children who don't have as much food as they want, and there are millions of people who have put off seeking medical attention for dangerous chronic conditions just because they have no healthcare through their jobs, and their condition is not yet serious enough to justify an emergency room visit.


----------



## The Rabbi

gnarlylove said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pishposh!
> 
> It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefitted the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.
> 
> The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence.  In most of the world those are called luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either this is flat out false or I am not American...and my passport clearly states I am.
> 
> If you weren't so dogmatic I'd tell you about it but suffice to say, have you heard of "off the grid?" Apparently not.
> 
> What appears to be the problem is you take your small sphere of experience and think it's representative of America as a whole. It doesn't take much time to ponder this and realize how massively flawed it is. Just because you don't hang around people who either opt out of (or prevented from) owning a car, house, credit card, bank account etc (like I have) doesn't mean others in America haven't.
> 
> I'm not saying go hang out with them but please be sensible and don't think you're experience represents America on the whole. So you're newsflash is really just a lack of thought, not news.
Click to expand...


Back it up with some facts or shut the fuck up.  Your wild imagination makes you look like a loon.
Of course some people choose to live off the grid.  It is their choice.  Similarly some people choose to be homeless.


----------



## The Rabbi

Mustang said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pishposh!
> 
> It's utter nonsense to float the idea that people who lead an essentially subsistence living have benefited the most from capitalism when large amounts of wealth are increasingly concentrated at the top.
> 
> The point is that the people who benefit the most are clearly the people who reap the most benefits, and HENCE, nobody benefits more from capitalism than those people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence.  In most of the world those are called luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to get out into the real world more instead of spending so much time in the world of your imagination.  They're are PLENTY of people in this country who live paycheck to paycheck and who eat lousy food full of carbohydrates because they can't afford better food with a more expensive protein content.
> 
> There are children who don't have as much food as they want, and there are millions of people who have put off seeking medical attention for dangerous chronic conditions just because they have no healthcare through their jobs, and their condition is not yet serious enough to justify an emergency room visit.
Click to expand...

Attention, Moron: Living paycheck to paycheck is not subsistence living.  Attention, retard: people who eat lots of food are not at the level of subsistence.
Learn what the words mean before you use them and waste everyone's time.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> In spite of what the brainwashed corporatist toadies who post here believe, I am not anti-capitalist.  I am anti _laissez-faire_ (uncontrolled, uninhibited) capitalism.  I think capitalism is a good system provided the system is controlled by socialist regulations which prevent the kind of maneuvering, manipulation, scheming, scamming, and exploitation which has taken place over the past three decades beginning with the imposition of _Reaganomics,_ and the progression of deregulation it initiated.
> 
> History News Network | Blame Ronald Reagan For Our Current Economic Crisis
> 
> Anyone who wishes to acquire a sound awareness of what has happened to the U.S. Economy can do so by watching the video, Inside Job, offered in the signature line below.  Keep in mind that none of the maneuvers explained in this video would have been legally permissible before the progression of deregulation commenced with Reagan and continued through the presidencies of Bush 1, Bill Clinton, and Bush 2.  In fact, if most of the multi-billionaires whose fortunes were built within the past three decades had attempted to do the same things before the 1980s they would still be sitting in federal prisons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you're a fascist.  However, the program you propose would lead immediately to communism and mass starvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny to hear a real live fascist like yourself call someone a fascist in a pejorative sense. Also, it's funny to hear someone say black and white are the same thing, like fascism and communism. These two political systems are literally on opposite ends of the spectrum of politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NB: The slavery/freedom bit is not coherent but this was the simplest diagram I could find for such a person as bri.
Click to expand...


I've been called a fascists, a communist, plutocrat, corporatist, you name it.   What I actually am is an anarchist.  I despise government in any form. 

There isn't a dime's worth of difference between fascism and communism. The difference is mostly in the names they give to things and the justifications they use.  The actual performance of each system is virtually identical, don't to the concentration camps, the 5 year plans and the party purges.

Your chart is complete horseshit.  It's made to fool people into believing that communism and fascism are opposites when they are actually virtually the same.   You can't chart the political spectrum on a line.  It requires a plain.

Here's a more accurate chart.  Communism and Fascism are both at the bottom of this chart.


----------



## Mustang

The Rabbi said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence. In most of the world those are called luxuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to get out into the real world more instead of spending so much time in the world of your imagination. They're are PLENTY of people in this country who live paycheck to paycheck and who eat lousy food full of carbohydrates because they can't afford better food with a more expensive protein content.
> 
> There are children who don't have as much food as they want, and there are millions of people who have put off seeking medical attention for dangerous chronic conditions just because they have no healthcare through their jobs, and their condition is not yet serious enough to justify an emergency room visit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Attention, Moron: Living paycheck to paycheck is not subsistence living. Attention, retard: people who eat lots of food are not at the level of subsistence.
> Learn what the words mean before you use them and waste everyone's time.
Click to expand...

 
_a_ *:*  the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life 


I stand by what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about probably because you think that what you don't personally witness doesn't actually exist in real life. It certainly does.

People who just barely eke out a living don't take vacations, or otherwise travel for pleasure, or generally drive nice reliable vehicles or have a lot of nice clothes. They may or may not have nice TVs, but that's usually because they can't afford to go anywhere or do anything, and over the air broadcast TV is all they have.

They've gotten economically squeezed by the rich here at home and poor workers abroad who undercut whatever they may earn. The high foreclosure rates of a few years ago have led to higher rents and more people are competing for rental properties. And high fuel prices have raised the price of everything that's transported by truck (which IS everything), and that includes food too.

AND unless a person has credit cards, living from paycheck to paycheck IS subsistence living.


----------



## gnarlylove

Thanks Bri. What you're not understanding is the ideas that animate communism are diametrically opposed to those that animate fascism. The differences are enormous. Communism vs Fascism - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

What you are not getting is that communism was never enacted in the soviet union. Just because two propaganda systems (the US and USSR) were saying they were communist does not mean they were communist. You have to EXAMINE what was going on in order to understand whether those propaganda systems were accurate.

So for example, Stalinst Russia was a political system with a leader and hierarchy. Communism is the annihilation of hierarchy. Get it? You should because I also avow anarchism and anarchism, true to form, is without leaders in the same way that communism, true to form, is without leaders. So there is no way communism led to starvation and death BECAUSE IT NEVER EXISTED. What Stalinism was, was just another form of state repression. Communism is the dissolution of states! Don't be be gullible, falling prey to propaganda. Examine it for one second!

But when you say extremely vile shit like lock up people you disagree with among some of the other stuff you've said, it shows you identify with violence and repression--as long as it isn't you. As long as you get to determine who to repress and be violent towards, its ok huh? Do you know what that is? It's fascism. I'm not using this term as a pejorative, I really mean you are technically a fascist on the political spectrum. Fascism is the assertion of power of a group of people over another who legitimatize the use of force against dissent. You say you're anarchist but anarchism is a radically leftist ideology that says all people are equal. How in the hell can you lock people up you disagree with and call yourself an anarchist!? I guess it's easy when you don't have a single clue about what these words mean. And where does it say communism and fascism on your chart? Oh, no where? Ok. So don't say it does when it's not.

The underlying problem here is that you have no respect for words having meanings. You toss words around like a tactic instead of simply using the meanings that words have. So you can say really stupid things like communism and fascism are the same thing. Take for example, IFF Stalinist Russia was communist, communism therefore is about repression and control. It cannot be both the idea that people should determine their own life (Marx's idea about communism) and a group of people should determine the lives of others (stalinism which is not communism). Get what I'm saying?


----------



## gnarlylove

The Rabbi said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash: no one in America leads a subsistence living. Unless you consider two cars, an apartment, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, free food, free education, free health care to be subsistence.  In most of the world those are called luxuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either this is flat out false or I am not American...and my passport clearly states I am.
> 
> If you weren't so dogmatic I'd tell you about it but suffice to say, have you heard of "off the grid?" Apparently not.
> 
> What appears to be the problem is you take your small sphere of experience and think it's representative of America as a whole. It doesn't take much time to ponder this and realize how massively flawed it is. Just because you don't hang around people who either opt out of (or prevented from) owning a car, house, credit card, bank account etc (like I have) doesn't mean others in America haven't.
> 
> I'm not saying go hang out with them but please be sensible and don't think you're experience represents America on the whole. So you're newsflash is really just a lack of thought, not news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back it up with some facts or shut the fuck up.  Your wild imagination makes you look like a loon.
> Of course some people choose to live off the grid.  It is their choice.  Similarly some people choose to be homeless.
Click to expand...


So when I demonstrate with evidence that your apparent newsflash was completely false (because lots of people are moving off the grid and choosing subsistence) you say "back it up" and then admit to knowing that going off the grid is subsistence and that it is happening.

I'm perplexed. How can you're newsflash have any meaning when it says basically, "going off the grid doesn't exist" and then admit that "of course people choose to live off the grid?"

Should I throw in some curse words and spit at you too? Does that add to the content of your argument? No it doesn't. Grow up and speak like an adult in a serious debate if you are going to demand evidence.


----------



## The Rabbi

Mustang said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to get out into the real world more instead of spending so much time in the world of your imagination. They're are PLENTY of people in this country who live paycheck to paycheck and who eat lousy food full of carbohydrates because they can't afford better food with a more expensive protein content.
> 
> There are children who don't have as much food as they want, and there are millions of people who have put off seeking medical attention for dangerous chronic conditions just because they have no healthcare through their jobs, and their condition is not yet serious enough to justify an emergency room visit.
> 
> 
> 
> Attention, Moron: Living paycheck to paycheck is not subsistence living. Attention, retard: people who eat lots of food are not at the level of subsistence.
> Learn what the words mean before you use them and waste everyone's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _a_ *:*  the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life
> 
> 
> I stand by what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about probably because you think that what you don't personally witness doesn't actually exist in real life. It certainly does.
> 
> People who just barely eke out a living don't take vacations, or otherwise travel for pleasure, or generally drive nice reliable vehicles or have a lot of nice clothes. They may or may not have nice TVs, but that's usually because they can't afford to go anywhere or do anything, and over the air broadcast TV is all they have.
> 
> They've gotten economically squeezed by the rich here at home and poor workers abroad who undercut whatever they may earn. The high foreclosure rates of a few years ago have led to higher rents and more people are competing for rental properties. And high fuel prices have raised the price of everything that's transported by truck (which IS everything), and that includes food too.
> 
> AND unless a person has credit cards, living from paycheck to paycheck IS subsistence living.
Click to expand...


First you define subsistence and then describe people well above subsistence.  And then you redefine it at the end contradicting your earlier definition.
When you figure out what you mean get back to me.


----------



## The Rabbi

gnarlylove said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either this is flat out false or I am not American...and my passport clearly states I am.
> 
> If you weren't so dogmatic I'd tell you about it but suffice to say, have you heard of "off the grid?" Apparently not.
> 
> What appears to be the problem is you take your small sphere of experience and think it's representative of America as a whole. It doesn't take much time to ponder this and realize how massively flawed it is. Just because you don't hang around people who either opt out of (or prevented from) owning a car, house, credit card, bank account etc (like I have) doesn't mean others in America haven't.
> 
> I'm not saying go hang out with them but please be sensible and don't think you're experience represents America on the whole. So you're newsflash is really just a lack of thought, not news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back it up with some facts or shut the fuck up.  Your wild imagination makes you look like a loon.
> Of course some people choose to live off the grid.  It is their choice.  Similarly some people choose to be homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when I demonstrate with evidence that your apparent newsflash was completely false (because lots of people are moving off the grid and choosing subsistence) you say "back it up" and then admit to knowing that going off the grid is subsistence and that it is happening.
> 
> I'm perplexed. How can you're newsflash have any meaning when it says basically, "going off the grid doesn't exist" and then admit that "of course people choose to live off the grid?"
> 
> Should I throw in some curse words and spit at you too? Does that add to the content of your argument? No it doesn't. Grow up and speak like an adult in a serious debate if you are going to demand evidence.
Click to expand...

Note the word "choosing" in your post.  People can choose all kinds of things. That doesnt make it anyone else's problem.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> Thanks Bri. What you're not understanding is the ideas that animate communism are diametrically opposed to those that animate fascism. The differences are enormous. Communism vs Fascism - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
> 
> What you are not getting is that communism was never enacted in the soviet union. Just because two propaganda systems (the US and USSR) were saying they were communist does not mean they were communist. You have to EXAMINE what was going on in order to understand whether those propaganda systems were accurate.
> 
> So for example, Stalinst Russia was a political system with a leader and hierarchy. Communism is the annihilation of hierarchy. Get it? You should because I also avow anarchism and anarchism, true to form, is without leaders in the same way that communism, true to form, is without leaders. So there is no way communism led to starvation and death BECAUSE IT NEVER EXISTED. What Stalinism was, was just another form of state repression. Communism is the dissolution of states! Don't be be gullible, falling prey to propaganda. Examine it for one second!



In other words, communism is a triangle with four sides.  It wasn't implemented in the Soviet Union for the same reason that no one has ever drawn a triangle with four sides.  It's impossible.  Neverthless, those who call themselves communists sure tried hard.  The trying is what leads to mass starvation, concentration camps and death.  

Fascism, on the other hand, can actually be implemented, but it leads to the same result:  mass starvation, concentration camps and death.  What rationalizations the two ideologies use to justify their policies is irrelevant.  The bottom line is that they produce the same result.

You claim they are based on different ideas, but the reality is that they are both based on a lot of the same ideas.  They are both collectivist.  They both believe that the group takes precedence over the individual.  They both believe that the individual is subservient to the state.  The state is entitled to use the individual as a means to an end rather than be treated as an end in himself.  

I could go on and on about their similarities, but that should suffice for this discussion.



gnarlylove said:


> But when you say extremely vile shit like lock up people you disagree with among some of the other stuff you've said, it shows you identify with violence and repression--as long as it isn't you. As long as you get to determine who to repress and be violent towards, its ok huh?



If I say that, it's purely in jest.  I don't believe in locking anyone up, except possibly for murder.  I don't even advocate locking people up for theft.  I believe in restitution, not prison.



gnarlylove said:


> Do you know what that is? It's fascism. I'm not using this term as a pejorative, I really mean you are technically a fascist on the political spectrum. Fascism is the assertion of power of a group of people over another who legitimatize the use of force against dissent. You say you're anarchist but anarchism is a radically leftist ideology that says all people are equal. How in the hell can you lock people up you disagree with and call yourself an anarchist!? I guess it's easy when you don't have a single clue about what these words mean. And where does it say communism and fascism on your chart? Oh, no where? Ok. So don't say it does when it's not.



One:  I don't advocate locking people up for dissent.  Two: that isn't what fascism is.  Fascism is an economic system where they supposedly have private property but where the government makes all the important business decisions.



gnarlylove said:


> The underlying problem here is that you have no respect for words having meanings.



Sure I do.  However, I don't concede your definitions of terms, which are entirely idiosyncratic and ideologically motivated.



gnarlylove said:


> You toss words around like a tactic instead of simply using the meanings that words have. So you can say really stupid things like communism and fascism are the same thing. Take for example, IFF Stalinist Russia was communist, communism therefore is about repression and control. It cannot be both the idea that people should determine their own life (Marx's idea about communism) and a group of people should determine the lives of others (stalinism which is not communism). Get what I'm saying?



That isn't Marx's idea about communism, and it has never been about people controlling their own life.  That's what _laizzes faire_ capitalism is about.  

You can't have a commune with people doing whatever they feel like.  It's been tried, and it never works.  Either the commune falls apart, or someone starts giving orders and enforcing them.  What you're talking about is a triangle with four corners.  It simply can't exist.  Anytime anyone advocates abolishing private property, free exchange and the profit motive, they are endorsing the police state.  Those are the only possible alternatives.


----------



## bripat9643

Mustang said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to get out into the real world more instead of spending so much time in the world of your imagination. They're are PLENTY of people in this country who live paycheck to paycheck and who eat lousy food full of carbohydrates because they can't afford better food with a more expensive protein content.
> 
> There are children who don't have as much food as they want, and there are millions of people who have put off seeking medical attention for dangerous chronic conditions just because they have no healthcare through their jobs, and their condition is not yet serious enough to justify an emergency room visit.
> 
> 
> 
> Attention, Moron: Living paycheck to paycheck is not subsistence living. Attention, retard: people who eat lots of food are not at the level of subsistence.
> Learn what the words mean before you use them and waste everyone's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _a_ *:*  the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life
> 
> 
> I stand by what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about probably because you think that what you don't personally witness doesn't actually exist in real life. It certainly does.
> 
> People who just barely eke out a living don't take vacations, or otherwise travel for pleasure, or generally drive nice reliable vehicles or have a lot of nice clothes. They may or may not have nice TVs, but that's usually because they can't afford to go anywhere or do anything, and over the air broadcast TV is all they have.
> 
> They've gotten economically squeezed by the rich here at home and poor workers abroad who undercut whatever they may earn. The high foreclosure rates of a few years ago have led to higher rents and more people are competing for rental properties. And high fuel prices have raised the price of everything that's transported by truck (which IS everything), and that includes food too.
> 
> AND unless a person has credit cards, living from paycheck to paycheck IS subsistence living.
Click to expand...


If you want to see people just barely eeking out a living, then go to Somalia and observe people who earn less than $1.00/day.  Our poor are fabulously wealthy compared to those who "just barely eek out a living."


----------



## francoHFW

Long live social democracy, ie well regulated capitalism, or socialism. 

OP- You mean savage, or laissez-faire capitalism, guarantees rising inequality...


----------



## Mustang

bripat9643 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attention, Moron: Living paycheck to paycheck is not subsistence living. Attention, retard: people who eat lots of food are not at the level of subsistence.
> Learn what the words mean before you use them and waste everyone's time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _a_ *:*  the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life
> 
> 
> I stand by what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about probably because you think that what you don't personally witness doesn't actually exist in real life. It certainly does.
> 
> People who just barely eke out a living don't take vacations, or otherwise travel for pleasure, or generally drive nice reliable vehicles or have a lot of nice clothes. They may or may not have nice TVs, but that's usually because they can't afford to go anywhere or do anything, and over the air broadcast TV is all they have.
> 
> They've gotten economically squeezed by the rich here at home and poor workers abroad who undercut whatever they may earn. The high foreclosure rates of a few years ago have led to higher rents and more people are competing for rental properties. And high fuel prices have raised the price of everything that's transported by truck (which IS everything), and that includes food too.
> 
> AND unless a person has credit cards, living from paycheck to paycheck IS subsistence living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to see people just barely eeking out a living, then go to Somalia one observe people who earn less that $1.00/day.  Our poor are fabulously wealthy compared to those who "just barely eek out a living."
Click to expand...


We don't live in Somalia. 

But since you brought it up, that 'country' is a perfect example of what no gov't can be like when people are left to do whatever the hell they want without legal constraints or gov't enforcement of laws.


----------



## The Rabbi

Mustang said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> _a_ *:*  the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life
> 
> 
> I stand by what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about probably because you think that what you don't personally witness doesn't actually exist in real life. It certainly does.
> 
> People who just barely eke out a living don't take vacations, or otherwise travel for pleasure, or generally drive nice reliable vehicles or have a lot of nice clothes. They may or may not have nice TVs, but that's usually because they can't afford to go anywhere or do anything, and over the air broadcast TV is all they have.
> 
> They've gotten economically squeezed by the rich here at home and poor workers abroad who undercut whatever they may earn. The high foreclosure rates of a few years ago have led to higher rents and more people are competing for rental properties. And high fuel prices have raised the price of everything that's transported by truck (which IS everything), and that includes food too.
> 
> AND unless a person has credit cards, living from paycheck to paycheck IS subsistence living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to see people just barely eeking out a living, then go to Somalia one observe people who earn less that $1.00/day.  Our poor are fabulously wealthy compared to those who "just barely eek out a living."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't live in Somalia.
> 
> But since you brought it up, it's that 'country' is a perfect example of what no gov't can be like when people are left to do whatever the hell they want without legal constraints or gov't enforcement of laws.
Click to expand...


Strawman.


----------



## francoHFW

The middle class and the country have gone to hell under Reaganism, hater dupes...
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn&#8217;t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor&#8217;s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105%  &#8211; Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 =  96%
2007 =  92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% &#8211; Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% &#8211; Reagan
1982 = 11.2% &#8211; Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% &#8211; Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 =  6%
1990 =  3%
2000 =  2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 &#8211; Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 6, 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider


----------



## bripat9643

Mustang said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> _a_ *:*  the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life
> 
> 
> I stand by what I said. You just don't know what you're talking about probably because you think that what you don't personally witness doesn't actually exist in real life. It certainly does.
> 
> People who just barely eke out a living don't take vacations, or otherwise travel for pleasure, or generally drive nice reliable vehicles or have a lot of nice clothes. They may or may not have nice TVs, but that's usually because they can't afford to go anywhere or do anything, and over the air broadcast TV is all they have.
> 
> They've gotten economically squeezed by the rich here at home and poor workers abroad who undercut whatever they may earn. The high foreclosure rates of a few years ago have led to higher rents and more people are competing for rental properties. And high fuel prices have raised the price of everything that's transported by truck (which IS everything), and that includes food too.
> 
> AND unless a person has credit cards, living from paycheck to paycheck IS subsistence living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to see people just barely eeking out a living, then go to Somalia one observe people who earn less that $1.00/day.  Our poor are fabulously wealthy compared to those who "just barely eek out a living."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't live in Somalia.
Click to expand...


Yep, we live in a country where the poor are fabulously wealthy be historical and world standards.



Mustang said:


> [But since you brought it up, it's that 'country' is a perfect example of what no gov't can be like when people are left to do whatever the hell they want without legal constraints or gov't enforcement of laws.



Somalia has all kinds of government.  It's a failed Marxist state that has devolved into a conglomeration of warring Feudal states.  Somalia is a perfect example of what happens when you try to put the state in control of everyone's entire life.  It's not an example of what happens when you slowly and methodically dismember the state until there's nothing left of it.


----------



## Mustang

The Rabbi said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to see people just barely eeking out a living, then go to Somalia one observe people who earn less that $1.00/day.  Our poor are fabulously wealthy compared to those who "just barely eek out a living."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't live in Somalia.
> 
> But since you brought it up, it's that 'country' is a perfect example of what no gov't can be like when people are left to do whatever the hell they want without legal constraints or gov't enforcement of laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.
Click to expand...


No, what IS a straw man type of argument is deflecting talk of poverty in this country by describing people who are arguably poorer in another country where pretty much everyone is poorer. It's still not an argument that has context when it comes to wealth distribution in the USA.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when you say extremely vile shit like lock up people you disagree with among some of the other stuff you've said, it shows you identify with violence and repression--as long as it isn't you. As long as you get to determine who to repress and be violent towards, its ok huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I say that, it's purely in jest.  I don't believe in locking anyone up, except possibly for murder.  I don't even advocate locking people up for theft.  I believe in restitution, not prison.
Click to expand...


Well I've been mistaken. Sorry. Then you definitely are not fascist and I recant. I'm glad you don't advocate prison which has clearly the opposite effect of rehabilitation.

Regarding your more precise discursive communism, well said. But those who announced they were communist, like you admitted, were not communist (Bolshevism, Leninism, Stalinsm do not represent communism). 

I thought it odd how you compared fascism, which purports the superiority of one group (form of hierarchy), and said this was equivalent to communism, which purports no superiority of anyone (opposite of hierarchy).

Lastly, you think capitalism is freedom? SO the richest people who are literally above the law is freedom? So the lack of responsibility is freedom? That is a highly destructive definition of freedom.  Freedom comes with great responsibility.

Let me stipulate this capitalism is freedom premise and ask you, where's all the freedom at yo? Prisons are expanding. Jails are overcrowded. No one can vote against Goldman Sachs. Voting for Obama was the equivalent of voting for Bush, meaning politics is a joke. So current America is what freedom should look like? I beg to differ. I don't deny America is relatively the most free society, but relative freedom is far from genuine freedom.


----------



## gnarlylove

In celebration of 200 pages of Equality and with constant reference to Marx, we deserve some real Marx. After the quote, begins a simple explanation of why capitalism is a system of parasitism, hardly different from feudalism. Therein lies the source of inequality.



			
				Karl Marx said:
			
		

> The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself. It is that capital and its self-expansion appear as the starting and the closing point, the motive and the purpose of production; that production is only production for capital and not vice versa, the means of production are not mere means for a constant expansion of the living process of the society of producers. The limits within which the preservation and self-expansion of the value of capital resting on the expropriation and pauperisation of the great mass of producers can alone move &#8212; these limits come continually into conflict with the methods of production employed by capital for its purposes, which drive towards unlimited extension of production, towards production as an end in itself, towards unconditional development of the social productivity of labour. The means &#8212; unconditional development of the productive forces of society &#8212; comes continually into conflict with the limited purpose, the self-expansion of the existing capital.
> 
> The conclusion was:
> The last cause of all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as compared to the tendency of capitalist production to develop the productive forces in such a way that only the absolute power of consumption of the entire society would be their limit.
> Das Kapital, pg. 245, 260




Does anyone work for a living? In other words are you an employee? Then let's articulate what you know but may not understand about some vital implications. The economic system of feudalism, lords and serfs, was abolished slowly but surely and replaced by glorious capitalism, employers and employees. So what does this new relationship mean?

When you collect your paycheck, do you think it equates the value of your production? I hope not because it's an impossibility. For ease of explanation, let's take wage labor, which is an hourly system (salaried people experience this same fundamental impossibility).

Let's say you are paid $10/hr. You must produce $10 of goods/services otherwise you will be fired. In fact, you must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr otherwise the employer is not benefiting from you and so you will again be fired.

So fundamental to the system of wage labor and capitalism is the idea of surplus: we must produce beyond our pay. Do you see the inherent conflict that arises here? When you work, you can never earn as much as you are worth/produce. This is where profit enters and hence inequality.

So in order to remain employed, we must produce oftentimes far beyond what we are paid for the employer (CEO, Board of Directors). Obviously not all of surplus production goes towards profits, some is put back into the operation of the company but it takes a genius to not see the literal parasitic relationship between employee and employer.

Essential to capitalism is the idea of parasitism. Biology defines a parasite as "the relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other" (Britannica). In this sense, we have not come very far from the 13th century and serfdom.

And now that we grasp more fully our status as employee, is this the kind of system we should employ in order to sustain our existence? Parasitic relations can never be healthy. Why is it too much to ask for symbiotic distribution instead of parasitic distribution? It would end the concern of redistribution by simply distributing it right the first time.

So if you think this makes sense, it follows deductively that as employees we must oppose capitalism. It's our moral obligation to ourselves, our global community, and our children. This doesn't mean quit your job but it means as an employee you automatically are being drained of value and life...any self-respecting person cannot continue in such an arrangement without protesting parasitism (i.e. capitalism).

Anyone wanting a serious economics lecture that spells this out, watch the following at your leisure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said it once but you didn't seem to understand because you're too busy defaming me. Use your rational faculties and pull your brain out of the murky waters of one-ups-manship.
> 
> GMO does not mean modified by humans.
> 
> GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning.
> 
> Thus, we must ask are their instances where "modification by humans" does not entail genetic modification? Does tattooing count as modification of the body? Yes. Is it genetic modification? No. Thus, your joke that someone should stop eating because all food has been "modified by humans" is inane. Of course, you don't care how imprecise you are because your arguments are fueled on misrepresentation.
> 
> The argument is not that we should not eat food because it's been "modified by humans" but we should be aware of what is GMO and is not. We don't have this option as most labels do not carry this information. And as you correctly identify most foods are GMO like corn. The argument is not to stop eating food, but it is to allow the public awareness of what they are eating. See the difference? I hope so but I doubt it because it nullifies your pointless post and inane joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GMO does not mean modified by humans.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the above plant is genetically identical to the plant below?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Monsanto do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be far too strung out on drugs to care about making a coherent point.
> 
> Let me ask again, can you tell the difference between knowing what you're eating and not eating?
> 
> Once you can tell, let me know and I'll give you a sticker to put on your folder.
Click to expand...


Humans changed the genetic makeup of the top plant to the point that we now have the bottom plant.

The genes were modified. 
Do you understand, or did your science education stop in the 6th grade?


----------



## georgephillip

francoHFW said:


> Long live social democracy, ie well regulated capitalism, or socialism.
> 
> OP- You mean savage, or laissez-faire capitalism, guarantees rising inequality...


*Exactly. The rise of Finance Capitalism over the last forty years has hyper-accelerated capitalism's most self-destructive tendencies.

From the OP:*

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'. 

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993. 

"During the Thatcher/Reagan reign, income tax was lowered for higher earners, trade unions were broken and the financial sector was deregulated with, we now know, devastating consequences. 

"The inequality trend became more widespread starting in the late 1980s, and continues to poison the social fabric of countries throughout the world, including more egalitarian nations, like Sweden, Finland, Germany and Denmark.

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income. 

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> What I actually am is an anarchist.  I despise government in any form.



I would be really intrigued to carry a dialogue with you regarding anarchism and how I am certain you are not one. But before I determine that you are not anarchist, I would like for you to describe what you mean by "I am an anarchist." I understand you wish there was no state to exercise control in your life. But do you go so far as to eliminate all forms of control?


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I actually am is an anarchist.  I despise government in any form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be really intrigued to carry a dialogue with you regarding anarchism and how I am certain you are not one. But before I determine that you are not anarchist, I would like for you to describe what you mean by "I am an anarchist." I understand you wish there was no state to exercise control in your life. But do you go so far as to eliminate all forms of control?
Click to expand...


ROFL!  I want to abolish government.  That's the only control that matters because it's the only control that uses guns.  "Anarchy" means without government.  That's all it means.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I actually am is an anarchist.  I despise government in any form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be really intrigued to carry a dialogue with you regarding anarchism and how I am certain you are not one. But before I determine that you are not anarchist, I would like for you to describe what you mean by "I am an anarchist." I understand you wish there was no state to exercise control in your life. But do you go so far as to eliminate all forms of control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  I want to abolish government.  That's the only control that matters because it's the only control that uses guns.  "Anarchy" means without government.  That's all it means.
Click to expand...


ROFLOL! Government is hardly the only entity that exercises control in life.

How do people survive? Work. If you don't sell your brains and body for pay, you are likely to find yourself rummaging in a trash can and living on the street (as I have).

So for most people worldwide, either work and live OR don't work and suffer immensely, even to the point of death (through health complications of bad diet and stress). The choice to live or suffer/die is not really a choice unless you're an idiot.

Why is this so? Because workers have absolutely zero control over their own work. Their finished production is sold by the CEO and he determines how much to pay you having kept a certain amount called profit. So the distribution of survival is literally in the hands of CEOs and 10-20 Board of Directors. They determine what to do with everything produced and the money gained in this endeavor. We all know they try to maximize profit by distributing as little wages and taxes as possible while keeping as much as possible, the profit (to do otherwise is considered insane). Thus the worker has no say over the distribution--they can either ask for a raise or quit. If you don't call this basic relationship of the worker to distribution control, then I don't understand control. 

Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds. Therefore they decide who gets soybeans and who doesn't. If someone wants soybeans, they must listen to what Monsanto says because Monsanto distributes it. This is control. They control soybeans.

In the same manner, we both know virtually all raw materials on this planet are "owned" by a small group of people who determine what to do with it called corporations. The government may regulate them in ways they don't like but then again, they also have the resources to change the regulations and we all know this.

Are you telling me that when a group of people own something, determine how to distribute it and offer absolutely zero chance for input by workers or the public that this is not control? Then please elaborate. The very definition of control is when a person has no say over something that deeply effects them and it's clear that the worker has no decision in the matter of distribution or in the matter of survival. They must work to survive and the work they do is what they are told. This is control without the use of a gun.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be really intrigued to carry a dialogue with you regarding anarchism and how I am certain you are not one. But before I determine that you are not anarchist, I would like for you to describe what you mean by "I am an anarchist." I understand you wish there was no state to exercise control in your life. But do you go so far as to eliminate all forms of control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  I want to abolish government.  That's the only control that matters because it's the only control that uses guns.  "Anarchy" means without government.  That's all it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLOL! Government is hardly the only entity that exercises control in life.
> 
> How do people survive? Work. If you don't sell your brains and body for pay, you are likely to find yourself rummaging in a trash can and living on the street (as I have).
> 
> So for most people worldwide, either work and live OR don't work and suffer immensely, even to the point of death (through health complications of bad diet and stress). The choice to live or suffer/die is not really a choice unless you're an idiot.
> 
> Why is this so? Because workers have absolutely zero control over their own work. Their finished production is sold by the CEO and he determines how much to pay you having kept a certain amount called profit. So the distribution of survival is literally in the hands of CEOs and 10-20 Board of Directors. They determine what to do with everything produced and the money gained in this endeavor. We all know they try to maximize profit by distributing as little wages and taxes as possible while keeping as much as possible, the profit (to do otherwise is considered insane). Thus the worker has no say over the distribution--they can either ask for a raise or quit. If you don't call this basic relationship of the worker to distribution control, then I don't understand control.
> 
> Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds. Therefore they decide who gets soybeans and who doesn't. If someone wants soybeans, they must listen to what Monsanto says because Monsanto distributes it. This is control. They control soybeans.
> 
> In the same manner, we both know virtually all raw materials on this planet are "owned" by a small group of people who determine what to do with it called corporations. The government may regulate them in ways they don't like but then again, they also have the resources to change the regulations and we all know this.
> 
> Are you telling me that when a group of people own something, determine how to distribute it and offer absolutely zero chance for input by workers or the public that this is not control? Then please elaborate. The very definition of control is when a person has no say over something that deeply effects them and it's clear that the worker has no decision in the matter of distribution or in the matter of survival. They must work to survive and the work they do is what they are told. This is control without the use of a gun.
Click to expand...


*Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds. *

BS

*If someone wants soybeans, they must listen to what Monsanto says because Monsanto distributes it. *

You have to listen to Monsanto? Like we have to listen to you? LOL!


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds. *
> 
> BS



If it isn't, Todd, then what's the percentage they do own? I dare you to do some fact checking. You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.

Your narrow understanding of the world is detrimental. You don't even know that one tiny group of 25 people own entire crops and can legally sue you for growing non-Monsanto seeds. Wake up you ignorant man otherwise you'd be really confused when Monsanto decides you don't eat corn anymore or whatever they decide profits them.



			
				Bloomberg News said:
			
		

> Monsanto rose to dominance via its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed line, which was in 93 percent of the soybeans and 82 percent of the corn produced in the U.S. last year. The gene Monsanto adds to the seeds allows crops to withstand use of its Roundup weed killer.


Monsanto 7-State Probe Threatens Profit From Gene in 93% of Soy - Bloomberg


----------



## MikeK

gnarlylove said:


> In celebration of 200 pages of Equality and with constant reference to Marx, we deserve some real Marx. After the quote, begins a simple explanation of why capitalism is a system of parasitism, hardly different from feudalism. Therein lies the source of inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Marx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself. It is that capital and its self-expansion appear as the starting and the closing point, the motive and the purpose of production; that production is only production for capital and not vice versa, the means of production are not mere means for a constant expansion of the living process of the society of producers. The limits within which the preservation and self-expansion of the value of capital resting on the expropriation and pauperisation of the great mass of producers can alone move  these limits come continually into conflict with the methods of production employed by capital for its purposes, which drive towards unlimited extension of production, towards production as an end in itself, towards unconditional development of the social productivity of labour. The means  unconditional development of the productive forces of society  comes continually into conflict with the limited purpose, the self-expansion of the existing capital.
> 
> The conclusion was:
> The last cause of all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as compared to the tendency of capitalist production to develop the productive forces in such a way that only the absolute power of consumption of the entire society would be their limit.
> Das Kapital, pg. 245, 260
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone work for a living? In other words are you an employee? Then let's articulate what you know but may not understand about some vital implications. The economic system of feudalism, lords and serfs, was abolished slowly but surely and replaced by glorious capitalism, employers and employees. So what does this new relationship mean?
> 
> When you collect your paycheck, do you think it equates the value of your production? I hope not because it's an impossibility. For ease of explanation, let's take wage labor, which is an hourly system (salaried people experience this same fundamental impossibility).
> 
> Let's say you are paid $10/hr. You must produce $10 of goods/services otherwise you will be fired. In fact, you must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr otherwise the employer is not benefiting from you and so you will again be fired.
> 
> So fundamental to the system of wage labor and capitalism is the idea of surplus: we must produce beyond our pay. Do you see the inherent conflict that arises here? When you work, you can never earn as much as you are worth/produce. This is where profit enters and hence inequality.
> 
> So in order to remain employed, we must produce oftentimes far beyond what we are paid for the employer (CEO, Board of Directors). Obviously not all of surplus production goes towards profits, some is put back into the operation of the company but it takes a genius to not see the literal parasitic relationship between employee and employer.
> 
> Essential to capitalism is the idea of parasitism. Biology defines a parasite as "the relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other" (Britannica). In this sense, we have not come very far from the 13th century and serfdom.
> 
> And now that we grasp more fully our status as employee, is this the kind of system we should employ in order to sustain our existence? Parasitic relations can never be healthy. Why is it too much to ask for symbiotic distribution instead of parasitic distribution? It would end the concern of redistribution by simply distributing it right the first time.
> 
> So if you think this makes sense, it follows deductively that as employees we must oppose capitalism. It's our moral obligation to ourselves, our global community, and our children. This doesn't mean quit your job but it means as an employee you automatically are being drained of value and life...any self-respecting person cannot continue in such an arrangement without protesting parasitism (i.e. capitalism).
> 
> Anyone wanting a serious economics lecture that spells this out, watch the following at your leisure.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the Wolff  lecture.  It's well worth listening to and I'm pleased to note the tendency emerging.  It's good to see there is movement  and more Americans are waking up to what has been happening.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds. *
> 
> BS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it isn't, Todd, then what's the percentage they do own? I dare you to do some fact checking. You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.
> 
> Your narrow understanding of the world is detrimental. You don't even know that one tiny group of 25 people own entire crops and can legally sue you for growing non-Monsanto seeds. Wake up you ignorant man otherwise you'd be really confused when Monsanto decides you don't eat corn anymore or whatever they decide profits them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloomberg News said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monsanto rose to dominance via its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed line, which was in 93 percent of the soybeans and 82 percent of the corn produced in the U.S. last year. The gene Monsanto adds to the seeds allows crops to withstand use of its Roundup weed killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Monsanto 7-State Probe Threatens Profit From Gene in 93% of Soy - Bloomberg
Click to expand...


*You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.*

Changing your story? LOL!

*one tiny group of 25 people own entire crops and can legally sue you for growing non-Monsanto seeds. *

No they can't.

Are you going to explain how they can force you to listen to them? Should be good.


----------



## gnarlylove

MikeK said:


> Thanks for posting the Wolff  lecture.  It's well worth listening to and I'm pleased to note the tendency emerging.  It's good to see there is movement  and more Americans are waking up to what has been happening.



Yeah, you're welcome, I have found his work among dozens of others very insightful. I went to college and hung around the marginal groups talking about these things but never got involved beyond my assigned work and personal activism for poverty in Columbus, Ohio.

I think two main shifts have created a demand for such decisive and incisive criticism of the system itself. One is the youth population are less offended by socialism (though socialism is often misunderstood and therefore mis-applied or its simply a lighter version of state repression). Many working class people totally understand the government and what we hear is bogus. Secondly is the obvious one: wealth inequality has just skyrocketed and yet we keep being told life is getting better (for whom?: the rich only) and the recession is long gone (wrong).

But my fear is without swift, steady organization, which seems unlikely, we have little hope for overcoming this *suicidal death march of capitalism towards the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp/0805092994"]Sixth Extinction*[/ame]. I'm just disappointed too few human animals raise their heads and join together to make their lives better instead of being always suppliant and consumerist...but then again our culture is awash in precisely such propaganda and our connection to nature and understanding has never been this tenuous yet absolutely critical for moving forward.

I really imagine the world breaking down into tribalism and violent wars over reduced resources. And no wealthy person will give two shits about democracy or equality in that era, which is coming anon. But we still have a chance and hope can never die.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds. *
> 
> BS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you to do some fact checking. *You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93%* of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.
> 
> Bloomberg News:
> Monsanto rose to dominance via its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed line, which was in *93 percent of the soybeans* and 82 percent of the corn produced in the U.S. last year.
> Monsanto 7-State Probe Threatens Profit From Gene in 93% of Soy - Bloomberg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.*
> 
> Changing your story? LOL!
Click to expand...


Changing my story? What are you talking about? I have to be frank: only you could say something so stupid. That is a compliment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you to do some fact checking. *You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93%* of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.
> 
> Bloomberg News:
> Monsanto rose to dominance via its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed line, which was in *93 percent of the soybeans* and 82 percent of the corn produced in the U.S. last year.
> Monsanto 7-State Probe Threatens Profit From Gene in 93% of Soy - Bloomberg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.*
> 
> Changing your story? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changing my story? What are you talking about? I have to be frank: only you could say something so stupid. That is a compliment.
Click to expand...


93% of soybeans &#8800; 93% of soybeans in America

Are you going to explain how Monsanto can force you to listen to them?


----------



## gnarlylove

I didn't claim that it was the whole world did I? No. I always intended my statement for America. We both live here. Sorry youre so hostile towards me that you think this is even an issue. Grasping at straws.

Monsanto sets the price. Are you planning on not paying what they say or are you going to listen to their price and their legal team that notoriously sues any farmer violating their profit motive, which they determine, not you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> I didn't claim that it was the whole world did I? No. I always intended my statement for America. We both live here. Sorry youre so hostile towards me that you think this is even an issue. Grasping at straws.
> 
> Monsanto sets the price. Are you planning on not paying what they say or are you going to listen to their price and their legal team that notoriously sues any farmer violating their profit motive, which they determine, not you.



You said.

*Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds. Therefore they decide who gets soybeans and who doesn't. If someone wants soybeans, they must listen to what Monsanto says because Monsanto distributes it. This is control. They control soybeans.*

Seems clear what you meant. That's why I pointed out your error.
Monsanto does not control soybeans and does not own 93% of all soybean seeds in the world.
Try to be clear. 

*Monsanto sets the price. *

They set the price for their product. You don't have to buy from them.

*Are you planning on not paying what they say *

Your point,  *"If someone wants soybeans, they must listen to what Monsanto says because Monsanto distributes it" *, concerned the price? LOL!

Yes, if I want to buy a car, I have to "listen to what the dealer says", LOL!
You're hilarious.
I'm going to the grocery store later. I guess I have to listen to what they say. LOL!
Man, for someone who claims to be so smart, you sure say some stupid things.

*or are you going to listen to their price and their legal team that notoriously sues any farmer violating their profit motive*

They don't sue farmers for "violating their profit motive".
That's another one of those stupid things you like to say.
If you buy their seeds, you have to sign a contract that governs how you use them.
If you violate the contract, they will sue you.


----------



## gnarlylove

Monsanto is about as close as you can come to a true monopoly. Oligopoly, which is technically what we have with soybeans is a major market control and you'd have to be pretty desperate to continue believing your religion of free markets and capitalist enterprise. I can't help it if you are eager to disagree even at the expense of reason and logic. As you've demonstrated, you are not here to argue reasonably but to defend faith in markets, competition and the like when every business abandoned those principles almost 100 years ago. Ever wonder why there's a business school and economics school on the same campus? It doesn't help you've never been trained in academics so what you hear in the media is 90% false and you are dumb enough/inadequately critical to believe it because you are extremely gullible and trusting of what corporations tell you. I'd think twice before I just believed things that Fox and msnbc tells you. Can you tell me the last time you were critical of something you believe?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Monsanto is about as close as you can come to a true monopoly.



Plus, "If someone wants soybeans, they must listen to what Monsanto says because Monsanto distributes it"


----------



## gnarlylove

Karl Marx wrote, the whole capitalist system of production turns on the increase of this _gratis _labor by extending the working day or by developing the productivity, that is, increasing the intensity of labor power, etc.; that, consequently, the system of wage-labor is a system of slavery, and indeed of a slavery which becomes more severe proportionate to the development of the social productive forces of labor, whether the worker receives better or worse payment.


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> Karl Marx wrote, the whole capitalist system of production turns on the increase of this _gratis _labor by extending the working day or by developing the productivity, that is, increasing the intensity of labor power, etc.; that, consequently, the system of wage-labor is a system of slavery, and indeed of a slavery which becomes more severe proportionate to the development of the social productive forces of labor, whether the worker receives better or worse payment.


*Marx believed that capitalists would eventually accumulate capital to such an extent a majority of productive workers would become impoverished, creating a revolution that would overthrow the institutions of capitalism:*

"Private ownership over the means of production and distribution is seen as a dependency of non-owning classes on the ruling class, and ultimately a source of restriction of human freedom."

Criticism of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Marx wrote, the whole capitalist system of production turns on the increase of this _gratis _labor by extending the working day or by developing the productivity, that is, increasing the intensity of labor power, etc.; that, consequently, the system of wage-labor is a system of slavery, and indeed of a slavery which becomes more severe proportionate to the development of the social productive forces of labor, whether the worker receives better or worse payment.
> 
> 
> 
> *Marx believed that capitalists would eventually accumulate capital to such an extent a majority of productive workers would become impoverished, creating a revolution that would overthrow the institutions of capitalism:*
> 
> "Private ownership over the means of production and distribution is seen as a dependency of non-owning classes on the ruling class, and ultimately a source of restriction of human freedom."
> 
> Criticism of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Yes yes. Early on he wrote about this revolution showing how damn insightful he was:
For society to achieve emancipation for all it must be done by

"One particular class must be a class that rouses universal reprobation and incorporates all deficiencies: one particular social sphere must be regarded as the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation of this sphere appears as universal self-liberation. So that one class par excellence may appear as the class of the liberation, another class must conversely be the manifest class of oppression." Early Texts, 126

My fear is that climate change has already progressed beyond reparation. This change is based in geological time and so humans are so imperceptive regarding the change. Only when shit blows up in our face and massive famine will we finally realize the revolution that should have taken place long before. I suspect revolution will happen in 50-100 years because change won't come otherwise. Chomsky notes that change in policy etc. are not gifts from above but result from mass pressure. Any thoughts or articles you know of on this topic?


----------



## Andylusion

I don't see that climate change is all that damaging.   In fact, recently an article came out about Ancient Frozen Forest being discovered in Alaska.

This indicates that in time past, far more of the land was productive than what is currently available.

Further, near as I can tell, the only reason we could have mass starvation, is if we're stupid enough to ban the companies and products that have increased food production.

In short, the only real danger right now, is not from the environment changing, but from people shooting down our own advancement.


----------



## Erand7899

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's take an example. Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds. *
> 
> BS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it isn't, Todd, then what's the percentage they do own? I dare you to do some fact checking. You will find out that in 2009 Monsanto owned 93% of soybean seeds and 82% of corn produced in America, all GMO.
> 
> Your narrow understanding of the world is detrimental. You don't even know that one tiny group of 25 people own entire crops and can legally sue you for growing non-Monsanto seeds. Wake up you ignorant man otherwise you'd be really confused when Monsanto decides you don't eat corn anymore or whatever they decide profits them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bloomberg News said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monsanto rose to dominance via its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed line, which was in 93 percent of the soybeans and 82 percent of the corn produced in the U.S. last year. The gene Monsanto adds to the seeds allows crops to withstand use of its Roundup weed killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Monsanto 7-State Probe Threatens Profit From Gene in 93% of Soy - Bloomberg
Click to expand...


Monsanto cannot sue you for using non-Monsanto seeds.  Nor, do you need Monsanto's permission to grow corn or soybeans.  You just cannot use Monsanto genetically engineered seeds, whether from your own crop of Monsanto corn or soybeans, or from soneone else's crop of Monsanto corn or soybeans. 

You can grow corn, soybeans, or any other crop from seeds that are not under the Monsanto patent.  If you want the Monsanto engineered seeds, you have to buy them from Monsanto.


----------



## Erand7899

MikeK said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> In celebration of 200 pages of Equality and with constant reference to Marx, we deserve some real Marx. After the quote, begins a simple explanation of why capitalism is a system of parasitism, hardly different from feudalism. Therein lies the source of inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Marx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself. It is that capital and its self-expansion appear as the starting and the closing point, the motive and the purpose of production; that production is only production for capital and not vice versa, the means of production are not mere means for a constant expansion of the living process of the society of producers. The limits within which the preservation and self-expansion of the value of capital resting on the expropriation and pauperisation of the great mass of producers can alone move  these limits come continually into conflict with the methods of production employed by capital for its purposes, which drive towards unlimited extension of production, towards production as an end in itself, towards unconditional development of the social productivity of labour. The means  unconditional development of the productive forces of society  comes continually into conflict with the limited purpose, the self-expansion of the existing capital.
> 
> The conclusion was:
> The last cause of all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as compared to the tendency of capitalist production to develop the productive forces in such a way that only the absolute power of consumption of the entire society would be their limit.
> Das Kapital, pg. 245, 260
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone work for a living? In other words are you an employee? Then let's articulate what you know but may not understand about some vital implications. The economic system of feudalism, lords and serfs, was abolished slowly but surely and replaced by glorious capitalism, employers and employees. So what does this new relationship mean?
> 
> When you collect your paycheck, do you think it equates the value of your production? I hope not because it's an impossibility. For ease of explanation, let's take wage labor, which is an hourly system (salaried people experience this same fundamental impossibility).
> 
> Let's say you are paid $10/hr. You must produce $10 of goods/services otherwise you will be fired. In fact, you must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr otherwise the employer is not benefiting from you and so you will again be fired.
> 
> So fundamental to the system of wage labor and capitalism is the idea of surplus: we must produce beyond our pay. Do you see the inherent conflict that arises here? When you work, you can never earn as much as you are worth/produce. This is where profit enters and hence inequality.
> 
> So in order to remain employed, we must produce oftentimes far beyond what we are paid for the employer (CEO, Board of Directors). Obviously not all of surplus production goes towards profits, some is put back into the operation of the company but it takes a genius to not see the literal parasitic relationship between employee and employer.
> 
> Essential to capitalism is the idea of parasitism. Biology defines a parasite as "the relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other" (Britannica). In this sense, we have not come very far from the 13th century and serfdom.
> 
> And now that we grasp more fully our status as employee, is this the kind of system we should employ in order to sustain our existence? Parasitic relations can never be healthy. Why is it too much to ask for symbiotic distribution instead of parasitic distribution? It would end the concern of redistribution by simply distributing it right the first time.
> 
> So if you think this makes sense, it follows deductively that as employees we must oppose capitalism. It's our moral obligation to ourselves, our global community, and our children. This doesn't mean quit your job but it means as an employee you automatically are being drained of value and life...any self-respecting person cannot continue in such an arrangement without protesting parasitism (i.e. capitalism).
> 
> Anyone wanting a serious economics lecture that spells this out, watch the following at your leisure.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting the Wolff  lecture.  It's well worth listening to and I'm pleased to note the tendency emerging.  It's good to see there is movement  and more Americans are waking up to what has been happening.
Click to expand...


If you want the total worth of your labor, you work for yourself.  Is that a difficult concept to figure out?  That means you must be management, supply, salesman and laborer, all rolled into one.  How much of your valuable time is invested in operations that do not pay you at all, let alone allow you to earn what you believe you are worth?

When you work for someone else, they eat the cost of overhead, management, contracting, sales, etc., and they expect something for their valuable time and effort.  After all, they also labor.

Most workers do not desire to take the risks associated with ensuring work, and do not have the skills necessary to successfully managing a business.  Consequently, they sell their labor to someone who does have the skills to run a business.  In doing so, they necessarily must discount their labor rates to recompense that someone for their effort.


----------



## dannyboys

Hilarious. I read the thread title and told myself that the last page would be about why pink hondas are mostly sold in Maine. I was wrong.


----------



## dannyboys

Capitalism has been around since the cave men. If it wasn't for capitalism not one of us here would know what a computer was.
The only people who don't like/understand capitalism are the 'never-wasers/losers'. No one that is rich by their own efforts does not believe in the benefits of capitalism. 
There isn't a single library or hospital speciality wing or a scholarship to a university that wasn't funded by an 'evil' capitalist.
Remember that the next time a family member needs special medical help.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> I don't see that climate change is all that damaging.   In fact, recently an article came out about Ancient Frozen Forest being discovered in Alaska.
> 
> This indicates that in time past, far more of the land was productive than what is currently available.
> 
> Further, near as I can tell, the only reason we could have mass starvation, is if we're stupid enough to ban the companies and products that have increased food production.
> 
> In short, the only real danger right now, is not from the environment changing, but from people shooting down our own advancement.



You're 100% correct using your non-reality based perspective and I can understand why you believe its a problem of not allowing expansion. Nature is to be overcome in this ass-backwards understanding of sustenance.

A reality-based perspective recognizes the relative stasis of the environment as having been essential to sustenance of all current forms of life including particularly human advancement into societies. We are currently the provocateurs of the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp/0805092994"]6th mass extinction[/ame]. This is no joke. And it's rapidly increasing. A reality-based perspective also recognizes the diversity of life doing its thing is innumerably essential for life in general which obviously includes human life.

You've shown no interest in recognizing basic facts of reality and instead propagate this extremely detrimental view that increases the annihilation of the biosphere. Completely idiotic for an organism to pretend its condition is irrelevant to its existence.


----------



## gnarlylove

Erand7899 said:


> If you want the total worth of your labor, you work for yourself.  Is that a difficult concept to figure out?



You have no idea that other people exist, do you? This is not so hard to figure it out, is it? Look around.

The question is how to organize society. The results of capitalism is what we see before us. And if you think bodies are to be dispensed based on racial lines and poverty then you and I have very different concepts of justice. Justice is not for the individual, it is for all human beings. Take a peak at the Human Rights Declaration for a frame of reference beyond your ego. I don't even espouse that declaration but it helps to think beyond yourself for a change.

Moreover, capitalism has brought us faux electoral politics. What they really are, are bouts between, on occasions, the same donor. Both parties yield to their donors, and these donors are not stupid: they buy both parties so they damn well get some victory. And it doesn't take a degree to recognize this famously 1%-ers are really 1/10 of 1%, thus a central group of people dominate the entire discourse and it's completely stupid for people like that to not pursue profit maximization. But profit maximization leads to distress in communities from upheaval of jobs sent overseas. There is no concern for social welfare and humanity as you clearly display with your curt "what's so hard to understand about self-centered existence pursuing your needs at the expense of others in the world of competition?"

This isn't a personal complaint. I make the choices I want and I am 100% satisfied with them. This is about recognizing the inherent dignity in human beings that must be acknowledged. Instead we allow bodies to line up with no where to go and are constantly harassed by regular police brutality. Can you even think outside of yourself an imagine that although you may be doing OK and all your friends that it might not be a good system that states as fact "there must be a mass of unemployed people simply because it's not profitable." And remember, profits are not set by physical laws of nature, they are determined by the choices of the CEO and Board. They can determine to earn a decent life without extravagance while massively contributing to social welfare by paying wages that create security for humans. Instead, Greenspan praised the idea of worker insecurity as the main reason the 90s economy was so hot. It keeps wages low and complaints down. Yep, this is an intolerable system for the mass of people. Sorry that you happen to avoid that group, it explains your skewed view of reality.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that climate change is all that damaging.   In fact, recently an article came out about Ancient Frozen Forest being discovered in Alaska.
> 
> This indicates that in time past, far more of the land was productive than what is currently available.
> 
> Further, near as I can tell, the only reason we could have mass starvation, is if we're stupid enough to ban the companies and products that have increased food production.
> 
> In short, the only real danger right now, is not from the environment changing, but from people shooting down our own advancement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're 100% correct using your non-reality based perspective and I can understand why you believe its a problem of not allowing expansion. Nature is to be overcome in this ass-backwards understanding of sustenance.
> 
> A reality-based perspective recognizes the relative stasis of the environment as having been essential to sustenance of all current forms of life including particularly human advancement into societies. We are currently the provocateurs of the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp/0805092994"]6th mass extinction[/ame]. This is no joke. And it's rapidly increasing. A reality-based perspective also recognizes the diversity of life doing its thing is innumerably essential for life in general which obviously includes human life.
> 
> You've shown no interest in recognizing basic facts of reality and instead propagate this extremely detrimental view that increases the annihilation of the biosphere. Completely idiotic for an organism to pretend its condition is irrelevant to its existence.
Click to expand...


Coming from someone who basically has no facts.    The irony is endless with you.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want the total worth of your labor, you work for yourself.  Is that a difficult concept to figure out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea that other people exist, do you? This is not so hard to figure it out, is it? Look around.
Click to expand...


If you want the total worth of your labor, work for yourself....

"You have no idea that other people exist, do you?"

Do you see why people on the right, think you are a fruit cake?   Your messages would be funny, if not for the fact you think you are making a great point.   That's just sad.

Do you want us to respond to you as though you are making an intelligent point?     Try not to make mindlessly stupid responses, and we will.

Otherwise, be ready to be ignored.   We're not going to bother responding to rather weak minded attempts at insults, that make you look like a clown, rather than someone attempting a serious discussion.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that climate change is all that damaging.   In fact, recently an article came out about Ancient Frozen Forest being discovered in Alaska.
> 
> This indicates that in time past, far more of the land was productive than what is currently available.
> 
> Further, near as I can tell, the only reason we could have mass starvation, is if we're stupid enough to ban the companies and products that have increased food production.
> 
> In short, the only real danger right now, is not from the environment changing, but from people shooting down our own advancement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're 100% correct using your non-reality based perspective and I can understand why you believe its a problem of not allowing expansion. Nature is to be overcome in this ass-backwards understanding of sustenance.
> 
> A reality-based perspective recognizes the relative stasis of the environment as having been essential to sustenance of all current forms of life including particularly human advancement into societies. We are currently the provocateurs of the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History/dp/0805092994"]6th mass extinction[/ame]. This is no joke. And it's rapidly increasing. A reality-based perspective also recognizes the diversity of life doing its thing is innumerably essential for life in general which obviously includes human life.
> 
> You've shown no interest in recognizing basic facts of reality and instead propagate this extremely detrimental view that increases the annihilation of the biosphere. Completely idiotic for an organism to pretend its condition is irrelevant to its existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from someone who basically has no facts.    The irony is endless with you.
Click to expand...


You stick true to your method: your opponent must not have the facts no matter how many times I've referred you to articles, books and lectures. I intentionally gave you material in my last post. It is the summary of field notes from around a variety of ecosystems by Dr. Kolbert recounting the changes, decay, and extinction that's currently underway. I don't see any scientist publishing on how the biosphere is shrieking for capitalist joy and is remotely healthy. They aren't because the objective fact is our biota is in decline at mass extinction rates. This is observable fact and has been recounted by numbers researchers in various fields. Kolbert gives great sources too.


----------



## gnarlylove

"The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded."

After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

Read more: Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> "The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded."
> 
> After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite.
> 
> The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."
> 
> Read more: Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider



Which again, explains why Skinner is in jail.   Apparently the oligarchy dominated the government so much, that the all powerful CEOs demanded that their own companies be shut down, than that they themselves were thrown in jail.    Apparently Countrywide, Lehman Brothers, and Wachovia demanded they be eliminated from the economy.

I know that if I was in the all powerful Oligarchy, I would demand government bankrupt me.   Yes sir.....

You keep posting random crap, and thinking that doing endless topic changes will confuse us into thinking you are intelligent.   Sorry.  Not happening.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> In celebration of 200 pages of Equality and with constant reference to Marx, we deserve some real Marx. After the quote, begins a simple explanation of why capitalism is a system of parasitism, hardly different from feudalism. Therein lies the source of inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Marx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself. It is that capital and its self-expansion appear as the starting and the closing point, the motive and the purpose of production; that production is only production for capital and not vice versa, the means of production are not mere means for a constant expansion of the living process of the society of producers. The limits within which the preservation and self-expansion of the value of capital resting on the expropriation and pauperisation of the great mass of producers can alone move  these limits come continually into conflict with the methods of production employed by capital for its purposes, which drive towards unlimited extension of production, towards production as an end in itself, towards unconditional development of the social productivity of labour. The means  unconditional development of the productive forces of society  comes continually into conflict with the limited purpose, the self-expansion of the existing capital.
> 
> The conclusion was:
> The last cause of all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as compared to the tendency of capitalist production to develop the productive forces in such a way that only the absolute power of consumption of the entire society would be their limit.
> Das Kapital, pg. 245, 260
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone work for a living? In other words are you an employee? Then let's articulate what you know but may not understand about some vital implications. The economic system of feudalism, lords and serfs, was abolished slowly but surely and replaced by glorious capitalism, employers and employees. So what does this new relationship mean?
> 
> When you collect your paycheck, do you think it equates the value of your production? I hope not because it's an impossibility. For ease of explanation, let's take wage labor, which is an hourly system (salaried people experience this same fundamental impossibility).
> 
> Let's say you are paid $10/hr. You must produce $10 of goods/services otherwise you will be fired. In fact, you must produce a surplus of goods/services that exceeds $10/hr otherwise the employer is not benefiting from you and so you will again be fired.
> 
> So fundamental to the system of wage labor and capitalism is the idea of surplus: we must produce beyond our pay. Do you see the inherent conflict that arises here? When you work, you can never earn as much as you are worth/produce. This is where profit enters and hence inequality.
> 
> So in order to remain employed, we must produce oftentimes far beyond what we are paid for the employer (CEO, Board of Directors). Obviously not all of surplus production goes towards profits, some is put back into the operation of the company but it takes a genius to not see the literal parasitic relationship between employee and employer.
> 
> Essential to capitalism is the idea of parasitism. Biology defines a parasite as "the relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other" (Britannica). In this sense, we have not come very far from the 13th century and serfdom.
> 
> And now that we grasp more fully our status as employee, is this the kind of system we should employ in order to sustain our existence? Parasitic relations can never be healthy. Why is it too much to ask for symbiotic distribution instead of parasitic distribution? It would end the concern of redistribution by simply distributing it right the first time.
> 
> So if you think this makes sense, it follows deductively that as employees we must oppose capitalism. It's our moral obligation to ourselves, our global community, and our children. This doesn't mean quit your job but it means as an employee you automatically are being drained of value and life...any self-respecting person cannot continue in such an arrangement without protesting parasitism (i.e. capitalism).
> 
> Anyone wanting a serious economics lecture that spells this out, watch the following at your leisure.
Click to expand...


*When you work, you can never earn as much as you are worth/produce.*

Of course you're worth less than you produce.
Someone has to pay for the equipment, pay for the real estate, pay the payroll taxes, pay the insurance, pay for the excessive regulations, licenses, paperwork.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> You keep posting random crap, and thinking that doing endless topic changes will confuse us into thinking you are intelligent.   Sorry.  Not happening.



Why does it always center around my trying to gain something? I didn't post that to change the topic, and all of it was verbatim from Business Insider, I didn't write one iota! I didn't post it for you. I didn't post it so I would appear intelligent. I don't have any concern in the slightest regarding my apparent intelligence. I don't need to be validated through asinine grade school standards that you have clearly clung to.

I didn't even want you to respond to it because you don't have any frame of reference for understanding the significance of it. I bet you think you observe reality when it's well-known that human thinking significantly limits observational powers through limited perspectives. It's no secret how limited your perspectives are. I, on the other hand, have existed in multifarious cultures, cities, rural areas, interacted with the least among us and those who have no voice in jail. You simply have no perspective for understanding what things mean outside your narrow highly exclusionary perspective.

Though we exist in the same state I cannot determine any common ground with you because your perspective is so radically different from mine. Beyond the english language, there seems to be no mutual understanding. You seem to ceaselessly compete with me as if that has anything to do with intelligence.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *When you work, you can never earn as much as you are worth/produce.*
> 
> Of course you're worth less than you produce.
> Someone has to pay for the equipment, pay for the real estate, pay the payroll taxes, pay the insurance, pay for the excessive regulations, licenses, paperwork.



Why is it when I make 5 bird houses with my tools and equipment that I get the result of 5 birdhouses? Why is it that when I make 5 birdhouses for Alibaba LLC, a birdhouse distributor, I not only don't get 1 single birdhouse, but I am recompensed through a necessarily lower value then the value of my labor?

The reason is exploitation. You absolutely would crack me up if you weren't so frighteningly trained to say completely bogus things outside very narrow limits of wage labor. At no other time do humans think it should be illegal for them to claim what they produce. Why should we settle for a system that necessarily exploits us so a few families can live lavishly? We cannot live together if we cannot work together without being exploited. We are not trying to die with the most toys, we are trying to construct a civilization that doesn't resemble savages in suits devouring and selling as much as possible for self gain without concern for it being at the expense of society.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When you work, you can never earn as much as you are worth/produce.*
> 
> Of course you're worth less than you produce.
> Someone has to pay for the equipment, pay for the real estate, pay the payroll taxes, pay the insurance, pay for the excessive regulations, licenses, paperwork.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it when I make 5 bird houses with my tools and equipment that I get the result of 5 birdhouses? Why is it that when I make 5 birdhouses for Alibaba LLC, a birdhouse distributor, I not only don't get 1 single birdhouse, but I am recompensed through a necessarily lower value then the value of my labor?
> 
> The reason is exploitation. You absolutely would crack me up if you weren't so frighteningly trained to say completely bogus things outside very narrow limits of wage labor. At no other time do humans think it should be illegal for them to claim what they produce. Why should we settle for a system that necessarily exploits us so a few families can live lavishly? We cannot live together if we cannot work together without being exploited. We are not trying to die with the most toys, we are trying to construct a civilization that doesn't resemble savages in suits devouring and selling as much as possible for self gain without concern for it being at the expense of society.
Click to expand...


*Why is it when I make 5 bird houses with my tools and equipment that I get the result of 5 birdhouses? Why is it that when I make 5 birdhouses for Alibaba LLC, a birdhouse distributor, I not only don't get 1 single birdhouse,*

I already explained why.
Sounds like you should be your own boss, that way you'd only have yourself to blame.

*The reason is exploitation.*

And now we see why you're not very employable.
Nobody likes a whiny, self proclaimed intellectual with few actual skills.

*At no other time do humans think it should be illegal for them to claim what they produce.*

Who said it should be illegal to "claim what you produce"? Where? Link?

*Why should we settle for a system that necessarily exploits us so a few families can live lavishly? *

Be your own boss, so you can exploit yourself. 

*We are not trying to die with the most toys,*

In your case, no risk of that.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The reason is exploitation.*
> 
> And now we see why you're not very employable.
> Nobody likes a whiny, self proclaimed intellectual with few actual skills.



You clearly know more about me as a hostile troll on USMB then the people with whom I work with in real life, including my nursing home facility (employer).

We are truly graced by your presence. Keep telling the truth as it _feels _to you and always continue to disregard facts like you do so well. I bet it didn't even occur to you that the reason I'm calling attention to exploitation is because capitalism relies on exploitation of fellow human beings just like you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The reason is exploitation.*
> 
> And now we see why you're not very employable.
> Nobody likes a whiny, self proclaimed intellectual with few actual skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly know more about me as a hostile troll on USMB then the people with whom I work with in real life, including my nursing home facility (employer).
> 
> We are truly graced by your presence. Keep telling the truth as it _feels _to you and always continue to disregard facts like you do so well. I bet it didn't even occur to you that the reason I'm calling attention to exploitation is because capitalism relies on exploitation of fellow human beings just like you.
Click to expand...


----------



## gnarlylove

By the way, thanks for the compliment of calling me an intellectual. You are the only one that has proclaimed such a title. I've never said that here. I'd love to see a citation or even a phrase I've written that alludes to such a self-proclamation. Go ahead and try but you're going to come up empty handed and therefore I'ma ask you to delete your fucking lie. Why must you want so desperately to make this about me anyway? Why is it so hard for you to discuss ideas instead of making up stuff about anyone who disagrees with you? Oh, that's right, you actually do not know how to analyze assertions. It's much easier to say "Todders is a whiner who didn't get enough nursing as a baby" then it is to say "your claims about exploitation are wrong and here are the reasons why..."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> By the way, thanks for the compliment of calling me an intellectual. You are the only one that has proclaimed such a title. I've never said that here. I'd love to see a citation or even a phrase I've written that alludes to such a self-proclamation. Go ahead and try but you're going to come up empty handed and therefore I'ma ask you to delete your fucking lie. Why must you want so desperately to make this about me anyway? Why is it so hard for you to discuss ideas instead of making up stuff about anyone who disagrees with you? Oh, that's right, you actually do not know how to analyze assertions. It's much easier to say "Todders is a whiner who didn't get enough nursing as a baby" then it is to say "your claims about exploitation are wrong and here are the reasons why..."



*By the way, thanks for the compliment of calling me an intellectual.*

You're a wanna be intellectual.
Your drivel really isn't intelligent.

*Why is it so hard for you to discuss ideas *

Like the idea we've been genetically modifying our food for ten thousand years?
You ran away from that discussion.


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Marx wrote, the whole capitalist system of production turns on the increase of this _gratis _labor by extending the working day or by developing the productivity, that is, increasing the intensity of labor power, etc.; that, consequently, the system of wage-labor is a system of slavery, and indeed of a slavery which becomes more severe proportionate to the development of the social productive forces of labor, whether the worker receives better or worse payment.
> 
> 
> 
> *Marx believed that capitalists would eventually accumulate capital to such an extent a majority of productive workers would become impoverished, creating a revolution that would overthrow the institutions of capitalism:*
> 
> "Private ownership over the means of production and distribution is seen as a dependency of non-owning classes on the ruling class, and ultimately a source of restriction of human freedom."
> 
> Criticism of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes yes. Early on he wrote about this revolution showing how damn insightful he was:
> For society to achieve emancipation for all it must be done by
> 
> "One particular class must be a class that rouses universal reprobation and incorporates all deficiencies: one particular social sphere must be regarded as the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation of this sphere appears as universal self-liberation. So that one class par excellence may appear as the class of the liberation, another class must conversely be the manifest class of oppression." Early Texts, 126
> 
> My fear is that climate change has already progressed beyond reparation. This change is based in geological time and so humans are so imperceptive regarding the change. Only when shit blows up in our face and massive famine will we finally realize the revolution that should have taken place long before. I suspect revolution will happen in 50-100 years because change won't come otherwise. Chomsky notes that change in policy etc. are not gifts from above but result from mass pressure. Any thoughts or articles you know of on this topic?
Click to expand...

*Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:*

"In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio. 

"Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry. 

"The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town. 

"US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town. 

"Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities  who are called the stakeholders  offered to buy the plant and run it themselves. 

"That couldve been done; with enough public support, it couldve happened. 

"These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they couldve won, and it couldve been carried forward. 

"Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasnt the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.

"And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of its called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but theres a lot of them. 

"Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."

Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz


----------



## georgephillip

dannyboys said:


> Hilarious. I read the thread title and told myself that the last page would be about why pink hondas are mostly sold in Maine. I was wrong.


About pink Hondas and capitalism since the latter leads to concentration of capital, employment, and power and the nearly complete destruction of economic freedom.

Criticism of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Marx believed that capitalists would eventually accumulate capital to such an extent a majority of productive workers would become impoverished, creating a revolution that would overthrow the institutions of capitalism:*
> 
> "Private ownership over the means of production and distribution is seen as a dependency of non-owning classes on the ruling class, and ultimately a source of restriction of human freedom."
> 
> Criticism of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes yes. Early on he wrote about this revolution showing how damn insightful he was:
> For society to achieve emancipation for all it must be done by
> 
> "One particular class must be a class that rouses universal reprobation and incorporates all deficiencies: one particular social sphere must be regarded as the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation of this sphere appears as universal self-liberation. So that one class par excellence may appear as the class of the liberation, another class must conversely be the manifest class of oppression." Early Texts, 126
> 
> My fear is that climate change has already progressed beyond reparation. This change is based in geological time and so humans are so imperceptive regarding the change. Only when shit blows up in our face and massive famine will we finally realize the revolution that should have taken place long before. I suspect revolution will happen in 50-100 years because change won't come otherwise. Chomsky notes that change in policy etc. are not gifts from above but result from mass pressure. Any thoughts or articles you know of on this topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:*
> 
> "In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.
> 
> "Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.
> 
> "The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.
> 
> "US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.
> 
> "Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities  who are called the stakeholders  offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.
> 
> "That couldve been done; with enough public support, it couldve happened.
> 
> "These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they couldve won, and it couldve been carried forward.
> 
> "Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasnt the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.
> 
> "And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of its called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but theres a lot of them.
> 
> "Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."
> 
> Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz
Click to expand...


United Airlines was worker owned.

How'd that turn out?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Marx believed that capitalists would eventually accumulate capital to such an extent a majority of productive workers would become impoverished, creating a revolution that would overthrow the institutions of capitalism:*
> 
> "Private ownership over the means of production and distribution is seen as a dependency of non-owning classes on the ruling class, and ultimately a source of restriction of human freedom."
> 
> Criticism of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes yes. Early on he wrote about this revolution showing how damn insightful he was:
> For society to achieve emancipation for all it must be done by
> 
> "One particular class must be a class that rouses universal reprobation and incorporates all deficiencies: one particular social sphere must be regarded as the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation of this sphere appears as universal self-liberation. So that one class par excellence may appear as the class of the liberation, another class must conversely be the manifest class of oppression." Early Texts, 126
> 
> My fear is that climate change has already progressed beyond reparation. This change is based in geological time and so humans are so imperceptive regarding the change. Only when shit blows up in our face and massive famine will we finally realize the revolution that should have taken place long before. I suspect revolution will happen in 50-100 years because change won't come otherwise. Chomsky notes that change in policy etc. are not gifts from above but result from mass pressure. Any thoughts or articles you know of on this topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:*
> 
> "In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.
> 
> "Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.
> 
> "The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.
> 
> "US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.
> 
> "Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities  who are called the stakeholders  offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.
> 
> "That couldve been done; with enough public support, it couldve happened.
> 
> "These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they couldve won, and it couldve been carried forward.
> 
> "Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasnt the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.
> 
> "And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of its called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but theres a lot of them.
> 
> "Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."
> 
> Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz
Click to expand...


But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory?   Answer?   Because it was not making a profit.

If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either.   Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.

This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes yes. Early on he wrote about this revolution showing how damn insightful he was:
> For society to achieve emancipation for all it must be done by
> 
> "One particular class must be a class that rouses universal reprobation and incorporates all deficiencies: one particular social sphere must be regarded as the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation of this sphere appears as universal self-liberation. So that one class par excellence may appear as the class of the liberation, another class must conversely be the manifest class of oppression." Early Texts, 126
> 
> My fear is that climate change has already progressed beyond reparation. This change is based in geological time and so humans are so imperceptive regarding the change. Only when shit blows up in our face and massive famine will we finally realize the revolution that should have taken place long before. I suspect revolution will happen in 50-100 years because change won't come otherwise. Chomsky notes that change in policy etc. are not gifts from above but result from mass pressure. Any thoughts or articles you know of on this topic?
> 
> 
> 
> *Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:*
> 
> "In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.
> 
> "Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.
> 
> "The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.
> 
> "US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.
> 
> "Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities  who are called the stakeholders  offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.
> 
> "That couldve been done; with enough public support, it couldve happened.
> 
> "These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they couldve won, and it couldve been carried forward.
> 
> "Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasnt the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.
> 
> "And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of its called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but theres a lot of them.
> 
> "Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."
> 
> Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory?   Answer?   Because it was not making a profit.
> 
> If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either.   Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.
> 
> This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.
Click to expand...

And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.
Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:*
> 
> "In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.
> 
> "Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.
> 
> "The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.
> 
> "US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.
> 
> "Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities  who are called the stakeholders  offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.
> 
> "That couldve been done; with enough public support, it couldve happened.
> 
> "These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they couldve won, and it couldve been carried forward.
> 
> "Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasnt the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.
> 
> "And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of its called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but theres a lot of them.
> 
> "Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."
> 
> Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory?   Answer?   Because it was not making a profit.
> 
> If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either.   Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.
> 
> This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.
> Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
> If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
Click to expand...


If Mondragon is such a stunning success, then why isn't it expanding and taking over the entire Spanish economy?  The answer is that its not a good business model.  It can't make changes to it's employment without a huge political battle.  That's why private enterprises are superior to government run enterprise.  If they need to cut staffing they can do it in short order.  Government almost never cuts staffing for anything.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes yes. Early on he wrote about this revolution showing how damn insightful he was:
> For society to achieve emancipation for all it must be done by
> 
> "One particular class must be a class that rouses universal reprobation and incorporates all deficiencies: one particular social sphere must be regarded as the notorious crime of the whole society, so that liberation of this sphere appears as universal self-liberation. So that one class par excellence may appear as the class of the liberation, another class must conversely be the manifest class of oppression." Early Texts, 126
> 
> My fear is that climate change has already progressed beyond reparation. This change is based in geological time and so humans are so imperceptive regarding the change. Only when shit blows up in our face and massive famine will we finally realize the revolution that should have taken place long before. I suspect revolution will happen in 50-100 years because change won't come otherwise. Chomsky notes that change in policy etc. are not gifts from above but result from mass pressure. Any thoughts or articles you know of on this topic?
> 
> 
> 
> *Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:*
> 
> "In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.
> 
> "Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.
> 
> "The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.
> 
> "US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.
> 
> "Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities  who are called the stakeholders  offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.
> 
> "That couldve been done; with enough public support, it couldve happened.
> 
> "These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they couldve won, and it couldve been carried forward.
> 
> "Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasnt the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.
> 
> "And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of its called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but theres a lot of them.
> 
> "Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."
> 
> Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> United Airlines was worker owned.
> 
> How'd that turn out?
Click to expand...

*'Tuned out better for Wall Street.
Are you surprised?*

""In 1994 United's pilots, machinists, bag handlers and non-contract employees agreed to acquire 55% of company stock in exchange for 15% to 25% salary concessions. 

"The flight attendants voted to not participate in the deal, and at the beginning some wore buttons saying 'we just work here.' 

"The Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) made United the largest employee-owned corporation in the world..."

"The financial outcomes of the ESOP were decidedly uneven for different players. 

"As part of ESOP agreement, United CEO Stephen Wolf resigned and took a consulting job with Lazard Freres, the very investment company he had hired to advise United's board during the ESOP buyout process. 

"Stewart Oran, the key legal advisor to the pilots' union, received a $5.5 million package to join the management of the new employee-owned company as legal counsel after the ESOP was formed.[25] 

"United's unions, having larger voice in running the company, later successfully bargained for significant pay increases, but the effect was only short-term. 

"The rank and file employees were locked into their stock, which got wiped out in the eventual bankruptcy. 

"It was around this period (in 1993) that United introduced its grey and blue color scheme. It had been criticized that the color scheme blended with the darkness during nighttime operations."

History of United Airlines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:*
> 
> "In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.
> 
> "Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.
> 
> "The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.
> 
> "US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.
> 
> "Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities &#8212; who are called the stakeholders &#8212; offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.
> 
> "That could&#8217;ve been done; with enough public support, it could&#8217;ve happened.
> 
> "These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they could&#8217;ve won, and it could&#8217;ve been carried forward.
> 
> "Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasn&#8217;t the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.
> 
> "And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of it&#8217;s called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but there&#8217;s a lot of them.
> 
> "Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."
> 
> Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory?   Answer?   Because it was not making a profit.
> 
> If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either.   Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.
> 
> This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.
> Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
> If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
Click to expand...



I like gauntlets that are laid down, usually is indicative of arrogance,something I love to destroy ...




> ESOPs in the United States
> 
> An employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) is a defined contribution plan, a form of retirement plan as defined by 4975(e)(7)of IRS codes, which became a qualified retirement plan in 1974[14][15] It is one of the methods of employee participation in corporate ownership.[16]
> 
> ESOPs are regulated by Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a federal law that sets minimum standards for investment plans in private industry.[16] Internal Revenue Code section 404(a)(3) provides for an annual limit on the amount of deductible contributions an employer can make to a tax-qualified stock bonus or profit-sharing plan of 25 percent of the compensation otherwise paid or accrued during the year to the employees who benefit under the plan.[citation needed]
> 
> The Oakland, California-based think tank National Center for Employee Ownership estimates that there are approximately 11,300 employee stock ownership plans for over 13 million employees in the United States.[17][18][19] Notable U.S. employee-owned corporations include the 150,000 employee supermarket chain Publix Supermarkets, McCarthy Building Company, and photography studio company Lifetouch. Today, most private U.S. companies that are operating as ESOPs are structured as S corporation ESOPs (S ESOPs).
> History
> 
> In the mid-19th century, as the United States transitioned to an industrial economy, national corporations like Procter & Gamble, Railway Express, Sears & Roebuck, and others recognized that someone could work for the companies for 20 plus years, reach an old age, and then have no income after they could no longer work. The leaders of those 19th-century companies decided to set aside stock in the company that would be given to the employee when she or he retired.
> 
> In the early 20th century, when the United States sanctioned an income tax on all citizens, one of the biggest debates was about how to treat stock set aside for an employee by her employer under the new U.S. income tax laws.
> 
> ESOPs were developed as a way to encourage capital expansion and economic equality. Many of the early proponents of ESOPs believed that capitalism&#8217;s viability depended upon continued growth, and that there was no better way for economies to grow than by distributing the benefits of that growth to the workforce.[20]
> 
> In 1956, Louis Kelso invented the first ESOP, which allowed the employees of Peninsula Newspapers to buy out the company founders.[21] Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Russell Long, a Democrat from Louisiana, helped develop tax policy for ESOPs within the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), calling it one of his most important accomplishments in his career.[22] ESOPs also attracted interest of Republican leaders including Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan.[23]
> 
> In 2001, the United States Congress enacted Internal Revenue Code section 409(p), which effectively requires that S ESOP benefits be shared equitably by investors and workers. This ensures that the ESOP includes everyone from the receptionist to the CFO.[24]
> Rules
> 
> To establish an ESOP in the United States, a firm sets up a trust and makes tax-deductible contributions to it. Each plan is different, though typically plans include all full-time employees with a year or more of service. The ESOP can be funded by tax-deductible corporate contributions to the ESOP.
> 
> Discretionary annual cash contributions are deductible for up to 55 percent of the pay of plan participants and are used to buy shares from selling owners. Alternatively, the ESOP can borrow money to buy shares, with the company making tax-deductible contributions to the plan to enable it to repay the loan. Contributions to repay principal are deductible for up to 25 percent of the payroll of plan participants; interest is always deductible. Dividends can be paid to the ESOP to increase this amount over 25 percent. Sellers to an ESOP in a closely held company can defer taxation on the proceeds by reinvesting in other securities. In S corporations, to the extent the ESOP owns shares, that percentage of the company's profits are not taxed: 100 percent ESOPs pay no federal income tax, but the profit distribution to the participants is taxed, just as in any S corporation. Employees do not pay taxes on the contributions until they receive a distribution from the plan when they leave the company; taxes can be deferred by the departing employee by rolling the amount over into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA).
> 
> ESOP accounts vest over time, typically following one of two formulas: in the first, vesting starts at two years and completes at year six; in the second, participants becomes 100 percent vested after four years. When employees leave the company, they receive their vested ESOP shares, which the company or the ESOP buys back at an appraised fair market value. ESOP participants are required by law to be allowed to vote their allocated shares at least on major issues, such as closing or selling the company, but are not required to be able to vote on other issues, such as choosing the boards.
> Forms
> 
> Like other tax-qualified deferred compensation plans, ESOPs must not discriminate in their operations in favor of highly compensated employees, officers, or owners. In an ESOP, a company sets up an employee benefit trust, which it funds by contributing cash to buy company stock, contributing shares directly, or having the trust borrow money to buy stock, with the company making contributions to the plan to enable it to repay the loan. Generally, at least all full-time employees with a year or more of service are in the plan.
> 
> No other nation[according to whom?] in the world has laws that sanction an arrangement that is the same as the U.S. ESOP. The ESOP model is tied to the unique U.S. system encouraging private retirement savings plans, and tax policies which reflect that goal.
> S Corporation ESOP
> 
> Most private U.S. companies operating as an ESOP are structured as S corporation ESOPs (S ESOPs). The United States Congress established S ESOPs in 1998, to encourage and expand retirement savings by giving millions more American workers the opportunity to have equity in the companies where they work.
> 
> Pro-ESOP advocates credit S ESOPs with providing retirement security, job stability and worker retention, due to claimed culture, stability and productivity gains associated with employee-ownership. A study of a cross-section of Subchapter S firms with an Employee Stock Ownership Plan shows that S ESOP companies performed better in 2008 compared to non-S ESOP firms, paid their workers higher wages on average than other firms in the same industries, contributed more to their workers&#8217; retirement security, and hired workers when the overall U.S. economy was pitched downward and non-S ESOP employers were cutting jobs.[25] Scholars estimate that annual contributions to employees of S ESOPs total around $14 billion.[20] Critics say, however, that such studies fail to control for factors other than the existence of the ESOP, such as participatory management strategies, worker education, and pre-ESOP growth trends in individual companies. They maintain that no studies have shown that the presence of an ESOP itself causes any positive effects for companies or workers.[26]:27;[27] One study estimates that the net U.S. economic benefit from S ESOP savings, job stability and productivity totals $33 billion per year.[20]
> 
> A study released in July 2012 found that S corporations with private employee stock ownership plans added jobs over the last decade more quickly than the overall private sector.[28]
> 
> A 2013 study found that in 2010, 2,643 S ESOPs directly employed 470,000 workers and supported an additional 940,000 jobs, paid $29 billion in labor income to their own employees, with $48 billion in additional income for supported jobs, and tax revenue initiated by S ESOPs amounted to $11 billion for state and local governments and $16 billion for the federal government. Further, the study found that total output was equivalent to 1.7 percent of 2010 U.S. GDP. $93 billion (or 0.6 percent of GDP) came directly from S ESOPs, while output in supported industries totaled $153 billion (or 1.1 percent of GDP).[29]
> Advantages and disadvantages to employees
> 
> In a U.S. ESOP, just as in every other form of qualified pension plan, employees do not pay taxes on the contributions until they receive a distribution from the plan when they leave the company. They can roll the amount over into an IRA, as can participants in any qualified plan. There is no requirement that a private sector employer provide retirement savings plans for employees.
> 
> Some studies conclude that employee ownership appears to increase production and profitability, and improve employees' dedication and sense of ownership.[30][31][32][33][34] ESOP advocates maintain that the key variable in securing these claimed benefits is to combine an ESOP with a high degree of worker involvement in work-level decisions (employee teams, for instance). Employee stock ownership can increase the employees' financial risk if the company does poorly,[35] The data from ESOPs in the United States show that ESOP participants have three times the total retirement assets (including 401(k) plans) as comparable employees in non-ESOP companies and have diversified holdings at least as large.[36]
> 
> ESOPS, by definition, concentrate workers' retirement savings in the stock of a single company. Such concentration is contrary to the central principle of modern investment theory, which is that investors should diversify their investments across many companies, industries, geographic locations, etc.[26]:8&#8211;11[37] Moreover, ESOPs concentrate workers' retirement savings in the stock of the same company on which they depend for their wages and current benefits, such as health insurance, worsening the non-diversification problem.[37]:8&#8211;11 High-profile examples illustrate the problem. Employees at companies such as Enron and WorldCom lost much of their retirement savings by over-investing in company stock in their 401(k) plans, though these specific companies were not employee-owned. Enron, Polaroid and United Airlines, all of which had ESOPs when they went bankrupt, were C corporations. Most S corporation ESOPs offer their employees at least one qualified retirement savings plan like a 401(k) in addition to the ESOP, allowing for greater diversification of assets. Studies in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington state show that, on average, employees participating in the main form of employee ownership have considerably more in retirement assets than comparable employees in non-ESOP firms. The most comprehensive of the studies, a report on all ESOP firms in Washington state, found that the retirement assets were about three times as great, and the diversified portion of employee retirement plans was about the same as the total retirement assets of comparable employees in equivalent non-ESOP firms. The Washington study, however, showed that ESOP participants still had about 60% of their retirement savings invested in employer stock. Wages in ESOP firms were also 5 percent to 12 percent higher. National data from Joseph Blasi and Douglas Kruse at Rutgers shows that ESOP companies are more successful than comparable firms and, perhaps as a result, were more likely to offer additional diversified retirement plans alongside their ESOPs.
> 
> Opponents to ESOP have criticized these pro-ESOP claims, that many of the studies are conducted or sponsored by ESOP advocacy organizations and criticizing the methodologies used.[37][38] Critics argue that pro-ESOP studies did not establish that ESOPs results in higher productivity and wages. ESOP advocates agree that an ESOP alone cannot produce such effects; instead, the ESOP must be combined with worker empowerment through participatory management and other techniques. Critics point out that no study has separated the effects of those techniques from the effects of an ESOP; that is, no study shows that innovative management cannot produce the same (claimed) effects without an ESOP. [26]:36
> 
> In some circumstances, ESOP plans were designed that disproportionately benefit employees who enrolled earlier, by accruing more shares to early employees. Newer employees even at stable and mature ESOP companies can have limited opportunity to participate in the program, as a large portion of the shares may have already been allocated to longstanding employees.[39]
> 
> Pro-ESOP advocates often maintain that employee ownership in 401(k) plans, as opposed to ESOPs, is problematic. About 17 percent of total 401(k) assets are invested in company stock&#8212;more in those companies that offer it as an option (although many do not). Pro-ESOP advocates concede that this may be an excessive concentration in a plan specifically meant to be for retirement security. In contrast, they maintain that it may not be a serious problem for an ESOP or other options, which they say are meant as wealth building tools, preferably to exist alongside other plans. Nonetheless, ESOPs are regulated as retirement plans, and they are presented to employees as retirement plans&#8212;just as 401(k) plans are.
> Conflicts of interest
> 
> Because ESOPs are the only retirement plans allowed by law to borrow money, they can be attractive to company owners and managers as instruments of corporate finance and succession.[26]:14&#8211;16 An ESOP formed using a loan, called a "leveraged ESOP," can provide a tax-advantaged means for the company to raise capital.[26]:14&#8211;15 According to a pro-ESOP organization, at least 75 percent of ESOPs are, or were at some time, leveraged. According to citing ESOP Association statistics as cited in[26]:14&#8211;16. In addition, ESOPs can be attractive instruments of corporate succession, allowing a retiring shareholder to diversify his or her company of stock while deferring capital gains taxes indefinitely.[40]
> 
> Company insiders face additional conflicts of interest in connection with an ESOP's purchase of company stock, which most often features company insiders as sellers, and in connection with decisions about how to vote the shares of stock held by the ESOP but not yet allocated to participants' accounts.[26]:16&#8211;19 In a leveraged ESOP, such unallocated shares often far outnumber allocated shares, for many years after the leveraged transaction.[26


Employee stock ownership plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They exist in the US, but your fallacy of the employees owning the business are a bit skewed ...


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory?   Answer?   Because it was not making a profit.
> 
> If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either.   Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.
> 
> This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.
> 
> 
> 
> And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.
> Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
> If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Mondragon is such a stunning success, then why isn't it expanding and taking over the entire Spanish economy?  The answer is that its not a good business model.  It can't make changes to it's employment without a huge political battle.  That's why private enterprises are superior to government run enterprise.  If they need to cut staffing they can do it in short order.  Government almost never cuts staffing for anything.
Click to expand...

*Mondragon cooperatives are not part of Spain's government.*

"Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies."

*They aren't expanding for the same reason Spain has a 26% unemployment rate; global capitalism has wrecked the world economy for all but a fraction of 1% of humanity and their useful idiots*

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.
> Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
> If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Mondragon is such a stunning success, then why isn't it expanding and taking over the entire Spanish economy?  The answer is that its not a good business model.  It can't make changes to it's employment without a huge political battle.  That's why private enterprises are superior to government run enterprise.  If they need to cut staffing they can do it in short order.  Government almost never cuts staffing for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Mondragon cooperatives are not part of Spain's government.*
> 
> "Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies."
Click to expand...


If Mondragon is truly run by it's employees, then it's run the same way government is run.  Do they take a majority vote when they want to decide whether to lay anyone off?



georgephillip said:


> *They aren't expanding for the same reason Spain has a 26% unemployment rate; global capitalism has wrecked the world economy for all but a fraction of 1% of humanity and their useful idiots*
> 
> Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Spain has a 26% unemployment rate because of all the government's destructive economic policies, not because of capitalism.  So in a sense, your claim is correct.  If capitalism is destroying world economy, then why does the United states have a 7.3% unemployment rate?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:*
> 
> "In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.
> 
> "Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.
> 
> "The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.
> 
> "US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.
> 
> "Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities  who are called the stakeholders  offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.
> 
> "That couldve been done; with enough public support, it couldve happened.
> 
> "These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they couldve won, and it couldve been carried forward.
> 
> "Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasnt the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.
> 
> "And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of its called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but theres a lot of them.
> 
> "Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."
> 
> Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Airlines was worker owned.
> 
> How'd that turn out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *'Tuned out better for Wall Street.
> Are you surprised?*
> 
> ""In 1994 United's pilots, machinists, bag handlers and non-contract employees agreed to acquire 55% of company stock in exchange for 15% to 25% salary concessions.
> 
> "The flight attendants voted to not participate in the deal, and at the beginning some wore buttons saying 'we just work here.'
> 
> "The Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) made United the largest employee-owned corporation in the world..."
> 
> "The financial outcomes of the ESOP were decidedly uneven for different players.
> 
> "As part of ESOP agreement, United CEO Stephen Wolf resigned and took a consulting job with Lazard Freres, the very investment company he had hired to advise United's board during the ESOP buyout process.
> 
> "Stewart Oran, the key legal advisor to the pilots' union, received a $5.5 million package to join the management of the new employee-owned company as legal counsel after the ESOP was formed.[25]
> 
> "United's unions, having larger voice in running the company, later successfully bargained for significant pay increases, but the effect was only short-term.
> 
> "The rank and file employees were locked into their stock, which got wiped out in the eventual bankruptcy.
> 
> "It was around this period (in 1993) that United introduced its grey and blue color scheme. It had been criticized that the color scheme blended with the darkness during nighttime operations."
> 
> History of United Airlines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


*"The Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) made United the largest employee-owned corporation in the world..."*

Awesome! Screw those CEOs, we'll show how the working man can get it done!!!

*"The rank and file employees were locked into their stock, which got wiped out in the eventual bankruptcy"*

Wait, what?


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're a wanna be intellectual.
> Your drivel really isn't intelligent.



I see you backed down from your demonstrably false claim. So now its just your opinion that I'm a wanna-be intellectual. At least you were sensible enough to tacitly recant and that's as best as someone with such hostility will allow. The more you make claims proportional to reality, we can make progress. As long as you're willing to make demonstrably false statements, we can have no intelligent discussion. Is this understood?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why is it so hard for you to discuss ideas *
> 
> Like the idea we've been genetically modifying our food for ten thousand years?
> You ran away from that discussion.



Whatever you want to call it apparently is factual....so just I've professed to be an intellectual, I've also ran away from discussion. Instead of the outrageous assertion that I've ran away from discussion, why don't you actually refer back to what I said here. Besides, am I suppose to respond to everything you say and if I don't I've ran away from it? That is very childish understanding of human life. I don't live to visit USMB and respond to your demonstrably false claims.

But let me take you up on a serious discussion then if your so confident I ran away. You don't even know Monsanto owns 93% of soybeans (in America). Beyond this, I don't know what your point is. We have not been genetically modifying seeds for 10,000 years in a conscious way. Genetics were not discovered until Mendel in the 1860s. Humans did not even come to genetically modify food until 1980s.  "Monsanto was among the first to genetically modify a plant cell, along with three academic teams, which was announced in 1983"

So before any serious discussion you need to do a few things:

1. Tell me how much soybean seeds Monsanto owns and cite sources like I cited the fact that Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds in America. What does your source say if it isn't 93%?

2. Look up what genetic modification even is. Define it clearly. Genetic modification has to do with modifying genetics. When humans plant seeds without having spliced, muted, or inerjected genes to create a slightly altered product, then humans are not performing genetic modification. This is what I said was your fault. You did not distinguish between simple human modification of everyday occurrence and the specifics of genetic modification. This is to be expected with someone who has confidence in themselves but lacks any knowledge to back up their demonstrably false claims.

Since I know you will not do even a simple search, I've done one for you:

A simple search reveals genetic modification is "Genetic modification is the use of modern biotechnology techniques to change the genes of an organism, such as a plant or animal." Are you going to tell me humans modification means the same exact thing as genetic modification? I don't doubt humans have modified where, when, and how they plant seeds. But they have not used modern biotechnology and theories of genetics until very recently to enable genetic modification of seeds.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.
> Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
> If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Mondragon is such a stunning success, then why isn't it expanding and taking over the entire Spanish economy?  The answer is that its not a good business model.  It can't make changes to it's employment without a huge political battle.  That's why private enterprises are superior to government run enterprise.  If they need to cut staffing they can do it in short order.  Government almost never cuts staffing for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Mondragon cooperatives are not part of Spain's government.*
> 
> "Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies."
> 
> *They aren't expanding for the same reason Spain has a 26% unemployment rate; global capitalism has wrecked the world economy for all but a fraction of 1% of humanity and their useful idiots*
> 
> Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...




> But the problems faced by Spain's government and its banks are just symptoms. The real issue is the mess that is Spain's economy.
> 
> Believe it or not, before 2008 Spain's government was one of the least spendthrift in the eurozone - unlike Greece. Or Germany.
> 
> The Spanish government's debts were a mere 36% of its gross domestic product (GDP) (the output of its economy) in 2007, while the German government's were 65%.
> 
> What's more, Madrid was in the process of paying its debts off - it earned more in tax revenues than its total spending. In contrast, Berlin regularly broke the maximum annual borrowing level laid down in the Maastricht Treaty of 3% of GDP.
> 
> Evidently, this crisis has nothing to do with the recklessness of Spain's government.
> 
> Instead, it was other people in Spain who behaved recklessly.
> 
> Interest rates fell to historic lows when the euro was launched in 1999. So Spain's banks, property developers and ordinary home-buyers collectively borrowed and fuelled an enormous property bubble.


BBC News - Spanish economy: What is to blame for its problems?

Please take time to read entirety of article ...


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Chomsky along with Professors Wolff and Alperovitz believe worker-owned enterprises represent a viable alternative to today's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor model:*
> 
> "In, I guess it was 1977, as part of this change in socioeconomic policy, the US Steel Corporation decided to close down its operations in Youngstown, Ohio.
> 
> "Youngstown is a steel town that was built by, and around the steel industry.
> 
> "The working people and the community were extensively involved in steel production and everything that flows off of it, and manufacturing plants spawn all sorts of other things, so it was a steel town.
> 
> "US Steel decided to sell it off, kill the town.
> 
> "Instead of just giving up, the workers in the communities  who are called the stakeholders  offered to buy the plant and run it themselves.
> 
> "That couldve been done; with enough public support, it couldve happened.
> 
> "These were not public issues at the time. It did go to court. The union took the case to court to try to get the right to do it; they lost in the court. But they couldve won, and it couldve been carried forward.
> 
> "Well, so it was a kind of defeat, but like a lot of defeats, it wasnt the end of the story: it was the basis of moving on to something else.
> 
> "And what it spawned was a lot of much-smaller-scale efforts to establish worker-owned enterprises. A lot of its called the Cleveland Model, a lot of them around Cleveland and other parts of Ohio, which are not huge enterprises, but theres a lot of them.
> 
> "Alperovitz, in his book, reviews all of this; you can look at it for details.."
> 
> Noam Chomsky on "America Beyond Capitalism" - Gar Alperovitz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory?   Answer?   Because it was not making a profit.
> 
> If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either.   Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.
> 
> This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.
> Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
> If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
Click to expand...


Thank you.  I get to illustrate the difference between you and me, right here right now.

You cited Chomsky, who said "it could have worked", and that was your 'evidence'.

Here's mine.

Mondragon: Trouble in workers? paradise | The Economist



> Mondragon - Trouble in workers paradise
> 
> NEWS that Spains largest appliance-maker is heading for bankruptcy will not come as a complete shock in the crisis-ridden country. Yet Fagor is a special case. It is part of Mondragon, the worlds biggest group of worker-owned co-operatives.
> 
> Fagor has lost money for five years and has run up debts of 850m ($1.2 billion).  Its factories all ceased production three weeks ago. (written Nov 9th 2013)
> 
> In the past, losses in one part of the group have been covered by the others, but this time Fagors pleas for a 170m lifeline were rejected. Eroski, another co-operative in the Mondragon group and one of Spains largest retailers, is also struggling in the face of stiff competition, and it and two other co-ops vetoed Fagors plan.
> 
> This was a blow to Sergio Treviño, Fagors boss since April. He had planned to move the bulk of production to Poland and to turn Fagor into an ordinary company with outside shareholders. Its Polish unit has now filed for creditor protection and the French unit will follow, triggering cross-default clauses in Spain. As we went to press Fagor looked likely to file for bankruptcy imminently.
> 
> Fagor, with 5,600 workers, is a relatively small part of the whole. Even so, Mr Treviño warns that its fall will have an uncontrollable domino effect on the rest of the group with major social implications. He believes Fagors liquidation would create a 480m hole at Mondragon, including inter-group loans and payments the groups insurance arm would have to make on Fagor workers unemployment policies. Mondragon has promised to find new jobs or offer early-retirement terms for as many as it can of Fagors Spanish workers, but this is a tall order in a country with 27% unemployment. Besides their jobs, workers stand to lose the money they had invested in the co-op if it is liquidated.
> 
> Britains even older co-operative movement (founded in 1844 and nominally owned by its customers rather than its employees) is undergoing a similarly harsh encounter with economic realities. Its banking arm, hit by huge bad debts after taking over another mutual lender, is having to bring in American hedge funds as outside shareholders, because its parent movement was unable to rescue it alone. The co-operative model has its virtues, but there are times when those nasty, money-obsessed capitalists have their uses too.



Let's recap shall we?

Spanish co-op Fagor, has been losing money for 5 years.  Why didn't they invest to reduce costs, or cut pay enough to be profitable?

Because they were a co-op.

The CEO of Fagor tried to privatize the company, and was veto'd by fellow co-ops.   Thus the company closed all operation, and is filing bankruptcy.

Mondragon, the owner of all the co-ops, is now having a crisis, because all the cross-co-op-lending and financing, is going to be crippled by the massive default of Fagor.

Equally, Brittan's Co-op, founded in 1844, is now selling out to evil capitalist American Hedge Funds, in order to avoid bankruptcy.

*
Now, did you notice the difference between what you do on this thread, and what I do?*

You quoted the OPINION of a LINGUIST, as your 'evidence'.

I quoted what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING in the world around us, as my evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a wanna be intellectual.
> Your drivel really isn't intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you backed down from your demonstrably false claim. So now its just your opinion that I'm a wanna-be intellectual. At least you were sensible enough to tacitly recant and that's as best as someone with such hostility will allow. The more you make claims proportional to reality, we can make progress. As long as you're willing to make demonstrably false statements, we can have no intelligent discussion. Is this understood?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why is it so hard for you to discuss ideas *
> 
> Like the idea we've been genetically modifying our food for ten thousand years?
> You ran away from that discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever you want to call it apparently is factual....so just I've professed to be an intellectual, I've also ran away from discussion. Instead of the outrageous assertion that I've ran away from discussion, why don't you actually refer back to what I said here. Besides, am I suppose to respond to everything you say and if I don't I've ran away from it? That is very childish understanding of human life. I don't live to visit USMB and respond to your demonstrably false claims.
> 
> But let me take you up on a serious discussion then if your so confident I ran away. You don't even know Monsanto owns 93% of soybeans (in America). Beyond this, I don't know what your point is. We have not been genetically modifying seeds for 10,000 years in a conscious way. Genetics were not discovered until Mendel in the 1860s. Humans did not even come to genetically modify food until 1980s.  "Monsanto was among the first to genetically modify a plant cell, along with three academic teams, which was announced in 1983"
> 
> So before any serious discussion you need to do a few things:
> 
> 1. Tell me how much soybean seeds Monsanto owns and cite sources like I cited the fact that Monsanto owns 93% of soybean seeds in America. What does your source say if it isn't 93%?
> 
> 2. Look up what genetic modification even is. Define it clearly. Genetic modification has to do with modifying genetics. When humans plant seeds without having spliced, muted, or inerjected genes to create a slightly altered product, then humans are not performing genetic modification. This is what I said was your fault. You did not distinguish between simple human modification of everyday occurrence and the specifics of genetic modification. This is to be expected with someone who has confidence in themselves but lacks any knowledge to back up their demonstrably false claims.
> 
> Since I know you will not do even a simple search, I've done one for you:
> 
> A simple search reveals genetic modification is "Genetic modification is the use of modern biotechnology techniques to change the genes of an organism, such as a plant or animal." Are you going to tell me humans modification means the same exact thing as genetic modification? I don't doubt humans have modified where, when, and how they plant seeds. But they have not used modern biotechnology and theories of genetics until very recently to enable genetic modification of seeds.
Click to expand...


*GMO does not mean modified by humans.*






Do you think the above plant is genetically identical to the plant below?






Did Monsanto do it?


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory?   Answer?   Because it was not making a profit.



You do realize that there are other criteria of action than profit, right?

You realize how this has affected the whole economy of Youngstown, collapsing wages, hopes for a better future for your son or daughter. The market spreads the infected city. As people spend less more employers suffer, and some go out of business. I have friends in Youngstown, Cleveland, Cinci, and I'm well aware of how the local economy in my area was considered "Little Chicago" as late as the 1960s and has now over 80% business are closed.

If you think the decimation of a city and the lives and hopes of those who live there is worth a CEO and Board of Directors (and perhaps shareholders through dividends) gaining immense profit, then go ahead and say it. Your idea of economics than is to forgo human communities (the whole reason markets exist) and pursue the interest of 20-30 people. And those 20-30 people are not hungry, they do not need more things in life, instead, they are just trying to get more stuff and this comes at a heavy cost to the community they left: the cost is causing thousands of current employees to no longer have work and prevent many more thousands of future good-paying jobs that secure the community against crisis. So hundreds have become homeless and many more are staying with relatives. This puts strains on all the family ties as more money is required while there are less jobs.

So basically your economics says fuck human communities, profit is most important institution in our life. So let's benefit 30 people at the cost of thousands and hundreds of thousands in a community. GO ahead and say that you prefer money of human life. You can try to pass it off as if "economics" justifies the decimation of human communities but we all know economics can only offer such justification if we ignore ethical and human criticisms of profit. Which I'm sure if you reply that you'll leave out the fact that capitalism does not exist in a vacuum and neither does profit, it depends categorically on the existence of human communities to trade commodities in a market and when the market spreads crisis from US Steel closing down, human communities are depreciated as the lives of 30 white men make more money than before due to lower wages in Bangladesh or wherever.

So please go ahead and ignore the existence of humans for the sake of individual profit. You are terribly narrow sighted if you think capitalism can continue to leave its communities in decline after they determine that profit maximization is elsewhere. Capitalism is thus a story of taking from communities until wages get too high and then they decimate hopes and lives by determining people are less important than fiat money. You sure have your priorities straight, Androw.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did Monsanto do it?



Can you participate in an active discussion or are you incapable? Demanding me to say Monsanto creates GMO products is equivalent to getting me to say Monsanto is Monsanto. That is not an interesting conversation. The interesting conversation is how is genetic modification done? Through modern biotechnology that came into being around the early 80s. How did humans genetically modify seeds before genetic modification was created? The answer is they didn't. Human modification of seeds through planting in different locations, at different times, under different conditions has been happening for 50,000+ years. However, humans have only been involved in genetic modification since the early 80s.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Monsanto do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you participate in an active discussion or are you incapable? Demanding me to say Monsanto creates GMO products is equivalent to getting me to say Monsanto is Monsanto. That is not an interesting conversation. The interesting conversation is how is genetic modification done? Through modern biotechnology that came into being around the early 80s. How did humans genetically modify seeds before genetic modification was created? The answer is they didn't. Human modification of seeds through planting in different locations, at different times, under different conditions has been happening for 50,000+ years. However, humans have only been involved in genetic modification since the early 80s.
Click to expand...


Did Monsanto do the genetic modifications in my post, or were they done before Monsanto existed?

*The interesting conversation is how is genetic modification done? *

How was it done to turn my first example into my second example?

*How did humans genetically modify seeds before genetic modification was created? The answer is they didn't. *

They didn't? Then explain my pictures. Was it magic? Prayer? What?


----------



## gnarlylove

I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?



Yes, we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.
Long before Monsanto existed.


----------



## bripat9643

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory?   Answer?   Because it was not making a profit.
> 
> If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either.   Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.
> 
> This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.
> 
> 
> 
> And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.
> Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
> If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I get to illustrate the difference between you and me, right here right now.
> 
> You cited Chomsky, who said "it could have worked", and that was your 'evidence'.
> 
> Here's mine.
> 
> Mondragon: Trouble in workers? paradise | The Economist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mondragon - Trouble in workers&#8217; paradise
> 
> NEWS that Spain&#8217;s largest appliance-maker is heading for bankruptcy will not come as a complete shock in the crisis-ridden country. Yet Fagor is a special case. It is part of Mondragon, the world&#8217;s biggest group of worker-owned co-operatives.
> 
> Fagor has lost money for five years and has run up debts of &#8364;850m ($1.2 billion).  Its factories all ceased production three weeks ago. (written Nov 9th 2013)
> 
> In the past, losses in one part of the group have been covered by the others, but this time Fagor&#8217;s pleas for a &#8364;170m lifeline were rejected. Eroski, another co-operative in the Mondragon group and one of Spain&#8217;s largest retailers, is also struggling in the face of stiff competition, and it and two other co-ops vetoed Fagor&#8217;s plan.
> 
> This was a blow to Sergio Treviño, Fagor&#8217;s boss since April. He had planned to move the bulk of production to Poland and to turn Fagor into an ordinary company with outside shareholders. Its Polish unit has now filed for creditor protection and the French unit will follow, triggering cross-default clauses in Spain. As we went to press Fagor looked likely to file for bankruptcy imminently.
> 
> Fagor, with 5,600 workers, is a relatively small part of the whole. Even so, Mr Treviño warns that its fall &#8220;will have an uncontrollable domino effect on the rest of the group with major social implications.&#8221; He believes Fagor&#8217;s liquidation would create a &#8364;480m hole at Mondragon, including inter-group loans and payments the group&#8217;s insurance arm would have to make on Fagor workers&#8217; unemployment policies. Mondragon has promised to find new jobs or offer early-retirement terms for as many as it can of Fagor&#8217;s Spanish workers, but this is a tall order in a country with 27% unemployment. Besides their jobs, workers stand to lose the money they had invested in the co-op if it is liquidated.
> 
> Britain&#8217;s even older co-operative movement (founded in 1844 and nominally owned by its customers rather than its employees) is undergoing a similarly harsh encounter with economic realities. Its banking arm, hit by huge bad debts after taking over another mutual lender, is having to bring in American hedge funds as outside shareholders, because its parent movement was unable to rescue it alone. The co-operative model has its virtues, but there are times when those nasty, money-obsessed capitalists have their uses too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's recap shall we?
> 
> Spanish co-op Fagor, has been losing money for 5 years.  Why didn't they invest to reduce costs, or cut pay enough to be profitable?
> 
> Because they were a co-op.
> 
> The CEO of Fagor tried to privatize the company, and was veto'd by fellow co-ops.   Thus the company closed all operation, and is filing bankruptcy.
> 
> Mondragon, the owner of all the co-ops, is now having a crisis, because all the cross-co-op-lending and financing, is going to be crippled by the massive default of Fagor.
> 
> Equally, Brittan's Co-op, founded in 1844, is now selling out to evil capitalist American Hedge Funds, in order to avoid bankruptcy.
Click to expand...


Such is the inevitable fate of all COOPs unless they enjoy some kind of government enforced monopoly, like the Pistachio growers COOP or they get a bailout from the government.

The socialists continue to claim that their ideals will lead to greater wealth, economic security and well being, but they continually fail wherever they are put into practice.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.
> Long before Monsanto existed.
Click to expand...


Here's a classic example of a socialist playing dumb and thinking it's a winning argument.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.
> Long before Monsanto existed.
Click to expand...


We did not create GMO plants until early 1980s, according to Monsanto. http://hbr.org/product/Monsanto-s-March-into-Bio/an/690009-PDF-ENG
1983 is 31 years ago.
31 years is not thousands of years.
Therefore we have not created GMO plants for thousands of years.

We have randomly and selectively modified plants for thousands of years and they have modified themselves through mutation. If that's your idea of GMO, you're being silly. The type of modification that's been going on thousands of years does not include the use of biotechnology. We have only been capable of using biotechnology to genetically modify seeds in the last 32 years. I agree with you that we have modified plants in a variety of ways unconscious and conscious ways but we did not use biotechnology. We simply selected a seed over another because it grew faster for example. GMO as used by Monsanto represents the use of genetic engineering through biotechnology to alter specific genes and their function. Humans have not been doing that for thousands of years.


----------



## Andylusion

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.
> Long before Monsanto existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a classic example of a socialist playing dumb and thinking it's a winning argument.
Click to expand...


I don't think he's playing....


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.
> Long before Monsanto existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did not create GMO plants until early 1980s, according to Monsanto. Monsanto's March into Biotechnology (A) - Harvard Business Review
> 1983 is 31 years ago.
> 31 years is not thousands of years.
> Therefore we have not created GMO plants for thousands of years.
> 
> We have randomly and selectively modified plants for thousands of years and they have modified themselves through mutation. If that's your idea of GMO, you're being silly. The type of modification that's been going on thousands of years does not include the use of biotechnology. We have only been capable of using biotechnology to genetically modify seeds in the last 32 years. I agree with you that we have modified plants in a variety of ways unconscious and conscious ways but we did not use biotechnology. We simply selected a seed over another because it grew faster for example. GMO as used by Monsanto represents the use of genetic engineering through biotechnology to alter specific genes and their function. Humans have not been doing that for thousands of years.
Click to expand...


Yes, Humans have been genetically modifying animals and plants for thousands of years.   He just posted you a direct, specific example of such.






Do you still not understand?    The two plants are the same.   They are both Maize (Corn in English)..

One is the GMO, which is domesticated Maize.  The other is wild Maize, which you can still find in places.

Humans have created GMOs for thousands of years.
Domestication - Clive Roots - Google Books

"The general principle of producing a GMO is to alter the genetic material of an organism's genome. Genetic modification caused by human activity has been occurring since humans first domesticated animals in 12,000 BC and plants around 10,000 BC" 

There are different ways of breeding out, or changing the genetic makeup of a plant or animal.   You can intentionally breed them in such a way, or grow them in such a way, that traits you want are enhanced, while traits you don't are minimized.    That is Genetic Modification. 

The only difference between that, and what we are doing today, is that we are using a scientist lab.

But the fundamentals of what we are doing, is exactly the same.


----------



## gnarlylove

I have consistently said humans have modified plants for millennia. The fact remains we have not used biotechnology until recently.  You think the use of biotechnology is not a fundamental difference?
"Monsanto scientists became the first to genetically modify a plant cell in 1982. Five years later, Monsanto conducted the first field tests of genetically engineered crops." 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#The_era_of_genetically_modified_crops_.281980s.29


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Mondragon is such a stunning success, then why isn't it expanding and taking over the entire Spanish economy?  The answer is that its not a good business model.  It can't make changes to it's employment without a huge political battle.  That's why private enterprises are superior to government run enterprise.  If they need to cut staffing they can do it in short order.  Government almost never cuts staffing for anything.
> 
> 
> 
> *Mondragon cooperatives are not part of Spain's government.*
> 
> "Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Mondragon is truly run by it's employees, then it's run the same way government is run.  Do they take a majority vote when they want to decide whether to lay anyone off?
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They aren't expanding for the same reason Spain has a 26% unemployment rate; global capitalism has wrecked the world economy for all but a fraction of 1% of humanity and their useful idiots*
> 
> Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spain has a 26% unemployment rate because of all the government's destructive economic policies, not because of capitalism.  So in a sense, your claim is correct.  If capitalism is destroying world economy, then why does the United states have a 7.3% unemployment rate?
Click to expand...

*Spain's and the US unemployment rates have risen due to their banking systems buckling under the weight of a massive amount of toxic loans linked to the housing bubble. Wall Street owns both governments, and the best is yet to come.*

"And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama.

"*While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster*, Rubin and Summers didnt do too badly. 

"Rubins deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called 'Citigroup'. 

"Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup  which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million.

"Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama. 

"Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubins insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US 'Economics Tsar' and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury). 

"In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to 'consulting' for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers net worth by $31 million since the 'end-game' memo.

"That Obama would, at Robert Rubins demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game."

*Now...blame "government."*


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> United Airlines was worker owned.
> 
> How'd that turn out?
> 
> 
> 
> *'Tuned out better for Wall Street.
> Are you surprised?*
> 
> ""In 1994 United's pilots, machinists, bag handlers and non-contract employees agreed to acquire 55% of company stock in exchange for 15% to 25% salary concessions.
> 
> "The flight attendants voted to not participate in the deal, and at the beginning some wore buttons saying 'we just work here.'
> 
> "The Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) made United the largest employee-owned corporation in the world..."
> 
> "The financial outcomes of the ESOP were decidedly uneven for different players.
> 
> "As part of ESOP agreement, United CEO Stephen Wolf resigned and took a consulting job with Lazard Freres, the very investment company he had hired to advise United's board during the ESOP buyout process.
> 
> "Stewart Oran, the key legal advisor to the pilots' union, received a $5.5 million package to join the management of the new employee-owned company as legal counsel after the ESOP was formed.[25]
> 
> "United's unions, having larger voice in running the company, later successfully bargained for significant pay increases, but the effect was only short-term.
> 
> "The rank and file employees were locked into their stock, which got wiped out in the eventual bankruptcy.
> 
> "It was around this period (in 1993) that United introduced its grey and blue color scheme. It had been criticized that the color scheme blended with the darkness during nighttime operations."
> 
> History of United Airlines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"The Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) made United the largest employee-owned corporation in the world..."*
> 
> Awesome! Screw those CEOs, we'll show how the working man can get it done!!!
> 
> *"The rank and file employees were locked into their stock, which got wiped out in the eventual bankruptcy"*
> 
> Wait, what?
Click to expand...

"Still, after Uniteds failure  not to mention the problems at Enron, WorldCom and all the dot-coms, where employees saw the retirement and stock-option fortunes theyd invested in their companies melt away  Americans may now be leerier than ever of the prospect of owning their bosses companies. 

"Should they be? 

"Does it make sense to have workers telling companies how to behave?

It does make sense if the plan is right. If you study what was wrong with United, and whats right with successful companies in which employees have equity, one thing is consistent: When firms make employees feel as though they have a say in what a company does, and when employees feel as though theyre working alongside managers rather than against them, companies work better..." 

"Owners and workers are bound to be at odds, goes traditional thinking  thats basic capitalism.

"But thats not true. 

"*Contrary to what some conservatives say*, employee ownership can increase productivity, decrease production costs, and reduce the waste that comes with a bad labor-management environment. 

"It can do a lot more, too. 

"If the corporate world embraced employee ownership, we might see companies that were more accountable to their workers and to the world. 

"We wouldnt see CEOs making 500 times as much as the average worker, we wouldnt see unions making obviously untenable demands of their companies, and  with all the new wealth flowing to workers  we could reduce the gap between the countrys rich and poor. 

"And we could still call it capitalism."

United?s ESOP fable - Salon.com


----------



## georgephillip

DrDoomNGloom said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Mondragon is such a stunning success, then why isn't it expanding and taking over the entire Spanish economy?  The answer is that its not a good business model.  It can't make changes to it's employment without a huge political battle.  That's why private enterprises are superior to government run enterprise.  If they need to cut staffing they can do it in short order.  Government almost never cuts staffing for anything.
> 
> 
> 
> *Mondragon cooperatives are not part of Spain's government.*
> 
> "Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies."
> 
> *They aren't expanding for the same reason Spain has a 26% unemployment rate; global capitalism has wrecked the world economy for all but a fraction of 1% of humanity and their useful idiots*
> 
> Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the problems faced by Spain's government and its banks are just symptoms. The real issue is the mess that is Spain's economy.
> 
> Believe it or not, before 2008 Spain's government was one of the least spendthrift in the eurozone - unlike Greece. Or Germany.
> 
> The Spanish government's debts were a mere 36% of its gross domestic product (GDP) (the output of its economy) in 2007, while the German government's were 65%.
> 
> What's more, Madrid was in the process of paying its debts off - it earned more in tax revenues than its total spending. In contrast, Berlin regularly broke the maximum annual borrowing level laid down in the Maastricht Treaty of 3% of GDP.
> 
> Evidently, this crisis has nothing to do with the recklessness of Spain's government.
> 
> Instead, it was other people in Spain who behaved recklessly.
> 
> Interest rates fell to historic lows when the euro was launched in 1999. So Spain's banks, property developers and ordinary home-buyers collectively borrowed and fuelled an enormous property bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BBC News - Spanish economy: What is to blame for its problems?
> 
> Please take time to read entirety of article ...
Click to expand...

*I did.
Then I read Krugman's explanation of Spain's crisis.
Do you agree with him?*

"Consider the state of affairs in Spain, (2012) which is now the epicenter of the crisis. 

"Never mind talk of recession; Spain is in full-on depression, with the overall unemployment rate at 23.6 percent, comparable to America at the depths of the Great Depression, and the youth unemployment rate over 50 percent. 

"This cant go on  and the realization that it cant go on is what is sending Spanish borrowing costs ever higher.

"In a way, it doesnt really matter how Spain got to this point  but for what its worth, the Spanish story bears no resemblance to the morality tales so popular among European officials, especially in Germany. 

"Spain wasnt fiscally profligate  on the eve of the crisis it had low debt and a budget surplus. 

"Unfortunately, it also had an enormous housing bubble, a bubble made possible in large part by huge loans from German banks to their Spanish counterparts. 

"When the bubble burst, the Spanish economy was left high and dry; Spains fiscal problems are a consequence of its depression, not its cause."

*Is it worth asking who's gotten rich(er) from Spain's economic woes?*


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But *WHY* did US Steel sell off the factory?   Answer?   Because it was not making a profit.
> 
> If the Unions had bought the plant, can kept the same wage/cost structure, they would not have made a profit either.   Socializing something, doesn't magically change the economic math.
> 
> This is yet another example, of dozens, where Noam Chomsky proves once again, he's a great linguist, and a terrible economist.
> 
> 
> 
> And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.
> Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
> If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I get to illustrate the difference between you and me, right here right now.
> 
> You cited Chomsky, who said "it could have worked", and that was your 'evidence'.
> 
> Here's mine.
> 
> Mondragon: Trouble in workers? paradise | The Economist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mondragon - Trouble in workers paradise
> 
> NEWS that Spains largest appliance-maker is heading for bankruptcy will not come as a complete shock in the crisis-ridden country. Yet Fagor is a special case. It is part of Mondragon, the worlds biggest group of worker-owned co-operatives.
> 
> Fagor has lost money for five years and has run up debts of 850m ($1.2 billion).  Its factories all ceased production three weeks ago. (written Nov 9th 2013)
> 
> In the past, losses in one part of the group have been covered by the others, but this time Fagors pleas for a 170m lifeline were rejected. Eroski, another co-operative in the Mondragon group and one of Spains largest retailers, is also struggling in the face of stiff competition, and it and two other co-ops vetoed Fagors plan.
> 
> This was a blow to Sergio Treviño, Fagors boss since April. He had planned to move the bulk of production to Poland and to turn Fagor into an ordinary company with outside shareholders. Its Polish unit has now filed for creditor protection and the French unit will follow, triggering cross-default clauses in Spain. As we went to press Fagor looked likely to file for bankruptcy imminently.
> 
> Fagor, with 5,600 workers, is a relatively small part of the whole. Even so, Mr Treviño warns that its fall will have an uncontrollable domino effect on the rest of the group with major social implications. He believes Fagors liquidation would create a 480m hole at Mondragon, including inter-group loans and payments the groups insurance arm would have to make on Fagor workers unemployment policies. Mondragon has promised to find new jobs or offer early-retirement terms for as many as it can of Fagors Spanish workers, but this is a tall order in a country with 27% unemployment. Besides their jobs, workers stand to lose the money they had invested in the co-op if it is liquidated.
> 
> Britains even older co-operative movement (founded in 1844 and nominally owned by its customers rather than its employees) is undergoing a similarly harsh encounter with economic realities. Its banking arm, hit by huge bad debts after taking over another mutual lender, is having to bring in American hedge funds as outside shareholders, because its parent movement was unable to rescue it alone. The co-operative model has its virtues, but there are times when those nasty, money-obsessed capitalists have their uses too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's recap shall we?
> 
> Spanish co-op Fagor, has been losing money for 5 years.  Why didn't they invest to reduce costs, or cut pay enough to be profitable?
> 
> Because they were a co-op.
> 
> The CEO of Fagor tried to privatize the company, and was veto'd by fellow co-ops.   Thus the company closed all operation, and is filing bankruptcy.
> 
> Mondragon, the owner of all the co-ops, is now having a crisis, because all the cross-co-op-lending and financing, is going to be crippled by the massive default of Fagor.
> 
> Equally, Brittan's Co-op, founded in 1844, is now selling out to evil capitalist American Hedge Funds, in order to avoid bankruptcy.
> 
> *
> Now, did you notice the difference between what you do on this thread, and what I do?*
> 
> You quoted the OPINION of a LINGUIST, as your 'evidence'.
> 
> I quoted what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING in the world around us, as my evidence.
Click to expand...

*You quoted a single anonymous source which ACTUALLY isn't all that impressive, but it is a big improvement over your usual arguments.*

"Almost 28,000 companies have declared bankruptcy during Spain's five-year economic crisis, hitting a peak of 2,854 during the first three months of 2013. 

"But Fagor Electrodomésticos is not just any business. 

"Launched in 1956 by a Catholic priest named José María Arizmendiarrieta and five students from a technical college he started in the wake of the Spanish Civil War, Fagor is the foundational unit of Mondragón, the world's biggest conglomerate of worker-owned cooperatives..."

"Similarly, when *Richard Wolff, a professor emeritus of economics* at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, visited Fagor two years ago, he was impressed by the seriousness with which management handled buying assembly line equipment, which came from outside the Mondragón family of industrial companies. 'They gave me a lecture on policy: You buy within Mondragón if quality or price was competitive. If not, you go outside,' he says..."

"So why did Fagor fail? 

"It's easy to say that Mondragon's cooperative model wasn't up to dealing with economic crisis -- that it was too touchy-feely for tough times -- but the reality has less to do with ideology than with simple economics.

"'Co-operatives are subject to changing tastes, technologies, mismanagement -- all the usual reasons why an enterprise can have trouble,' says Wolff. 'It would make no more sense to question co-ops because one goes out of business than to look at Detroit and say, "'Isn't capitalism a failure.'"

"In the case of Fagor, which was the biggest appliance maker in Spain and France, the Spanish housing bubble allowed it to ignore longstanding business problems, says Adrián Zelaia, who spent 25 years at Mondragón, including 10 as secretary general, before leaving in a management dispute in 2010.

"As a European maker of mid-range appliances, Fagor did not have the low costs of emerging market brands, nor did it have the superior technology of the top German factories, Zelaia says. To deal with this, the company took advantage of easy credit to expand, most notably by buying the French appliance company Brandt in 2005.

"'It was a temptation for medium and large businesses to flee from their problems via acquisitions,' says Zelaia, now president of the Ekai Center, a think tank.

"Fagor was thus saddled with debt when the housing bubble burst in 2008. 

"It marked the beginning of the end for the company, which had 5,700 employees, 2,000 of whom were in Spain.

"'The housing bubble popped, and that combined with a financial crisis, so credit was cut back, consumption dropped, products came in from low-cost countries, and raw material prices rose,'... 'We're a cooperative, but we don't live outside the market.'"

Defiant Spanish workers stage lock-in, resist layoffs - Fortune Management


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.
> Long before Monsanto existed.
Click to expand...

Explain how we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you've proved, yet again, you're neither.
> Neither are you particularly knowledgeable about worker owned enterprises, like Mondragon, which doesn't pay management at a rate of hundreds of times the average worker.
> If you are going to criticize my sources, give me a good reason to believe you possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to make an informed opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I get to illustrate the difference between you and me, right here right now.
> 
> You cited Chomsky, who said "it could have worked", and that was your 'evidence'.
> 
> Here's mine.
> 
> Mondragon: Trouble in workers? paradise | The Economist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mondragon - Trouble in workers paradise
> 
> NEWS that Spains largest appliance-maker is heading for bankruptcy will not come as a complete shock in the crisis-ridden country. Yet Fagor is a special case. It is part of Mondragon, the worlds biggest group of worker-owned co-operatives.
> 
> Fagor has lost money for five years and has run up debts of 850m ($1.2 billion).  Its factories all ceased production three weeks ago. (written Nov 9th 2013)
> 
> In the past, losses in one part of the group have been covered by the others, but this time Fagors pleas for a 170m lifeline were rejected. Eroski, another co-operative in the Mondragon group and one of Spains largest retailers, is also struggling in the face of stiff competition, and it and two other co-ops vetoed Fagors plan.
> 
> This was a blow to Sergio Treviño, Fagors boss since April. He had planned to move the bulk of production to Poland and to turn Fagor into an ordinary company with outside shareholders. Its Polish unit has now filed for creditor protection and the French unit will follow, triggering cross-default clauses in Spain. As we went to press Fagor looked likely to file for bankruptcy imminently.
> 
> Fagor, with 5,600 workers, is a relatively small part of the whole. Even so, Mr Treviño warns that its fall will have an uncontrollable domino effect on the rest of the group with major social implications. He believes Fagors liquidation would create a 480m hole at Mondragon, including inter-group loans and payments the groups insurance arm would have to make on Fagor workers unemployment policies. Mondragon has promised to find new jobs or offer early-retirement terms for as many as it can of Fagors Spanish workers, but this is a tall order in a country with 27% unemployment. Besides their jobs, workers stand to lose the money they had invested in the co-op if it is liquidated.
> 
> Britains even older co-operative movement (founded in 1844 and nominally owned by its customers rather than its employees) is undergoing a similarly harsh encounter with economic realities. Its banking arm, hit by huge bad debts after taking over another mutual lender, is having to bring in American hedge funds as outside shareholders, because its parent movement was unable to rescue it alone. The co-operative model has its virtues, but there are times when those nasty, money-obsessed capitalists have their uses too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's recap shall we?
> 
> Spanish co-op Fagor, has been losing money for 5 years.  Why didn't they invest to reduce costs, or cut pay enough to be profitable?
> 
> Because they were a co-op.
> 
> The CEO of Fagor tried to privatize the company, and was veto'd by fellow co-ops.   Thus the company closed all operation, and is filing bankruptcy.
> 
> Mondragon, the owner of all the co-ops, is now having a crisis, because all the cross-co-op-lending and financing, is going to be crippled by the massive default of Fagor.
> 
> Equally, Brittan's Co-op, founded in 1844, is now selling out to evil capitalist American Hedge Funds, in order to avoid bankruptcy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such is the inevitable fate of all COOPs unless they enjoy some kind of government enforced monopoly, like the Pistachio growers COOP or they get a bailout from the government.
> 
> The socialists continue to claim that their ideals will lead to greater wealth, economic security and well being, but they continually fail wherever they are put into practice.
Click to expand...

*Some socialists see the problem you're blind to:*

"As we have explained before, the two fault lines of the crisis of capitalism in Spain are the massive debts accumulated in its banking system as a result of the housing bubble which fuelled the previous growth cycle, and the budget deficit which has been accumulated by the state as a result of the economic crisis itself and the initial bailout of the banks..."

"(T)he problem with Spain (and also Italy) is that these two countries economies, unlike Ireland, Portugal and Greece, are too big to be bailed out. 

"Spain is the fourth largest economy in the euro-zone. 

"The cost would be unbearable for the European economy as a whole. 

"However, they are also too big to be allowed to collapse. 

"This is the contradiction that Spanish and European (in particular German) capitalists are faced with."

*Naturally, being good capitalists, they'll use government to socialize the cost by cutting pensions and raising the retirement age while privatizing profits for all the vulture capitalists who caused the Great Recession.*

Deepening crisis of capitalism in Spain building up to a social explosion


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.
> Long before Monsanto existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.
Click to expand...


Very slowly. Check it out.

Unmodified.






Modified.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know GMO exists. What's your point? Is that what you repeated four times now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we've been modifying plant genes for thousands of years.
> Long before Monsanto existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did not create GMO plants until early 1980s, according to Monsanto. Monsanto's March into Biotechnology (A) - Harvard Business Review
> 1983 is 31 years ago.
> 31 years is not thousands of years.
> Therefore we have not created GMO plants for thousands of years.
> 
> We have randomly and selectively modified plants for thousands of years and they have modified themselves through mutation. If that's your idea of GMO, you're being silly. The type of modification that's been going on thousands of years does not include the use of biotechnology. We have only been capable of using biotechnology to genetically modify seeds in the last 32 years. I agree with you that we have modified plants in a variety of ways unconscious and conscious ways but we did not use biotechnology. We simply selected a seed over another because it grew faster for example. GMO as used by Monsanto represents the use of genetic engineering through biotechnology to alter specific genes and their function. Humans have not been doing that for thousands of years.
Click to expand...


*We did not create GMO plants until early 1980s*

We modified plant genes long before GMOs. Long before Monsanto.
Long before we knew that genes existed.

*31 years is not thousands of years.*

Durr.

*We have randomly and selectively modified plants for thousands of years and they have modified themselves through mutation.*

Yes!

*If that's your idea of GMO, you're being silly. *

Why? Slow genetic modifications don't count as genetic modifications?
Please tell me why. Be as specific as you can. Use science, not just feelings. Thanks!

*We have only been capable of using biotechnology to genetically modify seeds in the last 32 years. *

It's true. Now we can make modifications faster and more safely than we did in the past.

*We simply selected a seed over another because it grew faster for example. *

Yes. That is one way to modify the genes of a plant. 

*GMO as used by Monsanto represents the use of genetic engineering through biotechnology to alter specific genes and their function. Humans have not been doing that for thousands of years*

I never claimed the way Monsanto modified genes was identical to the way humans have modified genes for thousands of years.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mondragon cooperatives are not part of Spain's government.*
> 
> "Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Mondragon is truly run by it's employees, then it's run the same way government is run.  Do they take a majority vote when they want to decide whether to lay anyone off?
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They aren't expanding for the same reason Spain has a 26% unemployment rate; global capitalism has wrecked the world economy for all but a fraction of 1% of humanity and their useful idiots*
> 
> Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spain has a 26% unemployment rate because of all the government's destructive economic policies, not because of capitalism.  So in a sense, your claim is correct.  If capitalism is destroying world economy, then why does the United states have a 7.3% unemployment rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Spain's and the US unemployment rates have risen due to their banking systems buckling under the weight of a massive amount of toxic loans linked to the housing bubble. Wall Street owns both governments, and the best is yet to come.*
> 
> "And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama.
> 
> "*While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster*, Rubin and Summers didnt do too badly.
> 
> "Rubins deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called 'Citigroup'.
> 
> "Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup  which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million.
> 
> "Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama.
> 
> "Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubins insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US 'Economics Tsar' and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury).
> 
> "In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to 'consulting' for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers net worth by $31 million since the 'end-game' memo.
> 
> "That Obama would, at Robert Rubins demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game."
> 
> *Now...blame "government."*
Click to expand...


*"Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup  which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million"*

Citigroup never went bankrupt.


----------



## gnarlylove

How did the seed become modified as a seed? We all know corn seeds grow into corn stalks. That doesn't explain how the seed repels roundup brand weed control. You do realize that's a major point of GMO, right? To not kill the plant when using toxic chemicals like roundup and other pesticides. You need pictures of how a normal seed that doesn't repel roundup was transformed into a seed that does repels roundup, which you don't have.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> How did the seed become modified as a seed? We all know corn seeds grow into corn stalks. That doesn't explain how the seed repels roundup brand weed control. You do realize that's a major point of GMO, right? To not kill the plant when using toxic chemicals like roundup and other pesticides. You need pictures of how a normal seed that doesn't repel roundup was transformed into a seed that does repels roundup, which you don't have.



*How did the seed become modified as a seed?*

Which one? Where?

*That doesn't explain how the seed repels roundup brand weed control. *

I could explain it to you, but I don't think you're up to speed on science yet.
Are you still confused about old fashioned, very slow, genetic modification?

The kind that also turned wolves into everything from Great Danes to Chihuahuas?

*To not kill the plant when using toxic chemicals like roundup and other pesticides. *

Roundup is toxic? According to what definition of the word?
And it isn't a pesticide, BTW.

*You need pictures of how a normal seed that doesn't repel roundup was transformed into a seed that does repels roundup,*

Why would I need that to show that humans genetically modified plants for thousands of years before Monsanto?


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *That doesn't explain how the seed repels roundup brand weed control. *
> 
> I could explain it to you, but I don't think you're up to speed on science yet.
> Are you still confused about old fashioned, very slow, genetic modification?
> 
> The kind that also turned wolves into everything from Great Danes to Chihuahuas?



So you make a difference between modern GMO and as you call it "old-fashioned genetic modification?"

If you recall, my whole point was to get you to recognize the difference between, what I called regular human modification, and modern genetic engineering. It looks like by the fact of your own words, you made a plain difference between GMO products that result in roundup resistance and another "very slow genetic modification." It looks like you admitted my point, finally, that what we would call (modern) GMO, which uses biotechnology is not the same thing as modification through selection or as you call it "slow genetic modification."

Why did it take this long for you to understand the difference?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Roundup is toxic? According to what definition of the word?



It nuetralizes and terminates plants effectively. That surely qualifies for meeting the standards of a toxin, aka poison.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That doesn't explain how the seed repels roundup brand weed control. *
> 
> I could explain it to you, but I don't think you're up to speed on science yet.
> Are you still confused about old fashioned, very slow, genetic modification?
> 
> The kind that also turned wolves into everything from Great Danes to Chihuahuas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you make a difference between modern GMO and as you call it "old-fashioned genetic modification?"
> 
> If you recall, my whole point was to get you to recognize the difference between, what I called regular human modification, and modern genetic engineering. It looks like by the fact of your own words, you made a plain difference between GMO products that result in roundup resistance and another "very slow genetic modification." It looks like you admitted my point, finally, that what we would call (modern) GMO, which uses biotechnology is not the same thing as modification through selection or as you call it "slow genetic modification."
> 
> Why did it take this long for you to understand the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roundup is toxic? According to what definition of the word?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It nuetralizes and terminates plants effectively. That surely qualifies for meeting the standards of a toxin, aka poison.
Click to expand...



*If you recall, my whole point was to get you to recognize the difference between, what I called regular human modification, and modern genetic engineering.*

My whole point was to get you to recognize that most of our food has been genetically modified for thousands of years. I've always known the difference between what Monsanto scientists do and what American Indians took thousands of years to do.

*It looks like by the fact of your own words, you made a plain difference between GMO products that result in roundup resistance and another "very slow genetic modification."*

There is a plain difference, one is much faster.
There is a similarity, they both modify genes.

*It looks like you admitted my point*

Your point was we didn't genetically modify plants before Monsanto.
Your point was wrong.

*Why did it take this long for you to understand the difference?*

I've understood the difference for decades.
Glad you finally admit the similarity. Or do you?

*It nuetralizes and terminates plants effectively*

That would make it an herbicide.
You know the difference between an herbicide and a pesticide, right?


----------



## gnarlylove

It's cute how you turned your argument 180 degrees and accused me of not making the distinction. let's go back to the original post where this started:



gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans. You should stop eating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does GMO mean modified by humans? Your comment only has meaning if GMO means simply modified by humans. But we all know GMO stands for something quite specific, so sadly your left stinky brown diarrhea for us all to read. Do us a favor and think before you type.
Click to expand...


Throughout I've mentioned the fact that there is a difference between simple modification and selection (which includes the selection of certain phenotypes) and the very specific meaning that GMO carries.

So who kept saying GMO has been around thousands of years? You did. GMO has a specific definition that uses biotechnology to engineer seeds to have certain characteristics. That means GMO has not been around for thousands of years. This does not mean the genetic modification has not occurred, it definitely has through human intervention. However, this intervention did not use biotechnology and therefore was not a product of GMO. I was trying to alert you to the difference between these two types of modification, one general type that includes gradual modification of genes, and one specific type using biotechnology on genes.

The fact is, you've and I both have completed the purpose of this discussion. We both understand the difference and I'm glad we could reach common ground. Can you believe you agree with me on something? I bet you feel sick.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> It's cute how you turned your argument 180 degrees and accused me of not making the distinction. let's go back to the original post where this started:
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans. You should stop eating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does GMO mean modified by humans? Your comment only has meaning if GMO means simply modified by humans. But we all know GMO stands for something quite specific, so sadly your left stinky brown diarrhea for us all to read. Do us a favor and think before you type.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Throughout I've mentioned the fact that there is a difference between simple modification and selection (which includes the selection of certain phenotypes) and the very specific meaning that GMO carries.
> 
> So who kept saying GMO has been around thousands of years? You did. GMO has a specific definition that uses biotechnology to engineer seeds to have certain characteristics. I was trying to alert you to the difference between these two types of modification, one general type that includes genes, and one specific type using biotechnology.
> 
> The fact is, you've and I both have completed the purpose of this discussion. We both understand the difference and I'm glad we could reach common ground.
Click to expand...


GMO is a genetically modified organism.

Do you deny that humans have genetically modified plants for thousands of years?

Do you deny we genetically modified this.....






To turn it into this....






Centuries before Monsanto?


----------



## gnarlylove

The problem is you are equivocating between (very slow) genetic modification and (biotechnology) genetic modification (i.e. "GMO").


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does GMO mean modified by humans? Your comment only has meaning if GMO means simply modified by humans. But we all know GMO stands for something quite specific, so sadly your left stinky brown diarrhea for us all to read. Do us a favor and think before you type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Does GMO mean modified by humans? *
> 
> Most of the food you eat is genetically different than it was before man.
> Do you need examples?
> 
> *Do us a favor and think before you type.*
> 
> Do me a favor and think. It would be a nice change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said it once but you didn't seem to understand because you're too busy defaming me. Use your rational faculties and pull your brain out of the murky waters of one-ups-manship.
> 
> GMO does not mean modified by humans.
> 
> GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning.
> 
> Thus, we must ask are their instances where "modification by humans" does not entail genetic modification? Does tattooing count as modification of the body? Yes. Is it genetic modification? No. Thus, your joke that someone should stop eating because all food has been "modified by humans" is inane. Of course, you don't care how imprecise you are because your arguments are fueled on misrepresentation.
> 
> The argument is not that we should not eat food because it's been "modified by humans" but we should be aware of what is GMO and is not. We don't have this option as most labels do not carry this information. And as you correctly identify most foods are GMO like corn. The argument is not to stop eating food, but it is to allow the public awareness of what they are eating. See the difference? I hope so but I doubt it because it nullifies your pointless post and inane joke.
Click to expand...


*GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning.*

See, you had it way back here, then you lost it again.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Mondragon is truly run by it's employees, then it's run the same way government is run.  Do they take a majority vote when they want to decide whether to lay anyone off?
> 
> 
> 
> Spain has a 26% unemployment rate because of all the government's destructive economic policies, not because of capitalism.  So in a sense, your claim is correct.  If capitalism is destroying world economy, then why does the United states have a 7.3% unemployment rate?
> 
> 
> 
> *Spain's and the US unemployment rates have risen due to their banking systems buckling under the weight of a massive amount of toxic loans linked to the housing bubble. Wall Street owns both governments, and the best is yet to come.*
> 
> "And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama.
> 
> "*While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster*, Rubin and Summers didnt do too badly.
> 
> "Rubins deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called 'Citigroup'.
> 
> "Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup  which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million.
> 
> "Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama.
> 
> "Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubins insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US 'Economics Tsar' and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury).
> 
> "In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to 'consulting' for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers net worth by $31 million since the 'end-game' memo.
> 
> "That Obama would, at Robert Rubins demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game."
> 
> *Now...blame "government."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup  which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million"*
> 
> Citigroup never went bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Why not?


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> I have consistently said humans have modified plants for millennia. The fact remains we have not used biotechnology until recently.  You think the use of biotechnology is not a fundamental difference?
> "Monsanto scientists became the first to genetically modify a plant cell in 1982. Five years later, Monsanto conducted the first field tests of genetically engineered crops."
> Monsanto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Genetic switches can be switched on and off, using traditional methods, or biotechnology.   The end result is exactly the same.

If you want a dog with long ears, you can breed them in such a way to have the genetic switch turned on, or you can have the switched turned on in a lab.

In either case, the fundamental change is the same.  The key aspect of having the switch turned on in a lab, is that the switch is fully activated, and that more switches are accessible.

With the breeding system, you never know if you have bred out the maximum ear size of the dog.  With a lab, you can know for certain the genetic switch is maxed out, and that this is the largest ear this breed of dog can have.

Also, there are more difficult genetic switches to activate.   Switching these switches in a lab, can do in months, what traditional breeding techniques would take decades to accomplish.

What really fascinates me about this topic, is that if a person on the right, were to question the myth of man-made global warming, leftists would accuse them of being anti-science.   Yet the entire thing is largely opinion.

However in this case, we have clear cut science, well documented, well established, has clearly proven benefits to society.... and yet the left is now the anti-science crowd, trying to stop something that has benefited humanity the world over.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Spain's and the US unemployment rates have risen due to their banking systems buckling under the weight of a massive amount of toxic loans linked to the housing bubble. Wall Street owns both governments, and the best is yet to come.*
> 
> "And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama.
> 
> "*While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster*, Rubin and Summers didnt do too badly.
> 
> "Rubins deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called 'Citigroup'.
> 
> "Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup  which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million.
> 
> "Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama.
> 
> "Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubins insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US 'Economics Tsar' and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury).
> 
> "In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to 'consulting' for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers net worth by $31 million since the 'end-game' memo.
> 
> "That Obama would, at Robert Rubins demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game."
> 
> *Now...blame "government."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup  which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million"*
> 
> Citigroup never went bankrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
Click to expand...


Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money.   Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out.   Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mondragon cooperatives are not part of Spain's government.*
> 
> "Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Mondragon is truly run by it's employees, then it's run the same way government is run.  Do they take a majority vote when they want to decide whether to lay anyone off?
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They aren't expanding for the same reason Spain has a 26% unemployment rate; global capitalism has wrecked the world economy for all but a fraction of 1% of humanity and their useful idiots*
> 
> Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spain has a 26% unemployment rate because of all the government's destructive economic policies, not because of capitalism.  So in a sense, your claim is correct.  If capitalism is destroying world economy, then why does the United states have a 7.3% unemployment rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Spain's and the US unemployment rates have risen due to their banking systems buckling under the weight of a massive amount of toxic loans linked to the housing bubble. Wall Street owns both governments, and the best is yet to come.*
> 
> "And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama.
> 
> "*While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster*, Rubin and Summers didnt do too badly.
> 
> "Rubins deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called 'Citigroup'.
> 
> "Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup  which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million.
> 
> "Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama.
> 
> "Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubins insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US 'Economics Tsar' and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury).
> 
> "In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to 'consulting' for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers net worth by $31 million since the 'end-game' memo.
> 
> "That Obama would, at Robert Rubins demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game."
> 
> *Now...blame "government."*
Click to expand...


Nice bunch of lies.   But that's all they are is lies.   Spain's system crashed because of Socialism.   The BBC did a documentary on Spain, and clearly outlined the whole thing.

BBC News - Valencia: A Spanish city without medicine


> The government of Valencia - which runs the health system - owes a grand total of half a billion euros to the region's pharmacies.
> 
> Paula guides me into that back room that exists in all pharmacies, where the prescription drugs are kept. The problem is, now, there are not many drugs left.
> 
> "Look, this drawer is usually full," she says, pointing to where the suppositories are kept. Now there are only two packets."
> 
> She opens the fridge. "Look," she says, "we are down to our last packs of insulin. We just have no money to buy the stock."



Socialism at work.  In a Capitalist system, the money available to buy new drugs, would come from current paying customers.  Instead, empty shelves.



> Now quite a lot of the patients are having to do something which for them is extraordinary: they are having to pay - a bit - for their medicines. There is a sign on the door explaining the new charges.



Isn't it interesting how when Socialism fails, and it always does, they end up right back in good old fashioned Capitalism?



> There is the Formula One racetrack, which runs right through the city so the roads had to be redesigned. But the city has lost its Formula One race.
> 
> There is the America's Cup dock, with huge sheds for ocean-going yachts and a massive white control tower. But there is no more America's Cup racing in Valencia.
> 
> There is the Opera House, a cross between the one in Sydney and something you would imagine only in your more disturbed dreams - 400 million euros to build, 40 million a year to run - 15 performances a year.
> 
> The airport that has never seen a single plane land. The theme park built in a place where the summer heat rises above 40C (104F).



Why why why????



> Yes, Spain - where the arrival of the foreign media is a juicy story for the local papers but where massive white elephant projects went unquestioned for a decade, and where the banks that funded them, *boards stuffed with appointed politicians*, have now gone bust.



The banks that funded all these white elephant projects were appointed politicians.

Did you catch that?   Government was involved in the banks.   Kind of like how our government forced banks to make sub-prime loans in the US.

BBC News - The white elephants that dragged Spain into the red



> It has one of the longest runways in Europe but today there are no planes, only hawks and falcons gliding in the still heat over the arid yellow landscape of Don Quixote's Castilla La Mancha.
> 
> The airport of Ciudad Real opened in 2008 but it closed in April 2012. The luggage trolleys are now trussed together in the car park gathering dust and cobwebs.
> 
> It is not the only white elephant to stomp across Spain's landscape. It is merely one of the herd, a monument to the country's burst construction bubble which brought down its banks.



Why why why???



> Before their collapse, Spain's local savings banks (the cajas), were different from other banks in one crucial way - *local politicians sat on the board*. So companies needed political support for large projects to encourage the cajas to invest.
> 
> Both the main political parties were in favour says Santiago Moreno, a spokesman for the socialist PSOE party which *controlled the regional government at the time*.
> 
> "Expert studies commissioned by the airport investors said it would create 6,000 jobs and a boom for the economy. There would have been a before and after for Ciudad Real."



Again, the banks in Spain had local politicians that sat on the board of those banks.   The primary party involved..... SOCIALISTS.

Notice also those "expert studies" that claimed 'if you build it, they will come' crap.   The same exact 'infrastructure' bull sh!t that leftists have been spewing here in the US.

If you build this infrastructure, it will create 2342397 Billion jobs.... instead the airport with the longest runway in all of Europe, is closed after 4 years, and is now a deserted wasteland.

BBC News - Spain's regional governments: How they got into trouble



> The regional governments also found themselves spending more - on big infrastructure projects, on education for the immigrants' children, as well as on providing increasingly expensive healthcare, especially for the growing elderly population.



Well looky there... it's like a socialist manifesto.

Infrastructure projects    &#8730;
Education spending       &#8730;
Health care spending     &#8730;

Well my goodness....  they should be living in utopia by now.  The workers paradise!

Back to the point.   Yes, blame government. It was politicians in the banks, that pushed through these white elephant projects.    No completely private bank, would have funded an airport in Castellon, in which not one single major carrier had signed up to service, prior to it's construction, and to this day has yet to have a single commercial flight land at.

And if that isn't enough evidence for you, a $375,000, 24 metre tall statue of Carlos Fabra, the formerly powerful local politician who was the driving force behind its construction, was erected in the airport.

The problem in Spain, as documented by the BBC, was socialism. It was government.  Not Citigroup.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning.*
> 
> See, you had it way back here, then you lost it again.



The problem is you are equivocating between (very slow) genetic modification and (biotechnology) genetic modification (i.e. "GMO").

Do you see my point? There are two types of genetic modification. They are not interchangeable or synonymous as you have continued to mistake. They use distinct methods and have distinct outcomes. (Slow/old) genetic modification is done through seed selection or pedigree. (Fast/new) genetic modification is done through biotechnology.

Do you now realize why I have objected to your unclear statement that "genetic modification has been happening for thousands of years"? Only one type of genetic modification has. You need to distinguish between the two types of genetic modification. You keep failing to make the distinction that these are separate methods of genetic modification. Thus you are mistaken to think Monsanto is simply engaged in old fashioned genetic modification. It was invented in 1980s and is a very different method and produced very different results that the other type of genetic modification.

Are we on the same page now? Surely by now you would not tell me that genetic modification has been going on for millenia unless you specified which type. Thank you very much.

That wasn't hard now was it? You made it hard because you are stubborn and blockheaded. It is not hard to understand that sometimes one word has multiple meanings and it essential to specify your specific meaning in order to advance rational discussion. It's clear you are not keen on words having multiple meanings and you especially failed to recognize this over 6 pages of dialogue. Most people would have understood the difference 5 pages ago but because your stubborn, refusing to acknowledge my point, you kept interchanging the words as if they mean the same thing and this is a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of equivocation. Logical Fallacy: Equivocation 

Hopefully next time in discussion you'll be more clear and understand why it matters to be clear. That's your lesson for the week. Be clear and beware of multiple meanings for the same word.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out.   Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.



Who do we vote for if not Republican and Democrat? It's obvious both parties support market intervention, making it a socialist economy in many respects.

Moreover, you realize not voting for the two parties means you often waste your vote?

So what is your solution for creating a market economy since we obviously have a socialist economy and voting does not offer the solution?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup  which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million"*
> 
> Citigroup never went bankrupt.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money.   Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out.   Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.
Click to expand...

*What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
George W. Bush?
Hank Paulson?
Larry Summers?
Bill Cllinton?
Obama??*

"If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money.   Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out.   Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
> George W. Bush?
> Hank Paulson?
> Larry Summers?
> Bill Cllinton?
> Obama??*
> 
> "If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."
Click to expand...


The only government jobs Obama has "slashed" are in the military.  Employment of civilians in the government is mushrooming.


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out.   Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do we vote for if not Republican and Democrat? It's obvious both parties support market intervention, making it a socialist economy in many respects.
> 
> Moreover, you realize not voting for the two parties means you often waste your vote?
> 
> So what is your solution for creating a market economy since we obviously have a socialist economy and voting does not offer the solution?
Click to expand...

One possible solution would require US voters to stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when they vote for House and Senate representatives. My state has third-party candidates appearing on every ballot; it's relatively simple to vote Green or Libertarian or whatever instead of casting your vote for the richest 1% of Americans.

Bernie Sanders for President?


----------



## Erand7899

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money.   Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out.   Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
> George W. Bush?
> Hank Paulson?
> Larry Summers?
> Bill Cllinton?
> Obama??*
> 
> "If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."
Click to expand...


The "government sector" is another left wing abuse of the language, designed to mislead the ill informed, and is commonly referred to as propaganda. 

Yes, state and local government jobs have declined considerably since the recession, but federal government jobs have not declined.  Obama has little, if any, control of state and local government jobs, but if you lump them all together in a term called "government sector", you can make it appear that Obama has reduced the size of the federal government.  

Obviously, you failed to figure that out for yourself.  Much like you have failed to figure out most of the Obama lies.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money.   Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out.   Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.
> 
> 
> 
> *What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
> George W. Bush?
> Hank Paulson?
> Larry Summers?
> Bill Cllinton?
> Obama??*
> 
> "If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only government jobs Obama has "slashed" are in the military.  Employment of civilians in the government is mushrooming.
Click to expand...


"From 2004 to 2012, the federal non-postal civilian workforce grew by 258,882 employees, from 1.88 million to 2.13 million (14 percent). Permanent career employees accounted for most of the growth, increasing by 256,718 employees, from 1.7 million in 2004 to 1.96 million in 2012 (15 percent). Three agencies--the Departments of Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA)--accounted for about 94 percent of this increase."

U.S. GAO - Federal Workforce: Recent Trends in Federal Civilian Employment and Compensation


----------



## georgephillip

Erand7899 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money.   Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out.   Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.
> 
> 
> 
> *What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
> George W. Bush?
> Hank Paulson?
> Larry Summers?
> Bill Cllinton?
> Obama??*
> 
> "If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "government sector" is another left wing abuse of the language, designed to mislead the ill informed, and is commonly referred to as propaganda.
> 
> Yes, state and local government jobs have declined considerably since the recession, but federal government jobs have not declined.  Obama has little, if any, control of state and local government jobs, but if you lump them all together in a term called "government sector", you can make it appear that Obama has reduced the size of the federal government.
> 
> Obviously, you failed to figure that out for yourself.  Much like you have failed to figure out most of the Obama lies.
Click to expand...

Not the lie that Obama's a socialist...how about you?


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Spain's and the US unemployment rates have risen due to their banking systems buckling under the weight of a massive amount of toxic loans linked to the housing bubble. Wall Street owns both governments, and the best is yet to come.*
> 
> "And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama.
> 
> "*While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster*, Rubin and Summers didn&#8217;t do too badly.
> 
> "Rubin&#8217;s deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called 'Citigroup'.
> 
> "Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup &#8211; which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million.
> 
> "Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama.
> 
> "Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubin&#8217;s insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US 'Economics Tsar' and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury).
> 
> "In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to 'consulting' for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers&#8217; net worth by $31 million since the 'end-game' memo.
> 
> "That Obama would, at Robert Rubin&#8217;s demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game."
> 
> *Now...blame "government."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup &#8211; which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million"*
> 
> Citigroup never went bankrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
Click to expand...


Because too many people rely on Citigroug for it to simply close and die like capitalism preaches from the mountaintops for regular businesses.

For example, in Boise Idaho there is a children hospital for crippled who held bonds for decades in citigroup. So either we send the children into the snow or we save the private enterprise.

I wonder why Androw believes in something that doesn't exist because its inhuman, namely capitalism.


----------



## georgephillip

"Now it can be told: The bank that exposed the federal government to the greatest potential loss during the government bailout was Citigroup, which received a grand total of *$476.2 billion in cash and guarantees*, according to a new report of the Congressional Oversight Panel which oversees the TARP program."

Citigroup Tops List of Banks Who Received Federal Aid


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning.*
> 
> See, you had it way back here, then you lost it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is you are equivocating between (very slow) genetic modification and (biotechnology) genetic modification (i.e. "GMO").
> 
> Do you see my point? There are two types of genetic modification. They are not interchangeable or synonymous as you have continued to mistake. They use distinct methods and have distinct outcomes. (Slow/old) genetic modification is done through seed selection or pedigree. (Fast/new) genetic modification is done through biotechnology.
> 
> Do you now realize why I have objected to your unclear statement that "genetic modification has been happening for thousands of years"? Only one type of genetic modification has. You need to distinguish between the two types of genetic modification. You keep failing to make the distinction that these are separate methods of genetic modification. Thus you are mistaken to think Monsanto is simply engaged in old fashioned genetic modification. It was invented in 1980s and is a very different method and produced very different results that the other type of genetic modification.
> 
> Are we on the same page now? Surely by now you would not tell me that genetic modification has been going on for millenia unless you specified which type. Thank you very much.
> 
> That wasn't hard now was it? You made it hard because you are stubborn and blockheaded. It is not hard to understand that sometimes one word has multiple meanings and it essential to specify your specific meaning in order to advance rational discussion. It's clear you are not keen on words having multiple meanings and you especially failed to recognize this over 6 pages of dialogue. Most people would have understood the difference 5 pages ago but because your stubborn, refusing to acknowledge my point, you kept interchanging the words as if they mean the same thing and this is a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of equivocation. Logical Fallacy: Equivocation
> 
> Hopefully next time in discussion you'll be more clear and understand why it matters to be clear. That's your lesson for the week. Be clear and beware of multiple meanings for the same word.
Click to expand...


*Do you see my point? There are two types of genetic modification.*

Yes. And people who whine about genetically modified food should refuse all food that isn't identical to food 20,000 years ago.

*You keep failing to make the distinction that these are separate methods of genetic modification. *

Nope. Never did that.

*Thus you are mistaken to think Monsanto is simply engaged in old fashioned genetic modification. *

Nope, never thought that.

*Do you now realize why I have objected to your unclear statement that "genetic modification has been happening for thousands of years"? *

Now do you realize why I mocked your previous posts?

I said this:

"GMO is a genetically modified organism.

Do you deny that humans have genetically modified plants for thousands of years?"

And you disagreed, with this: 

"GMO does not mean modified by humans.

GMO specifically means genetic modification by humans and it has no other meaning"

*Are we on the same page now? *

I don't know. Do you agree with my initial statement, "Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans"?

*You made it hard because you are stubborn *

I am stubborn, that's why I keep pointing out your errors. 

*but because your stubborn, refusing to acknowledge my point*

What was your point?
Monsanto genetic modifications are bad, genetic modifications before Monsanto are good?


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Do you see my point? There are two types of genetic modification.*
> 
> Yes. And people who whine about genetically modified food should refuse all food that isn't identical to food 20,000 years ago.



Let's be clear, it wasn't 20,000 years ago. It was 31 odd years ago that seeds were modified in ways that are new.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do you agree with my initial statement, "Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans"?



Yes I agree. Humans have selected seeds for a long time. Humans have only modified seeds the way Monsanto has for the last 31 years.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> What was your point?
> Monsanto genetic modifications are bad, genetic modifications before Monsanto are good?



I have repeated "this is my point" or "my whole point is this" and somehow you still have to ask about it. I never made value judgments on new genetic modification or the old. All I said is you need to recognize they are not identical. They have different methods, different techniques, and indeed different results. So to say people should accept the new type of GMO because it is the same thing as the old GMO is frankly stupid. They are qualitatively different. This qualitative difference raises new questions that did not exist prior to the new type of genetic modification. I am NOT making a value judgment, I am simply pointing out that they are different with different results.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you see my point? There are two types of genetic modification.*
> 
> Yes. And people who whine about genetically modified food should refuse all food that isn't identical to food 20,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be clear, it wasn't 20,000 years ago. It was 31 odd years ago that seeds were modified in ways that are new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with my initial statement, "Almost all the food you eat has been modified by humans"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I agree. Humans have selected seeds for a long time. Humans have only modified seeds the way Monsanto has for the last 31 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was your point?
> Monsanto genetic modifications are bad, genetic modifications before Monsanto are good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have repeated "this is my point" or "my whole point is this" and somehow you still have to ask about it. I never made value judgments on new genetic modification or the old. All I said is you need to recognize they are not identical. They have different methods, different techniques, and indeed different results. So to say people should accept the new type of GMO because it is the same thing as the old GMO is frankly stupid. They are qualitatively different. This qualitative difference raises new questions that did not exist prior to the new type of genetic modification. I am NOT making a value judgment, I am simply pointing out that they are different with different results.
Click to expand...


*Let's be clear, it wasn't 20,000 years ago.*

The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming.

*Yes I agree.*

Excellent! Took you long enough.

*All I said is you need to recognize they are not identical. *

Show me a single example where I claimed the methods were identical. I dare you.


----------



## georgephillip

"Plants equipped with a terminator gene grow up just like other plants, with one crucial exceptionfarmers can't grow anything from the seed they produce. 

"This feat of genetic engineering has caused a world-class ruckus, and renewed commercial interest in the trait is sure to put the town in the spotlight. ¦ Depending on whom you talk to, the terminator geneknown by its makers as the Technology Protection Systemis either a great safeguard against possible hazards in the brave new world of biotechnology or a threat to the world food supply.

Terminator Genes | DiscoverMagazine.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> "Plants equipped with a terminator gene grow up just like other plants, with one crucial exceptionfarmers can't grow anything from the seed they produce.
> 
> "This feat of genetic engineering has caused a world-class ruckus, and renewed commercial interest in the trait is sure to put the town in the spotlight. ¦ Depending on whom you talk to, the terminator geneknown by its makers as the Technology Protection Systemis either a great safeguard against possible hazards in the brave new world of biotechnology or a threat to the world food supply.
> 
> Terminator Genes | DiscoverMagazine.com



2003?
Why don't you list all seeds currently sold with "terminator gene" technology?

FYI, current high yield hybrid seeds don't give farmers seeds that they can plant the next year either. Been that way for many decades. Hybrids don't breed true.
Farmers have to buy new seeds every year.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Let's be clear, it wasn't 20,000 years ago.*
> 
> The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming.



No one has said old genetic modification is bad and no one has said we should avoid it. However, the new genetic modification that started in 1980s is different. It uses different methods and produces different results. People wonder how these differences affect the plant since new bio-engineering is not the same thing as regular, slow modification over generations. Thus, in order to be "safe" one only needs to avoid the new type of genetic modification. No one thinks the old type is bad or unusual.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Show me a single example where I claimed the methods were identical. I dare you.



You keep saying that people must avoid all types of genetic modification in order to avoid modern day biotechnology GMO. This is obviously false. To avoid new bio-engineering seeds does not require that people avoid the old genetic modification.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out.   Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do we vote for if not Republican and Democrat? It's obvious both parties support market intervention, making it a socialist economy in many respects.
> 
> Moreover, you realize not voting for the two parties means you often waste your vote?
> 
> So what is your solution for creating a market economy since we obviously have a socialist economy and voting does not offer the solution?
Click to expand...


I completely disagree with everything you just said.

First off, you realize that if what you just said is in fact true, then you yourself are wasting your vote as well. 

"Both parties are the same"
"You are wasting your vote if you don't vote Democrap or Republican"

Hur?    You don't see a problem here?

However, my real problem is with the party politics.     I sarcastically refer to 'Democraps', because generally speaking it is in fact Democraps that defend law breakers (Clinton), and support socialism.

[ame=http://youtu.be/o3I-PVVowFY]Maxine Waters (D) Slip of the Tongue Reveals True Intentions (Socialism for America) - YouTube[/ame]

That said...

There are, and have been, Democrats that I would have no problem at all voting for, even for president.

Equally there are and were Republicans I would never even entertain the thought of voting for.  McCain and Romney for example.

The problem is the ideology, not the political party.   A political party is just that.... it's a political party.   They will change their stance on a moments notice, to whatever they believe will best allow them to win.

That's why you always vote based on the individual if you are smart, not what party they are from.

And lastly, that whole "you are wasting your vote, if you vote for anyone not a Democrap or Republican"....  do you not see that this is exactly what they want you to believe?

More often than not, merely giving a traditional candidate a tough fight, will force that candidate to change their stance to match the public.   The tea party hasn't been super effective at having their specifically supported politicians elected.... but simply by challenging mainstream Republicans, they have forced them to move in the direction they want many times.

Similarly, the more we vote for alternative candidates, the more we can send a message.

From what I've seen, politics is far more responsive to what people want, than we realize as a nation.    The problem is, we the people are not consistent on what we want.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money.   Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out.   Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
> George W. Bush?
> Hank Paulson?
> Larry Summers?
> Bill Cllinton?
> Obama??*
> 
> "If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."
Click to expand...


If you support government giving money to companies that failed, that's socializing the loss.

All socialism supporters say that others are doing it wrong.  Because all socialism fails, that's all that those who support it can say. 

When China's socialism resulted in 63% of the population living below the poverty line of $2 a day, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Soviet socialism resulted in mass starvation, and cannibalism being a common problem, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Cuba's socialism resulted in people keeping rusted out 1950s cars on the road for 50 years, and people unable to buy aspirin, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Venezuela's socialism has resulted in country wide power outages, and food shortages, and lack of toilet paper, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Obama pushes more control, more bailouts, more government regulation, and drags out a sluggish economy for more than 5 years, apparently he's doing it wrong.

That's all socialist supporters ever say is "well he's not doing it right, because it would work if it was right", and yet there is no workers paradise, there is no socialist utopia.   ...and here we are again, with someone pushing socialistic policies, and yet another claim "well he's not doing it right".

Whatever.   No one can show it done right, so how the heck would you know if he's doing it wrong?


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw,  how do we vote for a non-socialist? It's evident that Democrats and Republicans alike voted for the rescue of the banks. Do you recommend third party? What if that third party would have done the same? How then do we vote against socialism? It doesn't seem like we can.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out.   Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do we vote for if not Republican and Democrat? It's obvious both parties support market intervention, making it a socialist economy in many respects.
> 
> Moreover, you realize not voting for the two parties means you often waste your vote?
> 
> So what is your solution for creating a market economy since we obviously have a socialist economy and voting does not offer the solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One possible solution would require US voters to stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when they vote for House and Senate representatives. My state has third-party candidates appearing on every ballot; it's relatively simple to vote Green or Libertarian or whatever instead of casting your vote for the richest 1% of Americans.
> 
> Bernie Sanders for President?
Click to expand...


A couple of things.   You don't know how much Bernie Sanders has.  No one does.  He's kept his finances fairly hidden.

First, Sanders himself earned $174K a year.   Plus his wife while President of Burlington College, was earning $150K a year.
Interestingly Sanders also has rental property, and I can't find how much he's earning off of that.
Additionally he has royalty income from his published book "The Speech", and I can't find how much that is.

Lastly, Sanders wife, has a self-employed business of buying and selling Antiques, and we have no idea how much they are raking in on that, or even what it is.

We do know that Sanders has been giving money from Campaign donations, to "pay" his wife a consulting fee.

So with a household income of no less than $350K a year, it wouldn't take very much rental income, book sales royalties, and paying your wife a "consulting fee", to hit the 1% mark.   The top 1% income is only $388K.

*Now all of that said......   I am a bit confused by the self-avowed socialist aspect of Sanders.*

First.... how does a 'socialist' have rental property they are earning an income off of?

Second...  how does a 'socialist' publish a book with a major publisher, and sit in a corporate Barnes & Noble, and sign copies of his book?

Third... how does the wife of socialist end up at an expensive private college, where tuition is over $22K per year?

Fourth... how does the wife of a socialist end up with her own self employed business, buying and selling stuff for a profit?

Fifth...  how does a socialist end up with investments with Valic, which is a major corporate subsidiary of AIG, one of the most hated of capitalist companies in the world?

In fact, how does a self avowed socialist have stock mutual funds at all?

For example, Sanders has Valic Large Cap funds.   According to Valic, the large cap fund top 10 stock investments are with.....

Occidental Petroleum Corp
Pfizer Inc
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Merck & Co. Inc.
General Electric Co
Wells Fargo & Co
Cisco Systems Inc
Ameriprise Financial Inc
Citigroup Inc
Bank of America Corp

JPMorgan Chase?  GE? Wells Fargo?  Bank of America?  CITIGROUP?!

So all these companies that specifically I've seen *YOU* screaming about, the dude you promote for president is earning dividends from stocks in those companies?

This is the most wealthy, capitalist acting 'avowed socialist' I've ever seen.  At least the real hippy socialists actually lived in impoverished communes.   This guy owns shares in big corporations, has $350K income, runs his own business, is selling books, and antiques, and has rentals.....

He might not be CEO of a hedge fund like Romney, or have a $45 Million dollar Kennedy Trust fund.....  but there is nothing here suggesting he's Joe the Plumber, or anything but a Capitalist.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw,  how do we vote for a non-socialist? It's evident that Democrats and Republicans alike voted for the rescue of the banks. Do you recommend third party? What if that third party would have done the same? How then do we vote against socialism? It doesn't seem like we can.



0.o

In 2008, during the election, I had a list with me, of every single individual who voted in favor of TARP.

I voted against every single person on the ballot that voted for TARP.

I did the same in 2010, except with the addition of everyone that voted for Obamacare and the Stimulus.    I did the same in 2012.  I will do the same this year.

It's not that hard.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out.   Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do we vote for if not Republican and Democrat? It's obvious both parties support market intervention, making it a socialist economy in many respects.
> 
> Moreover, you realize not voting for the two parties means you often waste your vote?
> 
> So what is your solution for creating a market economy since we obviously have a socialist economy and voting does not offer the solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with everything you just said.
> 
> First off, you realize that if what you just said is in fact true, then you yourself are wasting your vote as well.
> 
> "Both parties are the same"
> "You are wasting your vote if you don't vote Democrap or Republican"
> 
> Hur?    You don't see a problem here?
> 
> However, my real problem is with the party politics.     I sarcastically refer to 'Democraps', because generally speaking it is in fact Democraps that defend law breakers (Clinton), and support socialism.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/o3I-PVVowFY]Maxine Waters (D) Slip of the Tongue Reveals True Intentions (Socialism for America) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> That said...
> 
> There are, and have been, Democrats that I would have no problem at all voting for, even for president.
> 
> Equally there are and were Republicans I would never even entertain the thought of voting for.  McCain and Romney for example.
> 
> The problem is the ideology, not the political party.   A political party is just that.... it's a political party.   They will change their stance on a moments notice, to whatever they believe will best allow them to win.
> 
> That's why you always vote based on the individual if you are smart, not what party they are from.
> 
> And lastly, that whole "you are wasting your vote, if you vote for anyone not a Democrap or Republican"....  do you not see that this is exactly what they want you to believe?
> 
> More often than not, merely giving a traditional candidate a tough fight, will force that candidate to change their stance to match the public.   The tea party hasn't been super effective at having their specifically supported politicians elected.... but simply by challenging mainstream Republicans, they have forced them to move in the direction they want many times.
> 
> Similarly, the more we vote for alternative candidates, the more we can send a message.
> 
> From what I've seen, politics is far more responsive to what people want, than we realize as a nation.    The problem is, we the people are not consistent on what we want.
Click to expand...

When you refused to vote for Romney, you actually voted for Obama.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's be clear, it wasn't 20,000 years ago.*
> 
> The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has said old genetic modification is bad and no one has said we should avoid it. However, the new genetic modification that started in 1980s is different. It uses different methods and produces different results. People wonder how these differences affect the plant since new bio-engineering is not the same thing as regular, slow modification over generations. Thus, in order to be "safe" one only needs to avoid the new type of genetic modification. No one thinks the old type is bad or unusual.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a single example where I claimed the methods were identical. I dare you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that people must avoid all types of genetic modification in order to avoid modern day biotechnology GMO. This is obviously false. To avoid new bio-engineering seeds does not require that people avoid the old genetic modification.
Click to expand...


*You keep saying that people must avoid all types of genetic modification in order to avoid modern day biotechnology GMO. *

Nope. Never said that. Not even once.

Is English your second language?


----------



## deltex1

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Androw,  how do we vote for a non-socialist? It's evident that Democrats and Republicans alike voted for the rescue of the banks. Do you recommend third party? What if that third party would have done the same? How then do we vote against socialism? It doesn't seem like we can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0.o
> 
> In 2008, during the election, I had a list with me, of every single individual who voted in favor of TARP.
> 
> I voted against every single person on the ballot that voted for TARP.
> 
> I did the same in 2010, except with the addition of everyone that voted for Obamacare and the Stimulus.    I did the same in 2012.  I will do the same this year.
> 
> It's not that hard.
Click to expand...


God bless you Androw...you did good...my only question is what are you doing with your left hand as you face the sun?


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You keep saying that people must avoid all types of genetic modification in order to avoid modern day biotechnology GMO. *
> 
> Nope. Never said that. Not even once.



Yeah, you did:

"*The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming.*"

It is plain that slow genetic modification is safe. Bio engineering is a different matter. Thus, for people to be safe, they may want to avoid certain foods from 1983. I'm not saying bio engineering is bad, I am only saying that *if someone wants to be safe, they need not avoid food from before human farming, but they only need to avoid certain seeds produced mostly by Monsanto.*


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because our scum sucking socialist government, gave them money.   Stop voting in socialists, and we can avoid bailing them out.   Citigroup should have gone bankrupt, and been sold off like any other failed company.
> 
> 
> 
> *What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
> George W. Bush?
> Hank Paulson?
> Larry Summers?
> Bill Cllinton?
> Obama??*
> 
> "If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you support government giving money to companies that failed, that's socializing the loss.
> 
> All socialism supporters say that others are doing it wrong.  Because all socialism fails, that's all that those who support it can say.
> 
> When China's socialism resulted in 63% of the population living below the poverty line of $2 a day, apparently they were doing it wrong.
> When Soviet socialism resulted in mass starvation, and cannibalism being a common problem, apparently they were doing it wrong.
> When Cuba's socialism resulted in people keeping rusted out 1950s cars on the road for 50 years, and people unable to buy aspirin, apparently they were doing it wrong.
> When Venezuela's socialism has resulted in country wide power outages, and food shortages, and lack of toilet paper, apparently they were doing it wrong.
> When Obama pushes more control, more bailouts, more government regulation, and drags out a sluggish economy for more than 5 years, apparently he's doing it wrong.
> 
> That's all socialist supporters ever say is "well he's not doing it right, because it would work if it was right", and yet there is no workers paradise, there is no socialist utopia.   ...and here we are again, with someone pushing socialistic policies, and yet another claim "well he's not doing it right".
> 
> Whatever.   No one can show it done right, so how the heck would you know if he's doing it wrong?
Click to expand...

Socialism done right in the richest country in history would not leave one in four US children living in poverty. Socialism would not allow its richest 1% of citizens to amass 22% of national income or its richest 0.1% to take home 11% of national income. Had Socialism been done right over the last 45 years, average US workers would NOT earn less today than they did in 1969, and American men without a college degree would NOT earn almost 40% less than they did four decades ago.

Much of your confusion stems from an inability to distinguish between socialism and finance capitalism.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do we vote for if not Republican and Democrat? It's obvious both parties support market intervention, making it a socialist economy in many respects.
> 
> Moreover, you realize not voting for the two parties means you often waste your vote?
> 
> So what is your solution for creating a market economy since we obviously have a socialist economy and voting does not offer the solution?
> 
> 
> 
> One possible solution would require US voters to stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when they vote for House and Senate representatives. My state has third-party candidates appearing on every ballot; it's relatively simple to vote Green or Libertarian or whatever instead of casting your vote for the richest 1% of Americans.
> 
> Bernie Sanders for President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A couple of things.   You don't know how much Bernie Sanders has.  No one does.  He's kept his finances fairly hidden.
> 
> First, Sanders himself earned $174K a year.   Plus his wife while President of Burlington College, was earning $150K a year.
> Interestingly Sanders also has rental property, and I can't find how much he's earning off of that.
> Additionally he has royalty income from his published book "The Speech", and I can't find how much that is.
> 
> Lastly, Sanders wife, has a self-employed business of buying and selling Antiques, and we have no idea how much they are raking in on that, or even what it is.
> 
> We do know that Sanders has been giving money from Campaign donations, to "pay" his wife a consulting fee.
> 
> So with a household income of no less than $350K a year, it wouldn't take very much rental income, book sales royalties, and paying your wife a "consulting fee", to hit the 1% mark.   The top 1% income is only $388K.
> 
> *Now all of that said......   I am a bit confused by the self-avowed socialist aspect of Sanders.*
> 
> First.... how does a 'socialist' have rental property they are earning an income off of?
> 
> Second...  how does a 'socialist' publish a book with a major publisher, and sit in a corporate Barnes & Noble, and sign copies of his book?
> 
> Third... how does the wife of socialist end up at an expensive private college, where tuition is over $22K per year?
> 
> Fourth... how does the wife of a socialist end up with her own self employed business, buying and selling stuff for a profit?
> 
> Fifth...  how does a socialist end up with investments with Valic, which is a major corporate subsidiary of AIG, one of the most hated of capitalist companies in the world?
> 
> In fact, how does a self avowed socialist have stock mutual funds at all?
> 
> For example, Sanders has Valic Large Cap funds.   According to Valic, the large cap fund top 10 stock investments are with.....
> 
> Occidental Petroleum Corp
> Pfizer Inc
> JPMorgan Chase & Co
> Merck & Co. Inc.
> General Electric Co
> Wells Fargo & Co
> Cisco Systems Inc
> Ameriprise Financial Inc
> Citigroup Inc
> Bank of America Corp
> 
> JPMorgan Chase?  GE? Wells Fargo?  Bank of America?  CITIGROUP?!
> 
> So all these companies that specifically I've seen *YOU* screaming about, the dude you promote for president is earning dividends from stocks in those companies?
> 
> This is the most wealthy, capitalist acting 'avowed socialist' I've ever seen.  At least the real hippy socialists actually lived in impoverished communes.   This guy owns shares in big corporations, has $350K income, runs his own business, is selling books, and antiques, and has rentals.....
> 
> He might not be CEO of a hedge fund like Romney, or have a $45 Million dollar Kennedy Trust fund.....  but there is nothing here suggesting he's Joe the Plumber, or anything but a Capitalist.
Click to expand...

*Do you ever bother with links, or are we supposed to trust you?
Sanders has an approximate net worth of $116,000 to $800,000, ranking him 84th among his Senate peers.

His assets are 100% invested in real estate with a Valic Large Cap Fund investment of $1001-$15,000.

Socialists aren't required to sleep under bridges and eat out of dumpsters.

Bernie's still the best choice I've seen for 2016.*

https://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00000528&year=2012


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You keep saying that people must avoid all types of genetic modification in order to avoid modern day biotechnology GMO. *
> 
> Nope. Never said that. Not even once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you did:
> 
> "*The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming.*"
> 
> It is plain that slow genetic modification is safe. Bio engineering is a different matter. Thus, for people to be safe, they may want to avoid certain foods from 1983. I'm not saying bio engineering is bad, I am only saying that *if someone wants to be safe, they need not avoid food from before human farming, but they only need to avoid certain seeds produced mostly by Monsanto.*
Click to expand...


*Yeah, you did:*

No I didn't. I'll ask again, is English your second language?

*It is plain that slow genetic modification is safe.*

You have any proof for this claim?
What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What "socialists" are you hallucinating?
> George W. Bush?
> Hank Paulson?
> Larry Summers?
> Bill Cllinton?
> Obama??*
> 
> "If President Obama is a socialist dictator like some say he is, then he's doing it wrong: The government sector has slashed jobs steadily since the recession, shrinking government payrolls to their lowest level in eight years. At this rate, there won't be enough people to run the FEMA camps."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you support government giving money to companies that failed, that's socializing the loss.
> 
> All socialism supporters say that others are doing it wrong.  Because all socialism fails, that's all that those who support it can say.
> 
> When China's socialism resulted in 63% of the population living below the poverty line of $2 a day, apparently they were doing it wrong.
> When Soviet socialism resulted in mass starvation, and cannibalism being a common problem, apparently they were doing it wrong.
> When Cuba's socialism resulted in people keeping rusted out 1950s cars on the road for 50 years, and people unable to buy aspirin, apparently they were doing it wrong.
> When Venezuela's socialism has resulted in country wide power outages, and food shortages, and lack of toilet paper, apparently they were doing it wrong.
> When Obama pushes more control, more bailouts, more government regulation, and drags out a sluggish economy for more than 5 years, apparently he's doing it wrong.
> 
> That's all socialist supporters ever say is "well he's not doing it right, because it would work if it was right", and yet there is no workers paradise, there is no socialist utopia.   ...and here we are again, with someone pushing socialistic policies, and yet another claim "well he's not doing it right".
> 
> Whatever.   No one can show it done right, so how the heck would you know if he's doing it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism done right in the richest country in history would not leave one in four US children living in poverty. Socialism would not allow its richest 1% of citizens to amass 22% of national income or its richest 0.1% to take home 11% of national income. Had Socialism been done right over the last 45 years, average US workers would NOT earn less today than they did in 1969, and American men without a college degree would NOT earn almost 40% less than they did four decades ago.
> 
> Much of your confusion stems from an inability to distinguish between socialism and finance capitalism.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
Click to expand...


You don't seem to understand that Wealth is dynamic.  It's not static.
Wealth is always 100% of the time, in a state of transition.

Socialism done in the richest country in the world, would result in it no longer being the richest country in the world.

And 1 in 4 Americans are not living in poverty.   Even if that were true, is that better than China which had 2 out of every 3 Chinese in poverty?

And just compare what was considered poverty in China, to poverty in the US.   Chinese poverty was $2 a day.   Poverty in the US is $12,000 year?

Do you think Chinese poverty compares to US poverty?    I'll take Capitalist poverty over Socialist poverty any day.

Again you keep making claims about what would have happened if Socialism had been done right.... yet apparently there is no example of it being done right.   You don't see workers in Cuba earning more than average workers in Cuba back in the 1960s.   In fact, they are so much better off, they were willing to risk DYING trying to come here.

You certainly don't see that Venezuelan workers are better off today, than back in the 1980s, when they had the leading economy in all of Latin American.

You certainly don't see that North Koreans are better off today, than back in the 1960s, and they are willing to sell everything they own to get to that evil South Korean Capitalist system.

So all your claims about what America would be like under "socialism done right", is just hot air, just bluster and crap spewing.   There is no example of Socialism that didn't result in decline and impoverishment.   Not in the past, nor in the present.    So what you are basing your empty claims on, is beyond me.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?



There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983. We only had the slow type of genetic modification then. Thus, only seeds produced after 1983 (mostly by Monsanto) run the risk of unfamiliar problems. Humans had been cultivating the slow type of genetic modification for 50,000 years and the risks were extremely low. Hence it is generally a safe method of genetic modification. If this is wrong, why do you think the slow type of genetic modification is unsafe? I am willing to concede if you have a good reason why seeds selected by humans for their qualities is unsafe.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983. We only had the slow type of genetic modification then. Thus, only seeds produced after 1983 (mostly by Monsanto) run the risk of unfamiliar problems. Humans had been cultivating the slow type of genetic modification for 50,000 years and the risks were extremely low. Hence it is generally a safe method of genetic modification. If this is wrong, why do you think the slow type of genetic modification is unsafe? I am willing to concede if you have a good reason why seeds selected by humans for their qualities is unsafe.
Click to expand...


You know, every single scientific advancement that has ever happened in the world, has some amount of risk.

It's like the UK and the EU, just announced they are pushing a carbon capture system, and it will pump CO2 down under the ocean.

Is there 'risk' in that?   Yes of course.   No one has any idea what pumping billions of tons of CO2 under the ocean is going to do.

The difference is, GMO food, is typically done to increase production.   In other words, it's done to feed more people with better quality food.

The CO2, is to fight a myth of man-made global warming.

Now you tell me.... what are the huge dangers of GMO foods?   I'll listen!   What's the huge harm?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983. We only had the slow type of genetic modification then. Thus, only seeds produced after 1983 (mostly by Monsanto) run the risk of unfamiliar problems. Humans had been cultivating the slow type of genetic modification for 50,000 years and the risks were extremely low. Hence it is generally a safe method of genetic modification. If this is wrong, why do you think the slow type of genetic modification is unsafe? I am willing to concede if you have a good reason why seeds selected by humans for their qualities is unsafe.
Click to expand...


*There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983.*

ESL? Reread what I posted. Did you see bioengineering in my post? No.

What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983.*
> 
> 
> What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?



Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification. Since this type had existed for millennia, human beings had come to accept it as a low risk modification and therefore relatively safe modification. So people 91 years ago did not have to avoid return to seeds from ten thousand thousand years ago.

So when you say "The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming" is false. There was low risk involved in the slow type of genetic modification. Since 1983 a new type of genetic modification was employed. So since then, in order for people to be on the safe side of things (i.e. taking as little risk as possible) they only need to avoid seeds produced since 1983 (mostly from Monsanto). Therefore, your statement "The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming" is obviously false. In order for your statement to be true and accurate it must say "The only way to be safe is to eat seeds from before 1983 or non-bio-engineered seeds of today."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983.*
> 
> 
> What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification. Since this type had existed for millennia, human beings had come to accept it as a low risk modification and therefore relatively safe modification. So people 91 years ago did not have to avoid return to seeds from ten thousand thousand years ago.
> 
> So when you say "The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming" is false. There was low risk involved in the slow type of genetic modification. Since 1983 a new type of genetic modification was employed. So since then, in order for people to be on the safe side of things (i.e. taking as little risk as possible) they only need to avoid seeds produced since 1983 (mostly from Monsanto). Therefore, your statement "The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming" is obviously false.
Click to expand...


*Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.*

You're wrong, wrong, wrong.

*So when you say "The only way to be safe from human modified foods is to eat foods unchanged since before human farming" is false. *

Nope. Low-info whiners read some silly article about humans interfering with nature, Monsanto being the current favorite culprit, and about wet their pants. How can we interfere with the perfect food Gaia gave us, we have to get back to nature.
Said low-info whiners, you included, didn't realize that humans have been interfering with "natural food" for over 10,000 years. So if they truly want to eat "unmodified food", they need to find foods that existed 10, 12, maybe 20 thousand years ago, because we've been genetically modifying our food for that long.

Get back to me when you've educated yourself on the science. LOL!


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about genetic modifications in the 60 years before 1983?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no bio engineering 60 years before 1983. We only had the slow type of genetic modification then. Thus, only seeds produced after 1983 (mostly by Monsanto) run the risk of unfamiliar problems. Humans had been cultivating the slow type of genetic modification for 50,000 years and the risks were extremely low. Hence it is generally a safe method of genetic modification. If this is wrong, why do you think the slow type of genetic modification is unsafe? I am willing to concede if you have a good reason why seeds selected by humans for their qualities is unsafe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, every single scientific advancement that has ever happened in the world, has some amount of risk.
> 
> 
> The difference is, GMO food, is typically done to increase production.   In other words, it's done to feed more people with better quality food.
> 
> Now you tell me.... what are the huge dangers of GMO foods?   I'll listen!   What's the huge harm?
Click to expand...


I have not spoken of those dangers. If you notice, I was accurate in stating slow genetic modification is low risk. The risk in consuming bio-engineered seeds is relatively higher than sticking to seeds not bio-engineered but on the whole, I personally do not think bio-engineered seeds are necessarily harmful. If there are any independent long-term studies done, please cite them because these are empirical claims and can be verified by empirical study. But forgoing such essential research, then the fact remains Monsanto's seeds carry a slightly bigger risk to human health than do regular seeds. This does not mean they actually cause harm, it simply means without empirical study, it must be acknowledged that this type of bioengineering is different and thus merits a different understanding than regular genetic modification through seed selection. Until long-term studies are done by independent researchers (without Monsanto funding) we must keep these two types of seeds distinct in our understanding and vocabulary. 

But my claim has never been that they are necessarily harmful. I have simply tried to get Todders to understand their difference and to not equivocate on that relevant difference.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.*
> 
> You're wrong, wrong, wrong.



What other type of genetic modification existed 91 years ago?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.*
> 
> You're wrong, wrong, wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other type of genetic modification existed 91 years ago?
Click to expand...


You don't know?

I'm shocked.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.*
> 
> You're wrong, wrong, wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other type of genetic modification existed 91 years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know?
> 
> I'm shocked.
Click to expand...


I am not smart like you. Will you tell me what second type of genetic modification existed 91 years ago?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other type of genetic modification existed 91 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know?
> 
> I'm shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not smart like you. Will you tell me what second type of genetic modification existed 91 years ago?
Click to expand...


*I am not smart like you.*

Finally, something we can agree on.


----------



## gnarlylove

Now will you be so gracious to identify the second type of genetic modification before 1980s?

If you cannot identify it, then why did you say there was two?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.*
> 
> You're wrong, wrong, wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Now will you be so gracious to identify the second type of genetic modification before 1980s?
> 
> If you cannot identify it, then why did you say there was two?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.*
> 
> You're wrong, wrong, wrong.
Click to expand...


Pruned: Atomic Gardens


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now will you be so gracious to identify the second type of genetic modification before 1980s?
> 
> If you cannot identify it, then why did you say there was two?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.*
> 
> You're wrong, wrong, wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pruned: Atomic Gardens
Click to expand...


Thank you. So you admit that until radiation genetic modification, around the 1950s, there was only one type of genetic modification: the slow type. Therefore your claim that "in order to be safe you must only eat seeds from before human farming" is false. In order to be safe a person only needs to avoid seeds that are radiated (beginning in the 50s) or bio-engineered seeds (1980s) which come no where near "before human farming."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now will you be so gracious to identify the second type of genetic modification before 1980s?
> 
> If you cannot identify it, then why did you say there was two?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pruned: Atomic Gardens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. So you admit that until radiation genetic modification, around the 1950s, there was only one type of genetic modification: the slow type. Therefore your claim that "in order to be safe you must only eat seeds from before human farming" is false. In order to be safe a person only needs to avoid seeds that are radiated (beginning in the 50s) or bio-engineered seeds (1980s) which come no where near "before human farming."
Click to expand...


*So you admit that until radiation genetic modification, around the 1950s*

It was used well before the 1950s.

*Therefore your claim that "in order to be safe you must only eat seeds from before human farming" is false.*

If the idea of human modifications makes you shit your pants, you still need to go back many thousands of years and eat foods like this......







While avoiding foods that look like this.


----------



## georgephillip

*According to Stiglitz...*

"America has achieved the distinction of becoming the country with the highest level of income inequality among the advanced countries. 

"While there is no single number that can depict all aspects of societys inequality, matters have become worse in every dimension: more money goes to the top (more than a fifth of all income goes to the top 1%), more people are in poverty at the bottom, and the middle classlong the core strength of our societyhas seen its income stagnate. 

"Median household income, adjusted for inflation, today is lower than it was in 1989, a quarter century ago.[1] 

"An economy in which most citizens see no progress, year after year, is an economy that is failing to perform in the way it should. 

"Indeed, there is a vicious circle: our high inequality is one of the major contributing factors to our weak economy and our low growth.

"As disturbing as the data on the growing inequality in income are, those that describe the other dimensions of Americas inequality are even worse: *inequalities in wealth are even greater than income*, and there are marked inequalities in health, reflected in differences, for instance, in life expectancy. 

"But perhaps the most invidious aspect of US inequality is the inequality of opportunity. 

"America has become the advanced country not only with the highest level of inequality, but is among those with the least equality of opportunity*the statistics show that the American dream is a myth*; that the life prospects of a young American are more dependent on the income and education of his parents than in other developed countries. 

"We have betrayed one of our most fundamental values. 

"And the result is that we are wasting our most valuable resource, our human resources: millions of those at the bottom are not able to live up to their potential.

"This morning, I want to make eight observations concerning this inequality. 

"The first is that this inequality is largely a result of policiesof what we do and dont do. 

"The laws of economics are universal: the fact that in some countries there is so much less inequality and so much more equality of opportunity, the fact that in some countries inequality is not increasingit is actually decreasingis not because they have different laws of economics."

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/22865-why-inequality-matters-and-what-can-be-done-about-it


----------



## gnarlylove

The problem Todders is you prefer to say things that your opponent has not. For example, you said I am "a self-proclaimed intellectual" which I have never proclaimed. Furthermore, you have continued to imply that I probably think GMO is bad when I've said the opposite.

The point is you are very eager to insert claims your opponents have not made (i.e. lying). In order to have fruitful dialogue you must stop making up lies about opponent's claims. In order to have fruitful dialogue you must begin reading at a 10th grade level where people assess what's actually written instead of making up lies that support your eagerness to get what you want (presumably validation). 

Since you will not stop making up claims that were never said and probably cannot even tell when you are, please do not reply to my posts until you can learn these very basic debate skills and edicate. It will take you lots of practice before you can read a post and assess it for what's actually said instead of your imaginative addendum of lies. But keep at it and you will surely be able to read what's written without making up stuff. Then you will see what I'm saying. Until you try, you will never know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> The problem Todders is you prefer to say things that your opponent has not. For example, you said I am "a self-proclaimed intellectual" which I have never proclaimed. Furthermore, you have continued to imply that I probably think GMO is bad when I've said the opposite.
> 
> The point is you are very eager to insert claims your opponents have not made (i.e. lying). In order to have fruitful dialogue you must stop making up lies about opponent's claims. In order to have fruitful dialogue you must begin reading at a 10th grade level where people assess what's actually written instead of making up lies that support your eagerness to get what you want (presumably validation).
> 
> Since you will not stop making up claims that were never said and probably cannot even tell when you are, please do not reply to my posts until you can learn these very basic debate skills and edicate. It will take you lots of practice before you can read a post and assess it for what's actually said instead of your imaginative addendum of lies. But keep at it and you will surely be able to read what's written without making up stuff. Then you will see what I'm saying. Until you try, you will never know.



Glad to point out your errors.
Glad to educate you, in even the tiniest way.


----------



## gnarlylove

Capitalism Guaranteed Rising Inequality.
America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos
Your parents overwhelmingly likely determine your socio-economic status. This means life in America is determined by the geographic happenstance of your birth, something over which you had no decision.











_If that wasn&#8217;t enough, rich adults get some extra help, usually mid-life, in the form of inheritance and other wealth transfers from their rich parents. The wealthiest 1 percent (in the SCF survey, which is less wealthy than the real 1 percent no doubt) have inherited an average of $2.7 million, 447 times more than the least wealthy group of adults._


"Class haunts people from womb to grave, limiting their ability to flourish and pursue the good life as they define it. Confronted with the reality of our society&#8217;s entrenched class system, our national politics in its present state offers three responses. The first response is to deny reality altogether, usually in favor of an anecdote or two. The second is to accept that it exists, but pretend there is nothing you can do about it because those on the bottom are inferior (see Murray, Ryan). And the last response is to note it exists and offer lukewarm solutions that nibble around the margins of the problem without ever doing anything that might actually even things out."


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> Capitalism Guaranteed Rising Inequality.
> America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos
> Your parents overwhelmingly likely determine your socio-economic status. This means life in America is determined by the geographic happenstance of your birth, something over which you had no decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _If that wasnt enough, rich adults get some extra help, usually mid-life, in the form of inheritance and other wealth transfers from their rich parents. The wealthiest 1 percent (in the SCF survey, which is less wealthy than the real 1 percent no doubt) have inherited an average of $2.7 million, 447 times more than the least wealthy group of adults._
> 
> 
> "Class haunts people from womb to grave, limiting their ability to flourish and pursue the good life as they define it. Confronted with the reality of our societys entrenched class system, our national politics in its present state offers three responses. The first response is to deny reality altogether, usually in favor of an anecdote or two. The second is to accept that it exists, but pretend there is nothing you can do about it because those on the bottom are inferior (see Murray, Ryan). And the last response is to note it exists and offer lukewarm solutions that nibble around the margins of the problem without ever doing anything that might actually even things out."


"Fifty-four percent of rich kids get a four-year degree by age 25, six times the percentage of poor kids who do so."

America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos

*Obviously, that American Dream has turned into a nightmare for some.*


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Capitalism Guaranteed Rising Inequality.
> America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos
> Your parents overwhelmingly likely determine your socio-economic status. This means life in America is determined by the geographic happenstance of your birth, something over which you had no decision.



True and irrelevant.    Parents pass on to their kids, work ethic, moral values, and of course genetic disposition to do various work.

Alex Spanos, whose father was a Greek immigrant, wrote a book "Sharing the Wealth", in it he talks about how his father taught all of his kids to work harder than anyone else.  They were driven to be successful in whatever they do.   One ended up a doctor.  The other a lawyer, and Alex himself became a multi-millionaire business owner.

And of course their kids were taught the same basic values, and most of them are massively successful.

Equally, if you live off welfare all your life, and do as little as you possibly can, and your kids learn from you, guess how they'll turn out?   Pretty much the same, unless society forces them off the tax payers breasts, and makes them earn a living.



> _If that wasnt enough, rich adults get some extra help, usually mid-life, in the form of inheritance and other wealth transfers from their rich parents. The wealthiest 1 percent (in the SCF survey, which is less wealthy than the real 1 percent no doubt) have inherited an average of $2.7 million, 447 times more than the least wealthy group of adults._



It's always interesting how a report can come out, and people on the left focus exclusively on one aspect, and ignore everything else.   They put on their ideological blinders, and only see what fits with their socialist narrative.

http://www.bls.gov/ore/pdf/ec110030.pdf

Drop down to page 37.    You'll find this table:  Value of Wealth Transfer Received as a percent of Net Worth.






Now to recap, the leftist theory is that the reason the wealthy are wealthy, is because they inherited $2.7 Million from their parents, which is 447 times more than the least wealthy group of adults get in inheritance, and because they have this $2.7 Million, they then become successful.

To which my answer is...... bull sh!t.

This Table from the survey shows that the inheritance is only 12% of the total net worth of these people.

In other words....   There is a wealthy guy who has a net worth of $22.5 Million that he EARNED.    He then get's an inheritance from his recently dead parents, of a mere $2.7 Million.

The left then ignores the fact he earned the $22.5 Million, point screaming at the $2.7 Million, and mindlessly claim the only reason he was successful was because of the tiny 12% of his net worth that came from the inheritance.

This.... is stupidity.

Also interestingly, the percentage of inherited money to net worth, was oddly higher during the Utopian years of Clinton.

But more importantly, the lower class of people get far more of their net worth from inheritance, than the upper.   But of course the left has no problem with that.

The real reason that the sheer amount of inherited money is larger at the top, is for the same reason as I mentioned above.    Typically, successful people are successful because their parents passed on ethics, morals, and disposition.   Which of course typically means your parents are successful too, and thus have money to pass on.

The welfare queen who has nothing, spawns kids who have nothing.  When the welfare mommy dies, she normally has nothing to pass on either.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism Guaranteed Rising Inequality.
> America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos
> Your parents overwhelmingly likely determine your socio-economic status. This means life in America is determined by the geographic happenstance of your birth, something over which you had no decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True and irrelevant.
Click to expand...


This is irrelevant to you. That is true. But why do you think the 100s of millions of people this study refers to are irrelevant? It isn't irrelevant for me, many of my friends, my community, and 58% of Americans who will experience poverty for a year at least.

Please explain why millions and millions of human beings are irrelevant. Oh wait, I understand now! Why in the hell would I think about other people when it's all about the self. So I should forgot my community, dismiss my friends, forget the conditions under which the economy operates and just get as much as I can within that framework!. I have to remind myself each morning of the selfish attitude I need to adorn. But why does the self only matter when no business, no individual wealth can exist without a community and connected economy? Your wealth can only exist within an economy. If no one took your currency seriously, that would be the end of your wealth. Wealth can not exist without millions and millions of people, even billions agreeing to its value. So it makes no sense to only think about the self because the self depends on the economy and billions of people within which your transactions can exist. Without an economy, you' have no place to make your transactions.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism Guaranteed Rising Inequality.
> America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos
> Your parents overwhelmingly likely determine your socio-economic status. This means life in America is determined by the geographic happenstance of your birth, something over which you had no decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True and irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is irrelevant to you. That is true. But why do you think the 100s of millions of people this study refers to are irrelevant?
> 
> Please explain why millions and millions of human beings are irrelevant. Oh wait, I understand now! Why in the hell would I think about other people when it's all about the self.
Click to expand...


I said the fact that children of wealthy parents tend to end up wealthy too, is irrelevant.  Not that the people who are not wealthy are somehow irrelevant.

Only a brainless scum sucking idiot, would be so moronically stupid to come to that conclusion.

Nothing else you said makes any difference to my point... which only goes to show the absolute stupidity the people on the left spew.   Can't make a real counter point, so instead make up strawman arguments to obscure the fact you couldn't argue that water was wet, without being a grade A asshole.

But then... all of you leftists are the same.  You have to be.  No one can look at reality as it is, and still be a leftist.  That's why you have no choice but to make up complete and total crap, put words in others people's mouths they didn't say, and others wise be a moron in order to keep with your idiotic ideology.

If you were not this dumb, you wouldn't be a leftist.


----------



## gnarlylove

So when you demanded I be more polite some time ago that was not a concern for quality debate--clearly you are not concerned for being polite in return. It doesn't matter and I do not care. My concern is why do you praise capitalism when you clearly reject it's central theme: profit-maximization, rational people making rational choices, cost/benefit etc.? Or do you actually accept the standard premise of rational self-interest, "looking out for #1"?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you support government giving money to companies that failed, that's socializing the loss.
> 
> All socialism supporters say that others are doing it wrong.  Because all socialism fails, that's all that those who support it can say.
> 
> When China's socialism resulted in 63% of the population living below the poverty line of $2 a day, apparently they were doing it wrong.
> When Soviet socialism resulted in mass starvation, and cannibalism being a common problem, apparently they were doing it wrong.
> When Cuba's socialism resulted in people keeping rusted out 1950s cars on the road for 50 years, and people unable to buy aspirin, apparently they were doing it wrong.
> When Venezuela's socialism has resulted in country wide power outages, and food shortages, and lack of toilet paper, apparently they were doing it wrong.
> When Obama pushes more control, more bailouts, more government regulation, and drags out a sluggish economy for more than 5 years, apparently he's doing it wrong.
> 
> That's all socialist supporters ever say is "well he's not doing it right, because it would work if it was right", and yet there is no workers paradise, there is no socialist utopia.   ...and here we are again, with someone pushing socialistic policies, and yet another claim "well he's not doing it right".
> 
> Whatever.   No one can show it done right, so how the heck would you know if he's doing it wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism done right in the richest country in history would not leave one in four US children living in poverty. Socialism would not allow its richest 1% of citizens to amass 22% of national income or its richest 0.1% to take home 11% of national income. Had Socialism been done right over the last 45 years, average US workers would NOT earn less today than they did in 1969, and American men without a college degree would NOT earn almost 40% less than they did four decades ago.
> 
> Much of your confusion stems from an inability to distinguish between socialism and finance capitalism.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand that Wealth is dynamic.  It's not static.
> Wealth is always 100% of the time, in a state of transition.
> 
> Socialism done in the richest country in the world, would result in it no longer being the richest country in the world.
> 
> And 1 in 4 Americans are not living in poverty.   Even if that were true, is that better than China which had 2 out of every 3 Chinese in poverty?
> 
> And just compare what was considered poverty in China, to poverty in the US.   Chinese poverty was $2 a day.   Poverty in the US is $12,000 year?
> 
> Do you think Chinese poverty compares to US poverty?    I'll take Capitalist poverty over Socialist poverty any day.
> 
> Again you keep making claims about what would have happened if Socialism had been done right.... yet apparently there is no example of it being done right.   You don't see workers in Cuba earning more than average workers in Cuba back in the 1960s.   In fact, they are so much better off, they were willing to risk DYING trying to come here.
> 
> You certainly don't see that Venezuelan workers are better off today, than back in the 1980s, when they had the leading economy in all of Latin American.
> 
> You certainly don't see that North Koreans are better off today, than back in the 1960s, and they are willing to sell everything they own to get to that evil South Korean Capitalist system.
> 
> So all your claims about what America would be like under "socialism done right", is just hot air, just bluster and crap spewing.   There is no example of Socialism that didn't result in decline and impoverishment.   Not in the past, nor in the present.    So what you are basing your empty claims on, is beyond me.
Click to expand...

For the benefit of all the shit-for-brains, home-schooled, right-wing bed wetters, here's an example of socialism done wrong that's simple enough for their pygmy powers of comprehension to grasp: when three people have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries and 2% of the global population own 51% of global assets, you're looking a socialism for the rich and table scraps for the rest.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> So when you demanded I be more polite some time ago that was not a concern for quality debate--clearly you are not concerned for being polite in return. It doesn't matter and I do not care.



You deliberately made up statements I didn't say.  You completely ignored all the other information I provided, and the points that I made.  You totally and intentionally refused to talk about the topic of discussion, made blanket accusation, and red herrings as a substitution for intelligent conversation.

I did to you, what you did to me, while calling you out for the childish stupidity of your post.

Here's a hint child.... if you want to be treated like a grown up, if you want people to give your statements respect as intelligent discussion..... you have to actually be a grown up, and debate intelligently.

When you choose to be a pathetic baby, and choose to engage in Middle School level debate, I will turn it around, and throw it back in your face every single time.

Want to be treated like a grown up, you have to be a grown up.  Otherwise, I'll smack you around until either you prove yourself too stupid to talk to and I'll put you on my ignore list, or you grow up, and we continue with a mature discussion.   Your choice.  I'm good either way.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism done right in the richest country in history would not leave one in four US children living in poverty. Socialism would not allow its richest 1% of citizens to amass 22% of national income or its richest 0.1% to take home 11% of national income. Had Socialism been done right over the last 45 years, average US workers would NOT earn less today than they did in 1969, and American men without a college degree would NOT earn almost 40% less than they did four decades ago.
> 
> Much of your confusion stems from an inability to distinguish between socialism and finance capitalism.
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand that Wealth is dynamic.  It's not static.
> Wealth is always 100% of the time, in a state of transition.
> 
> Socialism done in the richest country in the world, would result in it no longer being the richest country in the world.
> 
> And 1 in 4 Americans are not living in poverty.   Even if that were true, is that better than China which had 2 out of every 3 Chinese in poverty?
> 
> And just compare what was considered poverty in China, to poverty in the US.   Chinese poverty was $2 a day.   Poverty in the US is $12,000 year?
> 
> Do you think Chinese poverty compares to US poverty?    I'll take Capitalist poverty over Socialist poverty any day.
> 
> Again you keep making claims about what would have happened if Socialism had been done right.... yet apparently there is no example of it being done right.   You don't see workers in Cuba earning more than average workers in Cuba back in the 1960s.   In fact, they are so much better off, they were willing to risk DYING trying to come here.
> 
> You certainly don't see that Venezuelan workers are better off today, than back in the 1980s, when they had the leading economy in all of Latin American.
> 
> You certainly don't see that North Koreans are better off today, than back in the 1960s, and they are willing to sell everything they own to get to that evil South Korean Capitalist system.
> 
> So all your claims about what America would be like under "socialism done right", is just hot air, just bluster and crap spewing.   There is no example of Socialism that didn't result in decline and impoverishment.   Not in the past, nor in the present.    So what you are basing your empty claims on, is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when three people have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries and 2% of the global population own 51% of global assets, you're looking a socialism for the rich and table scraps for the rest.
Click to expand...


No, sorry.  That's simply not true.     People own more wealth, because they invest instead of consume.

I pointed this out before, and if you want the links again, I'll post them.   A lady in Canada won $10 Million dollars.   Four times as much as the $2.7 Million that your link says that the top 1% get from inheritance.

If the reason the rich are rich, is because they got $2.7 Million in inheritance, then this girl with $10 Million should be in the top 0.1% of the 1%.   Right?

Instead, she's broke.   8 or 9 years later, she's got no car, works a part time job, and rides the bus.

Again, Steve Jobs had $5 Million, invested it into Pixar, which became a block buster movie producer, and sold it for $5 Billion.

What part of this is hard to grasp?    The lady is broke because she consumed her money.   Steve Jobs became rich because he invested his money.

Again, Pinball People, verses the Beer Pong People.

Warren Buffet when he was in high school, saved money from a paper route to buy a Pinball Machine, which he placed in a local business where it earned more money.

Most people in high school when I was there, were buying kegs of beer, going to someone's home whose parents were not there, and playing beer pong all night long.

Buffet was investing his money.   Other people were consuming their money.

Buffet, and the vast majority of the wealthy, are not wealthy by some magical accident.  They are not wealthy because they were super brilliant and smart.  They are not wealthy because some politician bestowed the wealth on them.

They are wealthy simply because they invested instead of consumed.

I just got done reading a book, which talked about a project pushed by the World Bank to increase the wealth of poor African people.  They encouraged micro-lending, funded by the world bank.   The intention was that they simply needed capital to start their own businesses and build the economy.    The Africans instead used the money to buy cigarettes and locally made type of beer.    Nearly all of them defaulted and the program collasped in the first round of loans.

The reason the rich are rich, and the poor are poor, is because one consumes and one invests.

Are there examples of socialized government created super wealthy?  Absolutely.   In china prior to 1978, the only wealthy people, were the CEOs of the government companies, who were only appointed to their position by the Communist party, while the poor and impoverished were earning $2 a day.

I agree with you on that.    But that is a tiny fraction of the wealthy.   80% of millionaires, earned their wealth.  They are first generation rich.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand that Wealth is dynamic.  It's not static.
> Wealth is always 100% of the time, in a state of transition.
> 
> Socialism done in the richest country in the world, would result in it no longer being the richest country in the world.
> 
> And 1 in 4 Americans are not living in poverty.   Even if that were true, is that better than China which had 2 out of every 3 Chinese in poverty?
> 
> And just compare what was considered poverty in China, to poverty in the US.   Chinese poverty was $2 a day.   Poverty in the US is $12,000 year?
> 
> Do you think Chinese poverty compares to US poverty?    I'll take Capitalist poverty over Socialist poverty any day.
> 
> Again you keep making claims about what would have happened if Socialism had been done right.... yet apparently there is no example of it being done right.   You don't see workers in Cuba earning more than average workers in Cuba back in the 1960s.   In fact, they are so much better off, they were willing to risk DYING trying to come here.
> 
> You certainly don't see that Venezuelan workers are better off today, than back in the 1980s, when they had the leading economy in all of Latin American.
> 
> You certainly don't see that North Koreans are better off today, than back in the 1960s, and they are willing to sell everything they own to get to that evil South Korean Capitalist system.
> 
> So all your claims about what America would be like under "socialism done right", is just hot air, just bluster and crap spewing.   There is no example of Socialism that didn't result in decline and impoverishment.   Not in the past, nor in the present.    So what you are basing your empty claims on, is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when three people have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries and 2% of the global population own 51% of global assets, you're looking a socialism for the rich and table scraps for the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sorry.  That's simply not true.     People own more wealth, because they invest instead of consume.
> 
> I pointed this out before, and if you want the links again, I'll post them.   A lady in Canada won $10 Million dollars.   Four times as much as the $2.7 Million that your link says that the top 1% get from inheritance.
> 
> If the reason the rich are rich, is because they got $2.7 Million in inheritance, then this girl with $10 Million should be in the top 0.1% of the 1%.   Right?
> 
> Instead, she's broke.   8 or 9 years later, she's got no car, works a part time job, and rides the bus.
> 
> Again, Steve Jobs had $5 Million, invested it into Pixar, which became a block buster movie producer, and sold it for $5 Billion.
> 
> What part of this is hard to grasp?    The lady is broke because she consumed her money.   Steve Jobs became rich because he invested his money.
> 
> Again, Pinball People, verses the Beer Pong People.
> 
> Warren Buffet when he was in high school, saved money from a paper route to buy a Pinball Machine, which he placed in a local business where it earned more money.
> 
> Most people in high school when I was there, were buying kegs of beer, going to someone's home whose parents were not there, and playing beer pong all night long.
> 
> Buffet was investing his money.   Other people were consuming their money.
> 
> Buffet, and the vast majority of the wealthy, are not wealthy by some magical accident.  They are not wealthy because they were super brilliant and smart.  They are not wealthy because some politician bestowed the wealth on them.
> 
> They are wealthy simply because they invested instead of consumed.
> 
> I just got done reading a book, which talked about a project pushed by the World Bank to increase the wealth of poor African people.  They encouraged micro-lending, funded by the world bank.   The intention was that they simply needed capital to start their own businesses and build the economy.    The Africans instead used the money to buy cigarettes and locally made type of beer.    Nearly all of them defaulted and the program collasped in the first round of loans.
> 
> The reason the rich are rich, and the poor are poor, is because one consumes and one invests.
> 
> Are there examples of socialized government created super wealthy?  Absolutely.   In china prior to 1978, the only wealthy people, were the CEOs of the government companies, who were only appointed to their position by the Communist party, while the poor and impoverished were earning $2 a day.
> 
> I agree with you on that.    But that is a tiny fraction of the wealthy.   80% of millionaires, earned their wealth.  They are first generation rich.
Click to expand...

*Who wrote that book on Africa?*

"Since the inception of the Microfinance Program in 1999, THP has grown the loan portfolio to approximately US$2.9 million across Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal and Uganda. By the end of 2011, 45,000 partners had saved a total of US$1.6 million! Perhaps most importantly, 28 Rural Banks have graduated to operate as their own independent, community-owned and women-led rural financial institutions."

*The World Bank is one of the key institutions for transferring wealth from poor to rich countries so it's hardly surprising when one of their "microfinance" projects fails.

Do you have a link for your 80% of millionaires claim?*

Microfinance Program in Africa | The Hunger Project


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw, do you pursue rational self-interest or do you reject capitalism? Capitalism is everyone pursuing their self-interest and it works out for everyone in the end. Do you accept this premise or do you reject it?


----------



## Doubletap

Godboy said:


> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.



Absolutely.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Godless , totslitarian, communists to the rescue !!!   Lol


----------



## gnarlylove

Doubletap said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
Click to expand...


Lots of people disagree with this laconic, even crass (mis)understanding. Poor people have undergone a far more nuanced change than simply "better" under glorious capitalism

Serfs were at least considered to have a right to be in their place, albeit a rotten place. Under capitalism profits trump human life and so those who can't pay don't get access since under capitalism water, land and existence are owned by those above who may not feel generous to distribute. Indeed, beggars have never been so many as under capitalism. I can enumerate a million particularities that have arisen out of capitalism that were never a concern among the before just 200 years ago. No one denies capitalism has changed how the poor are viewed (as despicable dirt) despite every instance pointing to institutional dysfunction and profit resulting in joblessness, dismantling of communities throughout the heartland, the rust belt, no money=no opportunities, this leads to a desire to escape through drugs and consumption providing short term respite from an otherwise dismal world, day in and day out. I fucking cannot stand white males, and I'm the whitest...god fucking damn our stupidity, narrow points of view arrogance and ignorance! We know nothing and yet claim to know everything!

Hells bells, who's to say that capitalism has brought genuine improvement when being poor literally means you are many times more likely to get cancer, terminal illness, heart disease, many many other health hazards including dying much earlier (Pine Ridge is 48) simply for being poor. And what's the pay off? Consumption? A fridge? Is that the supposed grand prize of capitalism for the poor? The material gain is hardly an adequate reward for being sacrificed on the alter of poverty. The constant debt, harassment to stay ahead on payments that always overwhelm is not some heavenly assent by the poor. It's giving them more responsibility to pay the rich!

Not to mention capitalism undermines the most important feature of life: the spiritual/creative aspect which is undermined through working 1/3 of life, being told what to do. Few supposed religious or christian folk have any genuine connection to compassion taught in all religions  or respecting every moment as an end in itself, as precious, also widely taught and widely dismissed though infinitely important to leading an excellent life.


----------



## gipper

gnarlylove said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people disagree with this laconic, even crass (mis)understanding. Poor people have undergone a far more nuanced change than simply "better" under glorious capitalism
> 
> Serfs were at least considered to have a right to be in their place, albeit a rotten place. Under capitalism profits trump human life and so those who can't pay don't get access since under capitalism water, land and existence are owned by those above who may not feel generous to distribute. Indeed, beggars have never been so many as under capitalism. I can enumerate a million particularities that have arisen out of capitalism that were never a concern among the before just 200 years ago. No one denies capitalism has changed how the poor are viewed (as despicable dirt) despite every instance pointing to institutional dysfunction and profit resulting in joblessness, dismantling of communities throughout the heartland, the rust belt, no money=no opportunities, this leads to a desire to escape through drugs and consumption providing short term respite from an otherwise dismal world, day in and day out. I fucking cannot stand white males, and I'm the whitest...god fucking damn our stupidity, narrow points of view arrogance and ignorance! We know nothing and yet claim to know everything!
> 
> Hells bells, who's to say that capitalism has brought genuine improvement when being poor literally means you are many times more likely to get cancer, terminal illness, heart disease, many many other health hazards including dying much earlier (Pine Ridge is 48) simply for being poor. And what's the pay off? Consumption? A fridge? Is that the supposed grand prize of capitalism for the poor? The material gain is hardly an adequate reward for being sacrificed on the alter of poverty. The constant debt, harassment to stay ahead on payments that always overwhelm is not some heavenly assent by the poor. It's giving them more responsibility to pay the rich!
> 
> Not to mention capitalism undermines the most important feature of life: the spiritual/creative aspect which is undermined through working 1/3 of life, being told what to do. Few supposed religious or christian folk have any genuine connection to compassion taught in all religions  or respecting every moment as an end in itself, as precious, also widely taught and widely dismissed though infinitely important to leading an excellent life.
Click to expand...


Yeah...the serfs had it better than today's poor in the USA....

And you hate white males....sexist and racist are you?


----------



## georgephillip

*What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?

Here's what Thomas Piketty says:*

"Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth. 

"So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network  while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms  *is not an accident: it is the system working normally.*

"If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty. 

"Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice. 

"Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable. 

"The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> *What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?
> 
> Here's what Thomas Piketty says:*
> 
> "Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth.
> 
> "So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network  while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms  *is not an accident: it is the system working normally.*
> 
> "If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty.
> 
> "Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice.
> 
> "Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.
> 
> "The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.
> 
> Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian



* let alone social justice. *

Social justice? LOL!

We must kill the greedy kulaks, eh Obama?

For justice!!!


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> when three people have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries and 2% of the global population own 51% of global assets, you're looking a socialism for the rich and table scraps for the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry.  That's simply not true.     People own more wealth, because they invest instead of consume.
> 
> I pointed this out before, and if you want the links again, I'll post them.   A lady in Canada won $10 Million dollars.   Four times as much as the $2.7 Million that your link says that the top 1% get from inheritance.
> 
> If the reason the rich are rich, is because they got $2.7 Million in inheritance, then this girl with $10 Million should be in the top 0.1% of the 1%.   Right?
> 
> Instead, she's broke.   8 or 9 years later, she's got no car, works a part time job, and rides the bus.
> 
> Again, Steve Jobs had $5 Million, invested it into Pixar, which became a block buster movie producer, and sold it for $5 Billion.
> 
> What part of this is hard to grasp?    The lady is broke because she consumed her money.   Steve Jobs became rich because he invested his money.
> 
> Again, Pinball People, verses the Beer Pong People.
> 
> Warren Buffet when he was in high school, saved money from a paper route to buy a Pinball Machine, which he placed in a local business where it earned more money.
> 
> Most people in high school when I was there, were buying kegs of beer, going to someone's home whose parents were not there, and playing beer pong all night long.
> 
> Buffet was investing his money.   Other people were consuming their money.
> 
> Buffet, and the vast majority of the wealthy, are not wealthy by some magical accident.  They are not wealthy because they were super brilliant and smart.  They are not wealthy because some politician bestowed the wealth on them.
> 
> They are wealthy simply because they invested instead of consumed.
> 
> I just got done reading a book, which talked about a project pushed by the World Bank to increase the wealth of poor African people.  They encouraged micro-lending, funded by the world bank.   The intention was that they simply needed capital to start their own businesses and build the economy.    The Africans instead used the money to buy cigarettes and locally made type of beer.    Nearly all of them defaulted and the program collasped in the first round of loans.
> 
> The reason the rich are rich, and the poor are poor, is because one consumes and one invests.
> 
> Are there examples of socialized government created super wealthy?  Absolutely.   In china prior to 1978, the only wealthy people, were the CEOs of the government companies, who were only appointed to their position by the Communist party, while the poor and impoverished were earning $2 a day.
> 
> I agree with you on that.    But that is a tiny fraction of the wealthy.   80% of millionaires, earned their wealth.  They are first generation rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Who wrote that book on Africa?*
> 
> "Since the inception of the Microfinance Program in 1999, THP has grown the loan portfolio to approximately US$2.9 million across Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal and Uganda. By the end of 2011, 45,000 partners had saved a total of US$1.6 million! Perhaps most importantly, 28 Rural Banks have graduated to operate as their own independent, community-owned and women-led rural financial institutions."
> 
> *The World Bank is one of the key institutions for transferring wealth from poor to rich countries so it's hardly surprising when one of their "microfinance" projects fails.
> 
> Do you have a link for your 80% of millionaires claim?*
> 
> Microfinance Program in Africa | The Hunger Project
Click to expand...


$2.9 million across 8 different countries?  Imagine the stunning economic impact!


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> *What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?
> 
> Here's what Thomas Piketty says:*
> 
> "Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth.
> 
> ]"So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network  while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms  *is not an accident: it is the system working normally.*


*

Then why aren't all the descendants of Commodore Vanderbilt billionaires?  You know his grand children all died penniless, don't you?   That's just one of the bogus assumptions made by this Marxist fool Piketty.  Another one is the belief that capitalism produces slow economic growth.   Big government is the reason economic growth slows, not capitalism.



georgephillip said:



			"If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty.
		
Click to expand...


Wage laborers typical don't save their money, so they don't tend to amass wealth.  What does it mean to "dominate?"  Small amounts of money invested can grow just as fast as large amounts.

The more I learn about this Piketty character, the less impressed I am.  He appears to be good at inventing slogans and talking points for liberals to spew, but it doesn't take much inspection to determine that they're utterly bogus.



georgephillip said:



			"Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice. 

"Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable. 

"The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian

Click to expand...


Where is the evidence that some level of inequality is "unsustainable?"   If it can't be sustained, then it will end, so what's the problem?

And, yes, "the rising wealth of the 1% is" is nothing but rhetoric.  It can easily be deconstructed in a few sentences.*


----------



## Geaux4it

What's wrong with inequality? All men are created equal, then it's up to themselves to rise above their competition. Not everyone excels to be average

-Geaux


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?
> 
> Here's what Thomas Piketty says:*
> 
> "Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth.
> 
> "So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network  while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms  *is not an accident: it is the system working normally.*
> 
> "If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty.
> 
> "Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice.
> 
> "Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.
> 
> "The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.
> 
> Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * let alone social justice. *
> 
> Social justice? LOL!
> 
> We must kill the greedy kulaks, eh Obama?
> 
> For justice!!!
Click to expand...

What's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
r>g??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?
> 
> Here's what Thomas Piketty says:*
> 
> "Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth.
> 
> "So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network  while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms  *is not an accident: it is the system working normally.*
> 
> "If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty.
> 
> "Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice.
> 
> "Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.
> 
> "The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.
> 
> Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * let alone social justice. *
> 
> Social justice? LOL!
> 
> We must kill the greedy kulaks, eh Obama?
> 
> For justice!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
> r>g??
Click to expand...


Commie says what?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?
> 
> Here's what Thomas Piketty says:*
> 
> "Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth.
> 
> "So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network &#8211; while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms &#8211; *is not an accident: it is the system working normally.*
> 
> "If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty.
> 
> "Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice.
> 
> BTW, whenever you put a qualifier in front of the word "justice" what you end up with is a synonym for "injustice."
> 
> "Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.
> 
> "The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.
> 
> Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * let alone social justice. *
> 
> Social justice? LOL!
> 
> We must kill the greedy kulaks, eh Obama?
> 
> For justice!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
> r>g??
Click to expand...


What's "just" about taking money from the people who earned it?


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What happens when Terminal Capitalism produces slow economic growth and better financial returns?
> 
> Here's what Thomas Piketty says:*
> 
> "Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth.
> 
> ]"So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network  while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms  *is not an accident: it is the system working normally.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Then why aren't all the descendants of Commodore Vanderbilt billionaires?  You know his grand children all died penniless, don't you?   That's just one of the bogus assumptions made by this Marxist fool Piketty.  Another one is the belief that capitalism produces slow economic growth.   Big government is the reason economic growth slows, not capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you get slow growth alongside better financial returns, then inherited wealth will, on average, 'dominate wealth amassed from a lifetime's labour by a wide margin', says Piketty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wage laborers typical don't save their money, so they don't tend to amass wealth.  What does it mean to "dominate?"  Small amounts of money invested can grow just as fast as large amounts.
> 
> The more I learn about this Piketty character, the less impressed I am.  He appears to be good at inventing slogans and talking points for liberals to spew, but it doesn't take much inspection to determine that they're utterly bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Wealth will concentrate to levels incompatible with democracy, let alone social justice.
> 
> "Capitalism, in short, automatically creates levels of inequality that are unsustainable.
> 
> "The rising wealth of the 1% is neither a blip, nor rhetoric.
> 
> Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence that some level of inequality is "unsustainable?"   If it can't be sustained, then it will end, so what's the problem?
> 
> And, yes, "the rising wealth of the 1% is" is nothing but rhetoric.  It can easily be deconstructed in a few sentences.*
Click to expand...

*
Feel free to prove that, if you can.
Capitalism produces levels of economic inequality that are "unsustainable" with democracy, not that corporate tools like you would care. 

Piketty has proven capitalism is designed to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation; too bad, your blinders prevent you from seeing that.

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian*


----------



## georgephillip

Geaux4it said:


> What's wrong with inequality? All men are created equal, then it's up to themselves to rise above their competition. Not everyone excels to be average
> 
> -Geaux


*Capitalism is producing levels of inequality that deny equality of opportunity in addition to poisoning democracy will boatloads of bribes.* 

"If he (Piketty) is right, the implications for capitalism are utterly negative: we face a low-growth capitalism, combined with high levels of inequality and low levels of social mobility. 

"If you are not born into wealth to start with, life, for even for the best educated, will be like Jane Eyre without Mr Rochester..."

"Piketty's Capital, unlike Marx's Capital, contains solutions possible on the terrain of capitalism itself: the 15% tax on capital, the 80% tax on high incomes, enforced transparency for all bank transactions, overt use of inflation to redistribute wealth downwards. 

"He calls some of them 'utopian' and he is right. 

"It is easier to imagine capitalism collapsing than the elite consenting to them."

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * let alone social justice. *
> 
> Social justice? LOL!
> 
> We must kill the greedy kulaks, eh Obama?
> 
> For justice!!!
> 
> 
> 
> What's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
> r>g??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's "just" about taking money from the people who earned it?
Click to expand...

They didn't earn it.
They inherited or extracted it by bribing corrupt politicians.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
> r>g??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's "just" about taking money from the people who earned it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't earn it.
> They inherited or extracted it by bribing corrupt politicians.
Click to expand...


You are a fucking scum bag piece of shit, how dare you call some one else bitch!!

Your little instigating cock sucking ass has been trying to spread your liberal socialism bull shit for day, and it is getting old.

Every time your faggot ass turns around, say "HI", I will be stuck up your obnoxious ass till you are silenced!!

How do manage to have any dignity left, the forum already made you look like a stupid cock sucking prick??


----------



## georgephillip

DrDoomNGloom said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's "just" about taking money from the people who earned it?
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't earn it.
> They inherited or extracted it by bribing corrupt politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking scum bag piece of shit, how dare you call some one else bitch!!
> 
> Your little instigating cock sucking ass has been trying to spread your liberal socialism bull shit for day, and it is getting old.
> 
> Every time your faggot ass turns around, say "HI", I will be stuck up your obnoxious ass till you are silenced!!
> 
> How do manage to have any dignity left, the forum already made you look like a stupid cock sucking prick??
Click to expand...


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Oh, I'm impressed ... ROFLMFAO!!


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
> r>g??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's "just" about taking money from the people who earned it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't earn it.
> They inherited or extracted it by bribing corrupt politicians.
Click to expand...


"Corrupt politician" is redundant...

Did you ever consider that if government were smaller, there would be less for "corrupt politicians" to plunder?  Think about it...


----------



## kaz

DrDoomNGloom said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's "just" about taking money from the people who earned it?
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't earn it.
> They inherited or extracted it by bribing corrupt politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking scum bag piece of shit, how dare you call some one else bitch!!
> 
> Your little instigating cock sucking ass has been trying to spread your liberal socialism bull shit for day, and it is getting old.
> 
> Every time your faggot ass turns around, say "HI", I will be stuck up your obnoxious ass till you are silenced!!
> 
> How do manage to have any dignity left, the forum already made you look like a stupid cock sucking prick??
Click to expand...


I see you've meet George, you certainly pegged him quickly...


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

kaz said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't earn it.
> They inherited or extracted it by bribing corrupt politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fucking scum bag piece of shit, how dare you call some one else bitch!!
> 
> Your little instigating cock sucking ass has been trying to spread your liberal socialism bull shit for day, and it is getting old.
> 
> Every time your faggot ass turns around, say "HI", I will be stuck up your obnoxious ass till you are silenced!!
> 
> How do manage to have any dignity left, the forum already made you look like a stupid cock sucking prick??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you've meet George, you certainly pegged him quickly...
Click to expand...


What a freaking ankle biter, good thing he got no teeth ....
Pathetic excuse for a human being, seems to be denser than a ball bearing and not near as intelligent ....

I am sure me and the little prick will get to know each other quite well if he hangs around!!


----------



## peach174

I think that this wrongheaded Thomas Piketty idiot needs to take a plane ride to South Africa with Bono.
Bono will straighten him out very quickly.


----------



## bedowin62

We have perhaps the most Progressive-MINDED President in a lifetime; maybe in our history. On his watch the richest are getting richer FASTER than under Republicans; and the poor are getting POORER FASTER than they were under Republicans

 instead of blaming capitalism; why not admit the Progressive agenda is a failure?

 libs are losers who lie to themselves

george phillip is one of the idiots lying to himself


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * let alone social justice. *
> 
> Social justice? LOL!
> 
> We must kill the greedy kulaks, eh Obama?
> 
> For justice!!!
> 
> 
> 
> What's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
> r>g??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commie says what?
Click to expand...

Swallow much, ?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

georgephillip said:


> toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's your problem with justice, rich bitch?
> R>g??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> commie says what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> swallow much, ?
> 
> NO ONE SWALLOWS AS MUCH AS YOU GEORGE!!
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Oh, I'm impressed ... ROFLMFAO!!


Why would I care, "Genius"?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Don't understand sarcasm either, huh .... why am I not surprised?? 

It just keeps getting better and better, you just keep making your self look stupider and stupider ....


----------



## georgephillip

"Inequality is indeed increasing almost everywhere in the postindustrial capitalist world. 

"But despite what many on the left think, this is not the result of politics, nor is politics likely to reverse it, for the problem is more deeply rooted and intractable than generally recognized. Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it -- because some individuals and communities are simply better able than others to exploit the opportunities for development and advancement that capitalism affords. 

"Despite what many on the right think, however, this is a problem for everybody, not just those who are doing poorly or those who are ideologically committed to egalitarianism -- because if left unaddressed, rising inequality and economic insecurity can erode social order and generate a populist backlash against the capitalist system at large."

Jerry Z. Muller | Capitalism and Inequality | Foreign Affairs


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

georgephillip said:


> "Inequality is indeed increasing almost everywhere in the postindustrial capitalist world.
> 
> "But despite what many on the left think, this is not the result of politics, nor is politics likely to reverse it, for the problem is more deeply rooted and intractable than generally recognized. Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it -- because some individuals and communities are simply better able than others to exploit the opportunities for development and advancement that capitalism affords.
> 
> "Despite what many on the right think, however, this is a problem for everybody, not just those who are doing poorly or those who are ideologically committed to egalitarianism -- because if left unaddressed, rising inequality and economic insecurity can erode social order and generate a populist backlash against the capitalist system at large."
> 
> Jerry Z. Muller | Capitalism and Inequality | Foreign Affairs



We've discussed this at length, the populace of today does not have the skills to compete in the job markets. There is a intelligence inequality that cannot be over come with legislation.

You failure to grasp even the simplest form of this problem illustrates that some will just be to stupid to learn no matter what ... talk about wasting your time, fuck that damn pig we gonna make bacon out of it's ignorant ass ...


----------



## georgephillip

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Don't understand sarcasm either, huh .... why am I not surprised??
> 
> It just keeps getting better and better, you just keep making your self look stupider and stupider ....


You're not surprised because you're brain-dead, Bitch.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Life guarantees inequality.

Doesn't it?

Some people always do better than others in all human endeavors.


----------



## peach174

Like I said Bono has seen it with his own eyes.


Progressivism is what is causing the large gaps of inequality.
There will always be inequality, Capitalism makes it more equal but never will there be complete equality and it shouldn't
NO system can create equal quality and if it ever did, life would be so boring that you could not stand it.
Everybody in the same house, everybody thinking the same, everybody getting paid the same.
No reason to advance in science or technology.
Why should there be, after all everything and everyone is all equal. That leads to boredom, nothingness and then suicide.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and *expanding equality of opportunity only increases it *-- because some individuals and communities are simply better able than others to exploit the opportunities for development and advancement that capitalism affords.



Yup. We must destroy opportunity, to make Commies happy.


----------



## georgephillip

Skull Pilot said:


> Life guarantees inequality.
> 
> Doesn't it?
> 
> Some people always do better than others in all human endeavors.


Finance capitalism guarantees inequality of opportunity which means inherited wealth will continue growing at the expense of productive labor without government intervention on behalf of labor instead of capital.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life guarantees inequality.
> 
> Doesn't it?
> 
> Some people always do better than others in all human endeavors.
> 
> 
> 
> Finance capitalism guarantees inequality of opportunity which means inherited wealth will continue growing at the expense of productive labor without government intervention on behalf of labor instead of capital.
Click to expand...


Life guarantees inequality of opportunity.  Anyone who believes any form of government can eliminate that is seriously delusional.

History shows that the descendants of men who made great fortunes almost always dissipate it and fritter it away.  Otherwise the Vanderbilts would be the richest people in the country rather than the Waltons.

Your recycled Marxist theories were discredited long ago.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and *expanding equality of opportunity only increases it *-- because some individuals and communities are simply better able than others to exploit the opportunities for development and advancement that capitalism affords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. We must destroy opportunity, to make Commies happy.
Click to expand...

Or we could try... "* the 15% tax on capital, the 80% tax on high incomes, enforced transparency for all bank transactions, overt use of inflation to redistribute wealth downwards. He calls some of them 'utopian' and he is right. It is easier to imagine capitalism collapsing than the elite consenting to them."*

Collapsing capitalism...what could be better?

Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life guarantees inequality.
> 
> Doesn't it?
> 
> Some people always do better than others in all human endeavors.
> 
> 
> 
> *Finance capitalism guarantees inequality of opportunity *which means inherited wealth will continue growing at the expense of productive labor without government intervention on behalf of labor instead of capital.
Click to expand...


Your own source said, "expanding equality of opportunity only increases it"

*inherited wealth will continue growing at the expense of productive labor*

Inherited wealth only grows when it assists productive labor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and *expanding equality of opportunity only increases it *-- because some individuals and communities are simply better able than others to exploit the opportunities for development and advancement that capitalism affords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. We must destroy opportunity, to make Commies happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or we could try... "* the 15% tax on capital, the 80% tax on high incomes, enforced transparency for all bank transactions, overt use of inflation to redistribute wealth downwards. He calls some of them 'utopian' and he is right. It is easier to imagine capitalism collapsing than the elite consenting to them."*
> 
> Collapsing capitalism...what could be better?
> 
> Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller | Books | The Guardian
Click to expand...


Try those ideas in some craphole country.
After their inevitable success, we can implement them in the US, in 2060, maybe.


----------



## gnarlylove

Geaux4it said:


> What's wrong with inequality? All men are created equal, then it's up to themselves to rise above their competition. Not everyone excels to be average
> 
> -Geaux



Entering into the social contract and forming society does not necessitate competition at the expense of billions of lives. You are talking about a particular way of arranging society that clearly does not work for the billions of people. The white race and the rich especially choose this route of competition for the poor to graduate into the middle class but few enter the ranks of high society and affluence from rags. No, you must be groomed in order to own so much capital and you must have certain interests, namely, not in competing but in gaining monopolized and oligarchic control over resources with a gigantic military backing up all your global exploits.

Geaux is just another french white property owner who enjoyed telling narratives that may have been true for him but is false for the majority of human beings that have lived. Sounds like a farse unless you derive sustenance from the suffering of those loosing the rigged game. If so, shame.


----------



## elektra

Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.

Capitalism does not exsist. 

Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.

Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with inequality? All men are created equal, then it's up to themselves to rise above their competition. Not everyone excels to be average
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Entering into the social contract and forming society does not necessitate competition at the expense of billions of lives. You are talking about a particular way of arranging society that clearly does not work for the billions of people. The white race and the rich especially choose this route of competition for the poor to graduate into the middle class but few enter the ranks of high society and affluence from rags. No, you must be groomed in order to own so much capital and you must have certain interests, namely, not in competing but in gaining monopolized and oligarchic control over resources with a gigantic military backing up all your global exploits.
> 
> Geaux is just another french white property owner who enjoyed telling narratives that may have been true for him but is false for the majority of human beings that have lived. Sounds like a farse unless you derive sustenance from the suffering of those loosing the rigged game. If so, shame.
Click to expand...


*Entering into the social contract and forming society does not necessitate competition at the expense of billions of lives. *

At the expense of billions of lives? What are you talking about?

The introduction of capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of crushing poverty in China and India in just the last few decades.

*You are talking about a particular way of arranging society that clearly does not work for the billions of people. *

How's communism work for the billions of people?

* No, you must be groomed in order to own so much capital *

Groomed? By whom?

*and you must have certain interests, namely, not in competing but in gaining monopolized and oligarchic control over resources with a gigantic military backing up all your global exploits.*

Every individual must have those interests? Before they're admitted to the club?
Explain all the rich people who have the opposite interests.


----------



## gnarlylove

elektra said:


> Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.
> 
> Capitalism does not exsist.
> 
> Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.
> 
> Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.



We tried capitalism. We had free markets as best as they will be. But what alawys happens when the markets are free is the fact there are winners. The market does not exist in perfect conditions of equal property distribution and such a condition could never exist given the variance of the value of land etc. So some start out with more land and resources (i.e. capital) than others. And as these folks do business, they aim to expand their capital.

So as free markets produced winners, those winners gained capital. Upon acquiring more capital than before, they though "hmm...I want even more capital." Thus investment came about. Over and over some became greater winners while others were left in the dust. As monopolies entered the scene, we tried to bust them up. That has largely been abandoned. Why is that?

Because as with all free market conditions, the winners eventually develop so much wealth that they can influence the state to protect their interests and expand their interests.* In short, free markets lead to oligopolistic conditions out of necessity*. Each time free markets are played out, winners result and these winners invest their money into ensuring economic policy benefits them. To do anything otherwise would literally be insane under capitalist dogma of pursuing rational self-interest. In fact, the investment theory of politics does a great job of explaining and predicting outcomes. 

So stop defending some fairytale that you admit doesn't exist! Capitalism is a joke and does not exist and can never exist under real world conditions. Come to earth where people exist and start discussing ways to ensure human beings are not needlessly murdered or driven from their land through the expansion of capital (through war, mergers, privatization etc.).


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with inequality? All men are created equal, then it's up to themselves to rise above their competition. Not everyone excels to be average
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Entering into the social contract and forming society does not necessitate competition at the expense of billions of lives. You are talking about a particular way of arranging society that clearly does not work for the billions of people. The white race and the rich especially choose this route of competition for the poor to graduate into the middle class but few enter the ranks of high society and affluence from rags. No, you must be groomed in order to own so much capital and you must have certain interests, namely, not in competing but in gaining monopolized and oligarchic control over resources with a gigantic military backing up all your global exploits.
> 
> Geaux is just another french white property owner who enjoyed telling narratives that may have been true for him but is false for the majority of human beings that have lived. Sounds like a farse unless you derive sustenance from the suffering of those loosing the rigged game. If so, shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Entering into the social contract and forming society does not necessitate competition at the expense of billions of lives. *
> 
> At the expense of billions of lives? What are you talking about?
> 
> The introduction of capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of crushing poverty in China and India in just the last few decades.
> 
> *You are talking about a particular way of arranging society that clearly does not work for the billions of people. *
> 
> How's communism work for the billions of people?
> 
> * No, you must be groomed in order to own so much capital *
> 
> Groomed? By whom?
> 
> *and you must have certain interests, namely, not in competing but in gaining monopolized and oligarchic control over resources with a gigantic military backing up all your global exploits.*
> 
> Every individual must have those interests? Before they're admitted to the club?
> Explain all the rich people who have the opposite interests.
Click to expand...


Just letting you know please don't reply to my posts. I simply do not value exchange with you since it took 10 pages for you to admit how right you were from page 1. You have no capacity for learning. You demonstrate that every post: you ask "groomed by whom?" I listed a book about this question and you fail to look for the answer to your question. Doesn't seem like you really ask questions to find answers. You ask them because youre bored or other mental neurosis so stop wasting your time and mine. If it gives your tiny brain with an infinitely large ego any closure "you are obviously right about everything and I am wrong about everything." If you reply to me again I'm simply going to block your boredom.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Entering into the social contract and forming society does not necessitate competition at the expense of billions of lives. You are talking about a particular way of arranging society that clearly does not work for the billions of people. The white race and the rich especially choose this route of competition for the poor to graduate into the middle class but few enter the ranks of high society and affluence from rags. No, you must be groomed in order to own so much capital and you must have certain interests, namely, not in competing but in gaining monopolized and oligarchic control over resources with a gigantic military backing up all your global exploits.
> 
> Geaux is just another french white property owner who enjoyed telling narratives that may have been true for him but is false for the majority of human beings that have lived. Sounds like a farse unless you derive sustenance from the suffering of those loosing the rigged game. If so, shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Entering into the social contract and forming society does not necessitate competition at the expense of billions of lives. *
> 
> At the expense of billions of lives? What are you talking about?
> 
> The introduction of capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of crushing poverty in China and India in just the last few decades.
> 
> *You are talking about a particular way of arranging society that clearly does not work for the billions of people. *
> 
> How's communism work for the billions of people?
> 
> * No, you must be groomed in order to own so much capital *
> 
> Groomed? By whom?
> 
> *and you must have certain interests, namely, not in competing but in gaining monopolized and oligarchic control over resources with a gigantic military backing up all your global exploits.*
> 
> Every individual must have those interests? Before they're admitted to the club?
> Explain all the rich people who have the opposite interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just letting you know please don't reply to my posts. I simply do not value exchange with you since it took 10 pages for you to admit how right you were from page 1. You have no capacity for learning. You demonstrate that every post: you ask "groomed by whom?" I listed a book about this question and you fail to look for the answer to your question. Doesn't seem like you really ask questions to find answers. You ask them because youre bored or other mental neurosis so stop wasting your time and mine. If it gives your tiny brain with an infinitely large ego any closure "you are obviously right about everything and I am wrong about everything." If you reply to me again I'm simply going to block your boredom.
Click to expand...


* "you are obviously right about everything and I am wrong about everything." *

Smartest thing you've ever posted.


----------



## Skull Pilot

georgephillip said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life guarantees inequality.
> 
> Doesn't it?
> 
> Some people always do better than others in all human endeavors.
> 
> 
> 
> Finance capitalism guarantees inequality of opportunity which means inherited wealth will continue growing at the expense of productive labor without government intervention on behalf of labor instead of capital.
Click to expand...


What opportunities have you been denied?

Let me tell you that any family in this country and I do mean any family can amass wealth over a few generations.

All it takes is the will and discipline to do so.


----------



## georgephillip

elektra said:


> Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.
> 
> Capitalism does not exsist.
> 
> Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.
> 
> Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.


That vast private fortunes capitalism produces control every government on the planet.
Wealth has controlled every government yet devised, and the US is one of the best examples of how oligarchy buys out democracy. Find a way to insulate government from the corrosive effects of private wealth, and democracy might have some real meaning.


----------



## georgephillip

Skull Pilot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life guarantees inequality.
> 
> Doesn't it?
> 
> Some people always do better than others in all human endeavors.
> 
> 
> 
> Finance capitalism guarantees inequality of opportunity which means inherited wealth will continue growing at the expense of productive labor without government intervention on behalf of labor instead of capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What opportunities have you been denied?
> 
> Let me tell you that any family in this country and I do mean any family can amass wealth over a few generations.
> 
> All it takes is the will and discipline to do so.
Click to expand...

*I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.*


----------



## Skull Pilot

georgephillip said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finance capitalism guarantees inequality of opportunity which means inherited wealth will continue growing at the expense of productive labor without government intervention on behalf of labor instead of capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What opportunities have you been denied?
> 
> Let me tell you that any family in this country and I do mean any family can amass wealth over a few generations.
> 
> All it takes is the will and discipline to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.*
Click to expand...


Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.

All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.

If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?

Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?

Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.

Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.

If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)

By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.

For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million

Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.

Do you see where this is going yet?

We're not even three generations into the process yet.

All for the cost of a new car payment per couple.  Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?


----------



## dnsmith35

Skull Pilot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What opportunities have you been denied?
> 
> Let me tell you that any family in this country and I do mean any family can amass wealth over a few generations.
> 
> All it takes is the will and discipline to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> *I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.
> 
> All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.
> 
> If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?
> 
> Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?
> 
> Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.
> 
> Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.
> 
> If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)
> 
> By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.
> 
> For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million
> 
> Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.
> 
> Do you see where this is going yet?
> 
> We're not even three generations into the process yet.
> 
> All for the cost of a new car payment per couple.  Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?
Click to expand...

The very idea that capitalism is the cause of inequality is horse puckey. Without capitalism everyone would be less wealth and the country would not  have the prosperity to fund the social programs for the needy and disabled.


----------



## georgephillip

Skull Pilot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What opportunities have you been denied?
> 
> Let me tell you that any family in this country and I do mean any family can amass wealth over a few generations.
> 
> All it takes is the will and discipline to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> *I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.
> 
> All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.
> 
> If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?
> 
> Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?
> 
> Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.
> 
> Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.
> 
> If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)
> 
> By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.
> 
> For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million
> 
> Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.
> 
> Do you see where this is going yet?
> 
> We're not even three generations into the process yet.
> 
> All for the cost of a new car payment per couple.  Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?
Click to expand...

I'm a little perplexed about when the payout occurs?
Am I correct is assuming each couple deposits $350 every month of their adult lives without ever spending any of the trust?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.
> 
> All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.
> 
> If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?
> 
> Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?
> 
> Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.
> 
> Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.
> 
> If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)
> 
> By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.
> 
> For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million
> 
> Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.
> 
> Do you see where this is going yet?
> 
> We're not even three generations into the process yet.
> 
> All for the cost of a new car payment per couple.  Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a little perplexed about when the payout occurs?
> Am I correct is assuming each couple deposits $350 every month of their adult lives without ever spending any of the trust?
Click to expand...


In his example, that is exactly right.  He's assuming some will invest right up until they die.   And truth is, many do.

For most the payout comes when you are 65, or whenever you wish to retire.

So from age 25 to 65, you put in $350 a month.

By the time you are 65, assuming you never put in more than $350 a month, and assuming the market does what would be a terrible 7.5% yearly, you will end up with a Million dollars in investments.

At 65, we assume you retire, and start collecting from your retirement.

Your million dollars is still making (the assumed terrible) 7.5%, which is $75,000 a year.    Can you retire on $75,000 a year?    I should hope so.

Thus you can live out the rest of your life on $75,000 a year, without touching a penny of the principal.    When you die, you will pass on $1 Million in investments to your child, or kids.

Now, assuming they follow in the wisdom of your footsteps, they too will be growing their retirement investment, which when you die will suddenly be boosted by a mere $1 Million.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.
> 
> Capitalism does not exsist.
> 
> Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.
> 
> Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> That vast private fortunes capitalism produces control every government on the planet.
> Wealth has controlled every government yet devised, and the US is one of the best examples of how oligarchy buys out democracy. Find a way to insulate government from the corrosive effects of private wealth, and democracy might have some real meaning.
Click to expand...


Again, I'd suggest you are going to be one hell of a miserable person for the rest of your life.

There is no possible way to "insulate" government from money.... with the minor exception of simply electing honorable people.   Of course in order to have honorable people, you have to have an honorable society, which requires morality, right and wrong, and a belief in something greater than the almighty "me". 

But short of electing honorable people, you are never going to separate government and money.  There has never been in all human history, in all cultures, in all governmental systems, a society in which government was not influenced by money.

I'm not suggesting that you should not desire such a thing, but I'd really like a space car that can fly to the moon and back, on leftover meatloaf.   It's a nice thing to want, but getting bitter over it is a waste of my time.   So is this happy utopian government sans money.

Further, I don't even know how you could even try and justify your stated beliefs, given I could easily list of dozens, possible hundreds of examples, even in the past decade, where if the wealthy people really controlled government, so many of the policies as they exist would not have happened.


----------



## elektra

georgephillip said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.
> 
> Capitalism does not exsist.
> 
> Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.
> 
> Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> That vast private fortunes capitalism produces control every government on the planet.
> Wealth has controlled every government yet devised, and the US is one of the best examples of how oligarchy buys out democracy. Find a way to insulate government from the corrosive effects of private wealth, and democracy might have some real meaning.
Click to expand...



Democracy? The United States is a Republic. 

In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

You live in Democracy, where the mob can trample the rights of the individual?


----------



## elektra

gnarlylove said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.
> 
> Capitalism does not exsist.
> 
> Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.
> 
> Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We tried capitalism. We had free markets as best as they will be. But what alawys happens when the markets are free is the fact there are winners. The market does not exist in perfect conditions of equal property distribution and such a condition could never exist given the variance of the value of land etc. So some start out with more land and resources (i.e. capital) than others. And as these folks do business, they aim to expand their capital.
> 
> So as free markets produced winners, those winners gained capital. Upon acquiring more capital than before, they though "hmm...I want even more capital." Thus investment came about. Over and over some became greater winners while others were left in the dust. As monopolies entered the scene, we tried to bust them up. That has largely been abandoned. Why is that?
> 
> Because as with all free market conditions, the winners eventually develop so much wealth that they can influence the state to protect their interests and expand their interests.* In short, free markets lead to oligopolistic conditions out of necessity*. Each time free markets are played out, winners result and these winners invest their money into ensuring economic policy benefits them. To do anything otherwise would literally be insane under capitalist dogma of pursuing rational self-interest. In fact, the investment theory of politics does a great job of explaining and predicting outcomes.
> 
> So stop defending some fairytale that you admit doesn't exist! Capitalism is a joke and does not exist and can never exist under real world conditions. Come to earth where people exist and start discussing ways to ensure human beings are not needlessly murdered or driven from their land through the expansion of capital (through war, mergers, privatization etc.).
Click to expand...


We tried capitalism? When? Thus far you stated an ideological political rant, so forget the rant and actually tell us what you are talking about, tell us the history of capitalism, go ahead and tell us the era, the people, how they played the market and used the money as you stated, go ahead, I will hold my breath as a wait for this enlightening history of capitalism and the usa.


----------



## f252863

gnarlylove said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.
> 
> Capitalism does not exsist.
> 
> Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.
> 
> Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We tried capitalism. We had free markets as best as they will be. But what alawys happens when the markets are free is the fact there are winners. The market does not exist in perfect conditions of equal property distribution and such a condition could never exist given the variance of the value of land etc. So some start out with more land and resources (i.e. capital) than others. And as these folks do business, they aim to expand their capital.
> 
> So as free markets produced winners, those winners gained capital. Upon acquiring more capital than before, they though "hmm...I want even more capital." Thus investment came about. Over and over some became greater winners while others were left in the dust. As monopolies entered the scene, we tried to bust them up. That has largely been abandoned. Why is that?
> 
> Because as with all free market conditions, the winners eventually develop so much wealth that they can influence the state to protect their interests and expand their interests.* In short, free markets lead to oligopolistic conditions out of necessity*. Each time free markets are played out, winners result and these winners invest their money into ensuring economic policy benefits them. To do anything otherwise would literally be insane under capitalist dogma of pursuing rational self-interest. In fact, the investment theory of politics does a great job of explaining and predicting outcomes.
> 
> So stop defending some fairytale that you admit doesn't exist! Capitalism is a joke and does not exist and can never exist under real world conditions. Come to earth where people exist and start discussing ways to ensure human beings are not needlessly murdered or driven from their land through the expansion of capital (through war, mergers, privatization etc.).
Click to expand...


You are describing cronyism, not capitalism.   

Name me one natural monopoly that was destructive to society.   You can't.   All harmful monopolies are government created.   Isn't it absurd to say that regulated competition is fair?


----------



## Skull Pilot

georgephillip said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.
> 
> All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.
> 
> If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?
> 
> Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?
> 
> Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.
> 
> Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.
> 
> If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)
> 
> By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.
> 
> For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million
> 
> Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.
> 
> Do you see where this is going yet?
> 
> We're not even three generations into the process yet.
> 
> All for the cost of a new car payment per couple.  Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a little perplexed about when the payout occurs?
> Am I correct is assuming each couple deposits $350 every month of their adult lives without ever spending any of the trust?
Click to expand...


That's the problem isn;t it?  You're worried about your payout.

By the time the original couple has grandchildren there will be enough to pay for any college in the world.

After 3 generations there will probably be enough to pay out individual trust funds for future progeny.

But the process has to start somewhere.

Even if you weren't interested in generational wealth that same 350 a month would give the original couple over 1.5 million when they were 70.

If all you care about is yourself that would make a nice retirement nest egg wouldn't it?


----------



## AvgGuyIA

A thread where nazis and communists agree.  Try to tell me again that one is right wing and the other is left wing.


----------



## Andylusion

AvgGuyIA said:


> A thread where nazis and communists agree.  Try to tell me again that one is right wing and the other is left wing.



Oh I know.   All the way back in high school, when I was taught the political spectrum, even back then I remember thinking it didn't make sense.  I couldn't find anything distinctive enough to make Nazis 'right-wing'.   In nearly every possible political position, Nazis were exactly like Communists.

Even Stalin when he saw he wasn't going to beat Hitler in Germany, instructed his people to support Hitler over the Capitalists.   What does that tell you? 

Leftard: "Obviously Nazis are polar opposites from Communists, but similar to Capitalists, which is why Stalin supported them over the Capitalists"

The ONLY reason Communists and Nazis were not on the same side, is exclusively because Stalin and Hitler has mutually exclusive goals... namely the dominance of their own power.

It was hilarious, but the BBC did a documentary on "Russia's Far Right".  You can look it up in the archives at BBC.   They interviewed self proclaimed Neo-Nazis of Russia.  They supported Hitler, supported Nazis, had swastikas, the whole deal.

They started asking them what they wanted, and it read out like the Communist manifesto.    Solidarity of the working class, nationalization of major companies, elimination of the greedy oligarch class, return to Stalinism (literally said this).

I often wondered since this doc came out, did the reporters at the BBC ever think....  wait..... wait wait....  that sounds remarkably similar to left-wing beliefs....


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I grew up during the "great leveling" which was one of the few times in the history of capitalism when returns of investment didn't exceed the real growth of wages and output. Most of the opportunities I missed were of my own making, but the same can't be said for today's workers, not to mention their descendants.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.
> 
> All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.
> 
> If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?
> 
> Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?
> 
> Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.
> 
> Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.
> 
> If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)
> 
> By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.
> 
> For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million
> 
> Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.
> 
> Do you see where this is going yet?
> 
> We're not even three generations into the process yet.
> 
> All for the cost of a new car payment per couple.  Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The very idea that capitalism is the cause of inequality is horse puckey. Without capitalism everyone would be less wealth and the country would not  have the prosperity to fund the social programs for the needy and disabled.
Click to expand...

You're conflating capitalism's unquestioned success as a wealth generating engine with its equally well established mechanism for concentrating that wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation. 

When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth and output in the economy, capitalism automatically generates the sort of wealth concentration that makes Democracy as significant as a "choice" between Republican OR Democrat.

Thomas Piketty On Capitalism And Inequality | On Point with Tom Ashbrook


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.
> 
> Capitalism does not exsist.
> 
> Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.
> 
> Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> That vast private fortunes capitalism produces control every government on the planet.
> Wealth has controlled every government yet devised, and the US is one of the best examples of how oligarchy buys out democracy. Find a way to insulate government from the corrosive effects of private wealth, and democracy might have some real meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I'd suggest you are going to be one hell of a miserable person for the rest of your life.
> 
> There is no possible way to "insulate" government from money.... with the minor exception of simply electing honorable people.   Of course in order to have honorable people, you have to have an honorable society, which requires morality, right and wrong, and a belief in something greater than the almighty "me".
> 
> But short of electing honorable people, you are never going to separate government and money.  There has never been in all human history, in all cultures, in all governmental systems, a society in which government was not influenced by money.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that you should not desire such a thing, but I'd really like a space car that can fly to the moon and back, on leftover meatloaf.   It's a nice thing to want, but getting bitter over it is a waste of my time.   So is this happy utopian government sans money.
> 
> Further, I don't even know how you could even try and justify your stated beliefs, given I could easily list of dozens, possible hundreds of examples, even in the past decade, where if the wealthy people really controlled government, so many of the policies as they exist would not have happened.
Click to expand...

Public funding of elections would insulate government from the corrosive effects of private wealth. Think it can't happen? I knew racists who said the same thing about Jim Crow fifty years ago. And just like segregation, the current levels of inequality will make the US commitment to democracy and human rights laughing stocks world wide.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.
> 
> All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.
> 
> If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?
> 
> Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?
> 
> Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.
> 
> Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.
> 
> If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)
> 
> By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.
> 
> For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million
> 
> Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.
> 
> Do you see where this is going yet?
> 
> We're not even three generations into the process yet.
> 
> All for the cost of a new car payment per couple.  Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?
> 
> 
> 
> The very idea that capitalism is the cause of inequality is horse puckey. Without capitalism everyone would be less wealth and the country would not  have the prosperity to fund the social programs for the needy and disabled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're conflating capitalism's unquestioned success as a wealth generating engine with its equally well established mechanism for concentrating that wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth and output in the economy, capitalism automatically generates the sort of wealth concentration that makes Democracy as significant as a "choice" between Republican OR Democrat.
> 
> Thomas Piketty On Capitalism And Inequality | On Point with Tom Ashbrook
Click to expand...


*You're conflating capitalism's unquestioned success as a wealth generating engine with its equally well established mechanism for concentrating that wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.*

Exactly! Just look at all the millionaires in China 40 years ago and compare that to the much smaller number of Chinese millionaires today.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very idea that capitalism is the cause of inequality is horse puckey. Without capitalism everyone would be less wealth and the country would not  have the prosperity to fund the social programs for the needy and disabled.
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating capitalism's unquestioned success as a wealth generating engine with its equally well established mechanism for concentrating that wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth and output in the economy, capitalism automatically generates the sort of wealth concentration that makes Democracy as significant as a "choice" between Republican OR Democrat.
> 
> Thomas Piketty On Capitalism And Inequality | On Point with Tom Ashbrook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're conflating capitalism's unquestioned success as a wealth generating engine with its equally well established mechanism for concentrating that wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.*
> 
> Exactly! Just look at all the millionaires in China 40 years ago and compare that to the much smaller number of Chinese millionaires today.
Click to expand...

Look at all those Walton billionaires in the US 40 years ago and compare them to the much fewer Walton billionaires today


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> You're conflating capitalism's unquestioned success as a wealth generating engine with its equally well established mechanism for concentrating that wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth and output in the economy, capitalism automatically generates the sort of wealth concentration that makes Democracy as significant as a "choice" between Republican OR Democrat.
> 
> Thomas Piketty On Capitalism And Inequality | On Point with Tom Ashbrook



Um...   The problem we're having is the claim that Capitalism 'causes' inequality.

Capitalism in and of itself, does not 'cause' inequality.

Choice causes inequality.   Capitals is built on freedom of choice.

Socialism promotes equality, by denying choice.

Say you have two people, and one likes to sit around drinking beer, smoking, and watching biggest loser on TV.   The other likes to go out and be productive, and invest into things that generate more wealth.

In a Capitalist system, where each man can do as he pleases, the guy who is a go-getter investing in new projects and working to earn more money, will grow and be wealthy.    The other who consumes his income in beer and smokes, and sitting around watching cable TV, will remain low income, assuming he works at all.

In a socialized system, the go-getter can't.   Without the ability to create business, and bring products to market, he's stuck with the drinker smoker biggest loser watcher.

The socialized system promotes equality....  namely equally poor.    The Capitalist system promotes freedom, and thus a concentration of wealth to the one who chooses and acts wisely.

Robertson could have simply remained a drunk, and would have remained poor like his drunk friends.   Instead he produced a product that people wanted, and sold it.   Now he's a multi-millionaire.

That's how Socialism promotes impoverishment on the individual side.  There is also an effect on the corporate / market side.

For example I'm in the process of buying shocks for my car.

There are Monroe Shocks for my car, and there are KYB shocks for my car.   I'm planning on purchasing the KYB shocks, even though they are $20 per shock, more expensive.

Why?  Because they are better shocks.  Better design, better quality, smoother ride.

In a Capitalist system, KYB and it's investors, put money into the research and design, the over all investment of producing a better quality product.   As a result they can charge a higher price, and have higher sales.    Thus KYB gets more money, than Monroe, for what is essentially the exact same product.   Therefore there is a concentration of wealth at one company over the other.

Alternatively in a socialized market, the government would declare "shocks are worth X price".   KYB would have no reason or incentive to produce a better shock, because the government controlled the market.

Citizens would be stuck with a lower quality product, but all citizens would get the same lower quality product.

Again, socialism results in equality.... equally impoverishment.

Capitalism, by allow buyers the freedom to choose what product to buy, and how much they are willing to pay, results in inequality.

When I'm done, my car will have a smoother ride than other people with the exact same car, with OEM shocks.  Inequality.

To the point....

While I disagree with the idea that Capitalism directly 'causes' inequality, I *DO* agree that Capitalism allows, and results in inequality.

But my main point is.... Inequality is GOOD.   Equality can only be equally impoverished.  Equally poor.   Equally bad.    It is impossible to have an equally 'rich' system, when people choose to not do what is required to be rich.   The result of any system of equality, is always going to be to lower the standard to the lowest common economic denominator.

Inequality, despite the railing of the left, has result in a society where the vast majority of the public is in the top 1% of income earners in the entire world.    All the 'equal' societies have not had that level of wealth.


----------



## gnarlylove

elektra said:


> We tried capitalism? When? Thus far you stated an ideological political rant, so forget the rant and actually tell us what you are talking about, tell us the history of capitalism, go ahead and tell us the era, the people, how they played the market and used the money as you stated, go ahead, I will hold my breath as a wait for this enlightening history of capitalism and the usa.



I couldn't help notice you made no meaningful contribution to the conversation. What did you say exactly:

1. You openly admitted you don't know the history of capitalism.

2. You categorized my post as a political rant and had nothing else to say about my post.

3. Instead of addressing my "rant," you became punchdrunk with your feigned arrogance which you openly admit is ignorance.

So why do I have any sensible reason to assume you know how to participate in grown-up debate?

Openly admitting your amnesia of capitalism does not validate your arrogance. In fact, you obviously choose not to read my post, let alone address anything. Hopefully you'll actually read my post this time.

1. If free competition exists, there will be winners (competition results in winners necessarily).

2. Winners accumulate capital.

3. If capital accumulates, political influence also accumulates (anyone with a basic understanding of reality will know when human beings are given opportunity to influence outcomes in a favorable manner to themselves, they will do this. In fact, a satellite belief to capitalism is that if you want to get ahead you must use your capital in order to advance. It's a no brainer premise).

4. Political influence is used to influence economic policy.

5. If economic policy is influenced by the winners, free competition does not exist (which you obviously know since according to you, capitalism does not exist in America).

*6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.*

The closest we came (i.e. America) to capitalism was 2 centuries ago when there had not yet been corporations. Once Carnegie Steel became the first billion dollar corporation, free enterprise was no more, not even close. Maybe instead of asserting your brilliance while simultaneously admitting you don't know, just think about what you're saying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating capitalism's unquestioned success as a wealth generating engine with its equally well established mechanism for concentrating that wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.
> 
> When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth and output in the economy, capitalism automatically generates the sort of wealth concentration that makes Democracy as significant as a "choice" between Republican OR Democrat.
> 
> Thomas Piketty On Capitalism And Inequality | On Point with Tom Ashbrook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You're conflating capitalism's unquestioned success as a wealth generating engine with its equally well established mechanism for concentrating that wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.*
> 
> Exactly! Just look at all the millionaires in China 40 years ago and compare that to the much smaller number of Chinese millionaires today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at all those Walton billionaires in the US 40 years ago and compare them to the much fewer Walton billionaires today
Click to expand...


I can see why you'd ignore the proof of your error.


----------



## georgephillip

Skull Pilot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any family and I do mean any family in this country can amass great wealth in just a few generations.
> 
> All that is needed is the will and the discipline to do so.
> 
> If I told you that any married couple starting at age 25 could start their family on the road to great wealth would you believe it?
> 
> Or are you so convinced that it is impossible you can't even consider it?
> 
> Not only is it true but it can be done for the same amount of money as an average car payment.
> 
> Let's say a reasonable monthly payment for a car is 350 a month.
> 
> If at the age of 25 a couple puts that 350 a month into an investment portfolio earning say 7.5% (a conservative estimate since the stock market averages over 10% in the long term)
> 
> By the time that couple is 80 they will have amassed nearly 3.4 million.
> 
> For simplification let's say this couple has twins at age 30 and at age 21 both the twins started investing 175 each into the family trust portfolio by the time those kids were 71 the trust would be worth almost 5.7 million
> 
> Now let's say the twins get married at 25 like their parents did and each couple invested 350 a month into the family trust.
> 
> Do you see where this is going yet?
> 
> We're not even three generations into the process yet.
> 
> All for the cost of a new car payment per couple.  Do you think it's worth it to drive used cars for your entire life if the payout is this big?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little perplexed about when the payout occurs?
> Am I correct is assuming each couple deposits $350 every month of their adult lives without ever spending any of the trust?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the problem isn;t it?  You're worried about your payout.
> 
> By the time the original couple has grandchildren there will be enough to pay for any college in the world.
> 
> After 3 generations there will probably be enough to pay out individual trust funds for future progeny.
> 
> But the process has to start somewhere.
> 
> Even if you weren't interested in generational wealth that same 350 a month would give the original couple over 1.5 million when they were 70.
> 
> If all you care about is yourself that would make a nice retirement nest egg wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

If would indeed for those earning twice as much as I did during my working career.
In my circumstances, $350 a month would have qualified as a rent payment, not a car payment. Since I never acquired a college degree, I never earned close to the median $50,000 a year income; however, I never had the debt burden today's graduates face either. FWIW, your numbers make sense for a select few with the income and will power necessary to fund their own retirements. What percentage of the US labor force do you think possess both qualities?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little perplexed about when the payout occurs?
> Am I correct is assuming each couple deposits $350 every month of their adult lives without ever spending any of the trust?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem isn;t it?  You're worried about your payout.
> 
> By the time the original couple has grandchildren there will be enough to pay for any college in the world.
> 
> After 3 generations there will probably be enough to pay out individual trust funds for future progeny.
> 
> But the process has to start somewhere.
> 
> Even if you weren't interested in generational wealth that same 350 a month would give the original couple over 1.5 million when they were 70.
> 
> If all you care about is yourself that would make a nice retirement nest egg wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If would indeed for those earning twice as much as I did during my working career.
> In my circumstances, $350 a month would have qualified as a rent payment, not a car payment. Since I never acquired a college degree, I never earned close to the median $50,000 a year income; however, I never had the debt burden today's graduates face either. FWIW, your numbers make sense for a select few with the income and will power necessary to fund their own retirements. What percentage of the US labor force do you think possess both qualities?
Click to expand...


You're right, when the government takes 12.4% of your income, for Social Security, it makes it harder to finance your own retirement.


----------



## georgephillip

elektra said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is being grossly misused to describe our economy which is totally ruled, governed, politisized, dictated to, constrained, and sued by a government that has grown large and oppressive.
> 
> Capitalism does not exsist.
> 
> Histories largest most powerful governments exsist.
> 
> Complete control of the economy by government is not capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> That vast private fortunes capitalism produces control every government on the planet.
> Wealth has controlled every government yet devised, and the US is one of the best examples of how oligarchy buys out democracy. Find a way to insulate government from the corrosive effects of private wealth, and democracy might have some real meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy? The United States is a Republic.
> 
> In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
> 
> You live in Democracy, where the mob can trample the rights of the individual?
Click to expand...

We live in an oligarchy where the rich few trample the rights of the many.

Maybe you've noticed the irony of SCOTUS using majority rule to decide when a law violates the basic charter our Republic is founded on?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> That vast private fortunes capitalism produces control every government on the planet.
> Wealth has controlled every government yet devised, and the US is one of the best examples of how oligarchy buys out democracy. Find a way to insulate government from the corrosive effects of private wealth, and democracy might have some real meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy? The United States is a Republic.
> 
> In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
> 
> You live in Democracy, where the mob can trample the rights of the individual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We live in an oligarchy where the rich few trample the rights of the many.
> 
> Maybe you've noticed the irony of SCOTUS using majority rule to decide when a law violates the basic charter our Republic is founded on?
Click to expand...


For example?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy? The United States is a Republic.
> 
> In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
> 
> You live in Democracy, where the mob can trample the rights of the individual?
> 
> 
> 
> We live in an oligarchy where the rich few trample the rights of the many.
> 
> Maybe you've noticed the irony of SCOTUS using majority rule to decide when a law violates the basic charter our Republic is founded on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For example?
Click to expand...

"Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional."


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live in an oligarchy where the rich few trample the rights of the many.
> 
> Maybe you've noticed the irony of SCOTUS using majority rule to decide when a law violates the basic charter our Republic is founded on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional."
Click to expand...


Alrighty..... and how does that fit in with the "oligarchy where the rich few trample the rights" line of thinking?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example?
> 
> 
> 
> "Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alrighty..... and how does that fit in with the "oligarchy where the rich few trample the rights" line of thinking?
Click to expand...

Well, shucks...I guess I jumped to the conclusion you were asking about "the irony of SCOTUS."

I think the US Senate is a good example of where oligarchy is on full display:

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alrighty..... and how does that fit in with the "oligarchy where the rich few trample the rights" line of thinking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, shucks...I guess I jumped to the conclusion you were asking about "the irony of SCOTUS."
> 
> I think the US Senate is a good example of where oligarchy is on full display:
> 
> http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf
Click to expand...

Good luck getting Androw to click that link haha, I hope he does...Oligarchic Legislature:

Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alrighty..... and how does that fit in with the "oligarchy where the rich few trample the rights" line of thinking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, shucks...I guess I jumped to the conclusion you were asking about "the irony of SCOTUS."
> 
> I think the US Senate is a good example of where oligarchy is on full display:
> 
> http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf
Click to expand...


So "oligarchy" is just another name for representative government?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alrighty..... and how does that fit in with the "oligarchy where the rich few trample the rights" line of thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, shucks...I guess I jumped to the conclusion you were asking about "the irony of SCOTUS."
> 
> I think the US Senate is a good example of where oligarchy is on full display:
> 
> http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck getting Androw to click that link haha, I hope he does...Oligarchic Legislature:
> 
> Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus
Click to expand...


Sounds like a good reason to have term limits and 401Ks, instead of pensions, for all politicians.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alrighty..... and how does that fit in with the "oligarchy where the rich few trample the rights" line of thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, shucks...I guess I jumped to the conclusion you were asking about "the irony of SCOTUS."
> 
> I think the US Senate is a good example of where oligarchy is on full display:
> 
> http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So "oligarchy" is just another name for representative government?
Click to expand...


Oligarchy is thee premier form of representative government, although it is by definition not thee populous form of government since our representation in America does not correlate to the bottom 60%. Oligarchy is rule by the elite and all policy studies from the beginning of this country will reveal this. In the last few decades however, political influence has become a frenzy for investors to invest money into candidates that will enact or pass favorable policy. Hence, the investment theory of politics.

So the question becomes, do you think the elites are doing a good job or do you think the people, the 60% should also have a voice, including yourself?


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, shucks...I guess I jumped to the conclusion you were asking about "the irony of SCOTUS."
> 
> I think the US Senate is a good example of where oligarchy is on full display:
> 
> http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So "oligarchy" is just another name for representative government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oligarchy is thee premier form of representative government, although it is by definition not thee populous form of government since our representation in America does not correlate to the bottom 60%. Oligarchy is rule by the elite and all policy studies from the beginning of this country will reveal this. In the last few decades however, political influence has become a frenzy for investors to invest money into candidates that will enact or pass favorable policy. Hence, the investment theory of politics.
> 
> So the question becomes, do you think the elites are doing a good job or do you think the people, the 60% should also have a voice, including yourself?
Click to expand...


So how would a government that isn't "ruled by the elite" operate?  How would leaders be chosen that weren't part of the "elite?"


----------



## PaintMyHouse

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So "oligarchy" is just another name for representative government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oligarchy is thee premier form of representative government, although it is by definition not thee populous form of government since our representation in America does not correlate to the bottom 60%. Oligarchy is rule by the elite and all policy studies from the beginning of this country will reveal this. In the last few decades however, political influence has become a frenzy for investors to invest money into candidates that will enact or pass favorable policy. Hence, the investment theory of politics.
> 
> So the question becomes, do you think the elites are doing a good job or do you think the people, the 60% should also have a voice, including yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how would a government that isn't "ruled by the elite" operate?  How would leaders be chosen that weren't part of the "elite?"
Click to expand...

A very good question actually.  Two points.  Let's see what he has to say.


----------



## bripat9643

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oligarchy is thee premier form of representative government, although it is by definition not thee populous form of government since our representation in America does not correlate to the bottom 60%. Oligarchy is rule by the elite and all policy studies from the beginning of this country will reveal this. In the last few decades however, political influence has become a frenzy for investors to invest money into candidates that will enact or pass favorable policy. Hence, the investment theory of politics.
> 
> So the question becomes, do you think the elites are doing a good job or do you think the people, the 60% should also have a voice, including yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how would a government that isn't "ruled by the elite" operate?  How would leaders be chosen that weren't part of the "elite?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A very good question actually.  Two points.  Let's see what he has to say.
Click to expand...


The reality is, that no matter what the system, the leaders of the system are going to be part of the "elite."    The idea that some schlep off the street is going to become a leader of the government is too absurd for words.


----------



## gnarlylove

We have 3 options. The first two involve maintaining hierarchy.

1. We sit back and let the Oligarchy continue and watch it turn into full-blown "Dear Leader" Totalitarianism;

2. We aspire to create a genuine Democracy (NB: America has never ever been a Democracy). But this is nothing short of a miracle since it would require the self-awareness of basically all citizens to be an informed populous. This would require massive overhaul of the media, education k-16, and general attitudes instilled, social values and norms. Half-assing a Democracy is what America is (no democracy at all).

3. We aspire to create a non-hierarchical commons or commune.

I am not claiming any of these are better. I am trying to facilitate discussion and currently do not wish to contribute personal opinions. I know what I think but I'm far more interested in walking through your beliefs and how you think about these issues. I've heard you disagree with Democracy. Was this a joke like your locking people up who disagree with you joke or do you think genuine Democracy is flawed? Or do you simply think the American population is too large for a functioning Democracy?

We need to keep in mind that if we are serious about questioning the structure of government (which we obviously should be) we must also be willing to deeply question what is provides for us, what it does (mostly for the super-rich) and how changes in government affects global order, and even how likely a proposal is given current political climate.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how would a government that isn't "ruled by the elite" operate?  How would leaders be chosen that weren't part of the "elite?"
> 
> 
> 
> A very good question actually.  Two points.  Let's see what he has to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reality is, that no matter what the system, the leaders of the system are going to be part of the "elite."    The idea that some schlep off the street is going to become a leader of the government is too absurd for words.
Click to expand...


So you think electing average joe schlep in a genuine Democracy is too absurd for words? Why? I admit in current affairs and in our democratic facade joe has no chance. But supposing we have a genuinely democratic culture where the public gives two shits about the conditions of their lives and the policies that effect it and have access to true information (instead of propaganda) do you think that joe is still too absurd for words? If so, why does Democracy just not work in our opinion? "Too absurd for words" is not really a defense of such a claim.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> We have 3 options. The first two involve maintaining hierarchy.
> 
> 1. We sit back and let the Oligarchy continue and watch it turn into full-blown "Dear Leader" Totalitarianism;
> 
> 2. We aspire to create a genuine Democracy (NB: America has never ever been a Democracy). But this is nothing short of a miracle since it would require the self-awareness of basically all citizens to be an informed populous. This would require massive overhaul of the media, education k-16, and general attitudes instilled, social values and norms. Half-assing a Democracy is what America is (no democracy at all).
> 
> 3. We aspire to create a non-hierarchical commons or commune.
> 
> I am not claiming any of these are better. I am trying to facilitate discussion and currently do not wish to contribute personal opinions. I know what I think but I'm far more interested in walking through your beliefs and how you think about these issues. I've heard you disagree with Democracy. Was this a joke like your locking people up who disagree with you joke or do you think genuine Democracy is flawed? Or do you simply think the American population is too large for a functioning Democracy?
> 
> We need to keep in mind that if we are serious about questioning the structure of government (which we obviously should be) we must also be willing to deeply question what is provides for us, what it does (mostly for the super-rich) and how changes in government affects global order, and even how likely a proposal is given current political climate. I'd prefer to stick closer to the empirical side of things over the theoretical.



You failed to explain how the leaders of your ideal society would be selected and not be members of the "elite."  Please elucidate.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very good question actually.  Two points.  Let's see what he has to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is, that no matter what the system, the leaders of the system are going to be part of the "elite."    The idea that some schlep off the street is going to become a leader of the government is too absurd for words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think electing average joe schlep in a genuine Democracy is too absurd for words? Why?
Click to expand...


Tell us how he does it.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Socialism and Communism guarantee shared misery, elimination of a Middle Class, and the establishment of a truly 1 percent with little or no mobility (opportunity) to enter into. This is all administered by a ruling elite.

Keep trashing Capitalism..... It's the best system in the world. How many masses of individuals are lining up to enter Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, China or Great Britain? All of these Countries have moved away from Capitalism. Only fools and idiots would want to move America in the direction of those countries.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> We have 3 options. The first two involve maintaining hierarchy.
> 
> 1. We sit back and let the Oligarchy continue and watch it turn into full-blown "Dear Leader" Totalitarianism;
> 
> 2. We aspire to create a genuine Democracy (NB: America has never ever been a Democracy). But this is nothing short of a miracle since it would require the self-awareness of basically all citizens to be an informed populous. This would require massive overhaul of the media, education k-16, and general attitudes instilled, social values and norms. Half-assing a Democracy is what America is (no democracy at all).
> 
> 3. We aspire to create a non-hierarchical commons or commune.
> 
> I am not claiming any of these are better. I am trying to facilitate discussion and currently do not wish to contribute personal opinions. I know what I think but I'm far more interested in walking through your beliefs and how you think about these issues. I've heard you disagree with Democracy. Was this a joke like your locking people up who disagree with you joke or do you think genuine Democracy is flawed? Or do you simply think the American population is too large for a functioning Democracy?
> 
> We need to keep in mind that if we are serious about questioning the structure of government (which we obviously should be) we must also be willing to deeply question what is provides for us, what it does (mostly for the super-rich) and how changes in government affects global order, and even how likely a proposal is given current political climate.



America has definitely never been a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be a democracy.  The entire idea of America was individual freedom.  A genuine democracy makes individual freedom highly unlikely, as a -genuine- democracy enforces the will of the majority, PERIOD.

I forget who said it, but I seen this quote on the board that says it perfectly.  Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.


----------



## Skull Pilot

georgephillip said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little perplexed about when the payout occurs?
> Am I correct is assuming each couple deposits $350 every month of their adult lives without ever spending any of the trust?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem isn;t it?  You're worried about your payout.
> 
> By the time the original couple has grandchildren there will be enough to pay for any college in the world.
> 
> After 3 generations there will probably be enough to pay out individual trust funds for future progeny.
> 
> But the process has to start somewhere.
> 
> Even if you weren't interested in generational wealth that same 350 a month would give the original couple over 1.5 million when they were 70.
> 
> If all you care about is yourself that would make a nice retirement nest egg wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If would indeed for those earning twice as much as I did during my working career.
> In my circumstances, $350 a month would have qualified as a rent payment, not a car payment. Since I never acquired a college degree, I never earned close to the median $50,000 a year income; however, I never had the debt burden today's graduates face either. FWIW, your numbers make sense for a select few with the income and will power necessary to fund their own retirements. What percentage of the US labor force do you think possess both qualities?
Click to expand...


A select few?

Really?

It has nothing to do with income.  if you wanted to you could get a second part time job and use that pay to save for your future. It doesn't even have to be 350 a month you could start with 100 a month the point is you have to start.

And lack of will power is a personal flaw and has nothing to do with capitalism.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, shucks...I guess I jumped to the conclusion you were asking about "the irony of SCOTUS."
> 
> I think the US Senate is a good example of where oligarchy is on full display:
> 
> http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck getting Androw to click that link haha, I hope he does...Oligarchic Legislature:
> 
> Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like a good reason to have term limits and 401Ks, instead of pensions, for all politicians.
Click to expand...

*Or we could stop voting for rich bitches who spend most of their time dialing for dollar$:*

"For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, according to a new analysis of personal financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics."

Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> We have 3 options. The first two involve maintaining hierarchy.
> 
> 1. We sit back and let the Oligarchy continue and watch it turn into full-blown "Dear Leader" Totalitarianism;
> 
> 2. We aspire to create a genuine Democracy (NB: America has never ever been a Democracy). But this is nothing short of a miracle since it would require the self-awareness of basically all citizens to be an informed populous. This would require massive overhaul of the media, education k-16, and general attitudes instilled, social values and norms. Half-assing a Democracy is what America is (no democracy at all).
> 
> 3. We aspire to create a non-hierarchical commons or commune.
> 
> I am not claiming any of these are better. I am trying to facilitate discussion and currently do not wish to contribute personal opinions. I know what I think but I'm far more interested in walking through your beliefs and how you think about these issues. I've heard you disagree with Democracy. Was this a joke like your locking people up who disagree with you joke or do you think genuine Democracy is flawed? Or do you simply think the American population is too large for a functioning Democracy?
> 
> We need to keep in mind that if we are serious about questioning the structure of government (which we obviously should be) we must also be willing to deeply question what is provides for us, what it does (mostly for the super-rich) and how changes in government affects global order, and even how likely a proposal is given current political climate.





gnarlylove said:


> So you think electing average joe schlep in a genuine Democracy is too absurd for words? Why? I admit in current affairs and in our democratic facade joe has no chance. But supposing we have a genuinely democratic culture where the public gives two shits about the conditions of their lives and the policies that effect it and have access to true information (instead of propaganda) do you think that joe is still too absurd for words? If so, why does Democracy just not work in our opinion? "Too absurd for words" is not really a defense of such a claim.



First off, you are assuming it is even theoretically possible to get people vote.  Voter turn out has only been 50% to 60% since the start of the 1900s.

What that means is, right now the government we have today, and for the last 100 years, has been the will of a mere 26% of the population.

So what?   Well two things.  One: A democracy system is never actually the rule of the majority.   It's the rule of whoever stirs up the most people to vote. 

Two:  This is why the more we move towards a democracy, the more money has influence on the government.    Because the primary way you stir up the people to vote, is with media and getting your name and your cause out.

Second, while I would generally agree with your statements about reforming education, and attitudes, I'm sure we would come to completely opposite views on how and in what way to do that.

I don't think we need to reform media, because I don't think you can without influencing media, thus making them nothing more than a pawn of government (defeating the purpose), and also because I don't think it would actually help.

But the main problem with all of this, is that you are assuming that you can get people to act in a responsible manor.   That's simply not true.

Many people simply don't care, and won't care and nothing you do, no amount of reforms, is ever going to change that.  We'll just reform attitudes?   How?

I had a relative who liked to drink.  He didn't really get drunk.  He had a stable job, and worked hard, but he drank all the time.   He had problems in his family from his drinking.   The family fell apart.   He started having health issues.   Finally, he went to the doctor, and the doctor told him in no uncertain terms, if you don't stop drinking, you'll die.    He kept drinking.... he's dead.

He lost everything, and then lost his life.   Everyone had told him for decades, put down the beer.   He didn't want to.

You think you are going to just magically convince everyone to learn about all the political issues and economic issues, and foreign policy issues of the day, and then vote intelligently in every election, so that a pure democracy can work?

I think you are nutz.    Even if the public wanted to.... they don't have time!  People don't have time to research every aspect of Abortion, or of the Minimum wage, or of international trade, or of Geo-politics in Iran.

And so once again, you end up with a system where whichever side whips up the most people with a media campaign (money money money), is the side which controls the government under Democracy.

And trying to reform education and attitudes about these issues, is exactly why our education system is performing so badly.  If you spend months talking about Panda's and Ozone, instead of Chemistry, Math, and reading and writing.....    well DUR.... you end up with poor test scores on core abilities.

So to answer your question you ended with, yes, I am completely against Democracy.   We're not supposed to be a Democracy, for this very reason.

The founding fathers of this country, knew that no matter how much media there was, no matter how much education they put in place, no matter what the attitudes were, the average citizen is never going to be a position to adequately determine national policy.   And even if he was, he would still be influenced by others with an agenda.

Instead we're supposed to be a Representative Republic.    Not a Democracy.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alrighty..... and how does that fit in with the "oligarchy where the rich few trample the rights" line of thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, shucks...I guess I jumped to the conclusion you were asking about "the irony of SCOTUS."
> 
> I think the US Senate is a good example of where oligarchy is on full display:
> 
> http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So "oligarchy" is just another name for representative government?
Click to expand...

*Depends on how you define "representative", doesn't it?

This author claims his analysis of US Senators' responsiveness to the preferences of wealthy, middle class, and poor constituents concluded Senators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle class constituents, "while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators' roll call votes."*

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck getting Androw to click that link haha, I hope he does...Oligarchic Legislature:
> 
> Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a good reason to have term limits and 401Ks, instead of pensions, for all politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Or we could stop voting for rich bitches who spend most of their time dialing for dollar$:*
> 
> "For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, according to a new analysis of personal financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics."
> 
> Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus
Click to expand...


Or we could shrink government so much that it doesn't attract power grubbers.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is, that no matter what the system, the leaders of the system are going to be part of the "elite."    The idea that some schlep off the street is going to become a leader of the government is too absurd for words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think electing average joe schlep in a genuine Democracy is too absurd for words? Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us how he does it.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's fruitful to jump in so abruptly. In your previous post you asked me to describe my ideal society. I don't find such requests helpful when we both know that you fundamentally disagree. Our disagreement does not lie in the differences in ideal society, rather, these differences arise from a much more foundational belief about humans.

I don't claim to know what you specifically believe about humans that lead you to think Democracy is impossible or utterly undesirable. Your understanding of Democracy appears to be overwhelming tainted by our alleged Democracy. You should know Democracy doesn't look anything like what America has. So do you think real Democracy doesn't work either?

And keep in mind our view of anarchism does not mean there is no system. In order to have society there must be an organizational structure. Democracy is the only structure that purports to enable the population to participate in decisions that affect them. This doesn't mean American 2 year election cycle. You really need to divorce Democracy from the idea of America and we can have a better discussion. We can impose all sorts of limits like no incumbency etc. in order to create a free society through representative and direct participation.

I want to reiterate though I am not defending Democracy. I am merely offering it as one of the few methods of arranging society and wondering why it does or does not work, according to you.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So "oligarchy" is just another name for representative government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oligarchy is thee premier form of representative government, although it is by definition not thee populous form of government since our representation in America does not correlate to the bottom 60%. Oligarchy is rule by the elite and all policy studies from the beginning of this country will reveal this. In the last few decades however, political influence has become a frenzy for investors to invest money into candidates that will enact or pass favorable policy. Hence, the investment theory of politics.
> 
> So the question becomes, do you think the elites are doing a good job or do you think the people, the 60% should also have a voice, including yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how would a government that isn't "ruled by the elite" operate?  How would leaders be chosen that weren't part of the "elite?"
Click to expand...

In the US one possible government could be created by voters who refuse to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat when voting for their congressional representatives. For voters with ballots that already contain candidates from established third parties, it's as simple as choosing a Green or Libertarian or American Independent candidate (who isn't already a millionaire) instead of a Democrat or Republican who already depends on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements.

FLUSH the DC Toilet next November, and sent the rich a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> One: A democracy system is never actually the rule of the majority.   It's the rule of whoever stirs up the most people to vote.



This is how actually existing systems we call "Democracy" exist. You put it very succinctly. We claim to have a democratic culture but we have anything but. Culture is mostly created through funding. Who funds? Those who have money. Therefore those with money set the tone of society through cultural dissemination and deciding what passes for acceptable criticism and what doesn't.

So the question becomes what culture exists? One that says vote very 2-4 years and besides that, forget Democracy. In the average life of a person they wake up, brush their teeth, and go to work. They do what they are told and live with the decisions made by others. They depend on this totalitarian arrangement day in and day out. But what if you made it so that the people made decisions? Do you think people are uninterested in the condition of their lives? Of course not! That would be plainly stupid. Each person on some level wishes their circumstances could be mitigated. This is precisely what Democracy purports, so people can influence the condition and policies that effect their life. It's clear why most people don't vote and are not stirred: it doesn't matter which way they vote, so why get stirred up in the first place?

So instead of allowing the culture to be funded through those with money, what if we created a culture where people were interested in the policies that governed their lives. Do you think this is an impossibility or do you agree with me that if people were given a chance to influence the policies that effect their life in legitimate ways they would become deeply interested?


----------



## gnarlylove

Not2BSubjugated said:


> America has definitely never been a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be a democracy.  The entire idea of America was individual freedom.  A genuine democracy makes individual freedom highly unlikely, as a -genuine- democracy enforces the will of the majority, PERIOD.
> 
> I forget who said it, but I seen this quote on the board that says it perfectly.  Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.



Glad you recognize America was never intended to be a Democracy. It was created for land owners and to keep the decisions in the hands of the "wealth of the nations."

But let's examine your criticism:  "A genuine democracy makes individual freedom highly unlikely..."

While I'm not trying to defend Democracy, I am trying to define our terms and understand them with accuracy and clarity. You may be right and I am therefore inclined to agree. But let's not be so hasty.

When you shun Democracy, you are saying I want a different organization of politics. We already have an oligarchy and I think we can agree it produces terrible results and limits freedoms of certain groups of people outrageously (minorities, those born into poverty etc). So if our goal is freedom for maximum number of folks, Oligarchy is not the way to go. But neither was Monarchy. Do you have another suggestion to meet the goal of freedom for all?

It turns out that the majority of people in America (58%) will face poverty for at least 1 year. So the majority of people exist in conditions without economic freedom. If they want to survive, they need to work. And while living should and does require work, it's clear why many people are opposed to our current system of work: they have continued to produce more for their employer while their real wages have remained stagnant for 5 decades. Thus, the current organization of the lives of most people are such that their bosses incur tons of profit while stringing them along for mere survival. This is not a genuine sense of freedom. Do you agree? It sounds a bit like wage slavery to me and anyone under slavery should want to end those conditions, surely, since it entails their lack of freedom.

So yes, the rule of the majority would likely attempt to undo the maniacal levels of profit and low taxation (corporations pay 25 cents for every dollar an individual pays when in the 50s it was a buck 50). But why would you want the rule of a minority as opposed to majority? Do you trust the minority to make decisions in your interest? Or would you rather participate in those decisions yourself? Perhaps you are part of the minority (employers) and it would clearly explain why you don't want human beings taking autonomy over their own lives since your profits would drop, although your sustenance would in no way be threatened.


----------



## TheIceMan

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



So does every other form of government that actually exists.  In theory, all are perfect.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think electing average joe schlep in a genuine Democracy is too absurd for words? Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us how he does it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's fruitful to jump in so abruptly. In your previous post you asked me to describe my ideal society. I don't find such requests helpful when we both know that you fundamentally disagree. Our disagreement does not lie in the differences in ideal society, rather, these differences arise from a much more foundational belief about humans.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you don't think it's helpful when you can't explain how it would work.  You can't expect anyone to accept your schemes to remodel society when all you can say when they ask about the details is a wave of your magic wand.  

The bottom line is that your schemes are impossible.  a government run by non "elitists" is as unthinkable as a triangle with four sides or an honest Congressman.



gnarlylove said:


> I don't claim to know what you specifically believe about humans that lead you to think Democracy is impossible or utterly undesirable. Your understanding of Democracy appears to be overwhelming tainted by our alleged Democracy. You should know Democracy doesn't look anything like what America has. So do you think real Democracy doesn't work either?



Yet, you can't explain how your alternative version would work.  Why should anyone believe it's possible when you can't even explain it?  If you have some understanding of how it would work, then post it.  Otherwise we'll know that you've never even thought about it.



gnarlylove said:


> And keep in mind our view of anarchism does not mean there is no system. In order to have society there must be an organizational structure. Democracy is the only structure that purports to enable the population to participate in decisions that affect them. This doesn't mean American 2 year election cycle. You really need to divorce Democracy from the idea of America and we can have a better discussion. We can impose all sorts of limits like no incumbency etc. in order to create a free society through representative and direct participation.



And what happens when someone refuses to go along with decisions made by this ideal democracy of yours?  How does it enforce its decisions with using force?  It appears your ideals are a lot of eyewash with no thought being done on how things would actually  work.



gnarlylove said:


> I want to reiterate though I am not defending Democracy. I am merely offering it as one of the few methods of arranging society and wondering why it does or does not work, according to you.



I've been explaining why democracy is a bad system ever since I've been a member of this forum.


----------



## georgephillip

LeftofLeft said:


> Socialism and Communism guarantee shared misery, elimination of a Middle Class, and the establishment of a truly 1 percent with little or no mobility (opportunity) to enter into. This is all administered by a ruling elite.
> 
> Keep trashing Capitalism..... It's the best system in the world. How many masses of individuals are lining up to enter Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, China or Great Britain? All of these Countries have moved away from Capitalism. Only fools and idiots would want to move America in the direction of those countries.


Capital is blind.
It doesn't matter where its returns come from, whether killing millions of innocent civilians in Korea or Japanese car factories in Kentucky, "once those returns exceed real growth of wages and output, then inevitably the stock of capital will rise disproportionately faster within the overall pattern of output.

Wealth inequality rise exponentially."

In a political system like the US where speech = money, rising wealth inequality leads directly to oligarchy just as you see in Russia or Ukraine today. 

Of course, it's helpful to know the difference between communism and socialism to begin with.

Capitalism simply isn't working and here are the reasons why | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck getting Androw to click that link haha, I hope he does...Oligarchic Legislature:
> 
> Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a good reason to have term limits and 401Ks, instead of pensions, for all politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Or we could stop voting for rich bitches who spend most of their time dialing for dollar$:*
> 
> "For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, according to a new analysis of personal financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics."
> 
> Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus
Click to expand...


First off, in respect to the conversation, simply having money, doesn't magically make you an oligarch.

But let's move past that, to the fundamentals of the discussion.

You are basically promoting the idea that we shouldn't vote for people who have money.

I have some problems with that basic premise.

First, you seem to be implying that automatically people who are wealthy are bad, and/or that people who are not wealthy are good.

Why?  On what basis?   And where is this magic line?   How much wealth can they have?

My parents were both public school teachers.  By saving and investing, and not buying bran new cars, and by purchasing real estate at good values, they have between their home, their rentals, and their 403B (401K for teachers), they have a net worth of over a million dollars.    Are my parents now inherently bad?  Are they now automatically oligarchs?

Moreover, why would owning a million dollars in assets make you a bad politician?    For what reason?

See, one issue is that typically poor people don't aspire to political office.   You can't force people to run for office.  You have to elect who is available.   When two rich guys are running for office, what do you plan to do?  Go find a homeless beggar and have a write-in campaign?

And further, generally the public isn't going to vote for people who have not been at least somewhat successful in life.    Take me for example.  I have very little wealth.    If I ran for office, no one would vote for me.   I make $20,000 a year, and that typically doesn't inspire confidence.

And again, why would you assume that poor equals good?   Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union, was a poor person.  This is a guy who grow up herding sheep in a field.    He never had much wealth, and when he retired, he lived in a small house out in a rural area.

But he was terrible leader.  His policies didn't work.   This is the guy that asked the US ambassador where his family lived, and then circled that city on a map of the US, and said if they fired nuclear missiles, he'd spare that city.

Not being wealthy does not automatically mean you are good, nor being wealthy makes you automatically bad.

Now if you want to push people to vote against wealthy politicians, that's fine.  I intend to vote for who I think will do the best job, regardless of their net worth.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> One: A democracy system is never actually the rule of the majority.   It's the rule of whoever stirs up the most people to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how actually existing systems we call "Democracy" exist. You put it very succinctly. We claim to have a democratic culture but we have anything but. Culture is mostly created through funding. Who funds? Those who have money. Therefore those with money set the tone of society through cultural dissemination and deciding what passes for acceptable criticism and what doesn't.
> 
> So the question becomes what culture exists? One that says vote very 2-4 years and besides that, forget Democracy. In the average life of a person they wake up, brush their teeth, and go to work. They do what they are told and live with the decisions made by others. They depend on this totalitarian arrangement day in and day out. But what if you made it so that the people made decisions? Do you think people are uninterested in the condition of their lives? Of course not! That would be plainly stupid. Each person on some level wishes their circumstances could be mitigated. This is precisely what Democracy purports, so people can influence the condition and policies that effect their life. It's clear why most people don't vote and are not stirred: it doesn't matter which way they vote, so why get stirred up in the first place?
> 
> So instead of allowing the culture to be funded through those with money, what if we created a culture where people were interested in the policies that governed their lives. Do you think this is an impossibility or do you agree with me that if people were given a chance to influence the policies that effect their life in legitimate ways they would become deeply interested?
Click to expand...


Of course, you are entirely unable to explain how your goals would be achieved.  They are pie-in-the-sky.  They are pixie dust and unicorns.  I've met 5-year-olds who have a more realistic conception of society than yours.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism and Communism guarantee shared misery, elimination of a Middle Class, and the establishment of a truly 1 percent with little or no mobility (opportunity) to enter into. This is all administered by a ruling elite.
> 
> Keep trashing Capitalism..... It's the best system in the world. How many masses of individuals are lining up to enter Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, China or Great Britain? All of these Countries have moved away from Capitalism. Only fools and idiots would want to move America in the direction of those countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Capital is blind.
> It doesn't matter where its returns come from, whether killing millions of innocent civilians in Korea or Japanese car factories in Kentucky, "once those returns exceed real growth of wages and output, then inevitably the stock of capital will rise disproportionately faster within the overall pattern of output.
Click to expand...


When did capital kill millions of innocent civilians in Korea?  Apparently I'm ignorant of this historical event.



georgephillip said:


> Wealth inequality rise exponentially."



And your proof of this is what, exactly?



georgephillip said:


> In a political system like the US where speech = money, rising wealth inequality leads directly to oligarchy just as you see in Russia or Ukraine today.



As I have demonstrated previously the term "oligarchy" is nothing more than a synonym for representative government.  You simply apply it as a pejorative to representative governments that don't make the decisions you would like them to make.



georgephillip said:


> Of course, it's helpful to know the difference between communism and socialism to begin with.
> 
> Capitalism simply isn't working and here are the reasons why | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer



There is no difference other than the label and the fanaticism of their respective followers.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oligarchy is thee premier form of representative government, although it is by definition not thee populous form of government since our representation in America does not correlate to the bottom 60%. Oligarchy is rule by the elite and all policy studies from the beginning of this country will reveal this. In the last few decades however, political influence has become a frenzy for investors to invest money into candidates that will enact or pass favorable policy. Hence, the investment theory of politics.
> 
> So the question becomes, do you think the elites are doing a good job or do you think the people, the 60% should also have a voice, including yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how would a government that isn't "ruled by the elite" operate?  How would leaders be chosen that weren't part of the "elite?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the US one possible government could be created by voters who refuse to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat when voting for their congressional representatives. For voters with ballots that already contain candidates from established third parties, it's as simple as choosing a Green or Libertarian or American Independent candidate (who isn't already a millionaire) instead of a Democrat or Republican who already depends on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements.
> 
> FLUSH the DC Toilet next November, and sent the rich a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.
Click to expand...


How would not voting for a Democrat or a Republican create a new form of government?  All it would do is put a new gang in charge.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a good reason to have term limits and 401Ks, instead of pensions, for all politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> *Or we could stop voting for rich bitches who spend most of their time dialing for dollar$:*
> 
> "For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, according to a new analysis of personal financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics."
> 
> Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we could shrink government so much that it doesn't attract power grubbers.
Click to expand...


That requires shrinking it to zero.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, shucks...I guess I jumped to the conclusion you were asking about "the irony of SCOTUS."
> 
> I think the US Senate is a good example of where oligarchy is on full display:
> 
> http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So "oligarchy" is just another name for representative government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Depends on how you define "representative", doesn't it?
> 
> This author claims his analysis of US Senators' responsiveness to the preferences of wealthy, middle class, and poor constituents concluded Senators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle class constituents, "while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators' roll call votes."*
> 
> http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't depend on that.


----------



## georgephillip

Skull Pilot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem isn;t it?  You're worried about your payout.
> 
> By the time the original couple has grandchildren there will be enough to pay for any college in the world.
> 
> After 3 generations there will probably be enough to pay out individual trust funds for future progeny.
> 
> But the process has to start somewhere.
> 
> Even if you weren't interested in generational wealth that same 350 a month would give the original couple over 1.5 million when they were 70.
> 
> If all you care about is yourself that would make a nice retirement nest egg wouldn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> If would indeed for those earning twice as much as I did during my working career.
> In my circumstances, $350 a month would have qualified as a rent payment, not a car payment. Since I never acquired a college degree, I never earned close to the median $50,000 a year income; however, I never had the debt burden today's graduates face either. FWIW, your numbers make sense for a select few with the income and will power necessary to fund their own retirements. What percentage of the US labor force do you think possess both qualities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A select few?
> 
> Really?
> 
> It has nothing to do with income.  if you wanted to you could get a second part time job and use that pay to save for your future. It doesn't even have to be 350 a month you could start with 100 a month the point is you have to start.
> 
> And lack of will power is a personal flaw and has nothing to do with capitalism.
Click to expand...

Why would you think someone should have to work two jobs in order to be entitled to retire? When I began working forty years ago, a single minimum wage job provided all I needed. At that time the richest among us earned about 8% of US income every year; today they earn nearly a quarter of all US income. That redistribution, abetted by both major parties, explains why many of my generation exist on >$1000 a month.
You're solution to devote more hours of my life to those who control the means of production sounds like an endorsement of servility, to me.
Really.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how would a government that isn't "ruled by the elite" operate?  How would leaders be chosen that weren't part of the "elite?"
> 
> 
> 
> In the US one possible government could be created by voters who refuse to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat when voting for their congressional representatives. For voters with ballots that already contain candidates from established third parties, it's as simple as choosing a Green or Libertarian or American Independent candidate (who isn't already a millionaire) instead of a Democrat or Republican who already depends on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements.
> 
> FLUSH the DC Toilet next November, and sent the rich a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would not voting for a Democrat or a Republican create a new form of government?  All it would do is put a new gang in charge.
Click to expand...

A new gang independent of the richest 1% of voters.
What are you afraid of,
freedom?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the US one possible government could be created by voters who refuse to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat when voting for their congressional representatives. For voters with ballots that already contain candidates from established third parties, it's as simple as choosing a Green or Libertarian or American Independent candidate (who isn't already a millionaire) instead of a Democrat or Republican who already depends on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements.
> 
> FLUSH the DC Toilet next November, and sent the rich a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would not voting for a Democrat or a Republican create a new form of government?  All it would do is put a new gang in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A new gang independent of the richest 1% of voters.
> What are you afraid of,
> freedom?
Click to expand...


You're delusional if you believe Green Party or Libertarian candidates wouldn't get money from rich people to finance their campaigns.   The first Libertarian candidate for president was a rich guy.


----------



## georgephillip

TheIceMan said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does every other form of government that actually exists.  In theory, all are perfect.
Click to expand...

What are perfect, in theory?


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> Yet, you can't explain how your alternative version would work.  Why should anyone believe it's possible when you can't even explain it?  If you have some understanding of how it would work, then post it.  Otherwise we'll know that you've never even thought about it.



In this conversation I've not professed to have a viable alternative. And you've not said anything relevant except how serious you are that I don't have an alternative. We can talk about viable alternatives but with it doesn't help to discuss 10 things at once. Let's be patient and discuss one topic at a time. So for the purposes of learning what you think I have repeatedly asked you questions that you have barely responded to except to attack something I have repeatedly said I am not defending. My simple question is why do you think Democracy doesn't work?

What I gather is you think a representative is a contradiction in terms. People can only represent themselves and so any system of representation will fail immediately. So before we move on, is this an accurate characterization of your perspective about why Democracy is impossible?


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you can't explain how your alternative version would work.  Why should anyone believe it's possible when you can't even explain it?  If you have some understanding of how it would work, then post it.  Otherwise we'll know that you've never even thought about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this conversation I've not professed to have a viable alternative. And you've not said anything relevant except how serious you are that I don't have an alternative. We can talk about viable alternatives but with it doesn't help to discuss 10 things at once. Let's be patient and discuss one topic at a time. So for the purposes of learning what you think I have repeatedly asked you questions that you have barely responded to except to attack something I have repeatedly said I am not defending. My simple question is why do you think Democracy doesn't work?
Click to expand...


I'm not interested in telling you what I think on subjects of your choosing.  You attack our current for of government because you claim it's "elitist."  If you don't have some alternative in mind that isn't "elitist" then you're engaging in verbal masturbation.  If you want people to support your ideas and abolish the democracy we have, then people are entitled to know what you intend to replace it with.  All your vague generalities are meaningless unless you can come up with a plan containing specifics.  Of course, you don't want to do that because specifics can be criticized.  There's no way to criticize your magical hand waiving except to point out that it's magical hand waving.



gnarlylove said:


> What I gather is you think a representative is a contradiction in terms. People can only represent themselves and so any system of representation will fail immediately. So before we move on, is this an accurate characterization of your perspective about why Democracy is impossible?



A democracy with "non elitist" representatives is a contradiction in terms.  By definition, the leaders of any government are elitists.  No one can win an election without currying favor with the people you call "elitists."  I've already said that much.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the US one possible government could be created by voters who refuse to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat when voting for their congressional representatives. For voters with ballots that already contain candidates from established third parties, it's as simple as choosing a Green or Libertarian or American Independent candidate (who isn't already a millionaire) instead of a Democrat or Republican who already depends on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements.
> 
> FLUSH the DC Toilet next November, and sent the rich a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would not voting for a Democrat or a Republican create a new form of government?  All it would do is put a new gang in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A new gang independent of the richest 1% of voters.
> What are you afraid of,
> freedom?
Click to expand...


Voting for either of those parties only means that some scumbag Democrat will get elected.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> A democracy with "non elitist" representatives is a contradiction in terms.  By definition, the leaders of any government are elitists.  No one can win an election without currying favor with the people you call "elitists."  I've already said that much.



In other words, humans must look out for their own interest and to be concerned with another is folly, nay, an impossibility. So why is it impossible for human beings to care about other human beings?

Or is it possible but current reps do not? In other words, Democracy is possible but is not happening.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> One: A democracy system is never actually the rule of the majority.   It's the rule of whoever stirs up the most people to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how actually existing systems we call "Democracy" exist. You put it very succinctly. We claim to have a democratic culture but we have anything but. Culture is mostly created through funding. Who funds? Those who have money. Therefore those with money set the tone of society through cultural dissemination and deciding what passes for acceptable criticism and what doesn't.
> 
> So the question becomes what culture exists? One that says vote very 2-4 years and besides that, forget Democracy. In the average life of a person they wake up, brush their teeth, and go to work. They do what they are told and live with the decisions made by others. They depend on this totalitarian arrangement day in and day out. But what if you made it so that the people made decisions? Do you think people are uninterested in the condition of their lives? Of course not! That would be plainly stupid. Each person on some level wishes their circumstances could be mitigated. This is precisely what Democracy purports, so people can influence the condition and policies that effect their life. It's clear why most people don't vote and are not stirred: it doesn't matter which way they vote, so why get stirred up in the first place?
> 
> So instead of allowing the culture to be funded through those with money, what if we created a culture where people were interested in the policies that governed their lives. Do you think this is an impossibility or do you agree with me that if people were given a chance to influence the policies that effect their life in legitimate ways they would become deeply interested?
Click to expand...


Again, that's my whole problem.   You say "what if we created a culture where people were interested in the policies that governed their lives", as if we could just.... do it.    Like this is a nikey commercial.

We can't.   Not to change topics....  pardon the bunny trail for a minute...

But this I am convinced is the ultimate question of all humanity.... How can I make others do what I want?  How can I make someone act the way I want?

How can I get my boyfriend to stop flirting with other girls, and staring at porn?
How can I get my alcoholic brother-in-law to stop drinking all his money away?
How can we get that church is Florida to stop burning books and protesting funerals?
How can we stop that group of people over there from putting the lives of their kids up for auction, as suicide bombers?
How can we get every corporation in the world to cut their prices in half, and double their wages, and have them come and hold hands around a camp fire singing Kumbya at the next Earth Day celebration?

You can't.

You can't!

There is only one way that you forcibly change the culture, the attitudes, and the education.   That's to institute a totalitarian regime, which inflicts itself on the country with brutal violence.

If people have a choice, many are going to choose to say 'screw you' to your "You should care about the policies that govern your lives!" and they are going to do what they want.

You can't just "make them care".

You want to know how Islam has created a fairly uniform belief system across dozens of countries?   They slaughtered people who didn't conform.   And EVEN THEN... they still have the Sunni and Shiite divide.

Are you prepared to lethally enforce your cultural reforms on America, for the sake of having a Democracy?

And here's the other side....   even if you succeeded, I honestly don't believe that the results would be inherently good.

Let's say somehow you magically did zap everyone, and voter turn out was in the 90s.    And lets even say that everyone cared about every individual policy.

You are assuming that if you 'educated' them, and that they 'cared' that this would result in something different than what we have.

I am not so sure.    How many times on this forum, even on this thread, have people posted information about this specific topic, and two different people, look at the same evidence, and come to opposite conclusions?

In fact, how many times have *YOU* posted stuff on here, and I've looked at your evidence, and came to the opposite conclusion?

By the way, I'm still reading your PDF you posted.  I have only read 20 pages, but I'm not seeing much.   But I always read at least half, before making a judgement call on any research.

But the point is, if we end up with a massively divided population, then we'll end up right where we already are.  Nothing will change.

I keep thinking of Venezuela when you talk like this.    Hugo Chavez was elected with 3.67 Million votes, in a country of 23 Million people.

He was hugely popular.  And Hugo Chavez pushed a Populist agenda, at the extreme opposition of the wealth.

How did that work for them?   Production of food fell.  Shortages nation wide.   Power outages.   Lack of automobiles.   Housing shortages.   Massive unemployment.

Democracy in action!    The people wanted this.  They got it.

In the mean time, how did Chavez push these policies?    He controlled the media, and eliminated unfavorable press.  He allowed militias to intimidate opposition.   He reformed education, to push his political agenda, of course "to educate the public on policies".

Are you willing to do what Chavez did to this democracy you want?   And why do you think the outcome will be any different?


----------



## LilOlLady

GOD never promised us equality. Men were not created equal.

"All Men Are Created Equal." Really? | The Proverbial Skeptic | Big Think


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A democracy with "non elitist" representatives is a contradiction in terms.  By definition, the leaders of any government are elitists.  No one can win an election without currying favor with the people you call "elitists."  I've already said that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, humans must look out for their own interest and to be concerned with another is folly, nay, an impossibility. So why is it impossible for human beings to care about other human beings?
> 
> Or is it possible but current reps do not? In other words, Democracy is possible but is not happening.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but you don't care.   Nor do those of your ideology care.

Conservatives care more about their fellow man, than you on the left ever have, or ever will.

And it's fact too.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232]Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism: Arthur C. Brooks, James Q. Wilson: 9780465008230: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


> Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."



So conservatives (contrary to popular belief) on average earn slightly less than liberals, and yet give 30% more then liberals to charity causes.

We make a little less, and give quite a bit more.

See unlike the left.... we actually care.   The left only feigns caring, in order to justify their ideology.

Conservatives volunteer their own time and effort to help people.

Leftists try to avoid helping people, and instead offer government programs.

Conservatives give of their own money, that's in their own pocket, to help others.

Leftists are only interested in attacking productive people, stealing their money, and giving that money which isn't theirs, to other people.

Even when conservatives do provide programs, they are designed to help the individual to get back to a place of self-sufficiency.  Such as the ex-convict job placement services at a shelter here in Ohio.   As long as you check in every night, and provide proof of working during the day, they will place you in a job, provide you food, shelter, even clothes for work and play, and a private room.   But they teach you to work, and you must work, and earn a steady pay check.

Helping ex-convicts back on their feet, and back to stable self sufficiency.

What do leftists provide?   Welfare, food stamps EBT, and subsidized housing, which encourages people to stay out of the work force, thus making them less and less employable over time, and thus more and more dependent on government over time.

In short, it makes them even worse off than before the left "helped" them.

That.... is the difference.   You talk a good talk about caring for others, but the reality is, the left doesn't give a crap about others.

Your main motivation is not the good of your fellow people.  If it was, you would never support the things you do, and you would support the things you don't.

No, your main motivation is hatred, greed, and envy of the wealthy.   That's why you spend most your time complaining about the 'Oligarchy', and very little talking about the 4th generation welfare recipients, and how to get them on their feet.


----------



## Skull Pilot

georgephillip said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> If would indeed for those earning twice as much as I did during my working career.
> In my circumstances, $350 a month would have qualified as a rent payment, not a car payment. Since I never acquired a college degree, I never earned close to the median $50,000 a year income; however, I never had the debt burden today's graduates face either. FWIW, your numbers make sense for a select few with the income and will power necessary to fund their own retirements. What percentage of the US labor force do you think possess both qualities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A select few?
> 
> Really?
> 
> It has nothing to do with income.  if you wanted to you could get a second part time job and use that pay to save for your future. It doesn't even have to be 350 a month you could start with 100 a month the point is you have to start.
> 
> And lack of will power is a personal flaw and has nothing to do with capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you think someone should have to work two jobs in order to be entitled to retire? When I began working forty years ago, a single minimum wage job provided all I needed. At that time the richest among us earned about 8% of US income every year; today they earn nearly a quarter of all US income. That redistribution, abetted by both major parties, explains why many of my generation exist on >$1000 a month.
> You're solution to devote more hours of my life to those who control the means of production sounds like an endorsement of servility, to me.
> Really.
Click to expand...


It's not just to retire it's to start a process of creating generational wealth.

Up until the last few years I worked at least 2 jobs since I was 16.  I saved and that allowed me and my wife to open a business.  It's not servitude when you are working to better your own position.

And hey if you want to retire on the 1200 a month you'll get from social security then be my guest but that's your choice and if you make that choice then you have no right to whine about inequality because you chose it it was not forced upon you.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has definitely never been a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be a democracy.  The entire idea of America was individual freedom.  A genuine democracy makes individual freedom highly unlikely, as a -genuine- democracy enforces the will of the majority, PERIOD.
> 
> I forget who said it, but I seen this quote on the board that says it perfectly.  Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you recognize America was never intended to be a Democracy. It was created for land owners and to keep the decisions in the hands of the "wealth of the nations."
> 
> But let's examine your criticism:  "A genuine democracy makes individual freedom highly unlikely..."
> 
> While I'm not trying to defend Democracy, I am trying to define our terms and understand them with accuracy and clarity. You may be right and I am therefore inclined to agree. But let's not be so hasty.
> 
> When you shun Democracy, you are saying I want a different organization of politics. We already have an oligarchy and I think we can agree it produces terrible results and limits freedoms of certain groups of people outrageously (minorities, those born into poverty etc). So if our goal is freedom for maximum number of folks, Oligarchy is not the way to go. But neither was Monarchy. Do you have another suggestion to meet the goal of freedom for all?
> 
> It turns out that the majority of people in America (58%) will face poverty for at least 1 year. So the majority of people exist in conditions without economic freedom. If they want to survive, they need to work. And while living should and does require work, it's clear why many people are opposed to our current system of work: they have continued to produce more for their employer while their real wages have remained stagnant for 5 decades. Thus, the current organization of the lives of most people are such that their bosses incur tons of profit while stringing them along for mere survival. This is not a genuine sense of freedom. Do you agree? It sounds a bit like wage slavery to me and anyone under slavery should want to end those conditions, surely, since it entails their lack of freedom.
> 
> So yes, the rule of the majority would likely attempt to undo the maniacal levels of profit and low taxation (corporations pay 25 cents for every dollar an individual pays when in the 50s it was a buck 50). But why would you want the rule of a minority as opposed to majority? Do you trust the minority to make decisions in your interest? Or would you rather participate in those decisions yourself? Perhaps you are part of the minority (employers) and it would clearly explain why you don't want human beings taking autonomy over their own lives since your profits would drop, although your sustenance would in no way be threatened.
Click to expand...


Hahaha.  Sorry, but I don't claim to know the hidden agenda of the founders when they wrote our founding documents, I tend to read the wording in said documents and make my inferences at that level.  If you believe that individual freedom in the sense that no person should be subject to the whims of another is another way of saying "keep the wealth in the hands of the land owners", fine.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Next, Oligarchy.  In my view, this representative form of government that we have in the US is along the lines of the best thing I could imagine.  The biggest problem with our system, in my mind, and the reason it's become something that resembles an oligarchy, is because we've laid out a number of regulations that literally no human being could keep track of.  Our tax code alone is so unbelievably complex that there isn't a tax professional on the planet who is knowledgeable on all of it.  Let that sink in for a moment.  Our tax law alone is too complex for any single human being to know all of it.

When you have so many regulations that no single person can keep track, you have so much legal action taking place that transparency, even in major financial law questions, is nearly impossible.

The other problem with this massive amount of legislation, as well as the breadth and scope of what the government now takes it upon itself to regulate, is that it allows for ever greater levels of corruption.

Example:  If you give a government agency, say the EPA, the power to bypass the separation of powers, declare a problem, and then use that problem to unilaterally fine and shut down businesses, AS WELL as the power to give other businesses a pass on obeying the new rules, you have created a situation where the richer and more powerful businesses can use their influence (wealth) to get themselves passes and have their competitors shut down.  The more power and discretion you give to the government, the more opportunity you create for the rich to turn your republic into an oligarchy.  When you combine this power factor with the lack of transparency that our mass of regulation has created, you end up with a system where the rich have access to total economic control via the government and the privacy to use that power without being called out for it.

The trick, in my opinion, is what many of the founders seemed, based on the language in the founding documents, to be aiming for in the first place:  A representative democracy with as little power as is necessary to keep people from treading on others' basic freedoms.

So yeah, I want a different form of government from "democracy".  I'd like to see our current form of government scaled back to what was initially intended.  That, to me, would be ideal.

Next up:  Economic freedom.  I must admit, I have nothing but contempt for this term based on how it's used in these discussions.  Your idea of economic freedom is everybody having an amount of material property consistent with whatever your personal sensibilities define as sufficient.

Here's the problem:  If someone doesn't have anything to offer that anyone values as much as the money required to achieve your personal level of sufficiency, then the implication you're making is that "freedom" can only be achieved by forcing someone to give this person more than they wish to.  Essentially, "economic freedom" is the term you use to justify subjugating the capable to the needs of the incapable.

Freedom = subjugation?  Fuck that.  Sorry, lemme be really clear.  Fuck that.

I don't want "rule" of a minority or "rule" of the majority.  I want as little rule as possible, as answerable to the people as possible.  Pure democracy doesn't create this.  Pure democracy implies the absolute power of the majority over the minority.  Absolute power of anyone over anyone is completely contrary to everything I believe in.

The base problem here, and the reason you and I will never agree on any of this, is in the difference in our highest values.

Yours, as demonstrated by the particulars of your argument, is everyone having enough stuff to get by comfortably.

Mine is everyone, capable and incapable, enjoying as much self determination as possible.

Where I think you're wrong is saying that having enough stuff is freedom the same way that self determination is freedom, and that not having as much stuff as you want or need implies that your freedom is somehow being infringed even if your self determination is intact.

If you ask me, self determination is freedom.  The amount of stuff you're able to get ahold of is a separate concept.


----------



## gnarlylove

Not2BSubjugated said:


> If you ask me, self determination is freedom.  The amount of stuff you're able to get ahold of is a separate concept.



The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:

"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.

Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "

Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.

Anyway, your whole argument consisted of arguing about regulation which is not the core concept of Democracy. Regulation exists in our supposed Democracy and does not function. So if this is what you disagree with, that should be obvious enough, but it is not obvious that Democracy must exist with 7,000 page bills and the rest of your ad hoc criticisms. While legitimate, they do not bear on our current discussion.

But taking what I've quoted from you, I wanted to ask you how people can be self-determined when they don't have the resources to survive without dependence or death? That sounds like determined-to-die, not a self-determined life. Why do some people get to determine their life while others determine very little in their life?


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you ask me, self determination is freedom.  The amount of stuff you're able to get ahold of is a separate concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:
> 
> "Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
> Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.
> 
> Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "
> 
> Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.
Click to expand...


The problem with your theory is that in those days a majority of Americans were land holders.  There weren't a lot of large cities over populated with ticks on the ass of society.  Madison considered owning land a sign that you were responsible enough to vote.  



gnarlylove said:


> Anyway, your whole argument consisted of arguing about regulation which is not the core concept of Democracy. Regulation exists in our supposed Democracy and does not function. So if this is what you disagree with, that should be obvious enough, but it is not obvious that Democracy must exist with 7,000 page bills and the rest of your ad hoc criticisms. While legitimate, they do not bear on our current discussion.



It may not be obvious, but it is congenital feature of democracy.  When everything is decided by the mob, the result is innumerable rules and regulations, especially when every special interest is angling for special provisions for itself.



gnarlylove said:


> But taking what I've quoted from you, I wanted to ask you how people can be self-determined when they don't have the resources to survive without dependence or death? That sounds like determined-to-die, not a self-determined life. Why do some people get to determine their life while others determine very little in their life?



Your term "self determined" is meaningless.  Your belief that everyone has to have a multi-million dollar inheritance to be "self determined" would make any form of the concept impossible, wouldn't it?

Despite most people not having what you call "the resource to survive,"  Many Americans become wealthy and some even become billionaires.  That kind of blows your theory that it can't be done out of the water.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> Leftists are only interested in attacking productive people, stealing their money, and giving that money which isn't theirs, to other people.



Precisely my motiviation and goal. Your caricature of me and I assume anyone who dares disagree with you must always be 100% accurate and certifiably insane. Why are you so shy as to deny the fact that leftists want to fuck animals? Why do you cast me in a stupid light but leave room for fringe people to support my ideas? Why not come out and fully say the caricatures that really grab attention, like:

"I am a neo-nazi gang rapist and so are all leftists. We are anti-human and want to end the all life on earth. We are destruction and death. The left will kill your family."

Now that is a genuine caricature of the left. Your petty idea that leftists steal money is child's play. Of course as a leftists I want to steal all the money in the world. This game is fun Androw. I didn't know make believe and caricaturing could bring such a release! From now on I'll be like you and just say whatever comes to mind without being concerned whatsoever with its correspondence to reality. I know you deeply believe what you say and that's what's troubling: you have already cut the left off from being understood as rational human beings. Instead, they are defined from the outset as thieving lunatics.

Sounds like you need to run for office because your rhetoric is so departed from reality and the fact that you believe your own leftist-hate-speech makes a great combination as our representative in congress. When you understand me as your enemy instead of trying to engage in rational discussion, you prevent criticism of your ideas every being heard since you've tuned out criticism as thieving leftists.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A democracy with "non elitist" representatives is a contradiction in terms.  By definition, the leaders of any government are elitists.  No one can win an election without currying favor with the people you call "elitists."  I've already said that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, humans must look out for their own interest and to be concerned with another is folly, nay, an impossibility. So why is it impossible for human beings to care about other human beings?
> 
> Or is it possible but current reps do not? In other words, Democracy is possible but is not happening.
Click to expand...


Nothing requires humans to look out for their own interests.  I'm sure somewhere on this planet there are people who live like the saints  who populate your idea Utopia.  However, the reality is that most people are concerned about their welfare before they even think about the welfare of others.

Any scheme of society based on ignoring the above fact is doomed to failure.  You can't change human nature, especially not with a few rah-rah speeches.   Decades of hardcore brainwashing failed to convert the Soviet man into a creature that didn't look out for his own welfare.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you ask me, self determination is freedom.  The amount of stuff you're able to get ahold of is a separate concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:
> 
> "Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
> Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.
> 
> Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "
> 
> Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your theory is that in those days a majority of Americans were land holders.  There weren't a lot of large cities over populated with ticks on the ass of society.  Madison considered owning land a sign that you were responsible enough to vote.
Click to expand...


And now we have partly recognized how stupid the idea of "not being responsible enough to vote" means in a Democracy. In a true-to-form Democracy economic standing cannot have influence in the vote. If policy decisions are made that influence your life, whether you are homeless or not you must be able to vote in a genuine Democracy. Not only to vote but to make an informed vote so that the Democracy, like it does in Germany, provides money to small platforms who get 5% of the vote or more.

But I don't know where you got the idea that I believe "in those days a majority of Americans were land holders." Can you explain where you picked them from? Because I know I didn't say that but I'd be curious to see why you think so.




bripat9643 said:


> Your term "self determined" is meaningless.  Your belief that everyone has to have a multi-million dollar inheritance to be "self determined" would make any form of the concept impossible, wouldn't it?
> 
> Despite most people not having what you call "the resource to survive,"  Many Americans become wealthy and some even become billionaires.  That kind of blows your theory that it can't be done out of the water.



First it wasn't my term. Please don't butt in on conversations you have no interest in following.

Second, you have a really bad habit of drawing up strawmen. I never claimed people have rights to inheritance. So blowing your own strawman out of the water is pretty funny to watch but please stop drawing ideas from your bank of "stupid things I believe liberals would say" since nothing you've accused me of has had any grounding in the posts I've made but in some lunatic leftist you have in your head.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you ask me, self determination is freedom.  The amount of stuff you're able to get ahold of is a separate concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:
> 
> "Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
> Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.
> 
> Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "
> 
> Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.
> 
> Anyway, your whole argument consisted of arguing about regulation which is not the core concept of Democracy. Regulation exists in our supposed Democracy and does not function. So if this is what you disagree with, that should be obvious enough, but it is not obvious that Democracy must exist with 7,000 page bills and the rest of your ad hoc criticisms. While legitimate, they do not bear on our current discussion.
> 
> But taking what I've quoted from you, I wanted to ask you how people can be self-determined when they don't have the resources to survive without dependence or death? That sounds like determined-to-die, not a self-determined life. Why do some people get to determine their life while others determine very little in their life?
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight.

If Madison's writings implied that the land owners should have enough say in the government to keep the majority of the less fortunate from using said government to arbitrarily strip them of their property, then the logical conclusion is that "America was designed for the land owners"?

So you've taken one founder's writings, related them to a few aspects of our constitutional guidelines that they clearly influenced, and concluded that the implications you've drawn definitely represent the primary purpose for the founding of our country?  Is it that I don't study, or is it that you've decided that your rather far fetched conclusion is gospel and that I'm ignorant for not agreeing?  Charmingly self righteous.  The more I talk to Marxists, the more they remind me of fundamentalist Christians.

Next up:  Government is regulation.  Democracy is a system of government.  Regulation -is-, in fact, -core- to the discussion of Democracy, since all we're talking about is an arrangement for how society decides upon regulations.

My criticisms regarding the complexity of our legislation, also, wasn't directed at the concept of Democracy.  It was in direct response to your continued referral to our system of government as an oligarchy.  When I talk about the ridiculous regulation scheme, I'm simply pointing out that a representative republic isn't automatically an oligarchy, and that it's only through exploitation of the amount of power we've given our officials that we have -become- an oligarchy.  I specified in my post that the American system is the system I prefer, and the discussion of how it became an oligarchy was my concession that the current manifestation of that system is fucked up beyond recognition, and obviously not what it is that I'm in support of.

Not only was this all an explanation of what I view as the ideal form of government, which is what you've been asking about in general throughout this discussion, but it's also a direct response to your oligarchy label.  It is literally in response to your question and your commentary.

If you don't want to debate these points, feel free to say so, but when they're direct responses to everything you've been saying and yet you persist to claim that they are irrelevant to the discussion, you're either being dishonest or stupid.  I'll let you choose.

Lastly, yes, circumstances affect the number of choices one has.  Where we disagree is that you're implying that subjugating people economically to ensure that the poor have more choices allows for more self determination than allowing circumstance to potentially leave people impoverished.

Part of your implication is that shitty circumstances imply less self determination.  This is not the case, it simply implies less effective influence on one's environment.  The person in question, whether impoverished or not, is either free to do as they will or they are not, and that is not a function of how successfully their available choices are likely to achieve their desired results.

"Economic freedom" means having a certain amount of wealth, and that's why it's a bullshit term and a bullshit concept.  Wealth is the physical representation of means.  Means is a synonym for power.  Power is -not- a synonym for freedom.

If power and freedom are different, then stepping on one man's self determination so that another man has more potency behind his own self determination is not trading freedom for freedom, it's trading freedom for power.

I value shared freedom over shared power.  You, clearly, do not.


----------



## gnarlylove

Not2BSubjugated said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you ask me, self determination is freedom.  The amount of stuff you're able to get ahold of is a separate concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:
> 
> "Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
> Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.
> 
> Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "
> 
> Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.
> 
> Anyway, your whole argument consisted of arguing about regulation which is not the core concept of Democracy. Regulation exists in our supposed Democracy and does not function. So if this is what you disagree with, that should be obvious enough, but it is not obvious that Democracy must exist with 7,000 page bills and the rest of your ad hoc criticisms. While legitimate, they do not bear on our current discussion.
> 
> But taking what I've quoted from you, I wanted to ask you how people can be self-determined when they don't have the resources to survive without dependence or death? That sounds like determined-to-die, not a self-determined life. Why do some people get to determine their life while others determine very little in their life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.
> 
> If Madison's writings implied that the land owners should have enough say in the government to keep the majority of the less fortunate from using said government to arbitrarily strip them of their property, then the logical conclusion is that "America was designed for the land owners"?
> 
> So you've taken one founder's writings, related them to a few aspects of our constitutional guidelines that they clearly influenced, and concluded that the implications you've drawn definitely represent the primary purpose for the founding of our country?  Is it that I don't study, or is it that you've decided that your rather far fetched conclusion is gospel and that I'm ignorant for not agreeing?  Charmingly self righteous.  The more I talk to Marxists, the more they remind me of fundamentalist Christians.
> 
> Next up:  Government is regulation.  Democracy is a system of government.  Regulation -is-, in fact, -core- to the discussion of Democracy, since all we're talking about is an arrangement for how society decides upon regulations.
> 
> My criticisms regarding the complexity of our legislation, also, wasn't directed at the concept of Democracy.  It was in direct response to your continued referral to our system of government as an oligarchy.  When I talk about the ridiculous regulation scheme, I'm simply pointing out that a representative republic isn't automatically an oligarchy, and that it's only through exploitation of the amount of power we've given our officials that we have -become- an oligarchy.  I specified in my post that the American system is the system I prefer, and the discussion of how it became an oligarchy was my concession that the current manifestation of that system is fucked up beyond recognition, and obviously not what it is that I'm in support of.
> 
> Not only was this all an explanation of what I view as the ideal form of government, which is what you've been asking about in general throughout this discussion, but it's also a direct response to your oligarchy label.  It is literally in response to your question and your commentary.
> 
> If you don't want to debate these points, feel free to say so, but when they're direct responses to everything you've been saying and yet you persist to claim that they are irrelevant to the discussion, you're either being dishonest or stupid.  I'll let you choose.
> 
> Lastly, yes, circumstances affect the number of choices one has.  Where we disagree is that you're implying that subjugating people economically to ensure that the poor have more choices allows for more self determination than allowing circumstance to potentially leave people impoverished.
> 
> Part of your implication is that shitty circumstances imply less self determination.  This is not the case, it simply implies less effective influence on one's environment.
> The person in question, whether impoverished or not, is either free to do as they will or they are not, and that is not a function of how successfully their available choices are likely to achieve their desired results.
Click to expand...


What a snarky way to say poor people don't deserve full self-determination. Stop deceiving yourself and admit that "reduced ability to influence one's environment" is saying a person with lesser means is naturally less able to govern their life. You act like poor people are free but that's because you've never been or associated yourself with such a person. So in your mind, a poor person is just like you except they lack money. Turns out it's much more complicated then that. Certain people are not allowed to cross boarders due to economic status that led to class 3 misdemeanor. This includes me, stealing bread for myself and friends prevented me from going to Canada for a week and it was Canadian law to lock me up for trying. There are major restrictions on movement if your a poor person who made the mistake of trying to steal bread for yourself or family.

Being poor means you cannot travel. Unless you have literally nothing, then travel means you need a vehicle with insurance that you likely do not have and cannot afford. Tickets for transport allow you to carry very little of personal belongings and charge you for even the most basic luggage. Poverty reduces one's ability to obtain sufficient calories leaving one exhausted more readily, as does lack of sleep (for sleeping on bad mattresses or the floor). Turns out that cops have targeted poor people for decades and with pre-crime being developed, this will sky-rocket even beyond what it is which already we know, or at least I do, have local laws that criminalize poverty, like sleeping on sidewalks, parks during after hours, no sleeping on benches, no loitering.

I like your child's idea of what poverty is like, that they are totally free to be not poor and autonomous, but you clearly have one mouth full of no information regarding what it means to be poor and how that relates to a lack of being able to have genuine self-determination. Speaking of subjugation you should know this but I guess you have a hard time recognizing that subjugation of other people is still subjugation and should not be tolerated. In other words, that economic status creates self-determination or lack therein and if you want to claim concern for all people, then you need to recognize this crucial flaw.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> "Economic freedom" means having a certain amount of wealth, and that's why it's a bullshit term and a bullshit concept.  Wealth is the physical representation of means.  Means is a synonym for power.  Power is -not- a synonym for freedom.
> 
> If power and freedom are different, then stepping on one man's self determination so that another man has more potency behind his own self determination is not trading freedom for freedom, it's trading freedom for power.
> 
> I value shared freedom over shared power.  You, clearly, do not.



I know, why would I clearly prefer freedom? It makes no sense. I express criticism of your ideas and because I express it, I must therefore be your enemy. Therefore, as an enemy, it's ok to make claims that this enemy is a lunatic and obviously prefers power over freedom. Clearly that's my point in disagreeing with your ideas. I mean there could be no other point in me trying to express criticism than taking away your freedom and subjugating your family. People never exchange ideas in order to make better ideas, no, they just try to under cut one another and the one who best undercuts the other wins.

Well la di da mister, you have fucking won the grand prize because I don't intend to play according to such immature exchanges. But I guess when you imagine the whole world is trying to subjugate your, when you live in such a fear, whether rational or not, you think everyone who doesn't applaud you must be out to get you. Do you think that way, constant paranoia? Then please count me out and don't respond to my posts.

I think you misunderstand Madison's role and where the quote is. He was the main framer of the constitution and devised congress in order to retain power in the hands of the "wealth of the nations." I would like for you to show me where the real purpose of congress was discussed and is clearly not for the land holders. For some reason you are very sensitive to disagreement and because you read me through a filter, you exaggerate my assertions. I'm very happy to discuss openly, freely, exchanging information.

But you clearly lacked knowledge of Madison's idea behind the congress and I felt it important for you to understand that. Perhaps the congress was not intended for the wealth of the nations. I am very willing to concede that, but absent reason to think it, you really just through a hissy fit. So offer up some evidence please.

An aspect of your allergic reaction to my posts consists in think I am fundamentally committed to my beliefs despite any criticism. So you naturally make my claims out to be fundamentalist when they carry no such character. For example, it's obvious I just posted Madison's quotes regarding congress and suggested that the agenda was not hidden. You spun this around to mean I believe the sole purpose of government in general "was designed by American land holders." How funny you put in quotes something I never even remotely said. I was quoting Madison and suggested it should alter your understanding.

I think where your allergy to my posts get bad is that I suggest you alter your thinking. Usually people who call people fundamentalist and self-righteous are not saying anything meaningful but instead are projecting their deficiencies onto their opposition. For you might think "how dare gnarly suggest I should alter my thinking of history a slight bit!? Damn it I am god! What I think goes and even if I agree with gnarly that 'America was never intended to be a Democracy' (your exact words) I must still berate gnarly as a fundamentalist because he suggest I change my understanding of history and he has no right to suggest facts to me!"

While your posts are long and suggest understanding, they are also fraught with such allergic reactions as to impair your ability to accurately understand what I say. Your filter is swollen and views me as a target. Man people are quite incapable of plain jane wholesome debate about ideas. What a tragedy! So until we can address this fundamental failing in our discussion, I see little point in wasting your time with my posts that you unintentionally though inevitably misconstrue.

Are you willing to slow it down, take one idea per post and hammer this out like adults with reasonable intelligence or we can just stop because I don't care to waste your time.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, humans must look out for their own interest and to be concerned with another is folly, nay, an impossibility. So why is it impossible for human beings to care about other human beings?
> 
> Or is it possible but current reps do not? In other words, Democracy is possible but is not happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing requires humans to look out for their own interests.  However, the reality is that most people are concerned about their welfare before they even think about the welfare of others.
Click to expand...


This says people can be tricked into not looking out for themselves but in all likelihood do look out for themselves. This is your answer to if it is possible for humans to be concerned for other people? That answer hardly relates to my question but it sounds like you would agree any sane person recognizes they can care for other people, that human beings can actually love and care for people that are not themselves. So let's assume for a moment that some person with this capacity then becomes a representative of her constituency, where her main job description is to look out for other people. Why do you think this is an impossibility?

I agree this is impossible in America right now. But just because it isn't happening in America doesn't mean it's impossible. Right? Or is there something about being a representative that strips you of humanity and prevents you from empathizing with your constituents? What is it about being a rep. that tears your ability to be human asunder?


----------



## freedombecki

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a good reason to have term limits and 401Ks, instead of pensions, for all politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> *Or we could stop voting for rich bitches who spend most of their time dialing for dollar$:*
> 
> "For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, according to a new analysis of personal financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics."
> 
> Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we could shrink government so much that it doesn't attract power grubbers.
Click to expand...

Paying off the National Debt would do just that. Right now, all that money in the Treasury isn't enough for today's power grubbers when they feel entitled to "charge it" to the taxpayer with limitless credit. By withholding spending and paying the debt off, the political money-grubbers would get discouraged real fast. So fast, the taxpayer would not be snagged for all those sleazy pet rock projects that no one wants, needs, or appreciates having their earnings taxed on.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:
> 
> "Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
> Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.
> 
> Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "
> 
> Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.
> 
> Anyway, your whole argument consisted of arguing about regulation which is not the core concept of Democracy. Regulation exists in our supposed Democracy and does not function. So if this is what you disagree with, that should be obvious enough, but it is not obvious that Democracy must exist with 7,000 page bills and the rest of your ad hoc criticisms. While legitimate, they do not bear on our current discussion.
> 
> But taking what I've quoted from you, I wanted to ask you how people can be self-determined when they don't have the resources to survive without dependence or death? That sounds like determined-to-die, not a self-determined life. Why do some people get to determine their life while others determine very little in their life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.
> 
> If Madison's writings implied that the land owners should have enough say in the government to keep the majority of the less fortunate from using said government to arbitrarily strip them of their property, then the logical conclusion is that "America was designed for the land owners"?
> 
> So you've taken one founder's writings, related them to a few aspects of our constitutional guidelines that they clearly influenced, and concluded that the implications you've drawn definitely represent the primary purpose for the founding of our country?  Is it that I don't study, or is it that you've decided that your rather far fetched conclusion is gospel and that I'm ignorant for not agreeing?  Charmingly self righteous.  The more I talk to Marxists, the more they remind me of fundamentalist Christians.
> 
> Next up:  Government is regulation.  Democracy is a system of government.  Regulation -is-, in fact, -core- to the discussion of Democracy, since all we're talking about is an arrangement for how society decides upon regulations.
> 
> My criticisms regarding the complexity of our legislation, also, wasn't directed at the concept of Democracy.  It was in direct response to your continued referral to our system of government as an oligarchy.  When I talk about the ridiculous regulation scheme, I'm simply pointing out that a representative republic isn't automatically an oligarchy, and that it's only through exploitation of the amount of power we've given our officials that we have -become- an oligarchy.  I specified in my post that the American system is the system I prefer, and the discussion of how it became an oligarchy was my concession that the current manifestation of that system is fucked up beyond recognition, and obviously not what it is that I'm in support of.
> 
> Not only was this all an explanation of what I view as the ideal form of government, which is what you've been asking about in general throughout this discussion, but it's also a direct response to your oligarchy label.  It is literally in response to your question and your commentary.
> 
> If you don't want to debate these points, feel free to say so, but when they're direct responses to everything you've been saying and yet you persist to claim that they are irrelevant to the discussion, you're either being dishonest or stupid.  I'll let you choose.
> 
> Lastly, yes, circumstances affect the number of choices one has.  Where we disagree is that you're implying that subjugating people economically to ensure that the poor have more choices allows for more self determination than allowing circumstance to potentially leave people impoverished.
> 
> Part of your implication is that shitty circumstances imply less self determination.  This is not the case, it simply implies less effective influence on one's environment.
> The person in question, whether impoverished or not, is either free to do as they will or they are not, and that is not a function of how successfully their available choices are likely to achieve their desired results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a snarky way to say poor people don't deserve full self-determination. Stop deceiving yourself and admit that "reduced ability to influence one's environment" is saying a person with lesser means is naturally less able to govern their life. You act like poor people are free but that's because you've never been or associated yourself with such a person. So in your mind, a poor person is just like you except they lack money. Turns out it's much more complicated then that. Certain people are not allowed to cross boarders due to economic status that led to class 3 misdemeanor. This includes me, stealing bread for myself and friends prevented me from going to Canada for a week and it was Canadian law to lock me up for trying. There are major restrictions on movement if your a poor person who made the mistake of trying to steal bread for yourself or family.
> 
> Being poor means you cannot travel. Unless you have literally nothing, then travel means you need a vehicle with insurance that you likely do not have and cannot afford. Tickets for transport allow you to carry very little of personal belongings and charge you for even the most basic luggage. Poverty reduces one's ability to obtain sufficient calories leaving one exhausted more readily, as does lack of sleep (for sleeping on bad mattresses or the floor). Turns out that cops have targeted poor people for decades and with pre-crime being developed, this will sky-rocket even beyond what it is which already we know, or at least I do, have local laws that criminalize poverty, like sleeping on sidewalks, parks during after hours, no sleeping on benches, no loitering.
> 
> I like your child's idea of what poverty is like, that they are totally free to be not poor and autonomous, but you clearly have one mouth full of no information regarding what it means to be poor and how that relates to a lack of being able to have genuine self-determination. Speaking of subjugation you should know this but I guess you have a hard time recognizing that subjugation of other people is still subjugation and should not be tolerated. In other words, that economic status creates self-determination or lack therein and if you want to claim concern for all people, then you need to recognize this crucial flaw.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Economic freedom" means having a certain amount of wealth, and that's why it's a bullshit term and a bullshit concept.  Wealth is the physical representation of means.  Means is a synonym for power.  Power is -not- a synonym for freedom.
> 
> If power and freedom are different, then stepping on one man's self determination so that another man has more potency behind his own self determination is not trading freedom for freedom, it's trading freedom for power.
> 
> I value shared freedom over shared power.  You, clearly, do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, why would I clearly prefer freedom? It makes no sense. I express criticism of your ideas and because I express it, I must therefore be your enemy. Therefore, as an enemy, it's ok to make claims that this enemy is a lunatic and obviously prefers power over freedom. Clearly that's my point in disagreeing with your ideas. I mean there could be no other point in me trying to express criticism than taking away your freedom and subjugating your family. People never exchange ideas in order to make better ideas, no, they just try to under cut one another and the one who best undercuts the other wins.
> 
> Well la di da mister, you have fucking won the grand prize because I don't intend to play according to such immature exchanges. But I guess when you imagine the whole world is trying to subjugate your, when you live in such a fear, whether rational or not, you think everyone who doesn't applaud you must be out to get you. Do you think that way, constant paranoia? Then please count me out and don't respond to my posts.
> 
> I think you misunderstand Madison's role and where the quote is. He was the main framer of the constitution and devised congress in order to retain power in the hands of the "wealth of the nations." I would like for you to show me where the real purpose of congress was discussed and is clearly not for the land holders. For some reason you are very sensitive to disagreement and because you read me through a filter, you exaggerate my assertions. I'm very happy to discuss openly, freely, exchanging information.
> 
> But you clearly lacked knowledge of Madison's idea behind the congress and I felt it important for you to understand that. Perhaps the congress was not intended for the wealth of the nations. I am very willing to concede that, but absent reason to think it, you really just through a hissy fit. So offer up some evidence please.
> 
> An aspect of your allergic reaction to my posts consists in think I am fundamentally committed to my beliefs despite any criticism. So you naturally make my claims out to be fundamentalist when they carry no such character. For example, it's obvious I just posted Madison's quotes regarding congress and suggested that the agenda was not hidden. You spun this around to mean I believe the sole purpose of government in general "was designed by American land holders." How funny you put in quotes something I never even remotely said. I was quoting Madison and suggested it should alter your understanding.
> 
> I think where your allergy to my posts get bad is that I suggest you alter your thinking. Usually people who call people fundamentalist and self-righteous are not saying anything meaningful but instead are projecting their deficiencies onto their opposition. For you might think "how dare gnarly suggest I should alter my thinking of history a slight bit!? Damn it I am god! What I think goes and even if I agree with gnarly that 'America was never intended to be a Democracy' (your exact words) I must still berate gnarly as a fundamentalist because he suggest I change my understanding of history and he has no right to suggest facts to me!"
> 
> While your posts are long and suggest understanding, they are also fraught with such allergic reactions as to impair your ability to accurately understand what I say. Your filter is swollen and views me as a target. Man people are quite incapable of plain jane wholesome debate about ideas. What a tragedy! So until we can address this fundamental failing in our discussion, I see little point in wasting your time with my posts that you unintentionally though inevitably misconstrue.
> 
> Are you willing to slow it down, take one idea per post and hammer this out like adults with reasonable intelligence or we can just stop because I don't care to waste your time.
Click to expand...


The post to which I responded included the quote, "Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government."

I respond in kind, and then you have the nerve to call me out for being snarky and act like -I'm- turning this into an emotional, targeting match that's hindering my ability to reason?  Hahaha.

You gonna call yourself out for the same, or you going the nutless route?

Speaking of lacking metaphoric philosophical testicles, I like the way you destroyed my argument by supposing to know my history.  Spent much of my childhood with my mother raising me alone, 3k miles away from my father, existing on ramen and soda crackers in a 1 bedroom apartment for extended periods.  Mom grew up in Kuhio Park Terrace, notorious Oahu housing complex (ghetto).  She busted ass in school to get a scholarship, but dropped out of college after having me a couple years in.  She worked her way up to a low level management position in the hotel industry, which is pretty prone to upheaval, so she'd regularly go through periods of being laid off and job hunting for lateral positions at competing hotels.  Lots of real rough times during the lows, couch surfing separately a few times during transitional (homeless) periods.  Went to a new school at least every year as she moved us where she could find work.  Her mother, despite being in horrible economic repair during her upbringing, was herself raised as Hawaiian nobility for a fair portion of her childhood.  Even when my family lost its land holdings, wealth, and influence, along with their culture, the family continued to raise their children with pride in intellect and personal capacity.  My mother, during times of economic hardship, never once went on government assistance outside of unemployment, which is part of what FICO payments were extracted from her paychecks for in the first place.  I was never on the free lunch programs as a kid.  If we were broke, she'd go without so that I wasn't the only kid at school without a lunch, experiencing the same stigma she had to grow up with.  Sadly, I only point this out to make the point that I find it funny that your entire point, while irrelevant to begin with, is also 100 percent incorrect.  I don't come from wealth, little buddy.

Whether or not a person's experienced the hardships of being poor doesn't change the nature of these philosophical terms.  Self determination is what self determination is, and power is simply an enabler of better results, not a direct synonym.  You're confusing potency with freedom simply because potency broadens practical choices.  Still doesn't mean that potency defines freedom.  You have yet to bridge that gap, chief.

Not liking the scope of your choices doesn't mean your self determination is being subjugated, it means you need to use that self determination to acquire means and broaden your choices.

On top of that, when I was poor, guess what I didn't do. . .  I didn't steal fucking bread.  Your economic situation didn't lead to you stealing bread, your willingness to steal in desperation lead to you stealing bread.  Don't blame your border status and criminal record on circumstance, YOU DID THAT.  Circumstance is what it is, your actions are your own, homie.

I do find it telling that, by your very language in this anecdote, you place the responsibility for your crime on your circumstance as opposed to your own decision making.  This explains a good deal of the fissure in our thinking.  You've implied that you believe that your decisions, and therefore everyone's decisions, are simply a product of circumstance.  You've implied with your theft story that circumstance -defines- self determination, and so it's no wonder that you equate good circumstances with freedom.

I've got a hunch that your entire understanding of the nature of self determination is based in your psychological need to defer, to poverty, the responsibility that you rightly bear for the choices of your past, so that you don't have to blame yourself for the consequences or acknowledge that you -chose- to step outside of your own moral code, but as compelling as that thought is, I won't claim to know.  We'll call this a wild theory 

I can tell you that I know this:  Poverty doesn't force you to steal.  Neither does being hungry.  I've experienced both of these things and chosen not to steal, so I feel pretty safe making this claim.  In fact, poverty doesn't force you to do anything.  It leaves your self determination intact, just lacking in any immediate economic potency.  It's up to each of us to acquire that potency by developing a skillset that someone values.

Next up, what's this shit about you being my enemy?   LOL!  I'm sorry that you view someone who values power over freedom as a lunatic, but I'm equally sorry to say that the fact that you equate money with freedom and then say that you desire freedom (money) for everyone, you are mistaken and -actually- implying that you want power for everyone at the cost of the freedom of the capable.

Or is it my use of the word bullshit that makes you think that I'm blindly attacking a perceived oppressor?  Again, lemme remind you that you were quite condescending regarding your Madison quote and your statement that I'm probably just making uneducated assertions.  Please, forgive me if I respond in kind, and I'll likewise try to assume that your bit of condescension doesn't imply an emotional level that's left you incapable of reason.  Deal?  

And this about constant paranoia, thinking everyone is out to subjugate me?  Hahaha!  Most of the world has actually, often unknowingly, professed a desire to subjugate the successful to whatever degree is necessary to meet the needs of the impoverished.  Anyone who says that the government should force people with money to pay for other peoples' necessities is, in fact and to varying degrees, promoting the active subjugation of anyone who is economically successful.  That's not paranoia, that's simply an understanding of the terms.

Next up on your list of indicators that I'm overly emotional and making you an enemy target:  My misrepresentation of your argument.  "You spun this around to mean I believe the sole purpose of government in general "was designed by American land holders." How funny you put in quotes something I never even remotely said."  Not at all what I said.  I said, "...then the logical conclusion is that "America was designed for the land owners"?"  That was the exact wording. . . not by the land holders, but -for- the land owners.  Why does this make a difference.  YOUR EXACT QUOTE:  "Glad you recognize America was never intended to be a Democracy. It was created for land owners and to keep the decisions in the hands of the "wealth of the nations.""

You're right.  I did misrepresent your statement.  You didn't say America was designed for the land owners.  You said America was -created- for the land owners.  Holy shit, huge difference.  What an illogical, emotional perspective I must be coming from to so blatantly put words in your mouth 

It's also funny that in this quote where you accuse me of putting words in your mouth that weren't there, you not only fail to recognize that those words -were- there, but you also shifted my reference around inaccurately so that it was actually -you- who was guilty of what you're accusing me of.  The irony is thick enough to cut with a steak knife.  Projecting much?

The rest of your post continues to build on this theory that I'm mad at you for suggesting that I alter my thinking.  Not true.  If you've noticed, everywhere I believe you to be wrong, I acknowledge what you've said, I tell you what I believe it principally implies, and I explain why I do or do not find it compelling.  If you post something that shows me an error in my logic, I'm quite willing to accept it and adjust my definitions, and though you accuse me of being tied dogmatically to my viewpoint, I can't help but notice that you haven't provided any examples of something I've said that implies as much.

In fact, your entire argument here seems to be that I'm too angry at your opposing viewpoint to analyze it critically.  Yet every point that I've argued has been with specific regard to what you've said and backed by logical argument while nowhere do you provide any -accurate- record of my blind anger to support your claim.  I can't help but find it, again, charmingly ironic that it's supposed to be me who's reacting emotionally and illogically.

I'll tell you what I'm willing to do.  I'm willing to keep the condescension out of my replies if you're willing to take the condescension out of yours.  I'm also willing to assume that your stated reasoning is your actual reasoning and not discount it as a product of your anger if you'll give me the same benefit of the doubt.

I will continue to tell you what I believe your viewpoints principally imply, and I'll do you the courtesy of explaining the logic by which I reached my conclusion.  I'll do this unapologetically as it allows you the opportunity to point out where my logic errs, and I welcome any such input and will, when appropriate, respond in kind.

Lastly, I'm willing to NOT assume that I can divine your financial history, and NOT pretend that I know what sort of hardships you have or have not had to overcome, if you'll do me the same kindness.

Is that enough consideration to qualify me as someone who's worthy of debate?


----------



## gnarlylove

NotSubjugated, snarky had a context and you removed it. Wish you would read my post instead of skim for things you don't like. You said poor people don't have self determination while also saying they do in a very sleight of hand manner, trying to use different terminology to fool yourself and me. I explained it in detail in the post above so take the time to read what I'm saying.

Or if you really did read my full post you are not here to exchange ideas in a productive manner but instead are here for some personal joy in disagreeing with me. And calling me a Marxist is funny since I don't know what the hell Marxism is and I definitely know you'd never waste your time reading Marx yourself so you sure as hell don't know what a Marxists is either. So Marxism didn't mean an idea, it was used as a slur against opposition, namely me. Or are you really a Marxist scholar and fooled me?

Lastly, saying you addressed my hidden agenda post was also a non-response. You clearly cannot be reading my full posts, there's no way otherwise you just are incapable of reading my posts through a fair lens of honest inquiry. You accussed me of saying the whole government was erected for the wealthy land holders and it's quite obvious I never said anything close to that. I suggested Madison agreed with you that America was never intended to be a Democracy and you disagree. Not because anything contradicted your position, in fact they aligned with your assertion about American Democracy, but because I said it, you just had to disagree.  So given these examples, you are not worth your time. If you want to stop being garrulous and stick to one idea per post then we can get somewhere but if you keep responding like you are this is not worth your time. I too will stick to one idea per post: my suggestion is addressing your Marxist slur and why you think it's valid. It would help determine if you are capable of recognizing or defending your assertions. Just because I've read Marx doesn't make me a Marxist, just because you read the bible doesn't make you a Christian.


----------



## dnsmith35

AvgGuyIA said:


> A thread where nazis and communists agree.  Try to tell me again that one is right wing and the other is left wing.


Both are socialist. The fact that fascism did not last long enough for the government to achieve  the total nationalism of industry was a function of time, not intent.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> What a snarky way to say poor people don't deserve full self-determination. Stop deceiving yourself and admit that "reduced ability to influence one's environment" is saying a person with lesser means is naturally less able to govern their life. You act like poor people are free but that's because you've never been or associated yourself with such a person. So in your mind, a poor person is just like you except they lack money. Turns out it's much more complicated then that. Certain people are not allowed to cross boarders due to economic status that led to class 3 misdemeanor. This includes me, stealing bread for myself and friends prevented me from going to Canada for a week and it was Canadian law to lock me up for trying. There are major restrictions on movement if your a poor person who made the mistake of trying to steal bread for yourself or family.
> 
> Being poor means you cannot travel. Unless you have literally nothing, then travel means you need a vehicle with insurance that you likely do not have and cannot afford. Tickets for transport allow you to carry very little of personal belongings and charge you for even the most basic luggage. Poverty reduces one's ability to obtain sufficient calories leaving one exhausted more readily, as does lack of sleep (for sleeping on bad mattresses or the floor). Turns out that cops have targeted poor people for decades and with pre-crime being developed, this will sky-rocket even beyond what it is which already we know, or at least I do, have local laws that criminalize poverty, like sleeping on sidewalks, parks during after hours, no sleeping on benches, no loitering.



You have a strange idea about what poverty is even in the US which tends not to have much true poverty. 

The first 15 years of married life, we were poor by American standards; ie we hade a family income which was less than half of the poverty line set by our government. We learned how to survive on very little money and for years we did not have the ability to buy a TV, or rent a proper sized home. We were only capable of renting a small hovel in the not so nice part of town, leaving us with only enough money to have meat once a week and have rice and beans the rest of the time. Even potatoes were too expensive as it took 5 lbs to feed my family. All of this was in spite of being employed the entire period ..... minimum wage or less when I was drafted into the Army with 4 kids before our last 2 were born. The way I bought an old car after basic training for $100 occurred was only because I was paid over $100 to drive 5 people home from basic on the way to my home. (Monthly pay in the Army as a Pvt E-1 was $78 a month in 1961.)

Even so, we were not poverty stricken in the same way most of the poor in the 3rd world were. Having lived in India during my late high school period, I became aware of real poverty, and I learned from the poor Indians how to live with very little. The way we made our way out of poverty was to buy a house for $10,000 with a $300 insurance settlement as a down payment for FHA; since rent was higher than a house payment for an even smaller house. When we moved we rented the house out for double the payment, and had a little more income; a whopping $60 extra. (The house payment was $52 and taxes and insurance came up almost to $8 a month). From that time on, we bought a house at every move, and we kept them until I retired in 1988, sold them, and invested in an apartment complex in our retirement city. By that time 4 of the properties were free and clear, and the average equity of the other 7 was in excess of $20,000 each at the inflated prices in 1988. Now, with my military pension and the investment income my monthly earnings are over $9,000.

The point is, being poor does not require law breaking, and law breaking being a character flaw, one who remains poor (by American standards) has only himself to blame. Obviously this does not include the disabled (physical or mental) who are incapable of working.

Do yourself a favor and stop with the self pity.


----------



## gnarlylove

"Do yourself a favor and stop with the self pity."

Why make this about me instead of reality? I never once alluded to my situation so check your foolish assumptions at the door please. This isn't about me. This isn't about individuals. It is the revolutionary force of our economic policy that subsidizes certain people and not others. This is about policy.

When was the last time you lived in or engaged with a low income working class setting? Oh, you never have? If you haven't then no wonder it's so easy for you to say what you did without having any meaning because it literally has no meaning to you (the concept of low income is evacuated of meaning because you assume it's a description you give on a message board, not the life of a human being) so why would it have a different meaning for someone else? The reality is, it does. And it does for so many that nearly 60% of Americans know what I am saying. You apparently do not have the capacity so you can easily dismss low income as a description, not a possibility for you. Have you spent one minute engaged with low income neighborhoods? It's likely from your language that you spent your whole life avoiding them and locking your doors. Am I right?


----------



## SAYIT

gnarlylove said:


> "Do yourself a favor and stop with the self pity."
> 
> Why make this about me instead of reality? I never once alluded to my situation so check your foolish assumptions at the door please. This isn't about me. This isn't about individuals. It is the revolutionary force of our economic policy that subsidizes certain people and not others. This is about policy.
> 
> When was the last time you lived in or engaged with a low income working class setting? Oh, you never have? If you haven't then no wonder it's so easy for you to say what you did without having any meaning because it literally has no meaning to you (the concept of low income is evacuated of meaning because you assume it's a description you give on a message board, not the life of a human being) so why would it have a different meaning for someone else? The reality is, it does. And it does for so many that nearly 60% of Americans know what I am saying. You apparently do not have the capacity so you can easily dismss low income as a description, not a possibility for you. Have you spent one minute engaged with low income neighborhoods? It's likely from your language that you spent your whole life avoiding them and locking your doors. Am I right?



You assume much because like most whiny, snively socialists, you know so little. I am regularly shocked by how incapable of complete thoughts most lefties are.


----------



## SAYIT

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists are only interested in attacking productive people, stealing their money, and giving that money which isn't theirs, to other people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely my motiviation and goal. Your caricature of me and I assume anyone who dares disagree with you must always be 100% accurate and certifiably insane...
Click to expand...


Despite your feeble attempt at humor, the "rationale" you and the rest of the whiny, socialist cabal employ here is clearly intended to use the levers of gov't to extract from others and give it to you.


----------



## gnarlylove

Whiny is a funny way to say ideas lack validity. Ideas either have validity or not. If your personal bias causes you to be allergic to criticism, you are participating in the suicide of your ideas. Nothing valid or true is one sided. Ideas must enter dialectical process to develop genuine validity unless, like mentally ill and paranoid patients, you have no capacity for entertaining opposition and as a result of your ideas existing in isolation, refusing all criticism, will only serve to magnify your mental illness, your allergy to listening to disagreement.

I welcome to hear one of your favorite ideas. I am very willing to accept it. So how about briefly describing a belief of yours and why you think its valid.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> NotSubjugated, snarky had a context and you removed it. Wish you would read my post instead of skim for things you don't like. You said poor people don't have self determination while also saying they do in a very sleight of hand manner, trying to use different terminology to fool yourself and me. I explained it in detail in the post above so take the time to read what I'm saying. Or if you really did read my full post you are not here to exchange ideas in a productive manner but instead are here for some personal joy in disagreeing with me.



Alright, you got a half a point here.  When I responded to that last post, I read the whole thing and then responded.  The initial few sentences of my response took the word snarky and related it to the back half of your post, all of which was that I don't like you and I'm angered by your point of view and so I'm not analyzing it fairly.  I was pretty stuck on the accusation, having -just- finished reading it, and worded that whole opening poorly.  The word snarky wasn't related to the emotional/illogical accusations, and insofar as I implied that it was, I apologize for misrepresenting what you said.

Here, I'll address the snarky part more accurately.



gnarlylove said:


> What a snarky way to say poor people don't deserve full self-determination. Stop deceiving yourself and admit that "reduced ability to influence one's environment" is saying a person with lesser means is naturally less able to govern their life.



The fact that you used the phrase "full self determination" makes this an easier illustration.

The poor aren't free because they are bound to less options by circumstance.  A poor person can't just go traveling like someone with money, for instance.

If this is how we define the lack of liberty, however, then consider that even someone making enough money to comfortably support themselves and go on vacations isn't free to go the moon.  They're bound by their circumstances, and therefore not truly free to travel.

Ah, but on the other hand, Bill Gates can go to the moon.  Maybe that level of wealth frees one from circumstance?  Nah.  Bill Gates isn't free to dunk on people like Blake Griffin.  He wasn't born into height, so he, too, is bound by the parameters of his circumstance.

The reason economic freedom isn't the measure of liberty is because the very term implies freedom from material circumstance, which literally does not exist.  By your own reasoning, believing that the poor deserve full self determination is like believing that the poor deserve a unicorn:  THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FULL FREEDOM FROM THE LIMITATIONS OF CIRCUMSTANCE.  

If you believe that freedom from circumstance is the prerequisite for freedom, you either concede that there is no such thing as freedom, or you've drawn an arbitrary line (and yes, -convenient- travel and luggage facilitation is a -real- arbitrary line) across some particular circumstances that you've decided need to be circumvented before you can call someone free.

Also, by that particular example, was nobody born before the invention of the wagon truly self determined?  Early man had no convenient way of migrating individually with his pelts, bludgeoning tools, and shiny stones in tow.  Was everyone who lived before the invention of the wheel an economic slave?

My thought is that circumstance will -always- limit -all- of us, some more than others depending on the circumstance and the desired result.  It is literally impossible to equalize circumstance, and even more impossible to be free of circumstance.  Therefore, when we speak of freedom, what we're speaking of isn't the literally infinite material capacity that would be required to eliminate the influence of material circumstance, we're speaking of the ability to act according to our own will and not someone else's.  

It is only by varying degrees that anyone is able to overcome circumstance, and when we're speaking of the degree to which someone is able to defeat the limits of circumstance, we're speaking of an adjustable value:  That individual's -capacity- to influence their environment.  Synonyms for "capacity" include "means", "ability", "might", and (you guessed it!) "power".  

This is where your arbitrary definition of freedom actually describes the trade-off of one man's freedom for another man's power.  It demands, for instance, that a man incapable of providing his own means of travelling by vehicle and with convenient accommodations for his collection of physical belongings to be transported with him have those means provided for him before we can rightly say he is a free man.  

Someone else has their free will subjugated by this man's need (and calling the ability to travel with convenient luggage accommodations a need is a stretch, but I'll make the allowance) in that this implies that someone has to perform the work necessary to build or acquire a vehicle large enough to transport Mr. Needs and his boxes of stuff.  

Mr. Needs, meanwhile, was already free to travel.  He was free to move around wherever he wanted (at least domestically.  International borders are a different issue entirely) he was free to trade goods or services for the means to acquire a van or a bus ticket or a plane ticket or whatever he wanted.  He was free to leave his shit behind, write it off, and just walk to where he wanted to go.  He was free to ask someone else to help him get there voluntarily.  What he gained wasn't freedom, it was the capacity to travel more effectively, i.e. by plane/train/automobile and with his shit in tow.  He gained capacity.  He gained power.  We've traded one man's ability to act according to his -own- desires as opposed to someone else's (freedom), for the ability of the needy man to augment his freedom to move around with the capacity of a vehicle to get him there more expediently and carry a bunch of material shit along with him (power).

I apologize if any prior explanation came off as sleight of hand, it's a complex set of shit to break down into simple terms.

Also, sorry if my conclusion makes you feel attacked.  As you can hopefully see, though, I've actually reasoned this out.  I'm not just angrily accusing you of being some kinda despot.  If there's an err in my reasoning, please point it out.  Don't just flatly state that I'm wrong or that I'm firing off a blind accusation.



gnarlylove said:


> And calling me a Marxist is funny since I don't know what the hell Marxism is and I definitely know you'd never waste your time reading Marx yourself so you sure as hell don't know what a Marxists is either. So Marxism didn't mean an idea, it was used as a slur against opposition, namely me. Or are you really a Marxist scholar and fooled me?



Another baseless accusation from the guy who's gone on for 2 posts now telling me I'm just blindly disagreeing because I'm emotional about his point of view?

Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto weren't Marx, and Engels and Marx, respectively?  Who the fuck was I reading?  Whoever labeled my kindle files is an asshole!

You're right, it's impossible that I've read Marx.  When we argued in another thread about the validity of individual property rights and you, via an endorsement of the UN's bill of human rights (including housing, health care, food, water), endorsed communal ownership at least to the degree that human "necessities" are concerned, I couldn't have possibly made the connection to the Marxist ideal of communal ownership.  It was probably a blind, right wing "N" word moment.



gnarlylove said:


> It turns out that the majority of people in America (58%) will face poverty for at least 1 year. So the majority of people exist in conditions without economic freedom.



Economic freedom has 2 popular definitions.  One of those definitions means free trade, and the other definition, the one you were clearly using, means the lack of poverty and is a common term in English translations of The Communist Manifesto.  Hmmm. . . who wrote that again?  Engels and, uh. . . fuck, what was that other guy's name?  I wonder why I might've taken this as an indicator that your philosophy tends toward Marxism. . . Silly me.

It also couldn't have been that you spent most of this thread prior to our argument debating against the alternatives to a true democracy, and pointing out with more than a little vitriol that the US isn't a true democracy.  Though you made a point of stating that you weren't going to get into your own personal opinions, everything you said either contradicted arguments against democracy or seemed designed to lead to the revelation that the US isn't a true democracy after all!  If what you seemed to imply was my mistake, I apologize, but you seemed to be endorsing a true democracy, which, combined with communal ownership, is what Marx and Engels described as the rule of the proletariat.  Marxist Communism.

Possible preference of pure democracy, definite preference of communal ownership, and use of terminology popular with Marxists.  If the conclusion doesn't fit, feel free to tell me where I'm incorrect, but don't get the mistaken impression that my guess is uneducated or fueled by emotion, or for that matter by anything other than my observation of your arguments.



gnarlylove said:


> Lastly, saying you addressed my hidden agenda post was also a non-response. You clearly cannot be reading my full posts, there's no way otherwise you just are incapable of reading my posts through a fair lens of honest inquiry. You accussed me of saying the whole government was erected for the wealthy land holders and it's quite obvious I never said anything close to that.



I'm actually reading your posts word for word, and accurately.  I accused you of saying that the country was designed for the land owners.  My exact quote was:



Not2BSubjugated said:


> So let me get this straight.
> 
> If Madison's writings implied that the land owners should have enough say in the government to keep the majority of the less fortunate from using said government to arbitrarily strip them of their property, then the logical conclusion is that "America was designed for the land owners"?



I said that the portion in quotes was your conclusion because, when I said America was never meant to be a Democracy, you said:



gnarlylove said:


> Glad you recognize America was never intended to be a Democracy. *It was created for land owners* and to keep the decisions in the hands of the "wealth of the nations."



I accused you of saying what you literally said yourself, almost ver-fucking-batim.  What did I misread?



gnarlylove said:


> I suggested Madison agreed with you that America was never intended to be a Democracy and you disagree. Not because anything contradicted your position, in fact they aligned with your assertion about American Democracy, but because I said it, you just had to disagree.



That's flat out bullshit.  You didn't post your Madison quote to show he agreed with me.  You posted the Madison quote to show that the creation of the US -for- the land owners and to keep the decisions in the hands of the wealth of nations wasn't an agenda that was hidden.  You then implied that the fact that I would call it so meant I was ignorant of my own country's history, and in a rather passively snide manner.  The quote was:



gnarlylove said:


> *The agenda was not hidden.* Madison wrote:
> 
> "Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
> Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.
> 
> Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "
> 
> Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.



Really?  The agenda wasn't hidden, then several quotes to show that he wanted power in the hands of wealthy land owners, and your point was simply to agree with me about democracy and not to rebut my claim that, if the country was built for the land owners, it was a hidden agenda?  Holy shit, man, that's a stretch.  You definitely worded it as though it was meant to rebut that point.

Nevertheless, I'll go -way- out on a limb and give you the benefit of the doubt and apologize for making a baseless assumption that you were directing those quotes at the argument of mine that you quoted directly prior to them, and a baseless assumption that the hidden agenda references were anything but a complete coincidence.  You were, apparently, just trying to show me that you agreed with a post prior to the one that you actually quoted, here, despite all the evidence that seems to suggest that you were rebutting the one you -did- quote.

And when you said you weren't surprised that I hadn't studied my own history, it was to imply that you agreed with my astute observation that America wasn't intended as a democracy.  Yeah, that makes sense.

I'm sorry for the baseless accusation.  The obvious conclusion is that I simply disagreed because it was you saying it.  Totally.  



gnarlylove said:


> So given these examples, you are not worth your time. If you want to stop being garrulous and stick to one idea per post then we can get somewhere but if you keep responding like you are this is not worth your time. I too will stick to one idea per post: my suggestion is addressing your Marxist slur and why you think it's valid. It would help determine if you are capable of recognizing or defending your assertions. Just because I've read Marx doesn't make me a Marxist, just because you read the bible doesn't make you a Christian.



Sorry, bud, but I'm not going to drop to one idea at a time if you're going to throw a massive blanket of accusations at me that are, each and every one of them, incorrect.

At no point did I stop reading what you were saying and respond on emotion.  Above, I've clearly illustrated my reasoning for everything you've tried to say was a misrepresentation of your argument or a blind expression of anger based on my disliking of you.  I have literally spelled my reasoning out to show you the logic driving my statements.  If emotion was the true driving force, then the flaws in logic should be pretty simple for you to point out, and so your next post, logically, wouldn't have to be a flat statement that I'm an emotional illogical hater.  You'll actually be able to point out exactly WHY, right?

Conversely, if you want to back off of the bullshit accusations yourself, feel free to cut the next post down to arguing the wealth = freedom angle.  That's the only part of this post where I wasn't rebutting your piss poor attempts at implying that my arguments aren't based in reason.  If you'd like to accept that I'm being honest when I spell out my reasoning and stop ignoring it to tell me I'm just a hater spouting hatred or that I'm a rich kid who can't understand the poor or that I'm ignorant of my own history or that I haven't read the philosopher to which I'm comparing your views, then there's really only one point of contention left in this entire post:  Wealth vs freedom


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> "Do yourself a favor and stop with the self pity."
> 
> Why make this about me instead of reality? I never once alluded to my situation so check your foolish assumptions at the door please. This isn't about me. This isn't about individuals. It is the revolutionary force of our economic policy that subsidizes certain people and not others. This is about policy.
> 
> When was the last time you lived in or engaged with a low income working class setting? Oh, you never have? If you haven't then no wonder it's so easy for you to say what you did without having any meaning because it literally has no meaning to you (the concept of low income is evacuated of meaning because you assume it's a description you give on a message board, not the life of a human being) so why would it have a different meaning for someone else? The reality is, it does. And it does for so many that nearly 60% of Americans know what I am saying. You apparently do not have the capacity so you can easily dismss low income as a description, not a possibility for you. Have you spent one minute engaged with low income neighborhoods? It's likely from your language that you spent your whole life avoiding them and locking your doors. Am I right?



Wow, are you serious?  After all that shit you just tried to heap on me about supposedly not reading what you said, this is seriously your response to dnsmith's post?

His entire post was about his impoverished beginnings as a young adult in a shitty area of town and having to upgrade from there.

And you spout on at him, like you did at me, about how he's never been near a low income working class situation and he could never understand being poor.  Clearly, you read the last sentence of his post alone and ran with it.

For someone I initially took to be eloquent and a reasonably logical debater, you can really be a hypocritical and presumptuous prick.

If you're going to wrongly accuse people of not reading your posts before tossing out angry accusations at you, you should probably start reading peoples' posts before tossing out angry accusations.


----------



## gnarlylove

Not2BSubjugated said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Do yourself a favor and stop with the self pity."
> 
> Why make this about me instead of reality? I never once alluded to my situation so check your foolish assumptions at the door please. This isn't about me. This isn't about individuals. It is the revolutionary force of our economic policy that subsidizes certain people and not others. This is about policy.
> 
> When was the last time you lived in or engaged with a low income working class setting? Oh, you never have? If you haven't then no wonder it's so easy for you to say what you did without having any meaning because it literally has no meaning to you (the concept of low income is evacuated of meaning because you assume it's a description you give on a message board, not the life of a human being) so why would it have a different meaning for someone else? The reality is, it does. And it does for so many that nearly 60% of Americans know what I am saying. You apparently do not have the capacity so you can easily dismss low income as a description, not a possibility for you. Have you spent one minute engaged with low income neighborhoods? It's likely from your language that you spent your whole life avoiding them and locking your doors. Am I right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, are you serious?  After all that shit you just tried to heap on me about supposedly not reading what you said, this is seriously your response to dnsmith's post?
> 
> His entire post was about his impoverished beginnings as a young adult in a shitty area of town and having to upgrade from there.
> 
> And you spout on at him, like you did at me, about how he's never been near a low income working class situation and he could never understand being poor.  Clearly, you read the last sentence of his post alone and ran with it.
> 
> For someone I initially took to be eloquent and a reasonably logical debater, you can really be a hypocritical and presumptuous prick.
> 
> If you're going to wrongly accuse people of not reading your posts before tossing out angry accusations at you, you should probably start reading peoples' posts before tossing out angry accusations.
Click to expand...


I never claimed I read everything, and you clearly don't either. We do this because it makes no sense to waste time like that. I claimed that for you and I to engage each other we must assess what we are responding to and I noted you seemed to not read me clearly. I asked you re-read what I wrote if you want to respond clearly. You call me a hypocrite when I didn't read someone else's post who was attacking my character out of the blue. That's fine but his attack was wholly unfounded since I have no pity for anyone and especially self-pity. It was a snide remark that was asserting his inflated ego and I reacted similarly though as soon as I posted it I wanted to delete it but just closed the page instead.

No to mention his entire post was one single example of a human being. Am I to take this lone example as the truth of the general class of all low income folks? I know he isn't so ignorant to assume his example is  remotely possible for all low income folks. He is merely proud of his material gain where he was able to compete and beat out the competitors for his spot of "glory." Sounds like someone just needs some validation and they achieve that through attacking someone they don't know.

Are there enough jobs for all low income people to do whatever Army boy did? No. It's a logical fallacy of hasty generalization to assume his case is representative of America. In order to make a reasonable case you need to demonstrate many if not all cases fall within a certain parameter, namely, that all low income folks always have a happy ending. We know that's not even remotely close to reality. Taking the outlier examples to prove some non-existent point about the American Dream is really deficient logic. And he ought to know better since he came from self-defined poverty where he couldn't afford meat. The sad part is now that he has supposedly "climbed" out of his poverty, he doesn't care to understand what it's like anymore, he'd rather participate in bellicose ignorance and low income bashing to feel validated. Major props on his astronomical achievement of leaving the ranks of low income but you'd have to be insane to think this is how low income is in general so his point is utterly invalid.

All people try to do what they can to live and make money, and if you assume it's a failing on the individuals part, you simply have no clue what obstacles are pitted against low income as opposed to the overflowing opportunities of rich and well-to-do children. And to ignore those obstacles because it suits a personal attack is just self-delusion.

No one of this message board has a clue who I am just as I don't claim to understand anyone on here etc.  Yet you feel adquately qualified to call me a Marxist. In the context you used it, it was utilized as an attack. If you notice, I asked if you had read Marx. I doubted that you had because those who throw the word Marxist around for personal attacks are really pathetic people. I expected better of you. And so you said you read the Manifesto etc. Well done. So how does it make me a Marxist?

Oh, just because I was defending the commons you call that Marxist. I think that's a pretty loose reason to call me a Marxist. I've read a moderate amount of Marx and I don't know what Marxism is in a coherent description (though I've read enough to know Marxism is not just the Paris Commune). Apparently you've read a fair amount too, well, then, I'd be ashamed to use the term so loosely especially since you divorced Marx from Marxism and replaced it with the idea of the commons which existed long before Marx. In fact, private property is extremely recent phenomena but somehow I'm Marxist for defending the idea of the commons which is clearly laid out in the Magna Carta in 1215 (Marx lived 600 years after in case you didn't know).

I think you need to avoid your nomenclature of people, especially those with whom you disagree and just speak about ideas and their validity. It really detracts from the conversation to constantly pitch derogatory terms with flimsy intentions. If I may suggest another item, let's stick to one post one idea. My suggestion is why do you think property is valid? You can ignore this suggestion.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> *6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.*


And yet capitalism is the best of all the systems we have. It may not be good in your mind, but it beats Socialism and Communism hands down. There has never been a successful socialist or communist system which produced the over all prosperity as has capitalism. Even the least equal economically are still better off than 4 or 5 billion of the rest of the world.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Do yourself a favor and stop with the self pity."
> 
> Why make this about me instead of reality? I never once alluded to my situation so check your foolish assumptions at the door please. This isn't about me. This isn't about individuals. It is the revolutionary force of our economic policy that subsidizes certain people and not others. This is about policy.
> 
> When was the last time you lived in or engaged with a low income working class setting? Oh, you never have? If you haven't then no wonder it's so easy for you to say what you did without having any meaning because it literally has no meaning to you (the concept of low income is evacuated of meaning because you assume it's a description you give on a message board, not the life of a human being) so why would it have a different meaning for someone else? The reality is, it does. And it does for so many that nearly 60% of Americans know what I am saying. You apparently do not have the capacity so you can easily dismss low income as a description, not a possibility for you. Have you spent one minute engaged with low income neighborhoods? It's likely from your language that you spent your whole life avoiding them and locking your doors. Am I right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, are you serious?  After all that shit you just tried to heap on me about supposedly not reading what you said, this is seriously your response to dnsmith's post?
> 
> His entire post was about his impoverished beginnings as a young adult in a shitty area of town and having to upgrade from there.
> 
> And you spout on at him, like you did at me, about how he's never been near a low income working class situation and he could never understand being poor.  Clearly, you read the last sentence of his post alone and ran with it.
> 
> For someone I initially took to be eloquent and a reasonably logical debater, you can really be a hypocritical and presumptuous prick.
> 
> If you're going to wrongly accuse people of not reading your posts before tossing out angry accusations at you, you should probably start reading peoples' posts before tossing out angry accusations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed I read everything, and you clearly don't either. We do this because it makes no sense to waste time like that. I claimed that for you and I to engage each other we must assess what we are responding to and I noted you seemed to not read me clearly. I asked you re-read what I wrote if you want to respond clearly. You call me a hypocrite when I didn't read someone else's post who was attacking my character out of the blue. That's fine but his attack was wholly unfounded since I have no pity for anyone and especially self-pity. It was a snide remark that was asserting his inflated ego and I reacted similarly though as soon as I posted it I wanted to delete it but just closed the page instead.
> 
> No to mention his entire post was one single example of a human being. Am I to take this lone example as the truth of the general class of all low income folks? I know he isn't so ignorant to assume his example is  remotely possible for all low income folks. He is merely proud of his material gain where he was able to compete and beat out the competitors for his spot of "glory." Sounds like someone just needs some validation and they achieve that through attacking someone they don't know.
> 
> Are there enough jobs for all low income people to do whatever Army boy did? No. It's a logical fallacy of hasty generalization to assume his case is representative of America. In order to make a reasonable case you need to demonstrate many if not all cases fall within a certain parameter, namely, that all low income folks always have a happy ending. We know that's not even remotely close to reality. Taking the outlier examples to prove some non-existent point about the American Dream is really deficient logic. And he ought to know better since he came from self-defined poverty where he couldn't afford meat. The sad part is now that he has supposedly "climbed" out of his poverty, he doesn't care to understand what it's like anymore, he'd rather participate in bellicose ignorance and low income bashing to feel validated. Major props on his astronomical achievement of leaving the ranks of low income but you'd have to be insane to think this is how low income is in general so his point is utterly invalid.
> 
> All people try to do what they can to live and make money, and if you assume it's a failing on the individuals part, you simply have no clue what obstacles are pitted against low income as opposed to the overflowing opportunities of rich and well-to-do children. And to ignore those obstacles because it suits a personal attack is just self-delusion.
> 
> No one of this message board has a clue who I am just as I don't claim to understand anyone on here etc.  Yet you feel adquately qualified to call me a Marxist. In the context you used it, it was utilized as an attack. If you notice, I asked if you had read Marx. I doubted that you had because those who throw the word Marxist around for personal attacks are really pathetic people. I expected better of you. And so you said you read the Manifesto etc. Well done. So how does it make me a Marxist?
> 
> Oh, just because I was defending the commons you call that Marxist. I think that's a pretty loose reason to call me a Marxist. I've read a moderate amount of Marx and I don't know what Marxism is in a coherent description (though I've read enough to know Marxism is not just the Paris Commune). Apparently you've read a fair amount too, well, then, I'd be ashamed to use the term so loosely especially since you divorced Marx from Marxism and replaced it with the idea of the commons which existed long before Marx. In fact, private property is extremely recent phenomena but somehow I'm Marxist for defending the idea of the commons which is clearly laid out in the Magna Carta in 1215 (Marx lived 600 years after in case you didn't know).
> 
> I think you need to avoid your nomenclature of people, especially those with whom you disagree and just speak about ideas and their validity. It really detracts from the conversation to constantly pitch derogatory terms with flimsy intentions. If I may suggest another item, let's stick to one post one idea. My suggestion is why do you think property is valid? You can ignore this suggestion.
Click to expand...


I may not read every post word for word, but what you did was read -1- sentence and then fly off with a mass of assumptions that were actually debunked by the post you quoted.

I at least read enough that I don't fire off arguments against shit someone didn't even say, or fire off assumptions that they've already stated to be false.

Your continued argument about why I referred to you as a Marxist, for instance, takes 1 of 3 reasons I just gave you for that assumption, says that 1 reason isn't enough, and then continues to accuse me of using it as an unfounded, derogatory remark.

You're still accusing me of shit without reading the shit I -just- said to the contrary.

I think we're done here.  I had you pegged wrong.  There's plenty of eloquence to your posts, but no logic behind them.  Just a mass of obvious, psychological defense mechanisms.  You're right, this isn't worth my time.


----------



## georgephillip

Skull Pilot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A select few?
> 
> Really?
> 
> It has nothing to do with income.  if you wanted to you could get a second part time job and use that pay to save for your future. It doesn't even have to be 350 a month you could start with 100 a month the point is you have to start.
> 
> And lack of will power is a personal flaw and has nothing to do with capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you think someone should have to work two jobs in order to be entitled to retire? When I began working forty years ago, a single minimum wage job provided all I needed. At that time the richest among us earned about 8% of US income every year; today they earn nearly a quarter of all US income. That redistribution, abetted by both major parties, explains why many of my generation exist on >$1000 a month.
> You're solution to devote more hours of my life to those who control the means of production sounds like an endorsement of servility, to me.
> Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just to retire it's to start a process of creating generational wealth.
> 
> Up until the last few years I worked at least 2 jobs since I was 16.  I saved and that allowed me and my wife to open a business.  It's not servitude when you are working to better your own position.
> 
> And hey if you want to retire on the 1200 a month you'll get from social security then be my guest but that's your choice and if you make that choice then you have no right to whine about inequality because you chose it it was not forced upon you.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've retired on 30% less than $1200 a month and that was forced on me by the redistribution of income over the past 40 years from the working class to the investor class. If you feel "successful" in what you've accomplished, you're welcome to it, but you might want to consider the possibility that the "process of creating generational wealth" is leading to the Sixth Extinction.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> *6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.*
> 
> 
> 
> And yet capitalism is the best of all the systems we have. It may not be good in your mind, but it beats Socialism and Communism hands down. There has never been a successful socialist or communist system which produced the over all prosperity as has capitalism. Even the least equal economically are still better off than 4 or 5 billion of the rest of the world.
Click to expand...


1. You failed to address the argument. What premise do you disagree with? You cannot disagree with 6 because it deductively follows from the previous 5. So which do you disagree with? Or do you not understand how logic works?

2. Saying "its the best we got" means you don't know of any better system. The fact that you don't know of any better system mean there is no better system? So you have all the knowledge to conclude no other system is better? Turns out there are 200+ countries with different economic arrangements than America and America has thee worst poverty, homelessness, mental illness, drug addiction and violent society among ALL of the developed nations. You're telling me that's the best?

You have clearly never spent one second thinking critically about this and have spent your whole time being a cheerleader for an idea you refuse to think critically about. If you cannot examine an idea than it isn't worth much. Ideas are either valid or not. They are to be weighed appropriately and determined to be valid or not. If you cannot look at capitalism with a critical eye, than naturally you will support it so long as you shut your brain down when criticism arises. What a smooth tactic! Too bad it's infantile.

3. The fact that we call our system capitalism does not mean it resembles capitalism just like the USSR called itself communist but did not resemble communism. Just because the American propaganda system calls it X does not mean it is X. But since you don't want to think about capitalism in a critical manner you would never know that since you are among the gullible millions who cheerlead something they don't understand.

4. State socialism is not socialism. All developed nations, including the US are state socialist nations. They provide welfare to their citizens. This is central to state socialism. Anyone who denies that simply lacks education on what socialism and capitalism is. We do not have free markets except in 1 or 2 markets.

The question is does America re-distribute welfare to the low income or to the super rich? If you've paid attention at all to politics, you'll know it turns out America gives outrageous deals to the super rich through monumental tax breaks and subsidies (Verizon received close to a billion at tax time thereby having an effective tax rate of negative 3%--what worker can do that? None).

So just because you've been brainwashed into thinking capitalism is equivalent to God does not mean it is so. And until you decide to ask questions about capitalism, you'll just be another drone and cheerleader that has no value. Societys collapse because people don't ask questions. Maybe you are right about it being the best system but before that is to be determined we need to actually think about it instead of shouting from on high "Capitalism is God's Gift to Humanity!"


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> And now we have partly recognized how stupid the idea of "not being responsible enough to vote" means in a Democracy. In a true-to-form Democracy economic standing cannot have influence in the vote. If policy decisions are made that influence your life, whether you are homeless or not you must be able to vote in a genuine Democracy. Not only to vote but to make an informed vote so that the Democracy, like it does in Germany, provides money to small platforms who get 5% of the vote or more.


Not being responsible enough to vote has nothing to do with wealth. It has to do with the ability to intelligently discern the issues. Children, mental incompetents, and ignorance should be a requirement to vote. Democrats use mental incompetents to bolster their election on a daily basis. As a Democrat I find that quite obvious, and I help it along.


----------



## gnarlylove

Homeless does not equal mentally ill. And I clearly stated in a genuine Democracy we must be able to make an informed vote as well as vote. Most people vote on personal style and in the 2004 election, only 10% or 11% voted based on issues. There's a reason for that: our Democracy and journalistic standards are a sham. While we are the free-est press, we also have the most obedient press. And I can tell you've never wandered far from the American narrative.


----------



## gnarlylove

Not2BSubjugated said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, are you serious?  After all that shit you just tried to heap on me about supposedly not reading what you said, this is seriously your response to dnsmith's post?
> 
> His entire post was about his impoverished beginnings as a young adult in a shitty area of town and having to upgrade from there.
> 
> And you spout on at him, like you did at me, about how he's never been near a low income working class situation and he could never understand being poor.  Clearly, you read the last sentence of his post alone and ran with it.
> 
> For someone I initially took to be eloquent and a reasonably logical debater, you can really be a hypocritical and presumptuous prick.
> 
> If you're going to wrongly accuse people of not reading your posts before tossing out angry accusations at you, you should probably start reading peoples' posts before tossing out angry accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed I read everything, and you clearly don't either. We do this because it makes no sense to waste time like that. I claimed that for you and I to engage each other we must assess what we are responding to and I noted you seemed to not read me clearly. I asked you re-read what I wrote if you want to respond clearly. You call me a hypocrite when I didn't read someone else's post who was attacking my character out of the blue. That's fine but his attack was wholly unfounded since I have no pity for anyone and especially self-pity. It was a snide remark that was asserting his inflated ego and I reacted similarly though as soon as I posted it I wanted to delete it but just closed the page instead.
> 
> No to mention his entire post was one single example of a human being. Am I to take this lone example as the truth of the general class of all low income folks? I know he isn't so ignorant to assume his example is  remotely possible for all low income folks. He is merely proud of his material gain where he was able to compete and beat out the competitors for his spot of "glory." Sounds like someone just needs some validation and they achieve that through attacking someone they don't know.
> 
> Are there enough jobs for all low income people to do whatever Army boy did? No. It's a logical fallacy of hasty generalization to assume his case is representative of America. In order to make a reasonable case you need to demonstrate many if not all cases fall within a certain parameter, namely, that all low income folks always have a happy ending. We know that's not even remotely close to reality. Taking the outlier examples to prove some non-existent point about the American Dream is really deficient logic. And he ought to know better since he came from self-defined poverty where he couldn't afford meat. The sad part is now that he has supposedly "climbed" out of his poverty, he doesn't care to understand what it's like anymore, he'd rather participate in bellicose ignorance and low income bashing to feel validated. Major props on his astronomical achievement of leaving the ranks of low income but you'd have to be insane to think this is how low income is in general so his point is utterly invalid.
> 
> All people try to do what they can to live and make money, and if you assume it's a failing on the individuals part, you simply have no clue what obstacles are pitted against low income as opposed to the overflowing opportunities of rich and well-to-do children. And to ignore those obstacles because it suits a personal attack is just self-delusion.
> 
> No one of this message board has a clue who I am just as I don't claim to understand anyone on here etc.  Yet you feel adquately qualified to call me a Marxist. In the context you used it, it was utilized as an attack. If you notice, I asked if you had read Marx. I doubted that you had because those who throw the word Marxist around for personal attacks are really pathetic people. I expected better of you. And so you said you read the Manifesto etc. Well done. So how does it make me a Marxist?
> 
> Oh, just because I was defending the commons you call that Marxist. I think that's a pretty loose reason to call me a Marxist. I've read a moderate amount of Marx and I don't know what Marxism is in a coherent description (though I've read enough to know Marxism is not just the Paris Commune). Apparently you've read a fair amount too, well, then, I'd be ashamed to use the term so loosely especially since you divorced Marx from Marxism and replaced it with the idea of the commons which existed long before Marx. In fact, private property is extremely recent phenomena but somehow I'm Marxist for defending the idea of the commons which is clearly laid out in the Magna Carta in 1215 (Marx lived 600 years after in case you didn't know).
> 
> I think you need to avoid your nomenclature of people, especially those with whom you disagree and just speak about ideas and their validity. It really detracts from the conversation to constantly pitch derogatory terms with flimsy intentions. If I may suggest another item, let's stick to one post one idea. My suggestion is why do you think property is valid? You can ignore this suggestion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may not read every post word for word, but what you did was read -1- sentence and then fly off with a mass of assumptions that were actually debunked by the post you quoted.
> 
> I at least read enough that I don't fire off arguments against shit someone didn't even say, or fire off assumptions that they've already stated to be false.
> 
> Your continued argument about why I referred to you as a Marxist, for instance, takes 1 of 3 reasons I just gave you for that assumption, says that 1 reason isn't enough, and then continues to accuse me of using it as an unfounded, derogatory remark.
> 
> You're still accusing me of shit without reading the shit I -just- said to the contrary.
> 
> I think we're done here.  I had you pegged wrong.  There's plenty of eloquence to your posts, but no logic behind them.  Just a mass of obvious, psychological defense mechanisms.  You're right, this isn't worth my time.
Click to expand...


I've consistently requested one idea one post so we don't run into this problem. I have not called you names, not conservative, not anything but it happens to fit your narrative so that you feel justified. I'm glad you can conclude with sleight of hand that I'm the joker. It's always befitting to think oneself so obviously right there should be no question and it's a waste of time to defend ideas of property and free competition when there obviously given.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed I read everything, and you clearly don't either. We do this because it makes no sense to waste time like that. I claimed that for you and I to engage each other we must assess what we are responding to and I noted you seemed to not read me clearly. I asked you re-read what I wrote if you want to respond clearly. You call me a hypocrite when I didn't read someone else's post who was attacking my character out of the blue. That's fine but his attack was wholly unfounded since I have no pity for anyone and especially self-pity. It was a snide remark that was asserting his inflated ego and I reacted similarly though as soon as I posted it I wanted to delete it but just closed the page instead.
> 
> No to mention his entire post was one single example of a human being. Am I to take this lone example as the truth of the general class of all low income folks? I know he isn't so ignorant to assume his example is  remotely possible for all low income folks. He is merely proud of his material gain where he was able to compete and beat out the competitors for his spot of "glory." Sounds like someone just needs some validation and they achieve that through attacking someone they don't know.
> 
> Are there enough jobs for all low income people to do whatever Army boy did? No. It's a logical fallacy of hasty generalization to assume his case is representative of America. In order to make a reasonable case you need to demonstrate many if not all cases fall within a certain parameter, namely, that all low income folks always have a happy ending. We know that's not even remotely close to reality. Taking the outlier examples to prove some non-existent point about the American Dream is really deficient logic. And he ought to know better since he came from self-defined poverty where he couldn't afford meat. The sad part is now that he has supposedly "climbed" out of his poverty, he doesn't care to understand what it's like anymore, he'd rather participate in bellicose ignorance and low income bashing to feel validated. Major props on his astronomical achievement of leaving the ranks of low income but you'd have to be insane to think this is how low income is in general so his point is utterly invalid.
> 
> All people try to do what they can to live and make money, and if you assume it's a failing on the individuals part, you simply have no clue what obstacles are pitted against low income as opposed to the overflowing opportunities of rich and well-to-do children. And to ignore those obstacles because it suits a personal attack is just self-delusion.
> 
> No one of this message board has a clue who I am just as I don't claim to understand anyone on here etc.  Yet you feel adquately qualified to call me a Marxist. In the context you used it, it was utilized as an attack. If you notice, I asked if you had read Marx. I doubted that you had because those who throw the word Marxist around for personal attacks are really pathetic people. I expected better of you. And so you said you read the Manifesto etc. Well done. So how does it make me a Marxist?
> 
> Oh, just because I was defending the commons you call that Marxist. I think that's a pretty loose reason to call me a Marxist. I've read a moderate amount of Marx and I don't know what Marxism is in a coherent description (though I've read enough to know Marxism is not just the Paris Commune). Apparently you've read a fair amount too, well, then, I'd be ashamed to use the term so loosely especially since you divorced Marx from Marxism and replaced it with the idea of the commons which existed long before Marx. In fact, private property is extremely recent phenomena but somehow I'm Marxist for defending the idea of the commons which is clearly laid out in the Magna Carta in 1215 (Marx lived 600 years after in case you didn't know).
> 
> I think you need to avoid your nomenclature of people, especially those with whom you disagree and just speak about ideas and their validity. It really detracts from the conversation to constantly pitch derogatory terms with flimsy intentions. If I may suggest another item, let's stick to one post one idea. My suggestion is why do you think property is valid? You can ignore this suggestion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may not read every post word for word, but what you did was read -1- sentence and then fly off with a mass of assumptions that were actually debunked by the post you quoted.
> 
> I at least read enough that I don't fire off arguments against shit someone didn't even say, or fire off assumptions that they've already stated to be false.
> 
> Your continued argument about why I referred to you as a Marxist, for instance, takes 1 of 3 reasons I just gave you for that assumption, says that 1 reason isn't enough, and then continues to accuse me of using it as an unfounded, derogatory remark.
> 
> You're still accusing me of shit without reading the shit I -just- said to the contrary.
> 
> I think we're done here.  I had you pegged wrong.  There's plenty of eloquence to your posts, but no logic behind them.  Just a mass of obvious, psychological defense mechanisms.  You're right, this isn't worth my time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've consistently requested one idea one post so we don't run into this problem. I have not called you names, not conservative, not anything but it happens to fit your narrative so that you feel justified. I'm glad you can conclude with sleight of hand that I'm the joker. It's always befitting to think oneself so obviously right there should be no question and it's a waste of time to defend ideas of property and free competition when there obviously given.
Click to expand...


Are you serious?  I didn't use Marxist as a name calling mechanism, just a label that I thought fit.  If you took it as an insult, that's on you.

You didn't engage in actual name calling, but do you realize that not once in this entire conversation did you ever adress the reasoning of my argument?  All you did was ignore the reasoning and make assumptions about what I have and haven't read, whether or not I've been poor, and, my favorite, you've assumed that I'm not arguing based on my reasoning, I'm arguing based on a hatred for your point of view and a desire to be contrarian.

That's basically the same thing as name calling.  It's a conscious decision to ignore my stated logic (and therefore hide from the argument) and in stead attack the messenger (me and my motives).  There's been no sleight of hand. I've pointed out, via examples and quotes, in your words and mine, my reasoning for EVERY SINGLE THING I'VE SAID.

You have provided similar back up for exactly -0- of your claims, and yet you continue to imply that it's me who was using rhetorical devices to obfuscate.  Hypocrite much?

Get fucked.

I also offered to cut this down to 1 argument per post, if you felt like stopping with the bullshit accusations and sticking to the part of my last debate post that actually debated the ponit.  In stead, you doubled down on your accusations and then requested that I accept them, abandon the single point I had before, and address a new point that completely strays from the conversation we -were- having.

Sorry, but all you do is drag your feet and hide from arguments.  You're not here to debate, you're here to feel more secure about your intellect.  It's pretty fuckin sad.


----------



## gnarlylove

"Get Fucked" sounds like I hit a nerve.

I don't know why you keep making the accusation that I don't have logic when clearly I gave a deductive case for why free competition is total nonsense and therefore parading capitalism is far too nonchalant. If you care to demonstrate the failure of that argument, please do so. The only question becomes whether it holds water, whether it has validity. Otherwise, I simply cannot understand your critique.  I can't get any more logical than a syllogism. I'll repost it if you care to demolish it, which I hope you can. Or perhaps you can opt out by saying you don't believe in free competition either, as it's ludicrous. In that case, what economic arrangement is most "true" or to your liking?



gnarlylove said:


> 1. If free competition exists, there will be winners (competition results in winners necessarily).
> 
> 2. Winners accumulate capital.
> 
> 3. If capital accumulates, political influence also accumulates (anyone with a basic understanding of reality will know when human beings are given opportunity to influence outcomes in a favorable manner to themselves, they will do this. In fact, a satellite belief to capitalism is that if you want to get ahead you must use your capital in order to advance. It's a no brainer premise).
> 
> 4. Political influence is used to influence economic policy.
> 
> 5. If economic policy is influenced by the winners, free competition does not exist (which you obviously know since according to you, capitalism does not exist in America).
> 
> *6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.*


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> "Get Fucked" sounds like I hit a nerve.
> 
> I don't know why you keep making the accusation that I don't have logic when clearly I gave a deductive case for why free competition is total nonsense and therefore parading capitalism is far too nonchalant. If you care to demonstrate the failure of that argument, please do so. The only question becomes whether it holds water, whether it has validity. Otherwise, I simply cannot understand your critique.  I can't get any more logical than a syllogism. I'll repost it if you care to demolish it, which I hope you can. Or perhaps you can opt out by saying you don't believe in free competition either, as it's ludicrous. In that case, what economic arrangement is most "true" or to your liking?
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If free competition exists, there will be winners (competition results in winners necessarily).
> 
> 2. Winners accumulate capital.
> 
> 3. If capital accumulates, political influence also accumulates (anyone with a basic understanding of reality will know when human beings are given opportunity to influence outcomes in a favorable manner to themselves, they will do this. In fact, a satellite belief to capitalism is that if you want to get ahead you must use your capital in order to advance. It's a no brainer premise).
> 
> 4. Political influence is used to influence economic policy.
> 
> 5. If economic policy is influenced by the winners, free competition does not exist (which you obviously know since according to you, capitalism does not exist in America).
> 
> *6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.*
Click to expand...


You did hit a nerve.

Every time I offer up an argument, you ignore the reasoning behind it and in stead try to attack my opinion by making inferences about what I must or must not know or must or must not have experienced or how I must be feeling to make such an argument.  If my arguments are based on emotion and lack of experience, why is it that you can't actually offer up any logic against them?

This shit that you just quoted was nothing you said to me.  Everything you've responded to -me- with has been obviously designed to opt out of responding to what I've actually said.  I'm not sure if you do it on purpose or if it's an involuntary defense mechanism, but yes, it does get on my nerves.  Forgive me if I'm not awed by your ability to deduce that I find you annoying.


----------



## srlip

so what;'s an "amount of time, hmm? capitalism of a GREAT nature, existed here for 50+ years, prior to the advent of the Fed reserve and personal income tax.  if you'd care to learn the truth about that, search youtube for yaron brook


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> *6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.*
> 
> 
> 
> And yet capitalism is the best of all the systems we have. It may not be good in your mind, but it beats Socialism and Communism hands down. There has never been a successful socialist or communist system which produced the over all prosperity as has capitalism. Even the least equal economically are still better off than 4 or 5 billion of the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You failed to address the argument. What premise do you disagree with? You cannot disagree with 6 because it deductively follows from the previous 5. So which do you disagree with? Or do you not understand how logic works?
Click to expand...

I addressed what I wished to address, your comment that Capitalism is an impossibility. And yes, I fully understand logic. 





> 2. Saying "its the best we got" means you don't know of any better system. The fact that you don't know of any better system mean there is no better system? So you have all the knowledge to conclude no other system is better? Turns out there are 200+ countries with different economic arrangements than America and America has thee worst poverty, homelessness, mental illness, drug addiction and violent society among ALL of the developed nations. You're telling me that's the best?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am a humanist, I don't just consider the conditions of individuals, I consider them no matter where they live...a western industrial country or poor 3rd world countries all over the world. There is capitalism with various controls by government to no control by government.(Laissez faire) I see no reason to try to describe to closed minds those various levels of control. We have more of the social evils in the US because we do not have as many social programs as other capitalist economic systems. Yet, we cannot compete with India or Pakistan or Bangladesh with poverty driven difficulty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have clearly never spent one second thinking critically about this and have spent your whole time being a cheerleader for an idea you refuse to think critically about. If you cannot examine an idea than it isn't worth much. Ideas are either valid or not. They are to be weighed appropriately and determined to be valid or not. If you cannot look at capitalism with a critical eye, than naturally you will support it so long as you shut your brain down when criticism arises. What a smooth tactic! Too bad it's infantile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance knows no bounds. When I studied for my MBA, economics was my primary concentration. I have spent my life thinking about these issues, probably to the tune of forgetting more than you have ever learned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. The fact that we call our system capitalism does not mean it resembles capitalism just like the USSR called itself communist but did not resemble communism. Just because the American propaganda system calls it X does not mean it is X. But since you don't want to think about capitalism in a critical manner you would never know that since you are among the gullible millions who cheerlead something they don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Russia has started moving toward capitalism does not make their capitalist system equal to the US, or Canada. Neither does it mean that the capitalist system of the US and Canada is not exactly the same. As I said earlier, capitalism can run the gamut between laissez-faire. Our country is capitalist by virtue of who the primary owners of job creating companies, not because someone calls it one thing or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4. State socialism is not socialism. All developed nations, including the US are state socialist nations. They provide welfare to their citizens. This is central to state socialism. Anyone who denies that simply lacks education on what socialism and capitalism is. We do not have free markets except in 1 or 2 markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO! Social programs does not Socialism make. It is obvious you don't understand what Socialism is. The primary component of Socialism is government ownership of most industries or lock down tight control, not just regulation. Welfare to citizens is also not Socialism. It is a social program funded by the prosperity of capitalism. Your understanding of economics systems of capitalism and socialism reflects you are economics challenged. Communism is a different animal, but socialism and communism have been tried and failed with the most onerous situation is, BOTH REQUIRE AN AUTHORITATIVE GOVERNMENT TO HOLD THE PEOPLE DOWN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is does America re-distribute welfare to the low income or to the super rich? If you've paid attention at all to politics, you'll know it turns out America gives outrageous deals to the super rich through monumental tax breaks and subsidies (Verizon received close to a billion at tax time thereby having an effective tax rate of negative 3%--what worker can do that? None).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Business thrives better in a low tax condition. Basically corporate taxation should be eliminated. Taxes should be collected from those who earn money from business. Taxing business tends to be double taxation. I do believe we need to tax the rich more, but high or low taxes on business or the rich does not define socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just because you've been brainwashed into thinking capitalism is equivalent to God does not mean it is so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure do like to put your words into my mouth. I have said or implied nothing like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And until you decide to ask questions about capitalism, you'll just be another drone and cheerleader that has no value. Societys collapse because people don't ask questions. Maybe you are right about it being the best system but before that is to be determined we need to actually think about it instead of shouting from on high "Capitalism is God's Gift to Humanity!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that either, nor did I imply that Capitalism if always great, it is simply better than any  form of Socialism or Communism, both being two of the most evil economic systems created by man. Both sap individuality, both take from the rich and give to the poor something like, "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need."
> 
> I have lived in Europe (several countries) over16 years and in East and South East and South Asia for over 5 years. I have also spent several years in South America and Australia. Therefore, my exposure to different economic and governmental systems, and my education have provided me with both academic and experiential exposure to many systems. Two of those countries had Socialist economic systems where as one was prosperous and the other had at least 75% in poverty. One was a Dictatorship, fortunately for the people a very benevolent dictatorship. All of the others were Capitalist to one degree or another.
> 
> When you make claims that I have not thought about or misunderstood the various systems it is obvious you are only out to personally deride other people. I will follow this with some definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

*wiseGEEK*

*Socialism and communism* are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as many differences. One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, and communism generally refers to both an economic system and a political system. The means of production are publicly owned in both systems, but the ways that money and resources are distributed are different. In socialism, each person is allotted resources according to his or her input, or amount of work, and in communism, each person is allotted resources according to his or her needs. Many people consider communism to be a "higher" or more extreme form of socialism.

As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively and that control over the distribution of resources is centralized to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Under communism, all people are considered equal and are provided for equally, regardless of their contributions to the economy or to society. This is different from socialism, but both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent many of the ill effects that are sometimes associated with capitalism, such as economic inequality. 

*Wikipedia*

*Communism* (from Latin communis &#8211; common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterised by the absence of classes, money,[1][2] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.[3] The movement to develop communism, in its Marxist&#8211;Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the Communist states in the Eastern bloc and the most developed capitalist states of the Western world.[4]

Communism was first developed into a scientific theory by German philosopher and social scientist Karl Marx,[5] and the collective understanding of this scientific approach is today commonly referred to as Marxism. In the Marxist understanding, communism is the endpoint of human social evolution which will inevitably come into fruition through economic and social advances in socialism. Socialism, being the new order established after the demise of capitalism, is herein characterized by the working class having state power and undertaking the process of abolishing capitalist property and economic relations and establishing social (i.e. public, collective) ownership and management of society's political, economic, and cultural institutions. In accordance with the socialized processes of production, appropriation also becomes socialized as goods and services become consumed on a social basis with free access for the individual. Communism becomes fully realized when the distinction between classes is no longer possible and therefore the state, which has been used as an instrument of class dictatorship, no longer exists.[6][7] In the communist economy, production and consumption are fully socialized, and the processes for which are advanced into maximized automation, efficiency, and recycling. This results in the end of individual money calculation, hence relationships between individuals being based on free association and free access to all goods and services according to need.

*Socialism* is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[3][4] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[5] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[6] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[7]

A socialist economic system is based on the organisational precept of production for use, meaning the production of goods and services to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs where objects are valued based on their use-value or utility, as opposed to being structured upon the accumulation of capital and production for profit.[8] In the traditional conception of a socialist economy, coordination, accounting and valuation would be performed in kind (using physical quantities), by a common physical magnitude, or by a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation.[9][10] On distribution of output there has been two proposals, one which is based on the principle of to each according to his contribution and another on the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The exact methods of resource allocation and valuation are the subject of debate within the broader socialist calculation debate.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> I didn't say that either, nor did I imply that Capitalism if always great, it is simply better than any  form of Socialism or Communism, both being two of the most evil economic systems created by man. Both sap individuality, both take from the rich and give to the poor something like, "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need."
> 
> I have lived in Europe (several countries) over16 years and in East and South East and South Asia for over 5 years. I have also spent several years in South America and Australia. Therefore, my exposure to different economic and governmental systems, and my education have provided me with both academic and experiential exposure to many systems. Two of those countries had Socialist economic systems where as one was prosperous and the other had at least 75% in poverty. One was a Dictatorship, fortunately for the people a very benevolent dictatorship. All of the others were Capitalist to one degree or another.
> 
> When you make claims that I have not thought about or misunderstood the various systems it is obvious you are only out to personally deride other people. I will follow this with some definitions.



I know that my ignorance knows no bounds, that I have infinite ignorance. This can only make sense if the reference is to what "you know". But why assume your knowledge is the ultimate reference point for this discussion? Isn't that plainly absurd? What if I choose to do the same, merely admiring your standard of "you don't know what I know and so you must be endlessly ignorant." How could conversation proceed?

Most human knowledge is largely subjective and thus making your knowledge the only valid knowledge is cheap forfeiture. Despite cross-cultural diversity, each person is consciously or unconsciously filtering the world to fit their narrative. So while 16 years abroad is great it clearly allowed you to maintain the view that capitalism is the best we've got although you know any developed country you lived in did not have and will never have capitalism in its real meaning, period. But it's important for business schools to inculcate the ideas behind capitalism, that people only have the rights they gain on the labor market, that it's every person rationally choosing to maximize their life which really means if you want to do well in business you need to be more or less rational (e.g. cost/benefit) excluding from your criteria things like love, compassion etc. While you don't do that, from what I've read you instinctively argue for it likely because it's been drilled into you by your professors.

And if you really spent time in academic halls like I did, where is your academic decorum, your hearty critique as opposed to sloganized reply (i.e. your post about "capitalism's best we got")? I apologize for being rough with my intial replies but I only use the energy found in the post I'm responding to. Perhaps I took too much liberty and criticized you for being a cheerleader. Clearly I was wrong but if we revisited your reply i think it would be clear you were not interested in giving a nuanced response. Maybe time constraints prevented you.

Either way, I recant and if you want to have an academic conversation, let's. But you need to allow my ideas to exist and refrain from mindless assertions like "your ignorance knows no bounds" which basically precludes any dissent. Those types of blanket statements have no utility in a meaningful, rational, fruitful discussion. Moreover, I don't think your latter post is helpful. Maybe it was for you but a wikipedia analysis is sparsely an adequate account of any idea. It offers very broad strokes but nothing more. I've studied these ideas in a formal setting for 4 years and have continued my subjective and objective analysis otherwise I wouldn't be claiming a coherent critique of capitalism, state socialism and communism.

Just a word about your MBA: no doubt it is helpful for learning current business technique. However, Business Schools are not intended to offer a substantial critique of prevailing economic systems for it is how to operate within them and therefore critiques of pre-suppositions taught in an MBA are anti-thetical to the whole idea of Business School. I spent a fair amount of time in the Economics and Business buildings. I knew what it produced. And that's why many friends said they wanted to minor in philosophy so they could be challenged in other ways not offered in the business program.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> "Get Fucked" sounds like I hit a nerve.
> 
> I don't know why you keep making the accusation that I don't have logic when clearly I gave a deductive case for why free competition is total nonsense and therefore parading capitalism is far too nonchalant. If you care to demonstrate the failure of that argument, please do so. The only question becomes whether it holds water, whether it has validity. Otherwise, I simply cannot understand your critique.  I can't get any more logical than a syllogism. I'll repost it if you care to demolish it, which I hope you can. Or perhaps you can opt out by saying you don't believe in free competition either, as it's ludicrous. In that case, what economic arrangement is most "true" or to your liking?
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If free competition exists, there will be winners (competition results in winners necessarily).
> 
> 2. Winners accumulate capital.
> 
> 3. If capital accumulates, political influence also accumulates (anyone with a basic understanding of reality will know when human beings are given opportunity to influence outcomes in a favorable manner to themselves, they will do this. In fact, a satellite belief to capitalism is that if you want to get ahead you must use your capital in order to advance. It's a no brainer premise).
> 
> 4. Political influence is used to influence economic policy.
> 
> 5. If economic policy is influenced by the winners, free competition does not exist (which you obviously know since according to you, capitalism does not exist in America).
> 
> *6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.*
Click to expand...


Gnarly....    Yes you post things in such a way as to incite hatred of you.   I don't know why you can't see this, given that when other people do to you, what you do to others, you hate it as well.

This isn't a complicated concept.   You did the same thing to Not2BSubjugated, that you did to me, and shockingly got the same response.

Remember this post?



Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism Guaranteed Rising Inequality.
> America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos
> Your parents overwhelmingly likely determine your socio-economic status. This means life in America is determined by the geographic happenstance of your birth, something over which you had no decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True and irrelevant.    Parents pass on to their kids, work ethic, moral values, and of course genetic disposition to do various work.
> 
> Alex Spanos, whose father was a Greek immigrant, wrote a book "Sharing the Wealth", in it he talks about how his father taught all of his kids to work harder than anyone else.  They were driven to be successful in whatever they do.   One ended up a doctor.  The other a lawyer, and Alex himself became a multi-millionaire business owner.
> 
> And of course their kids were taught the same basic values, and most of them are massively successful.
> 
> Equally, if you live off welfare all your life, and do as little as you possibly can, and your kids learn from you, guess how they'll turn out?   Pretty much the same, unless society forces them off the tax payers breasts, and makes them earn a living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _If that wasnt enough, rich adults get some extra help, usually mid-life, in the form of inheritance and other wealth transfers from their rich parents. The wealthiest 1 percent (in the SCF survey, which is less wealthy than the real 1 percent no doubt) have inherited an average of $2.7 million, 447 times more than the least wealthy group of adults._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always interesting how a report can come out, and people on the left focus exclusively on one aspect, and ignore everything else.   They put on their ideological blinders, and only see what fits with their socialist narrative.
> 
> http://www.bls.gov/ore/pdf/ec110030.pdf
> 
> Drop down to page 37.    You'll find this table:  Value of Wealth Transfer Received as a percent of Net Worth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now to recap, the leftist theory is that the reason the wealthy are wealthy, is because they inherited $2.7 Million from their parents, which is 447 times more than the least wealthy group of adults get in inheritance, and because they have this $2.7 Million, they then become successful.
> 
> To which my answer is...... bull sh!t.
> 
> This Table from the survey shows that the inheritance is only 12% of the total net worth of these people.
> 
> In other words....   There is a wealthy guy who has a net worth of $22.5 Million that he EARNED.    He then get's an inheritance from his recently dead parents, of a mere $2.7 Million.
> 
> The left then ignores the fact he earned the $22.5 Million, point screaming at the $2.7 Million, and mindlessly claim the only reason he was successful was because of the tiny 12% of his net worth that came from the inheritance.
> 
> This.... is stupidity.
> 
> Also interestingly, the percentage of inherited money to net worth, was oddly higher during the Utopian years of Clinton.
> 
> But more importantly, the lower class of people get far more of their net worth from inheritance, than the upper.   But of course the left has no problem with that.
> 
> The real reason that the sheer amount of inherited money is larger at the top, is for the same reason as I mentioned above.    Typically, successful people are successful because their parents passed on ethics, morals, and disposition.   Which of course typically means your parents are successful too, and thus have money to pass on.
> 
> The welfare queen who has nothing, spawns kids who have nothing.  When the welfare mommy dies, she normally has nothing to pass on either.
Click to expand...


Remember that?  I responded to you, on the subject, with evidence from the link you provided.    I made a logical, and intelligent response to you, treating you like an adult.   What was your response?



gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> True and irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is irrelevant to you. That is true. But why do you think the 100s of millions of people this study refers to are irrelevant? It isn't irrelevant for me, many of my friends, my community, and 58% of Americans who will experience poverty for a year at least.
> 
> Please explain why millions and millions of human beings are irrelevant.
Click to expand...


You deleted 90% of my post, kept one line out of context, and made up that it was about me saying that people were irrelevant.   You responded illogically, maliciously and deceptive, did not respond on topic, and all while acting like a child.

And then when we respond to you like the pathetic lying child that you are, then you can't handle it, and start complaining about being polite?   Or better when we do exactly what you did, back to you, you are getting bitter and saying "oh well I must have hit a nerve".

Well yeah dude... your posts are annoyingly stupid, ignorant, and a waste of time.   That does in fact get on peoples nerves.    I've warned other posters about you, and your conduct for this very reason.

Look, no one is going to waste their time debating the topic with you, when you do this crap.   Why would anyone spend the time to make a thoughtful response, when they know you are going to delete 90%, complete fabricate something they didn't say, and then attack them over the straw-man argument you made up?

In fact the *ONLY* reason I have put in this much effort for this post, is that I can't figure out if you are intentionally malicious, or if you are just Forest Gump ignorant, and have no idea how badly you rub people the wrong way.   I can give ignorant people the benefit of the doubt, and try and work with them.   If I knew you were intentionally this idiotic, I'd have you on my ignore list already.


----------



## Publius1787

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



This is what capitalism did for the common man. Don't give me that world poverty bs!


*And its not the top 1%. Its the top 0.01% . Get your facts straight. *


----------



## georgephillip

Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?


----------



## bripat9643

Not2BSubjugated said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Get Fucked" sounds like I hit a nerve.
> 
> I don't know why you keep making the accusation that I don't have logic when clearly I gave a deductive case for why free competition is total nonsense and therefore parading capitalism is far too nonchalant. If you care to demonstrate the failure of that argument, please do so. The only question becomes whether it holds water, whether it has validity. Otherwise, I simply cannot understand your critique.  I can't get any more logical than a syllogism. I'll repost it if you care to demolish it, which I hope you can. Or perhaps you can opt out by saying you don't believe in free competition either, as it's ludicrous. In that case, what economic arrangement is most "true" or to your liking?
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If free competition exists, there will be winners (competition results in winners necessarily).
> 
> 2. Winners accumulate capital.
> 
> 3. If capital accumulates, political influence also accumulates (anyone with a basic understanding of reality will know when human beings are given opportunity to influence outcomes in a favorable manner to themselves, they will do this. In fact, a satellite belief to capitalism is that if you want to get ahead you must use your capital in order to advance. It's a no brainer premise).
> 
> 4. Political influence is used to influence economic policy.
> 
> 5. If economic policy is influenced by the winners, free competition does not exist (which you obviously know since according to you, capitalism does not exist in America).
> 
> *6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did hit a nerve.
> 
> Every time I offer up an argument, you ignore the reasoning behind it and in stead try to attack my opinion by making inferences about what I must or must not know or must or must not have experienced or how I must be feeling to make such an argument.  If my arguments are based on emotion and lack of experience, why is it that you can't actually offer up any logic against them?
> 
> This shit that you just quoted was nothing you said to me.  Everything you've responded to -me- with has been obviously designed to opt out of responding to what I've actually said.  I'm not sure if you do it on purpose or if it's an involuntary defense mechanism, but yes, it does get on my nerves.  Forgive me if I'm not awed by your ability to deduce that I find you annoying.
Click to expand...


You're starting to understand Gnarluv's technique.  He refuses to be pinned down on anything he says.  If you ask him to explain himself, he changes the subject.  If you bring him back to the subject, he starts getting emotional.  

That's why I seldom bother trying to debate him.  He's obviously not interested in whether his ideas are actually true.  He just like to hear himself prattle.


----------



## gnarlylove

I wonder how many names I've been called....and yet you folks have the audacity to reverse the problem on me as if I refuse to listen to you and call you names! HA! What liars!

I don't engage in name-calling except when I'm also being an idiot. And somehow I am the one who doesn't listen, the one who gets emotional. Are you serious? Maybe deep down you know your ideas have never been personally and internally questioned and so if someone else like myself begins to question them you get defensive. I understand. I become the bad guy who is trying to destroy your accurate little world.

You seem to believe I think that I'm infallible. What fucking stupidity! I have admitted I am wrong. I am mostly wrong about everything. But to assume you have the accurate picture of the world is ultra delusional. When I speak on something, I'm offering a position I think is accurate. You have the ability to invalidate those claims and I welcome them.

Real Free Markets are utter hogwash. My 6 point argument deduces such. I've yet to hear invalidation on this, the cornerstone of most disagreement.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

gnarlylove said:


> I wonder how many names I've been called....and yet you folks have the audacity to reverse the problem on me as if I refuse to listen to you and call you names! HA! What liars!
> 
> I don't engage in name-calling except when I'm also being an idiot. And somehow I am the one who doesn't listen, the one who gets emotional. Are you serious? Maybe deep down you know your ideas have never been personally and internally questioned and so if someone else like myself begins to question them you get defensive. I understand. I become the bad guy who is trying to destroy your accurate little world.
> 
> You seem to believe I think that I'm infallible. What fucking stupidity! I have admitted I am wrong. I am mostly wrong about everything. But to assume you have the accurate picture of the world is ultra delusional. When I speak on something, I'm offering a position I think is accurate. You have the ability to invalidate those claims and I welcome them.
> 
> Real Free Markets are utter hogwash. My 6 point argument deduces such. I've yet to hear invalidation on this, the cornerstone of most disagreement.



You do refuse to listen and call people names.

Your initial response to DN Smith, aside from ALL THE SHIT I POINTED OUT ABOUT YOUR DODGES OF MY ARGUMENTS, proves as much.

You read -1- line of his post then blasted him for being insensitive to poor people and too privileged to ever have dealt with any of them, even though the rest of his post was an explanation that said the opposite.

You don't actually use logic to refute peoples' arguments.  It might not always be "name calling" but rather than refute the reasoning, you tell them there's some underlying reason why they're unqualified to say what they said.

You resort to attacking the messenger pretty much all the time.  It makes it pointless to debate with you, because there's no acknowledgement of facts, only guesses about what might motivate the guy you're arguing with.

It's pure sophistry, and I can't help but wonder if you do it specifically to irritate people or if you're really too dumb to realize that it completely dodges the arguments themselves.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> ......





dnsmith35 said:


> I didn't say that either, nor did I imply that Capitalism if always great, it is simply better than any  form of Socialism or Communism, both being two of the most evil economic systems created by man. Both sap individuality, both take from the rich and give to the poor something like, "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need."
> 
> I have lived in Europe (several countries) over16 years and in East and South East and South Asia for over 5 years. I have also spent several years in South America and Australia. Therefore, my exposure to different economic and governmental systems, and my education have provided me with both academic and experiential exposure to many systems. Two of those countries had Socialist economic systems where as one was prosperous and the other had at least 75% in poverty. One was a Dictatorship, fortunately for the people a very benevolent dictatorship. All of the others were Capitalist to one degree or another.
> 
> When you make claims that I have not thought about or misunderstood the various systems it is obvious you are only out to personally deride other people. I will follow this with some definitions.





> I know that my ignorance knows no bounds, that I have infinite ignorance. This can only make sense if the reference is to what "you know". But why assume your knowledge is the ultimate reference point for this discussion? Isn't that plainly absurd? What if I choose to do the same, merely admiring your standard of "you don't know what I know and so you must be endlessly ignorant." How could conversation proceed?


 I have an MBA with a major study in economics. Because economics is based on personal behavior, I went on to get an Ed.S in Psychology.





> Most human knowledge is largely subjective and thus making your knowledge the only valid knowledge is cheap forfeiture. Despite cross-cultural diversity, each person is consciously or unconsciously filtering the world to fit their narrative. So while 16 years abroad is great it clearly allowed you to maintain the view that capitalism is the best we've got although you know any developed country you lived in did not have and will never have capitalism in its real meaning, period.


 That is not correct. Capitalism is reasonably defined as an economic system in which the principle business decisions about what to create, manufacture, or service functions is made by Private citizens. Obviously capitalism runs the gamut from laissez faire to different levels of regulation by the government and some do and some don't have social programs to some degree.

Full Definition of CAPITALISM 

:  an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market​


> But it's important for business schools to inculcate the ideas behind capitalism, that people only have the rights they gain on the labor market, that it's every person rationally choosing to maximize their life which really means if you want to do well in business you need to be more or less rational (e.g. cost/benefit) excluding from your criteria things like love, compassion etc. While you don't do that, from what I've read you instinctively argue for it likely because it's been drilled into you by your professors.


Partly by study, and partly through experience, as we are all a sum total of our education and experience, but being in the Consultation business with business clients of varying size, and having followed by MBA with a Psychology EdS, I do not exclude things like love, compassion, empathy in my consultations with my clients. One of the most daunting efforts in a business was to convince them to apply policies which keep their employees happy, which will ultimately keep skilled employees to remain with the business. That last comment is more based on personal experience from before I did my graduate work. I spent 27 years in the military. It is an easily observed fact that when we had benevolent commanders and staff we had a much larger % of reenlistments. My basic practice as an Officer was to ask instead of order, listen instead of preach, and befriend rather than be obnoxious. 





> And if you really spent time in academic halls like I did, where is your academic decorum, your hearty critique as opposed to sloganized reply (i.e. your post about "capitalism's best we got")? I apologize for being rough with my intial replies but I only use the energy found in the post I'm responding to. Perhaps I took too much liberty and criticized you for being a cheerleader. Clearly I was wrong but if we revisited your reply i think it would be clear you were not interested in giving a nuanced response. Maybe time constraints prevented you.


It is my firm belief that any form of Capitalism, except for pure Laissez-Faire, and I am not sure about that, is better than any form of true socialism which as defined is production and distribution either owned of tightly controlled by government. I also know of no true socialist/communist experiment which has made the people of any current as prosperous as any form of Capitalism. It is Capitalism which makes a country prosperous enough to create and fund social programs/safety-nets .





> Either way, I recant and if you want to have an academic conversation, let's. But you need to allow my ideas to exist and refrain from mindless assertions like "your ignorance knows no bounds" which basically precludes any dissent. Those types of blanket statements have no utility in a meaningful, rational, fruitful discussion. Moreover, I don't think your latter post is helpful. Maybe it was for you but a wikipedia analysis is sparsely an adequate account of any idea. It offers very broad strokes but nothing more. I've studied these ideas in a formal setting for 4 years and have continued my subjective and objective analysis otherwise I wouldn't be claiming a coherent critique of capitalism, state socialism and communism.


I don't intend to get into a deep analytical discussion about economics or government no matter how much my academic or experiential understanding may be, simply because it is exhausting and I prefer off hand and personal knowledge intercourse.





> Just a word about your MBA: no doubt it is helpful for learning current business technique. However, Business Schools are not intended to offer a substantial critique of prevailing economic systems for it is how to operate within them and therefore critiques of pre-suppositions taught in an MBA are anti-thetical to the whole idea of Business School. I spent a fair amount of time in the Economics and Business buildings. I knew what it produced. And that's why many friends said they wanted to minor in philosophy so they could be challenged in other ways not offered in the business program.


While earning my MBA I studied economics as a 2nd  major. I thought I had said that. If not sorry about my omission. I am 78, making my first career the 27 years of military, almost completely in management. After retiring from the military, and understanding authoritative control, I did my graduate work and spent another 20 years (still do but only limited since) working for a consulting firm, then doing it freelance, about half and half until I retired from full time. My grandchildren and great-grandchildren have been far more rewarding than working full time, and since with extended age stamina and physical activity have made me slow down appreciably.

No matter what, I am very comfortable in my understanding of economics, human behavioral traits as well as business.


----------



## dnsmith35

Publius1787 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what capitalism did for the common man. Don't give me that world poverty bs!
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo]Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> *And its not the top 1%. Its the top 0.01% . Get your facts straight. *
Click to expand...

That is an interesting chart. It blows the left wing argument of income inequality out of the water since that inequality only occurs with the top .01%


----------



## gnarlylove

Not2BSubjugated said:


> You do refuse to listen and call people names.



I've openly stated multiple times I welcome invalidation of my logic. I guess when I say that, I don't mean what I say but rather have some sleight of hand meaning. To be safe, let's assume I'm wrong about everything I've ever said. I'm willing to stipulate this premise in order to advance discussion.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> You read -1- line of his post then blasted him for being insensitive to poor people and too privileged to ever have dealt with any of them, even though the rest of his post *was an explanation that said the opposite*.



The bold statement must be a joke. DN Smith's entire post, found here was exactly the opposite of being sensitive to low income. While he lived in his version of poverty for 15 years+, once he decided to grow wings and fly out of poverty, he looks back in disgust with those who can't seem to do what he did i.e. "stop with the self-pity."

So yeah, his post was an explanation of "the opposite," the opposite of how you understood it. But, maintaining my stipulation, I am wrong about all of these comments. So instead of ask you to comment on them, I'd much rather prefer you comment on below:




Not2BSubjugated said:


> You resort to attacking the messenger pretty much all the time.  It makes it pointless to debate with you, because there's no acknowledgement of facts, only guesses about what might motivate the guy you're arguing with.
> 
> It's pure sophistry, and I can't help but wonder if you do it specifically to irritate people or if you're really too dumb to realize that it completely dodges the arguments themselves.



So in conclusion, I agree with you. I have been wrong about everything and my entire tactic has been one of a greek sophist. Now that I also see this truth, putting aside rhetoric and ego, what practical results do we have? Essentially we have gained nothing. The only resulting gain for our discussion is
a) I have no reason to speak because all I have to say is deceit; or
b) you have been right about everything thus confirming your ego and allowing it to expand; or
c) prevents any measured compromise by subsuming and eliminating all my ideas which also allows for further ego expansion. I am removed from the marketplace of ideas and you are the king of the hill.

So in order to have a level-headed conversation of opposing view points I must disavow all my beliefs, or at least the relevant ones thereby removing any potential opposition. This is literally the 4th time I've come to this earnest arrangement.

Now that we can begin talking, what is there to talk about if I agree with you that I've been speaking pure sophism, heretical and fact-less lunacy? I guess the best we can come up with is my cheerleading of you. Now that is indeed rational, stipulating the aforementioned premise. But I must admit my academic training in general and Logic 340 in particular tells me that this is not how logic, validity etc. should function. But then again, we are not logic machines, we are human beings with emotional needs of validation. So cheerleading makes sense if, like 99% of Americans, you mostly care about yourself and are infatuated with the ego and your beliefs. I too have been guilty of this, and according to you, will always be unless I drop what I think and pick up your aligned and true ideas.

So anything further you say I am going to praise is and thank it. I am your personal cheerleader for I have nothing relevant to say. Or, if you want a discussion, let's move on and you can pick a topic.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> .....


I've openly stated multiple times I welcome invalidation of my logic. I guess when I say that, I don't mean what I say but rather have some sleight of hand meaning. To be safe, let's assume I'm wrong about everything I've ever said. I'm willing to stipulate this premise in order to advance discussion.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> You read -1- line of his post then blasted him for being insensitive to poor people and too privileged to ever have dealt with any of them, even though the rest of his post *was an explanation that said the opposite*.



The bold statement must be a joke. DN Smith's entire post, found here was exactly the opposite of being sensitive to low income. While he lived in his version of poverty for 15 years+, once he decided to grow wings and fly out of poverty, he looks back in disgust with those who can't seem to do what he did i.e. "stop with the self-pity."[/quote]Not being responsible enough to vote has nothing to do with wealth. It has to do with the ability to intelligently discern the issues. Children, mental incompetents, and ignorance should not be a requirement to vote. Democrats use mental incompetents to bolster their election on a daily basis. As a Democrat I find that quite obvious, and I help it along. If you believe anything I posted disparages or is insensitive to the poor, you misunderstood what I said.


> So yeah, his post was an explanation of "the opposite," the opposite of how you understood it. But, maintaining my stipulation, I am wrong about all of these comments. So instead of ask you to comment on them, I'd much rather prefer you comment on below:


Actually he got a better understanding of what I said. I have lots of empathy and compassion for the poor, starting with the least wealthy (more poor) people in the world. Since I am concerned with the poor, I recognize that the poor in the US are a minority ratio of our population than most if not all countries of the 3rd world. A homeless man or woman, laying in the street and starving will get more sympathy that those few poor (comparatively) in the US and absolutely those who are RELATIVELY POOR, ie simply having less than most of the people, but not bone crunching poor like 500 million people in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.[/quote]




Not2BSubjugated said:


> You resort to attacking the messenger pretty much all the time.  It makes it pointless to debate with you, because there's no acknowledgement of facts, only guesses about what might motivate the guy you're arguing with.
> 
> It's pure sophistry, and I can't help but wonder if you do it specifically to irritate people or if you're really too dumb to realize that it completely dodges the arguments themselves.





> So anything further you say I am going to praise is and thank it. I am your personal cheerleader for I have nothing relevant to say. Or, if you want a discussion, let's move on and you can pick a topic.


That was a very condescending comment. I suggest if you have any intention of conversing with me, you do not use that tactic. From what I have read of your opinions, I am not a fan, but if you insult, I will respond in kind.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> "So anything further you say I am going to praise is and thank it. I am your personal cheerleader for I have nothing relevant to say. Or, if you want a discussion, let's move on and you can pick a topic.
> 
> That was a very condescending comment. I suggest if you have any intention of conversing with me, you do not use that tactic. From what I have read of your opinions, I am not a fan, but if you insult, I will respond in kind."



How was that condescending? Not2BSubjugated and I worked out our common ground. I must forfeit all my dissenting beliefs because they are total sophistry. You can plainly read what he said. So in order for he and I to converse, I must drop my beliefs and in order to be rational, in order to be sensible, in order to have a discussion, I cannot be saying whatever I have been saying.

The only way this can be interpreted as condescending is if you get to decide that I'm not being serious. I guess I have no room for posting whatsoever then if not only I don't get to express my views but I further don't get to decide whether what I have to say is serious or a joke.

However, I have worked out no such arrangement with you and was not replying to you. Now that I am, let me ask why you value leaving poverty but don't advocate for others who still live in the miserable condition you lived in? Reading your signature in red seems like you would care but as you've rightly told me I should have no self-pity so long as someone like yourself was able to exit poverty.

I also want and need to be clear: we are not talking about me. This is about policy that creates joblessness. I will become infuriated if you dismiss my critical assessment of economic and political policy because it's about me not getting what I want or because I'm a big baby in self-pity. Our economic downturn isn't a law of nature where 1/5th of our land, office space, tools and resources should be un-used. However, the bi-partisan policy leads to exactly this where currently about 20% of America's resources are rusting, decaying and sitting idle because it isn't profitable to use them. While it is likely true it wouldn't be profitable in the way a business owner would like, profit is not the harbinger of life and healthy communities. The fact that the community is taking care of it's poorest citizens is a sign of a healthy community. Firing or not hiring people because it won't benefit the owner to his or her liking is only rational if you neglect what these things do to a community. Jesus said you will be judged by how you treat the least among you. Though I'm not Christian, he's right.

If this post is too long and you don't like reading them this long, let me know so I can shorten them. It's perfectly understandable.


----------



## bonehead

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .


okay, I'll do the best I can. capitalism is not, in and of itself, evil. unbridled capitalism leads to control of people, countries and governments depending on the style of governments. Jefferson, Franklin and Madison warned us over 200 years ago this could happen in a democratic republic where a small number of legislatures would be allowed to control both laws and money. I see only one way to eliminate this problem, and that is by evolving our system into a direct democracy. just in pure money this makes sense - it is easier to buy the majority of 535 legislators than a majority of 210,000,000 voters.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> So anything further you say I am going to praise is and thank it. I am your personal cheerleader for I have nothing relevant to say. Or, if you want a discussion, let's move on and you can pick a topic.





dnsmith35 said:


> That was a very condescending comment. I suggest if you have any intention of conversing with me, you do not use that tactic. From what I have read of your opinions, I am not a fan, but if you insult, I will respond in kind."





> How was that condescending? Not2BSubjugated and I worked out our common ground. I must forfeit all my dissenting beliefs because they are total sophistry. You can plainly read what he said. So in order for he and I to converse, I must drop my beliefs and in order to be rational, in order to be sensible, in order to have a discussion, I cannot be saying whatever I have been saying.


That entire comment is condescending. I could care less what kind of "working out" you did with someone else, I won't stand still for it. Got it?





> The only way this can be interpreted as condescending is if you get to decide that I'm not being serious. I guess I have no room for posting whatsoever then if not only I don't get to express my views but I further don't get to decide whether what I have to say is serious or a joke.


It is condescending because of the manner in which you said it and the effective tone of the comment. Period! Say what you wish, express all the opinions you want, but when your point of view is shot down, you still do not have to be rude. Got it?





> However, I have worked out no such arrangement with you and was not replying to you. Now that I am, let me ask why you value leaving poverty but don't advocate for others who still live in the miserable condition you lived in? Reading your signature in red seems like you would care but as you've rightly told me I should have no self-pity so long as someone like yourself was able to exit poverty.


I do not value leaving poverty. That comment was bull. I do advocate for all poverty, just some is more oppressive than others. It was you show showed self pity with a comment, not some poor person.





> I also want and need to be clear: we are not talking about me. This is about policy that creates joblessness. I will become infuriated if you dismiss my critical assessment of economic and political policy because it's about me not getting what I want or because I'm a big baby in self-pity. Our economic downturn isn't a law of nature where 1/5th of our land, office space, tools and resources should be un-used. However, the bi-partisan policy leads to exactly this where currently about 20% of America's resources are rusting, decaying and sitting idle because it isn't profitable to use them.


Since the profit motive of capitalism is the only reason we are a prosperous country such that we CAN afford to help our poor, it is obvious it is very important. While it is likely true it wouldn't be profitable in the way a business owner would like, profit is not the harbinger of life and healthy communities. [/quote]In fact, just the opposite is true. That theory of yours is haywire.





> The fact that the community is taking care of it's poorest citizens is a sign of a healthy community.


Yes it is, but if you don't have profits on which wages and taxes paid, the community would not be able to care for its least wealth/poor people.  Firing or not hiring people because it won't benefit the owner to his or her liking is only rational if you neglect what these things do to a community. Jesus said you will be judged by how you treat the least among you. Though I'm not Christian, he's right.[/quote]Yes, he was right, but until you have an entity who makes a profit sufficient to hire workers and pay taxes, there is nothing the community can do.





> If this post is too long and you don't like reading them this long, let me know so I can shorten them. It's perfectly understandable.


No, not too long, just a lot of propaganda suggesting that people can be hired to work or helped with welfare without someone making sufficient profits to pay them. It is your opinion, and obviously you have never experienced a situation in which such a "plan" existed beyond the original capital petering out and those who are able getting tired of supporting the rest according to their  need.

I said it before, and I'll say it again, capitalism may not be great, but is the best system the world has to create prosperity and take care of the needy. And if you believe what I have said does not show compassion for the poor and disabled, then you obviously do not understand the English written word.


----------



## dnsmith35

bonehead said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> okay, I'll do the best I can. capitalism is not, in and of itself, evil. unbridled capitalism leads to control of people, countries and governments depending on the style of governments. Jefferson, Franklin and Madison warned us over 200 years ago this could happen in a democratic republic where a small number of legislatures would be allowed to control both laws and money. I see only one way to eliminate this problem, and that is by evolving our system into a direct democracy. just in pure money this makes sense - it is easier to buy the majority of 535 legislators than a majority of 210,000,000 voters.
Click to expand...

I disagree! 

1. 435 if those are members of the House, and each comes from a small congressional district. The problem with that is 200 years of gerrymandering. Each congressional district should be redesigned in as close a symmetrical shape, a square or rectangle fit in with all the other areas with as close to the same population as possible, then outlaw gerrymandering by Amendment to the constitution.

2. We should go back to the original method of choosing the Senate and the President. 

3. issue is eliminating as much propaganda in campaigns as possible.

4. Effectively the entire process of politics because a local issue again as it was intended. People cannot be expected to know enough about candidates on a national basis as they do about the candidates from their local district. I know better what my neighbors in my town need more than do some puppeteer from far, far away. One size does not fit all and we can better manage our limited funds spent on our community that others who have no idea who we are.

5. That alone will eliminate much if not all this huge propaganda machine we call campaigning. 

6. It also brings politicians down to individuals such that national party machines have less influence. 

7.Better still, eliminate and outlaw political parties and elect our leaders on their own recognizance. 

It would not kill our democracy to have PEOPLE run our country rather than Party Puppeteers.

There is no such thing as Laissez-Faire capitalism in existence anywhere today. Not only is capitalism not evil, it is the best economic system the world has ever seen and will improve the prosperity of a nation many times more than any other system, and though our left wing extremists don't want to admit it, it takes care of more people, leaving much fewer in real poverty, than any alternative.

Our economy has created a very divided 3 tier system, not because of the greed of the rich, but because of the ignorance of so many about the value of a strong economy driven by people of ambition instead in stead of the "to each according to his need" and from each according to his ability. All that kind of warped thinking does is to make the high achievers resent the low achievers until the society breaks down to there being no achievers of consequence. I learned this from experience having lived 21 years of my life living in 6 countries other than the US, and mostly in the 3rd world, to include socialist countries. What I dislike about any form of Marxism is two fold: more people live in poverty with only the leaders achieving any kind of prosperity, and, they inevitably have to turn to autocratic/dictatorship governments to control the people.


----------



## Publius1787

georgephillip said:


> Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?



If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.


----------



## Publius1787

dnsmith35 said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what capitalism did for the common man. Don't give me that world poverty bs!
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo]Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> *And its not the top 1%. Its the top 0.01% . Get your facts straight. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an interesting chart. It blows the left wing argument of income inequality out of the water since that inequality only occurs with the top .01%
Click to expand...


Not entirely, but it certainly shows that they are waging war against an additional .9% who don't deserve particular scrutiny. They have always had a knack for not only blowing a problem out of proportion but also not thinking through a reasonable alternative.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?



China at one point was the leading country in the entire world.  They led Technologically.   They led culturally.   They lead economically.   They led militarily.

The Ming dynasty had an economic policy of "let it be".   Freedom, capitalism, and letting the people conduct business for themselves.

The Ming Dynasty was replaced by the Qing dynasty, which had a different economic view.    They attempted to control grain prices, which caused shortages.  They controlled mining licenses, which hindered development.   They attempted to control trade, which resulted in the Opium wars.  (Traders that would have traded in legal items, seeing their trade dry up, went to black market items, namely Opium).

The slow economic (socialistic) decay, doomed China, and eventually resulted in the Communism under Mao.

Throughout this period, China declined, until it had not only lost it's leading position in the world, but was actually so destitute, it became a 3rd world country, with people still living in mud walled shacks.

*Wealth... is not static.        Wealth is dynamic*.  It is constantly being created and consumed.

When you start to dismantle the system by which wealth is created, you doom society to poverty, because wealth will always be consumed.

When you say that "Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed", you are following in the foot steps of the Qing dynasty, and children growing up in mud shacks, going to school learning "you mean a long time ago, China was the leading country in the world?  What happened?"

If we follow your position, some day, children will be going to school, saying "You mean the US used to be a super power?  What happened?".

And don't sit there and say "Oh that can't happen.  Your just being dramatic.  Look at how wealthy we are!"

Because people said that during the Qing Dynasty, and in Rome.   Look at Italy today.   Look at pre-78 China.      History proved all of them wrong.   If we follow your beliefs, history will prove you wrong too.   Fortunately for you, you'll be long dead by the time the destruction you push comes to fruition.


----------



## bonehead

dnsmith35 said:


> bonehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I'll try again.
> 
> Clearly there are people here who are more than willing to point out what they perceive to be the evils of capitalism.
> 
> So, and I'm sure you've thought this through, what precisely would you like to see?  Let's get specific here, with ideas and/or examples of the following:
> 
> 
> New regulations you'd like to see on business
> Specific marginal income tax rates
> Macro comparisons with other countries
> Constitutional amendments, if any
> New culturally-oriented laws, if any
> Any other specifics of any kind
> 
> Let's take full advantage of this forum, and of the anonymity provided by the internet, and really get into the nuts & bolts of what you'd really like to see.  You don't like capitalism, great.  Take the reins, what, precisely, is your answer for America?
> 
> And by the way, it would be great if you could identify potential problems with each idea, so that we can all understand that you've thought it through and recognize red flags that we would need to consider and address upon implementation.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> okay, I'll do the best I can. capitalism is not, in and of itself, evil. unbridled capitalism leads to control of people, countries and governments depending on the style of governments. Jefferson, Franklin and Madison warned us over 200 years ago this could happen in a democratic republic where a small number of legislatures would be allowed to control both laws and money. I see only one way to eliminate this problem, and that is by evolving our system into a direct democracy. just in pure money this makes sense - it is easier to buy the majority of 535 legislators than a majority of 210,000,000 voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree!
> 
> 1. 435 if those are members of the House, and each comes from a small congressional district. The problem with that is 200 years of gerrymandering. Each congressional district should be redesigned in as close a symmetrical shape, a square or rectangle fit in with all the other areas with as close to the same population as possible, then outlaw gerrymandering by Amendment to the constitution.
> 
> 2. We should go back to the original method of choosing the Senate and the President.
> 
> 3. issue is eliminating as much propaganda in campaigns as possible.
> 
> 4. Effectively the entire process of politics because a local issue again as it was intended. People cannot be expected to know enough about candidates on a national basis as they do about the candidates from their local district. I know better what my neighbors in my town need more than do some puppeteer from far, far away. One size does not fit all and we can better manage our limited funds spent on our community that others who have no idea who we are.
> 
> 5. That alone will eliminate much if not all this huge propaganda machine we call campaigning.
> 
> 6. It also brings politicians down to individuals such that national party machines have less influence.
> 
> 7.Better still, eliminate and outlaw political parties and elect our leaders on their own recognizance.
> 
> It would not kill our democracy to have PEOPLE run our country rather than Party Puppeteers.
> 
> There is no such thing as Laissez-Faire capitalism in existence anywhere today. Not only is capitalism not evil, it is the best economic system the world has ever seen and will improve the prosperity of a nation many times more than any other system, and though our left wing extremists don't want to admit it, it takes care of more people, leaving much fewer in real poverty, than any alternative.
> 
> Our economy has created a very divided 3 tier system, not because of the greed of the rich, but because of the ignorance of so many about the value of a strong economy driven by people of ambition instead in stead of the "to each according to his need" and from each according to his ability. All that kind of warped thinking does is to make the high achievers resent the low achievers until the society breaks down to there being no achievers of consequence. I learned this from experience having lived 21 years of my life living in 6 countries other than the US, and mostly in the 3rd world, to include socialist countries. What I dislike about any form of Marxism is two fold: more people live in poverty with only the leaders achieving any kind of prosperity, and, they inevitably have to turn to autocratic/dictatorship governments to control the people.
Click to expand...

you do understand what a direct democracy is. the legislature authors and publishes the bills and the budgets requests. those are voted on by the citizens - not the "government". majority passes the measure except for budget and constitutional issues, which require a double majority. this would take care of your concerns listed and then some.


----------



## bedowin62

Planes leave hourly;

 for the non-capitalist country of your choosing


----------



## georgephillip

"In Marxist economic analysis, income inequality increases under capitalism because capitalist firms substitute workers for capital equipment in the course of development (under competitive pressures to maximize profit). 

"Over the long-term, this results in a rising organic composition of capital where less human labor is required in proportion to capital equipment, increasing unemployment and thereby exerting a downward pressure on wages by increasing the size of the reserve army of labour. 

"The adoption of capital equipment that substitutes labor (or job automation) increases productivity and profits for the capitalist class, resulting in a situation of relatively stagnant wages for the working class amidst rising levels of income for the capitalist class."

Economic inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dnsmith35

> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what capitalism did for the common man. Don't give me that world poverty bs!
> 
> Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four - YouTube
> 
> *And its not the top 1%. Its the top 0.01% . Get your facts straight. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an interesting chart. It blows the left wing argument of income inequality out of the water since that inequality only occurs with the top .01%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not entirely, but it certainly shows that they are waging war against an additional .9% who don't deserve particular scrutiny. They have always had a knack for not only blowing a problem out of proportion but also not thinking through a reasonable alternative.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 The point is simple. The left wing extremists of my own party are trying to scare our citizens with all of that inequality BS, trying to make it a talking point to garner votes. Our problem is not that the top .01% has such high wealth, the problem is the PERCEPTION sold by extremists. We have the Capitalist type who does most of the investment. The problem is not as without them doing the investing and reaping their rewards, the problem is more the division within labor which is broken down into the 88% and the 12%. The 12% of our labor force make such a high, wage many of the rest of our labor force, that group which spends the most money on consumer goods, can't afford to buy the goods and services provided by the 12%. That problem has been partially solved by off shoring jobs; which by the way, has not been the root cause of job loses. See: Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet and Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says

The real issue politically is it can be made out to be a serious issue with the bottom 50% of our citizens, those who tend not to pay federal income taxes, who listen to the left wing extremist propaganda and actually believe the garbage.

Now, don't get the idea I am a conservative, I am not. I am a moderate liberal in that most of my social issues are liberal, but I do hold a few conservative opinions such as strong defense, law and order, and the usurpation of many of our individual and State rights.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> "In Marxist economic analysis, income inequality increases under capitalism because capitalist firms substitute workers for capital equipment in the course of development (under competitive pressures to maximize profit).
> 
> "Over the long-term, this results in a rising organic composition of capital where less human labor is required in proportion to capital equipment, increasing unemployment and thereby exerting a downward pressure on wages by increasing the size of the reserve army of labour.
> 
> "The adoption of capital equipment that substitutes labor (or job automation) increases productivity and profits for the capitalist class, resulting in a situation of relatively stagnant wages for the working class amidst rising levels of income for the capitalist class."
> 
> Economic inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Marxism does say that, yet every attempt to experiment with Marxism has failed in relative short order. That is primarily because of the "to each according to his needs" and "from each according to his ability," rendering the system unmanageable without an autocratic or dictatorial government. Those who achieve get tired of being the ones who support the under achievers. 

I am also not implying that we should not take care of those who CAN'T take care of themselves, and that we should do so such that they can live with dignity. I, for one, am a strong proponent of welfare for the truly needy, good public education AND vouchers for students who live in a failing public school system, and universal medical care. The very negative point about socialism that suggests private citizens should not control the primary means of production and distribution, is the major failure in a Socialist economic system. Ergo, from the start, when government gains control of those primary means of production and distribution the capital value of their economic system starts to diminish until the only people in that system with money are the leaders, with everyone else is poor. That is why the government has to be autocratic, to keep the achievers trapped in labor keeping them from leaving which then would create a state with only leaders and underachievers.

The only system which will create sufficient prosperity in a country to fund the social programs needed by the least wealthy citizens is capitalism.

Had I not spent so much of my life in 3rd world countries, I probably not understood the issues of poverty. I lived in India during much of my high school years and in the process observed true poverty, not the relative poverty we have in the US.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> That entire comment is condescending. I could care less what kind of "working out" you did with someone else, I won't stand still for it. Got it?



So you're saying that because I agree to cheerlead someone that I am condescending. There was no ambiguity in this comment. I said I will "thank it" by clicking thanks and praising it in my reply, noting that my dissent is of no value. So because I have announced I will agree and thank Not2BSubjugated, I am therefore condescending.

What seems to be the problem is that you don't think I'm being serious--that I cannot possibly agree. When I say I will be agreeing with Not2B, I am really lying. So I am lying even when I'm serious and it turns out you get to determine this, not me. Just to be clear, is this what you're saying?



dnsmith35 said:


> I said it before, and I'll say it again, capitalism may not be great, but is the best system the world has to create prosperity and take care of the needy. And if you believe what I have said does not show compassion for the poor and disabled, then you obviously do not understand the English written word.



The "best system" is not an argument for capitalism. You can call it the super best system if you'd like. This value judgement does not provide information about capitalism. It attempts to abstract out the concrete realities capitalism imposes on those born into unfortunate families. Abstract value judgments won't help us if we are earnestly inquiring into the realities of capitalism.

For example, during the 2008 food crisis there was plenty of food available (enough for 2,700 kilo calories) according to former UN director of the world food program, Josette Sheeran. But due to the structure of capitalism, millions of people, mostly black, died or suffered extreme malnutrition which mentally and physically stunted developing children for their entire life. Those millions of people are not valuable to capital production, so we easily determine they simply have no value which is the only way humans can say to other humans, "you don't get food" when it's plainly available.

I can enumerate dozens of overt moral failings of capitalism but the principle set forth by David Ricardo sums up one reason causing these moral failings, namely, we only have the rights gained on the market. It deftly asserts humans have no inherent value. Personally, this leaves an interminably bitter taste in my mouth. It disagrees with every moral understanding I have but my conscience is nonetheless pointless since it's a fact that humans only gain rights through market forces and dissent changes nothing.

But I can agree with you, the dominate global system is "capitalism" or more accurately capital production and so instead of nonexistence, we've got profits and famines at the same time. I guess I'd prefer existence over nonexistence, and so if that's what you mean by best system, then I agree. It's the best system insofar as it's the only system. But then the word "best" become superfluous since it carries no information. The fact is we have a system and it produces the results we have before us. Calling it the best may be your way of expressing gratitude towards existence. That's fine, but let's not let your value judgment confuse your achievements and success with capitalism with that of the majority of human beings.

And sure, there are many great advancements that have happened over the last 200 years, like improvements in life expectancy, infant mortality (although these two measurements in the USA are the worst among developed nations) and technology. So we certainly must acknowledge the good results to developed nations but we also must be aware of where these advancements came from.

Computers, the internet and related technology for example did not purely result from capitalist narrative. No, the technology we are using to communicate was taxpayer funded through the Pentagon for decades before being handed over to private power in the 90s to reap unimaginable profits. So the costs of developing such originally unwieldy technology were socialized--which is the opposite of capitalism. Capitalist narrative says individuals develop marketable products and sell them. Either they succeed or fail. But this isn't how the industrial economy has developed. It has required massive state subsidy for developing the modern economy, which is to say taxpayers funded unmarketable products till they became marketable.

In summary, if you can agree with me that capital production can and does result in moral failings, then we should be able to agree that it's worthwhile to consider what causes such failings. It is here that a critique of capitalism comes in handy. And I'm not offering the simple critique of "look how bad capitalism can be" because that's just an observation. No, I'm talking about a critique that explains the detailed workings behind such rueful results of capital. Are you willing to engage with me on this level? Perhaps you have your own critique of capitalism and I'd be glad to hear it.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China at one point was the leading country in the entire world.  They led Technologically.   They led culturally.   They lead economically.   They led militarily.
> 
> The Ming dynasty had an economic policy of "let it be".   Freedom, capitalism, and letting the people conduct business for themselves.
> 
> The Ming Dynasty was replaced by the Qing dynasty, which had a different economic view.    They attempted to control grain prices, which caused shortages.  They controlled mining licenses, which hindered development.   They attempted to control trade, which resulted in the Opium wars.  (Traders that would have traded in legal items, seeing their trade dry up, went to black market items, namely Opium).
> 
> The slow economic (socialistic) decay, doomed China, and eventually resulted in the Communism under Mao.
> 
> Throughout this period, China declined, until it had not only lost it's leading position in the world, but was actually so destitute, it became a 3rd world country, with people still living in mud walled shacks.
> 
> *Wealth... is not static.        Wealth is dynamic*.  It is constantly being created and consumed.
> 
> When you start to dismantle the system by which wealth is created, you doom society to poverty, because wealth will always be consumed.
> 
> When you say that "Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed", you are following in the foot steps of the Qing dynasty, and children growing up in mud shacks, going to school learning "you mean a long time ago, China was the leading country in the world?  What happened?"
> 
> If we follow your position, some day, children will be going to school, saying "You mean the US used to be a super power?  What happened?".
> 
> And don't sit there and say "Oh that can't happen.  Your just being dramatic.  Look at how wealthy we are!"
> 
> Because people said that during the Qing Dynasty, and in Rome.   Look at Italy today.   Look at pre-78 China.      History proved all of them wrong.   If we follow your beliefs, history will prove you wrong too.   Fortunately for you, you'll be long dead by the time the destruction you push comes to fruition.
Click to expand...

*Do you have links for any of your claims about the Ming Dynasty?*

"The growth of Portuguese, Spanish, and Dutch trade created new demand for Chinese products and produced a massive influx of Japanese and American silver. 

"This abundance of specie allowed the Ming to finally avoid using paper money, which had sparked hyperinflation during the 1450s. 

"While traditional Confucians opposed such a prominent role for commerce and the newly rich it created, the heterodoxy introduced by Wang Yangming permitted a more accommodating attitude. 

"Zhang Juzheng's initially successful reforms proved devastating when a slowdown in agriculture produced by the Little Ice Age was met with Japanese and Spanish policies that quickly cut off the supply of silver now necessary for farmers to be able to pay their taxes. 

"Combined with crop failure, floods, and epidemic, the dynasty was considered to have lost the Mandate of Heaven and collapsed before the rebel leader Li Zicheng and a Manchurian invasion."

Ming dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said, That entire comment is condescending. I could care less what kind of "working out" you did with someone else, I won't stand still for it. Got it?
> 
> So you're saying that because I agree to cheerlead someone that I am condescending. There was no ambiguity in this comment. I said I will "thank it" by clicking thanks and praising it in my reply, noting that my dissent is of no value. So because I have announced I will agree and thank Not2BSubjugated, I am therefore condescending.


Absolutely!





> What seems to be the problem is that you don't think I'm being serious--that I cannot possibly agree. When I say I will be agreeing with Not2B, I am really lying. So I am lying even when I'm serious and it turns out you get to determine this, not me. Just to be clear, is this what you're saying?


I don't care how you explained it or thought you explained it, but what you said and the way it was expressed was condescending. Try that on me and I am out of discussions with you.



dnsmith35 said:


> I said it before, and I'll say it again, capitalism may not be great, but is the best system the world has to create prosperity and take care of the needy. And if you believe what I have said does not show compassion for the poor and disabled, then you obviously do not understand the English written word.



The "best system" is not an argument for capitalism. You can call it the super best system if you'd like. This value judgement does not provide information about capitalism. It attempts to abstract out the concrete realities capitalism imposes on those born into unfortunate families. Abstract value judgments won't help us if we are earnestly inquiring into the realities of capitalism.[/quote]I also don't intend to do a back and forth as to why capitalism is better than any form of Marxism or Socialism. That is obvious to anyone with an understanding of economics.


> For example, during the 2008 food crisis there was plenty of food available (enough for 2,700 kilo calories) according to former UN director of the world food program, Josette Sheeran. But due to the structure of capitalism, millions of people, mostly black, died or suffered extreme malnutrition which mentally and physically stunted developing children for their entire life. Those millions of people are not valuable to capital production, so we easily determine they simply have no value which is the only way humans can say to other humans, "you don't get food" when it's plainly available.


Bullshit! It wasn't capitalism which screwed up, it was the government. It would not matter what economic system would have if the government is corrupt and keeps the items and sells them for a profit. (which by the way is a typical trait of socialism: owning or controlling production and distribution.)





> I can enumerate dozens of overt moral failings of capitalism but the principle set forth by David Ricardo sums up one reason causing these moral failings, namely, we only have the rights gained on the market. It deftly asserts humans have no inherent value. Personally, this leaves an interminably bitter taste in my mouth. It disagrees with every moral understanding I have but my conscience is nonetheless pointless since it's a fact that humans only gain rights through market forces and dissent changes nothing.


Blah, blah, blah. Moral failings do not occur because of capitalism. Since capitalism is the only system which creates sufficient wealth to care for the truly needy. Nothing else needs to be discussed. 





> But I can agree with you, the dominate global system is "capitalism" or more accurately capital production and so instead of nonexistence, we've got profits and famines at the same time. I guess I'd prefer existence over nonexistence, and so if that's what you mean by best system, then I agree.


That's the whole story. 





> It's the best system insofar as it's the only system. But then the word "best" become superfluous since it carries no information.


It carries a lot of information when you include all of socialist/communist experiments failed in a relative short time from its inception. 





> The fact is we have a system and it produces the results we have before us. Calling it the best may be your way of expressing gratitude towards existence. That's fine, but let's not let your value judgment confuse your achievements and success with capitalism with that of the majority of human beings.


As a humanist, and a liberal without borders, I have compassion and fight for the worlds poor from least wealthy up. In the US there are very few truly poverty stricken. Sure, there are millions below the poverty line, but they will have to fall out of every safety net, extended family and community assistance program to become truly poor, where as most are only relatively poor when compared to those with more wealth.





> And sure, there are many great advancements that have happened over the last 200 years, like improvements in life expectancy, infant mortality (although these two measurements in the USA are the worst among developed nations) and technology. So we certainly must acknowledge the good results to developed nations but we also must be aware of where these advancements came from.


Of course, mostly from research from private and governmental sources combined.





> Computers, the internet and related technology for example did not purely result from capitalist narrative. No, the technology we are using to communicate was taxpayer funded through the Pentagon for decades before being handed over to private power in the 90s to reap unimaginable profits. So the costs of developing such originally unwieldy technology were socialized--which is the opposite of capitalism.


There was no socialization, it was a military necessity and the government funds created the ArPARNET FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. There are many things created for military, space, and national projects which have been expanded on my Capitalism. 





> Capitalist narrative says individuals develop marketable products and sell them. Either they succeed or fail. But this isn't how the industrial economy has developed. It has required massive state subsidy for developing the modern economy, which is to say taxpayers funded unmarketable products till they became marketable.


Hogwash! The government got what it paid for and most of the research was done by private enterprise under government contract and the knowledge was passed on so the Gov got $ for $ what it paid for and civilian enterprise took it from their to what it is now.





> In summary, if you can agree with me that capital production can and does result in moral failings, then we should be able to agree that it's worthwhile to consider what causes such failings. It is here that a critique of capitalism comes in handy. And I'm not offering the simple critique of "look how bad capitalism can be" because that's just an observation. No, I'm talking about a critique that explains the detailed workings behind such rueful results of capital. Are you willing to engage with me on this level? Perhaps you have your own critique of capitalism and I'd be glad to hear it.


Laissez-faire capitalism is too severe for the average citizen but our system of regulation and oversight takes out most of the harshness of laissez-faire. But the moral failings are not the fault of capitalism, it is the fault of the government for not managing our social programs well. The typical left wing solution is to throw money at some area without the least concern for how or if that money will be used to advantage. 

Once you recognize that a true socialist/communist government and economic system is doom to fail over time, creating greater poverty the longer it lasts, and while recognizing that, you should recognize that most of the failings of any Marxist or similar system tends to be less moral relative to taking care of the needy and their failings come from the fact that they are creating needy at ever step, then you may figure out for yourself the simply comment that "Capitalism is the best economic system in existence" and helps more people than Marxism ever can.

What you need to do if you really want to talk about Marxism or any of its similar economic systems, is to study their failures, and they have all failed. Your idealism reflected in your self proclaimed liberal desires are insufficient to prove your point. You first have to find a long running successful socialist experiment which does not have to be dictatorial to keep the high achievers from escaping. Beyond that, I have no interest in digging further into academic debate. And I don't need an argument for Capitalism other than no other system has made as great a % of the people under the system as prosperous and taken care of by our social programs. Also, as I have said before, social programs do not socialism make and neither does the government seeking research assistance by contracts with private enterprise. The biggest subsidies we experience in the US today are to the needy as defined by the Fed set poverty line. My wife and I live on less per year than any other couple under the poverty line; and though I make much more I give a lot for my personal charities. My favorite is a school in India with orphans or kids their parents cannot care for. Depending on their need I send them between $5,00 and $10,000 a year, enough to pay for the food for all the kids. I sure as hell would rather see them get it than some elitist unionist worker.


----------



## crisismangement

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said, That entire comment is condescending. I could care less what kind of "working out" you did with someone else, I won't stand still for it. Got it?
> 
> So you're saying that because I agree to cheerlead someone that I am condescending. There was no ambiguity in this comment. I said I will "thank it" by clicking thanks and praising it in my reply, noting that my dissent is of no value. So because I have announced I will agree and thank Not2BSubjugated, I am therefore condescending.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What seems to be the problem is that you don't think I'm being serious--that I cannot possibly agree. When I say I will be agreeing with Not2B, I am really lying. So I am lying even when I'm serious and it turns out you get to determine this, not me. Just to be clear, is this what you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care how you explained it or thought you explained it, but what you said and the way it was expressed was condescending. Try that on me and I am out of discussions with you.
> 
> 
> 
> The "best system" is not an argument for capitalism. You can call it the super best system if you'd like. This value judgement does not provide information about capitalism. It attempts to abstract out the concrete realities capitalism imposes on those born into unfortunate families. Abstract value judgments won't help us if we are earnestly inquiring into the realities of capitalism.
Click to expand...

I also don't intend to do a back and forth as to why capitalism is better than any form of Marxism or Socialism. That is obvious to anyone with an understanding of economics.
Bullshit! It wasn't capitalism which screwed up, it was the government. It would not matter what economic system would have if the government is corrupt and keeps the items and sells them for a profit. (which by the way is a typical trait of socialism: owning or controlling production and distribution.)Blah, blah, blah. Moral failings do not occur because of capitalism. Since capitalism is the only system which creates sufficient wealth to care for the truly needy. Nothing else needs to be discussed. That's the whole story. It carries a lot of information when you include all of socialist/communist experiments failed in a relative short time from its inception. As a humanist, and a liberal without borders, I have compassion and fight for the worlds poor from least wealthy up. In the US there are very few truly poverty stricken. Sure, there are millions below the poverty line, but they will have to fall out of every safety net, extended family and community assistance program to become truly poor, where as most are only relatively poor when compared to those with more wealth.Of course, mostly from research from private and governmental sources combined.





> Computers, the internet and related technology for example did not purely result from capitalist narrative. No, the technology we are using to communicate was taxpayer funded through the Pentagon for decades before being handed over to private power in the 90s to reap unimaginable profits. So the costs of developing such originally unwieldy technology were socialized--which is the opposite of capitalism.


There was no socialization, it was a military necessity and the government funds created the ArPARNET FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. There are many things created for military, space, and national projects which have been expanded on my Capitalism. 





> Capitalist narrative says individuals develop marketable products and sell them. Either they succeed or fail. But this isn't how the industrial economy has developed. It has required massive state subsidy for developing the modern economy, which is to say taxpayers funded unmarketable products till they became marketable.


Hogwash! The government got what it paid for and most of the research was done by private enterprise under government contract and the knowledge was passed on so the Gov got $ for $ what it paid for and civilian enterprise took it from their to what it is now.





> In summary, if you can agree with me that capital production can and does result in moral failings, then we should be able to agree that it's worthwhile to consider what causes such failings. It is here that a critique of capitalism comes in handy. And I'm not offering the simple critique of "look how bad capitalism can be" because that's just an observation. No, I'm talking about a critique that explains the detailed workings behind such rueful results of capital. Are you willing to engage with me on this level? Perhaps you have your own critique of capitalism and I'd be glad to hear it.


Laissez-faire capitalism is too severe for the average citizen but our system of regulation and oversight takes out most of the harshness of laissez-faire. But the moral failings are not the fault of capitalism, it is the fault of the government for not managing our social programs well. The typical left wing solution is to throw money at some area without the least concern for how or if that money will be used to advantage. 

Once you recognize that a true socialist/communist government and economic system is doom to fail over time, creating greater poverty the longer it lasts, and while recognizing that, you should recognize that most of the failings of any Marxist or similar system tends to be less moral relative to taking care of the needy and their failings come from the fact that they are creating needy at ever step, then you may figure out for yourself the simply comment that "Capitalism is the best economic system in existence" and helps more people than Marxism ever can.

What you need to do if you really want to talk about Marxism or any of its similar economic systems, is to study their failures, and they have all failed. Your idealism reflected in your self proclaimed liberal desires are insufficient to prove your point. You first have to find a long running successful socialist experiment which does not have to be dictatorial to keep the high achievers from escaping. Beyond that, I have no interest in digging further into academic debate. And I don't need an argument for Capitalism other than no other system has made as great a % of the people under the system as prosperous and taken care of by our social programs. Also, as I have said before, social programs do not socialism make and neither does the government seeking research assistance by contracts with private enterprise. The biggest subsidies we experience in the US today are to the needy as defined by the Fed set poverty line. My wife and I live on less per year than any other couple under the poverty line; and though I make much more I give a lot for my personal charities. My favorite is a school in India with orphans or kids their parents cannot care for. Depending on their need I send them between $5,00 and $10,000 a year, enough to pay for the food for all the kids. I sure as hell would rather see them get it than some elitist unionist worker.[/QUOTE]Smitty, you will never convince a socialist or communist or any other Marxist that Capitalism is better. They are too brain dead to understand the realities of economics.


----------



## Publius1787

dnsmith35 said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely, but it certainly shows that they are waging war against an additional .9% who don't deserve particular scrutiny. They have always had a knack for not only blowing a problem out of proportion but also not thinking through a reasonable alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is simple. The left wing extremists of my own party are trying to scare our citizens with all of that inequality BS, trying to make it a talking point to garner votes. Our problem is not that the top .01% has such high wealth, the problem is the PERCEPTION sold by extremists. We have the Capitalist type who does most of the investment. The problem is not as without them doing the investing and reaping their rewards, the problem is more the division within labor which is broken down into the 88% and the 12%. The 12% of our labor force make such a high, wage many of the rest of our labor force, that group which spends the most money on consumer goods, can't afford to buy the goods and services provided by the 12%. That problem has been partially solved by off shoring jobs; which by the way, has not been the root cause of job loses. See: Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet and Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says
> 
> The real issue politically is it can be made out to be a serious issue with the bottom 50% of our citizens, those who tend not to pay federal income taxes, who listen to the left wing extremist propaganda and actually believe the garbage.
> 
> Now, don't get the idea I am a conservative, I am not. I am a moderate liberal in that most of my social issues are liberal, but I do hold a few conservative opinions such as strong defense, law and order, and the usurpation of many of our individual and State rights.
Click to expand...


In 2 to 10 years you will be a conservative voting for the Republican Party. I called it here.


----------



## georgephillip

Publius1787 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...

My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
Click to expand...


*1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.*

Link?


----------



## bedowin62

the left-wing loser is correct; the richest Americans are getting richer FASTER than they were under Bush and Republicans

AND
 the Middle Class and working poor are getting POORER FASTER under Democrats




libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.
> 
> 
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.*
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact


----------



## bedowin62

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.*
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact
Click to expand...




I BELIEVE IT. 

under obama; in the sixth year of our Messiah of "Change"; the rich and ONLY the richest are getting richer; while we have RECORD WELFARE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THE MASSES


to put it another way; the rich got LESS RICH; or richer at a SLOWER PACE; than they are under obama; the rich made LESS MONEY under the "greedy Republicans" you left-wing losers try to paint as being in the pocket of the corporations

ironic isnt it?


----------



## LeftofLeft

Inequality is everywhere and always will be. Shared Misery is not a remedy.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
Click to expand...


If that is what in fact happened (which I seriously doubt), they didn't "feel entitled," numbnuts.  They were entitled.  They acquired that income legally, which means the were legally entitled.  They were also morally entitled since every transaction involved was entirely voluntary.


----------



## dnsmith35

bonehead said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bonehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> okay, I'll do the best I can. capitalism is not, in and of itself, evil. unbridled capitalism leads to control of people, countries and governments depending on the style of governments. Jefferson, Franklin and Madison warned us over 200 years ago this could happen in a democratic republic where a small number of legislatures would be allowed to control both laws and money. I see only one way to eliminate this problem, and that is by evolving our system into a direct democracy. just in pure money this makes sense - it is easier to buy the majority of 535 legislators than a majority of 210,000,000 voters.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree!
> 
> 1. 435 if those are members of the House, and each comes from a small congressional district. The problem with that is 200 years of gerrymandering. Each congressional district should be redesigned in as close a symmetrical shape, a square or rectangle fit in with all the other areas with as close to the same population as possible, then outlaw gerrymandering by Amendment to the constitution.
> 
> 2. We should go back to the original method of choosing the Senate and the President.
> 
> 3. issue is eliminating as much propaganda in campaigns as possible.
> 
> 4. Effectively the entire process of politics because a local issue again as it was intended. People cannot be expected to know enough about candidates on a national basis as they do about the candidates from their local district. I know better what my neighbors in my town need more than do some puppeteer from far, far away. One size does not fit all and we can better manage our limited funds spent on our community that others who have no idea who we are.
> 
> 5. That alone will eliminate much if not all this huge propaganda machine we call campaigning.
> 
> 6. It also brings politicians down to individuals such that national party machines have less influence.
> 
> 7.Better still, eliminate and outlaw political parties and elect our leaders on their own recognizance.
> 
> It would not kill our democracy to have PEOPLE run our country rather than Party Puppeteers.
> 
> There is no such thing as Laissez-Faire capitalism in existence anywhere today. Not only is capitalism not evil, it is the best economic system the world has ever seen and will improve the prosperity of a nation many times more than any other system, and though our left wing extremists don't want to admit it, it takes care of more people, leaving much fewer in real poverty, than any alternative.
> 
> Our economy has created a very divided 3 tier system, not because of the greed of the rich, but because of the ignorance of so many about the value of a strong economy driven by people of ambition instead in stead of the "to each according to his need" and from each according to his ability. All that kind of warped thinking does is to make the high achievers resent the low achievers until the society breaks down to there being no achievers of consequence. I learned this from experience having lived 21 years of my life living in 6 countries other than the US, and mostly in the 3rd world, to include socialist countries. What I dislike about any form of Marxism is two fold: more people live in poverty with only the leaders achieving any kind of prosperity, and, they inevitably have to turn to autocratic/dictatorship governments to control the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do understand what a direct democracy is. the legislature authors and publishes the bills and the budgets requests. those are voted on by the citizens - not the "government". majority passes the measure except for budget and constitutional issues, which require a double majority. this would take care of your concerns listed and then some.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand, but that was such an ignorant comment I presumed you were being sarcastic. 

One of the most important parts of our system in the US IS A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, such that low population states cannot to totally dominated by highly populated states. That is what was created and darn will is what continues to exist.

The fact is, I would like our government to succeed, and what you suggest would keep our legislative functions at a stand still. It will advance the old adage, give the people total democratic power to determine policies of the government and eventually they will vote themselves and the government into poverty. As it is, we have people, maybe even a majority, who are not sufficiently capable of understanding the critical issues which make up a situation, and who only see what the propaganda is telling them about someone's opinion as to the results of what is being voted to pass. No, that kind of democracy is doomed to fail. I believe we should back away from NATIONAL ELECTIONS OF ANY KIND, and make politics what it was intended to be, LOCAL. There is no way the majority of people  can make decisions on a national scale. A pure democracy as you suggested is pure chaos.


----------



## dnsmith35

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.
> 
> 
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is what in fact happened (which I seriously doubt), they didn't "feel entitled," numbnuts.  They were entitled.  They acquired that income legally, which means the were legally entitled.  They were also morally entitled since every transaction involved was entirely voluntary.
Click to expand...


As was said earlier, the only real inequality of income exists between the .01% of our richest citizens and the 99.99% of the rest of the people. Wow, such a big deal!



Publius1787 said:


>


----------



## buckeye45_73

Seawytch said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you have any proof of that statement?*
> 
> "In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care about other countries.
> 
> Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!
Click to expand...


Wow, so do you really think everyone will ever have the same amount of money....or is it just something for you to bitch about?


----------



## bonehead

dnsmith35 said:


> bonehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree!
> 
> 1. 435 if those are members of the House, and each comes from a small congressional district. The problem with that is 200 years of gerrymandering. Each congressional district should be redesigned in as close a symmetrical shape, a square or rectangle fit in with all the other areas with as close to the same population as possible, then outlaw gerrymandering by Amendment to the constitution.
> 
> 2. We should go back to the original method of choosing the Senate and the President.
> 
> 3. issue is eliminating as much propaganda in campaigns as possible.
> 
> 4. Effectively the entire process of politics because a local issue again as it was intended. People cannot be expected to know enough about candidates on a national basis as they do about the candidates from their local district. I know better what my neighbors in my town need more than do some puppeteer from far, far away. One size does not fit all and we can better manage our limited funds spent on our community that others who have no idea who we are.
> 
> 5. That alone will eliminate much if not all this huge propaganda machine we call campaigning.
> 
> 6. It also brings politicians down to individuals such that national party machines have less influence.
> 
> 7.Better still, eliminate and outlaw political parties and elect our leaders on their own recognizance.
> 
> It would not kill our democracy to have PEOPLE run our country rather than Party Puppeteers.
> 
> There is no such thing as Laissez-Faire capitalism in existence anywhere today. Not only is capitalism not evil, it is the best economic system the world has ever seen and will improve the prosperity of a nation many times more than any other system, and though our left wing extremists don't want to admit it, it takes care of more people, leaving much fewer in real poverty, than any alternative.
> 
> Our economy has created a very divided 3 tier system, not because of the greed of the rich, but because of the ignorance of so many about the value of a strong economy driven by people of ambition instead in stead of the "to each according to his need" and from each according to his ability. All that kind of warped thinking does is to make the high achievers resent the low achievers until the society breaks down to there being no achievers of consequence. I learned this from experience having lived 21 years of my life living in 6 countries other than the US, and mostly in the 3rd world, to include socialist countries. What I dislike about any form of Marxism is two fold: more people live in poverty with only the leaders achieving any kind of prosperity, and, they inevitably have to turn to autocratic/dictatorship governments to control the people.
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand what a direct democracy is. the legislature authors and publishes the bills and the budgets requests. those are voted on by the citizens - not the "government". majority passes the measure except for budget and constitutional issues, which require a double majority. this would take care of your concerns listed and then some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I understand, but that was such an ignorant comment I presumed you were being sarcastic.
> 
> One of the most important parts of our system in the US IS A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, such that low population states cannot to totally dominated by highly populated states. That is what was created and darn will is what continues to exist.
> 
> The fact is, I would like our government to succeed, and what you suggest would keep our legislative functions at a stand still. It will advance the old adage, give the people total democratic power to determine policies of the government and eventually they will vote themselves and the government into poverty. As it is, we have people, maybe even a majority, who are not sufficiently capable of understanding the critical issues which make up a situation, and who only see what the propaganda is telling them about someone's opinion as to the results of what is being voted to pass. No, that kind of democracy is doomed to fail. I believe we should back away from NATIONAL ELECTIONS OF ANY KIND, and make politics what it was intended to be, LOCAL. There is no way the majority of people  can make decisions on a national scale. A pure democracy as you suggested is pure chaos.
Click to expand...

so you would trust 535 people to run the entire government (as it is now). no matter how you slice it, the constitution must be changed to allow either method you may choose. better to choose a method which will throttle those 535 than to throttle the the entire citizenry.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.*
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link.

I couldn't find where they "felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012". Maybe you found it?

I did see this.

During the Great Recession, from 2007 to 2009, average real income
per family declined dramatically by 17.4% (Table 1),2 the largest two-year
drop since the Great Depression. *Average real income for the top percentile
fell even faster (36.3 percent decline,* Table 1), which lead to a decrease in
the top percentile income share from 23.5 to 18.1 percent (Figure 2). Average
real income for the bottom 99% also fell sharply by 11.6%,


----------



## georgephillip

bedowin62 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.*
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I BELIEVE IT.
> 
> under obama; in the sixth year of our Messiah of "Change"; the rich and ONLY the richest are getting richer; while we have RECORD WELFARE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THE MASSES
> 
> 
> to put it another way; the rich got LESS RICH; or richer at a SLOWER PACE; than they are under obama; the rich made LESS MONEY under the "greedy Republicans" you left-wing losers try to paint as being in the pocket of the corporations
> 
> ironic isnt it?
Click to expand...

Obama and his Republican AND Democrat predecessors serve the same 1% of Americans.
If you have the slightest interest in enhancing opportunity of equality, choosing between rich Republicans or rich Democrats won't help you very much.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.*
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> I couldn't find where they "felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012". Maybe you found it?
> 
> I did see this.
> 
> During the Great Recession, from 2007 to 2009, average real income
> per family declined dramatically by 17.4% (Table 1),2 the largest two-year
> drop since the Great Depression. *Average real income for the top percentile
> fell even faster (36.3 percent decline,* Table 1), which lead to a decrease in
> the top percentile income share from 23.5 to 18.1 percent (Figure 2). Average
> real income for the bottom 99% also fell sharply by 11.6%,
Click to expand...

*I did find this:*

"Scarborough said that under Obama, 95 percent of the economic gains have gone to the top 1 percent of earners..."

"Scarborough accurately reflected the findings of a much publicized report from Emmanuel Saez, a Berkeley economist. Other studies confirm the overall trend in that report, although the disparities in gains between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else are not always as large as Scarborough said and depend on how you define income.

"Scarboroughs statement is accurate but in need of clarification. We rate it Mostly True."

*If the rich didn't feel entitled to their income share, why didn't they donate ALL of it to CHARITY?*

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact


----------



## Andylusion

bonehead said:


> you do understand what a direct democracy is. the legislature authors and publishes the bills and the budgets requests. those are voted on by the citizens - not the "government". majority passes the measure except for budget and constitutional issues, which require a double majority. this would take care of your concerns listed and then some.



Another example of a system that would be so good, in theory, but has never panned out so well in practice.

Further, even under that system, it would end up a disaster for sure.   Again the universal problem is that no matter what system of democracy you implement, the end result is that inmates run the asylum.   The vast majority of people are ignorant, thus a democracy will always be run by the lowest common denominator.

And it's not even because people are completely stupid.   It's more of people simply don't have time to learn every aspect of every issue.   

Even if you have generally well informed people, that still doesn't mean they are going to be well versed in every issue, enough to vote intelligently.

Take something as simple as the minimum wage.   Most people respond to that with zero intelligence and lots of emotion "Well it's only fair to pay people X amount!  Companies are just greedy blaw blaw blaw"

That's an emotional response, not based on fact.     The fact based response is "every single time you raise the minimum wage, prices go up, and people lose their jobs".

Not emotion.  Just commenting on the empirical evidence.

But how many people even know the latter evidence, as compared to the former emotion?

So guess who controls the legislation in a democracy?    Behold the power of stupid people in large numbers, and again, not stupid by mental capacity... just ignorance.

People don't have time.   My sister has 5 kids.  One infant suck on her, and waking her up all night.  Two toddlers screaming.   Two in school, and one asking to be driven to basket ball practice, and in the mean time she's fixing breakfast lunch and dinner, and paying bills, buying food, changing diapers.

And you think she's going to sit down, hunt around on the internet for a economics of the minimum wage report by the London School of economics, and spend 3 hours reading up to educate herself on the long term effects of the minimum wage before democracy vote on the minimum wage?

And she's not a single mom.  You think the rest of society has more time to do that?

And let's even pretend for a moment, that in an alternate universe, my sister didn't have 5 kids.   You think after working 5 days, getting home tired on a Friday night, that her big plans for the weekend are "I know... I want to sit down and spend 3 hours reading up research from the London School of economics on the long term effects of the minimum wage!"

Are you kidding?   She's going out with hubby, or some of her gal pals, and relax.

I'm the kind of nerdy guy that likes to read up on stuff like that, but I'm a very very small minority of the population.

Thus, again, any system based on democracy, is always going to be ruled by the ignorant.   It's unavoidable.   That's why true democracies have never lasted, and always destroyed themselves.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> "In Marxist economic analysis, income inequality increases under capitalism because capitalist firms substitute workers for capital equipment in the course of development (under competitive pressures to maximize profit).
> 
> "Over the long-term, this results in a rising organic composition of capital where less human labor is required in proportion to capital equipment, increasing unemployment and thereby exerting a downward pressure on wages by increasing the size of the reserve army of labour.
> 
> "The adoption of capital equipment that substitutes labor (or job automation) increases productivity and profits for the capitalist class, resulting in a situation of relatively stagnant wages for the working class amidst rising levels of income for the capitalist class."
> 
> Economic inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I realize you are not putting _too much_ effort into posting, when all you do is 'cut and paste' from a link....

But that said, I do wonder why you even put in that little effort, when you must already know that what you are posting is obviously false, and we all know this.

Everything said has been proven wrong a million times over.  Why post it again?

In fact, we're proving it wrong right now as we speak.  We are engaging in increasing trade, and we are engaged in capital invest, and yet employment is slowly dropping right now.   We did that in the 90s, and employment went down.

We hindered trade and capital investment in the 1930s, and had a great depression.

And lastly, this results in rising income for all classes.    And in a true capitalist system, everyone is a capitalist.     I'm a capitalist.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Chinese were better off in the more equal pre-78 system, where everyone was born, lived, and died, in complete impoverishment, but it least everyone was impoverished equally?   They seem to like the current unequal system better.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
Click to expand...


I disagree with the premise.   I have never met a rich person that felt "entitled" to being rich.   They were rich because they did something that people found worth while to pay them for.

My uncle made well over six-figures for years.   He didn't feel "entitled" to it.   He worked his butt off, making high end manufacturing equipment that other people found valuable.   He was paid that much because others deemed him worth paying for what he did.

The reason the burger flipper gets paid what they are paid, is because customers don't want to pay $30 for a cheap fast food burger.  What the burger flipper is doing, isn't worth as much, as what my uncle was doing.

Equally, my uncle invest tons of that money into worthy investments.   He didn't feel "entitled" to a huge return on investments.  He simply got it because he invested wisely.

You people on the left, simply 'make up' what you think other people are thinking.   I would guess, this is because you yourselves are the ones who feel they are entitled to stuff, so you just assume everyone else is like you.

We're not.   I don't feel 'entitled' to anything.   My stock portfolio made 23% last year.   Not because I was 'entitled' to it. I simply picked wise investments, and they paid off.   Perhaps next they will only get 5%, or maybe negative.

Most of the wealthy, make their money on investments.  Instead of b!tching about them, how about you stop complaining and start investing.


----------



## Publius1787

georgephillip said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
Click to expand...


And the subject is changed. I would respond but seeing as how you are arguing in bad faith I have no choice but to leave you be with the understanding that every time you get pinned in a corner you will simply forget the previous argument existed and skip right on to a new one as demonstrated above.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> I couldn't find where they "felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012". Maybe you found it?
> 
> I did see this.
> 
> During the Great Recession, from 2007 to 2009, average real income
> per family declined dramatically by 17.4% (Table 1),2 the largest two-year
> drop since the Great Depression. *Average real income for the top percentile
> fell even faster (36.3 percent decline,* Table 1), which lead to a decrease in
> the top percentile income share from 23.5 to 18.1 percent (Figure 2). Average
> real income for the bottom 99% also fell sharply by 11.6%,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I did find this:*
> 
> "Scarborough said that under Obama, 95 percent of the economic gains have gone to the top 1 percent of earners..."
> 
> "Scarborough accurately reflected the findings of a much publicized report from Emmanuel Saez, a Berkeley economist. Other studies confirm the overall trend in that report, although the disparities in gains between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else are not always as large as Scarborough said and depend on how you define income.
> 
> "Scarboroughs statement is accurate but in need of clarification. We rate it Mostly True."
> 
> *If the rich didn't feel entitled to their income share, why didn't they donate ALL of it to CHARITY?*
> 
> Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact
Click to expand...


Really.....

So how much do you earn at your job?   Do you feel "Entitled" to everything you earn?    How selfish of you.  Why don't you donate it all to charity?

Further, to answer your idiotic question....  Most of those "gains" were gains in value stupid.    If the value of your house that you bought, goes up $10,000, does that mean you can donate $10,000 to charity, because you don't feel "entitled" to it?

What completely moronic question.


----------



## Publius1787

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.*
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact
Click to expand...


There goes that 1% number again.


----------



## Andylusion

Publius1787 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.
> 
> 
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the subject is changed. I would respond but seeing as how you are arguing in bad faith I have no choice but to leave you be with the understanding that every time you get pinned in a corner you will simply forget the previous argument existed and skip right on to a new one as demonstrated above.
Click to expand...


That is precisely what he does.    The moment you pin him down on anything, where he can't figure out how to respond, he'll with do a whip-lash topic change, or he'll do another cut+paste post from some random link somewhere, as if posting from the link magically makes the last 5 posts disappear.

Just write it down.  You beat him.   He lost the argument, and has no answer.    Get ready, he'll post more BS now.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I BELIEVE IT.
> 
> under obama; in the sixth year of our Messiah of "Change"; the rich and ONLY the richest are getting richer; while we have RECORD WELFARE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THE MASSES
> 
> 
> to put it another way; the rich got LESS RICH; or richer at a SLOWER PACE; than they are under obama; the rich made LESS MONEY under the "greedy Republicans" you left-wing losers try to paint as being in the pocket of the corporations
> 
> ironic isnt it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama and his Republican AND Democrat predecessors serve the same 1% of Americans.
> If you have the slightest interest in enhancing opportunity of equality, choosing between rich Republicans or rich Democrats won't help you very much.
Click to expand...


Opportunity of equality?

The world of genetic engineering has a -long- fuckin way to go before opportunity of equality is even a pipe dream, let alone a reality.  For now, it's nothing short of fucking fantasy.

All men might be created equal in the eyes of the law.  Genetically, tho?  LMFAO


----------



## bonehead

Androw said:


> bonehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> you do understand what a direct democracy is. the legislature authors and publishes the bills and the budgets requests. those are voted on by the citizens - not the "government". majority passes the measure except for budget and constitutional issues, which require a double majority. this would take care of your concerns listed and then some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of a system that would be so good, in theory, but has never panned out so well in practice.
> 
> Further, even under that system, it would end up a disaster for sure.   Again the universal problem is that no matter what system of democracy you implement, the end result is that inmates run the asylum.   The vast majority of people are ignorant, thus a democracy will always be run by the lowest common denominator.
> 
> And it's not even because people are completely stupid.   It's more of people simply don't have time to learn every aspect of every issue.
> 
> Even if you have generally well informed people, that still doesn't mean they are going to be well versed in every issue, enough to vote intelligently.
> 
> Take something as simple as the minimum wage.   Most people respond to that with zero intelligence and lots of emotion "Well it's only fair to pay people X amount!  Companies are just greedy blaw blaw blaw"
> 
> That's an emotional response, not based on fact.     The fact based response is "every single time you raise the minimum wage, prices go up, and people lose their jobs".
> 
> Not emotion.  Just commenting on the empirical evidence.
> 
> But how many people even know the latter evidence, as compared to the former emotion?
> 
> So guess who controls the legislation in a democracy?    Behold the power of stupid people in large numbers, and again, not stupid by mental capacity... just ignorance.
> 
> People don't have time.   My sister has 5 kids.  One infant suck on her, and waking her up all night.  Two toddlers screaming.   Two in school, and one asking to be driven to basket ball practice, and in the mean time she's fixing breakfast lunch and dinner, and paying bills, buying food, changing diapers.
> 
> And you think she's going to sit down, hunt around on the internet for a economics of the minimum wage report by the London School of economics, and spend 3 hours reading up to educate herself on the long term effects of the minimum wage before democracy vote on the minimum wage?
> 
> And she's not a single mom.  You think the rest of society has more time to do that?
> 
> And let's even pretend for a moment, that in an alternate universe, my sister didn't have 5 kids.   You think after working 5 days, getting home tired on a Friday night, that her big plans for the weekend are "I know... I want to sit down and spend 3 hours reading up research from the London School of economics on the long term effects of the minimum wage!"
> 
> Are you kidding?   She's going out with hubby, or some of her gal pals, and relax.
> 
> I'm the kind of nerdy guy that likes to read up on stuff like that, but I'm a very very small minority of the population.
> 
> Thus, again, any system based on democracy, is always going to be ruled by the ignorant.   It's unavoidable.   That's why true democracies have never lasted, and always destroyed themselves.
Click to expand...

well, the Swiss must have figured something out. theirs seems to work. and I am not saying it would be easy to set up a direct democracy. My thoughts would be a select panel of citizens to advise the voters as to the benefits, drawbacks and costs of legislation before the vote starts. these people would have to be selected by the general public and not "elected". who knows, you might find people volunteering for this to make improvements in the government. unlike most, I consider government as just a tool to assist the citizens in obtaining and maintaining the constitutional rights - unlike others who feel government must constantly inform us of their choice of what rights they have determined we may be allowed. you are correct, though, a direct democracy will require the citizens pay more attention to issues that are to be voted on. so you choose - you want to be governed by 535 rich guys, or 210,000,000 people like you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> I couldn't find where they "felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012". Maybe you found it?
> 
> I did see this.
> 
> During the Great Recession, from 2007 to 2009, average real income
> per family declined dramatically by 17.4% (Table 1),2 the largest two-year
> drop since the Great Depression. *Average real income for the top percentile
> fell even faster (36.3 percent decline,* Table 1), which lead to a decrease in
> the top percentile income share from 23.5 to 18.1 percent (Figure 2). Average
> real income for the bottom 99% also fell sharply by 11.6%,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I did find this:*
> 
> "Scarborough said that under Obama, 95 percent of the economic gains have gone to the top 1 percent of earners..."
> 
> "Scarborough accurately reflected the findings of a much publicized report from Emmanuel Saez, a Berkeley economist. Other studies confirm the overall trend in that report, although the disparities in gains between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else are not always as large as Scarborough said and depend on how you define income.
> 
> "Scarboroughs statement is accurate but in need of clarification. We rate it Mostly True."
> 
> *If the rich didn't feel entitled to their income share, why didn't they donate ALL of it to CHARITY?*
> 
> Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact
Click to expand...


The link mentioned neither feel nor entitled. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I BELIEVE IT.
> 
> under obama; in the sixth year of our Messiah of "Change"; the rich and ONLY the richest are getting richer; while we have RECORD WELFARE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THE MASSES
> 
> 
> to put it another way; the rich got LESS RICH; or richer at a SLOWER PACE; than they are under obama; the rich made LESS MONEY under the "greedy Republicans" you left-wing losers try to paint as being in the pocket of the corporations
> 
> ironic isnt it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama and his Republican AND Democrat predecessors serve the same 1% of Americans.
> If you have the slightest interest in enhancing opportunity of equality, choosing between rich Republicans or rich Democrats won't help you very much.
Click to expand...


* Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it *


----------



## bonehead

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I BELIEVE IT.
> 
> under obama; in the sixth year of our Messiah of "Change"; the rich and ONLY the richest are getting richer; while we have RECORD WELFARE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THE MASSES
> 
> 
> to put it another way; the rich got LESS RICH; or richer at a SLOWER PACE; than they are under obama; the rich made LESS MONEY under the "greedy Republicans" you left-wing losers try to paint as being in the pocket of the corporations
> 
> ironic isnt it?
> 
> 
> 
> Obama and his Republican AND Democrat predecessors serve the same 1% of Americans.
> If you have the slightest interest in enhancing opportunity of equality, choosing between rich Republicans or rich Democrats won't help you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it *
Click to expand...

your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.


----------



## Fishlore

Concentration of capital, and its effect of increasing income equality is indeed an entropic tendency of the market/capitalist system. The reasons for this (advantages of scale, compound interest etc.) are purely economic and not due to greed or other moral factors. Nonetheless, it is true that left unregulated the system results in more and more of the nation's wealth being owned by fewer and fewer of the citizens.

But it doesn't have to be that way. The glory days of the American economy in the 1950s and 1960s saw "the Great Compression" a significant shrinking of the income gap caused by spectacularly rising incomes in the lower half of the income scale. This has happened before and it can happen again.

The accelerating mechanism of capital concentration had become spectacularly apparent by the end of the 19th century -- the Robber Barons and their trusts and all that. The necessary counterweight was devised by the Progressive Movement and successfully installed in the early 20th century.

The answer to excessive capital concentration -- trust busting, graduated income tax and the social safety net -- essentially taxes the ever-growing wealth of the large-scale capital holders and recycles the money through the economy in the form of government spending on health, education, welfare, infrastructure and the environment.  We tried it and it worked. The need to govern capital concentration through progressive taxation has been successfully demonstrated for almost a century.

So, what happened? That's an easy one. The essence of so-called reaganomics is the dismantling of the progressive regulation of capital concentration. The Republican Party has been deregulating the progressive safeguards for over thirty years. The result has been not only steadily increasing concentration of capital but the devastation of America's manufacturing sector, skyrocketing rates of poverty and the collapse of our health and education systems.

Take the safety controls off the enormously powerful engine of America's market economy and what would you expect to happen? D'Oh!


----------



## bonehead

Fishlore said:


> Concentration of capital, and its effect of increasing income equality is indeed an entropic tendency of the market/capitalist system. The reasons for this (advantages of scale, compound interest etc.) are purely economic and not due to greed or other moral factors. Nonetheless, it is true that left unregulated the system results in more and more of the nation's wealth being owned by fewer and fewer of the citizens.
> 
> But it doesn't have to be that way. The glory days of the American economy in the 1950s and 1960s saw "the Great Compression" a significant shrinking of the income gap caused by spectacularly rising incomes in the lower half of the income scale. This has happened before and it can happen again.
> 
> The accelerating mechanism of capital concentration had become spectacularly apparent by the end of the 19th century -- the Robber Barons and their trusts and all that. The necessary counterweight was devised by the Progressive Movement and successfully installed in the early 20th century.
> 
> The answer to excessive capital concentration -- trust busting, graduated income tax and the social safety net -- essentially taxes the ever-growing wealth of the large-scale capital holders and recycles the money through the economy in the form of government spending on health, education, welfare, infrastructure and the environment.  We tried it and it worked. The need to govern capital concentration through progressive taxation has been successfully demonstrated for almost a century.
> 
> So, what happened? That's an easy one. The essence of so-called reaganomics is the dismantling of the progressive regulation of capital concentration. The Republican Party has been deregulating the progressive safeguards for over thirty years. The result has been not only steadily increasing concentration of capital but the devastation of America's manufacturing sector, skyrocketing rates of poverty and the collapse of our health and education systems.
> 
> Take the safety controls off the enormously powerful engine of America's market economy and what would you expect to happen? D'Oh!


well, finally we have someone willing to state the truth. capitalism is not the evil here - the problem in totally unregulated capitalism. not only unregulated, but aided by our lame government who participate in the same type of behavior. we must first regulate our employees (government) and then regulate capitalism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

bonehead said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama and his Republican AND Democrat predecessors serve the same 1% of Americans.
> If you have the slightest interest in enhancing opportunity of equality, choosing between rich Republicans or rich Democrats won't help you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.
Click to expand...


What problem?


----------



## georgephillip

Publius1787 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.
> 
> 
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the subject is changed. I would respond but seeing as how you are arguing in bad faith I have no choice but to leave you be with the understanding that every time you get pinned in a corner you will simply forget the previous argument existed and skip right on to a new one as demonstrated above.
Click to expand...

Or maybe you aren't very articulate when defining your subject?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bonehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it *
> 
> 
> 
> your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What problem?
Click to expand...

Predatory capitalism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bonehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Predatory capitalism.
Click to expand...


*Though admirable as a humanist ideal, study after study has shown that in the real world socialism doesnt work very well. Sadly, it leaves the work force insufficiently motivated to put forth its best effortsimply because it doesnt finally pay to do so. So such a political or commercial system ends up stunting individual initiative, and also leaves the economy floundering.*

I agree, we should avoid socialism.


----------



## bonehead

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bonehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Predatory capitalism.
Click to expand...

just wondering if Toddsterpatriot wished to admit that online. I kinda gathered his position before but wanted it stated for the record.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In Marxist economic analysis, income inequality increases under capitalism because capitalist firms substitute workers for capital equipment in the course of development (under competitive pressures to maximize profit).
> 
> "Over the long-term, this results in a rising organic composition of capital where less human labor is required in proportion to capital equipment, increasing unemployment and thereby exerting a downward pressure on wages by increasing the size of the reserve army of labour.
> 
> "The adoption of capital equipment that substitutes labor (or job automation) increases productivity and profits for the capitalist class, resulting in a situation of relatively stagnant wages for the working class amidst rising levels of income for the capitalist class."
> 
> Economic inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize you are not putting _too much_ effort into posting, when all you do is 'cut and paste' from a link....
> 
> But that said, I do wonder why you even put in that little effort, when you must already know that what you are posting is obviously false, and we all know this.
> 
> Everything said has been proven wrong a million times over.  Why post it again?
> 
> In fact, we're proving it wrong right now as we speak.  We are engaging in increasing trade, and we are engaged in capital invest, and yet employment is slowly dropping right now.   We did that in the 90s, and employment went down.
> 
> We hindered trade and capital investment in the 1930s, and had a great depression.
> 
> And lastly, this results in rising income for all classes.    And in a true capitalist system, everyone is a capitalist.     I'm a capitalist.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that the Chinese were better off in the more equal pre-78 system, where everyone was born, lived, and died, in complete impoverishment, but it least everyone was impoverished equally?   They seem to like the current unequal system better.
Click to expand...

*If we're all capitalists, why isn't income rising for all economic classes in the US?
Do you think it has anything to do with monopoly capitalism and its paradox of accumulation?*

"This month marks the eightieth anniversary of the 1929 Stock Market Crash that precipitated the Great Depression of the 1930s. Ironically, this comes at the very moment that the capitalist system is celebrating having narrowly escaped falling into a similar abyss. 

"The financial crash and the decline in output a year ago, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, was as steep as at the beginning of the Great Depression. 'For a while,' Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times in August, 'key economic indicatorsworld trade, world industrial production, even stock priceswere falling as fast or faster than they did in 1929-30. But in the 1930s the trend lines kept heading down. This time, the plunge appears to be ending after just one terrible year.'1 

"Big government, through the federal bailout and stimulus, as well as the shock-absorber effects of the continued payouts of unemployment and Social Security benefits, Medicare, etc., slowed the descent and helped the economy to level off, albeit at a point well below previous output.:

Monopoly-Finance Capital and the Paradox of Accumulation


----------



## Andylusion

bonehead said:


> well, the Swiss must have figured something out. theirs seems to work. and I am not saying it would be easy to set up a direct democracy. My thoughts would be a select panel of citizens to advise the voters as to the benefits, drawbacks and costs of legislation before the vote starts. these people would have to be selected by the general public and not "elected". who knows, you might find people volunteering for this to make improvements in the government. unlike most, I consider government as just a tool to assist the citizens in obtaining and maintaining the constitutional rights - unlike others who feel government must constantly inform us of their choice of what rights they have determined we may be allowed. you are correct, though, a direct democracy will require the citizens pay more attention to issues that are to be voted on. so you choose - you want to be governed by 535 rich guys, or 210,000,000 people like you.



But they are not like me.  Not at all like me.

[ame=http://youtu.be/woBC5b3Ti0M]Obama Supporters are Idiots! - YouTube[/ame]

This.... is normal.   Most people are like this.   Most people don't have a clue.   Now of course, he was interviewing Obama morons, but there are many Republican morons as well.

And you are asking me, if I want 210 Million idiots controlling the government?   Of course not.  The fact you want people like those in that audio above, running our nation, is scary.  That's scary!

Gore's campaign pulled off a huge bounce with 'the Kiss' | Jacksonville.com

Do you remember this?  Where you around when this happened?

For those who don't remember, or were not around at the time, during the 2000 campaign, Al Gore was behind in the polls by double digits.

Then during the Democratic National Convention, Gore grabbed his then wife (not sure if they are still married), and gave her a long massive mouth to mouth kiss.   A really big one, long and deep.

Now to me, that's fine.  No big deal.   At least he is committed to his wife (or so it seemed).    But then... the polls jumped.    Literally because of a kiss, suddenly because of a kiss.....  just a kiss....  he gained 5 or 6 points in the polls.  He was back in the race again.

Now think about that.   Kissing..... gets you votes?    I was a Rush Limbaugh fan at that time.  I haven't listened to him in over 10 years, but at the time, I was a fan.   Rush asked people to call in who had changed their minds on Al Gore, because of the kiss.    And people literally called in, to try and explain why they were now Gore voters, because of the kiss.  (mostly women by the way).

This is who you want running our government??!?

People who vote not based on evidence, not based on policy, not based on ideology, not based on anything logical or rational, but rather based on kissing???

Because this is what you are advocating, whether you understand that or not.    You are saying that giving people like this, who don't know the issues, don't now the policies, but they like Obama because he picked Palin to run with him, and he supports the Iraq war, and because Gore can kiss..... and you want to give them more complete control over the policies of the government???   Really?   Those people you want running the nation?

Bad plan!  If we follow your belief system to it's fullest, you will destroy this country, no question about it.

*Now some quick comments on your plan....*

Yeah, you'll get some volunteers alright.  The Unions will send their guys for sure, to push for any pro-union legislation.  You'll have the eco-nuts, sending their people to vote for anything that hinders economic growth.   You'll have the minority groups, send their people to push for any special treatment for their respective groups.

Yeah, you'll get some volunteers for sure.  No doubt about it.

Give the special interest groups more ability to affect legislation, yeah, that will most certainly reduce special interest money in government, because the groups can directly control legislation.   The value of giving money to a politician who supports you views would go down under that situation, but is that really better giving the inmates control over the asylum?

*"direct democracy will require the citizens pay more attention"*

Yeah.... and they won't.   We have more control over government today, than at any time in the past.   Think about it....  At the start of this country, only land owners could vote.   Blacks couldn't vote period.   Women couldn't vote period.

Today anyone can vote, and virtually anyone can get into politics, and if they express views that a significant portion of the public believe in, they can succeed in politics.   Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura, and numerous others that are less notable, and yet grew up in lower to middle class families, that simply stood up for something, and other people supported it.

Yet with all of this control given to the public, the public is less informed about the fundamentals of government than ever before.

And you think giving the ignorant people even more control, is going to do what?   Magically make them informed, when they have less and less interest in being informed as it is?

*"Swiss must have figured something out. theirs seems to work"*

Yes, and no, not really.   First, fundamental differences between US and them.

Ohio has 11.5 Million people, over 44K sq miles.
Switzerland has 8 Million people, over 16K sq miles.

It is much easier to engage in a form of direct democracy at the state level, than at the Federal level.  Switzerland is more like a state.   And many states do hold referendums on policy.   We just held a vote last week on policies in our area, here in Ohio.

Further, running a vote over a massive country like the US, is not just difficult, it's completely impractical.

Yet even then, the system in Switzerland is highly difficult to actually make a real change.

First usually a special interest group, proposes a law, or change.    They must collect no less than 100,000 signatures to have the law brought up for a vote.

(so already, it's special interests taking advantage of the system).

Then the vote is put to the public in that particular canton.  If passed, the Federal government of Switzerland is required to "consider" the matter.  This results in some legislation being proposed by Parliament.

(so again, the public representatives are the ones making the laws)

The version of the law that Parliament writes, is then sent to the public for vote.    The vote must get not only a majority of the public, but also a majority of the cantons.

(almost exactly like the US election system.  You can't just win the popular vote, but you must win enough electoral votes form the states)

If they get the majority of cantons, but not public votes, they lose.  If they get the majority of public votes, but not the majority of cantons, they lose.

As a result, very very few public initiatives actually win.

Now here's another problem....  in a country our size, with 310 Million people, instead of 8 Million, and with the thousands of special interest groups, we would have so many public initiatives, we'd have a vote for 5 of them, every single week.

Some other key things I've read, include that Switzerland routinely has 2 to 3 votes a year.   That would be horrendously expensive in the US.    They actually have many cantons (could be national) that charge a fine to people who don't vote.  (try that in the US, and we'll have a riot).   Yet even so, they still only have a voter turn out of 30% to 60% tops.  (just about what we have here).

That's not going to work here.

*Lastly, a homogenous society.*

Switzerland is a very very homogenous society.   When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society.

In a diverse society like ours, you have a ton of group-think and group-political-warfare.   In those situations, many people can push policies that they believe will effect 'the other group', but not them.

For example, would the people of Switzerland ever say "I want legislation that punishes me for how I think".   Well of course not.

Here in the US, we have so-called "hate crime laws" where we give stiffer punishment because "you hated him".  Who voted for that?   Black people, and black special interest groups.    Why?   They believed it would effect the other group, and benefit their group.   The reality?  Most people convicted of hate crimes, are black people.    Would they have voted for it in a homogenous society, knowing the group that would be nailed the most by their law, would be their group?   No never.

Such a law wouldn't be passed in Switzerland, because in a homogenous society, where there is basically only one group... there is no other 'group' that it would affect and not themselves.... so they wouldn't pass such a law.

It's the same thing as health care reform.   In 2009, when the debate was at it's hottest, a poll came out.    The poll asked people a question, and if at any time they answered 'no', the poll was over for them.

The first question was 'do you support government funded universal health care?'.     The majority answered yes, I think by a 67% margin (or something like that).

Now those who said no, are gone.  Of the people left, they asked:
Would you support government funded universal health care, if you had to pay a 0.5% additional income tax?   Then 1% additional income tax, then 2.5%, then 5% then 10% and I don't remember the rest.

On the very first question, 0.5% additional income tax, more than half said no, and at 1% tax, less than 20% of those who claimed they support gov-care said they still supported it, and above that it was only a tiny tiny sliver of people.

Now what does this tell you?   It should tell you, that the vast vast majority of those who support gov-care, all believed that "the other group" would pay for it.

In a homogenous society, there is no 'other group'.   People would instinctively understand that the 'other group' that pays for everything... is them.   Because there is no 'other group' that magically pays for everything.

So I would say again.  Yes Switzerland can get away with some amount of direct democracy, in a homogenous society.   That would not work here.

In our country, direct democracy would end up with huge costly spending programs, all built on the idea that 'the other group' would pay for it, and with a population ignorant of economics, would mindlessly support anything that's "free" paid for by the 'other group'.


----------



## Fishlore

*"Switzerland is a very very homogenous society. When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society."*

Switzerland is one of the most diverse societies in the EU. It has three major languages, Italian, French, and German as well as a local dialects spoke in remote eastern regions. It has Catholic and Protestant followers as well as a diverse and agnostic urban population. The economy is one of sophisticated, hi-tech urban centers and charming but quaint rural agricultural areas like our Pennsylvania Dutch. I could go on, but the overconfident ignorance of certain right wingers makes such effort unnecessary as well as futile.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> *If we're all capitalists, why isn't income rising for all economic classes in the US?
> Do you think it has anything to do with monopoly capitalism and its paradox of accumulation?*
> 
> "This month marks the eightieth anniversary of the 1929 Stock Market Crash that precipitated the Great Depression of the 1930s. Ironically, this comes at the very moment that the capitalist system is celebrating having narrowly escaped falling into a similar abyss.
> 
> "The financial crash and the decline in output a year ago, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, was as steep as at the beginning of the Great Depression. 'For a while,' Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times in August, 'key economic indicatorsworld trade, world industrial production, even stock priceswere falling as fast or faster than they did in 1929-30. But in the 1930s the trend lines kept heading down. This time, the plunge appears to be ending after just one terrible year.'1
> 
> "Big government, through the federal bailout and stimulus, as well as the shock-absorber effects of the continued payouts of unemployment and Social Security benefits, Medicare, etc., slowed the descent and helped the economy to level off, albeit at a point well below previous output.:
> 
> Monopoly-Finance Capital and the Paradox of Accumulation



I've covered this before, there are numerous reasons why income isn't magically rising.

First off, you generally don't get paid more simply because you exist.  "sucking air" is not grounds for a raise.

You get paid more, when you are more valuable.   When you do something that has a greater value to the customer, you generally get paid more by the company.

You would instinctively understand this, if you were the one shelling out the money.   Say you hired a guy to mow your lawn, and paid him $25 per cut.

Now say after doing that for five years, he comes to you and demands $100 a lawn.   You know, because he sucked air, and did his job, suddenly he's magically worth $100 to mow a lawn?   Well crap, at two cuts a month, with that $200 you could buy a bran new mower, and enough gas to mow for the entire year.

Are you going to do that?  Most would say no.   The fact you freakin exist, and suck air, doesn't magically mean you deserve higher pay.

What makes you earn higher pay, is when you do something worth more.  Learn a skill, get a degree, take a class, read a book, do something that has a higher value to the market place.

*You don't just get more money because you 'did your job'.   Your raise is effective, when *YOU* are.*

Flipping a burger over is not so skill intensive that doing it for 12 months straight means you are magically worth another $1 an hour.   And the customer is certainly not going to pay another dollar because "WOW! Look how well this burger has been flipped!"

Further, I have wealth accumulation right now.  I just told you, I gained 23% on my investments last year.    Where is this 'monopoly' you are talking about?   Why doesn't it effect me?

People choose what to do with their money.  If they choose to drink it away, and piss it down the drain, that's not a fault of capitalism.  That's a choice by individuals.

Again, Warren Buffet used money from a paper route in High school, to buy a pinball machine, and place it in a business nearby.     There was nothing 'special' about Buffet.   He was particularly brilliant.   He wasn't part of the 'monopoly'.    He simply made wise choices, and invested his money, instead of blowing it like most high school students.

The CEO of 1-800-GOT-JUNK, didn't get there because he was "part of the monopoly of capital!", or some other nonsense.    He got to be a millionaire, because instead of blowing $900 on parties, and girl friends in high school, he bought a beat up, pickup truck, and painted a sign "We stash your trash".     He invested his money into making more money, and shockingly he's got more money.

People make choices.  That's all there is to it.   I'd much rather have that system, then a socialist system where people have no choice.   Complete equality, because everyone has no choice but to be equally poor.


----------



## Andylusion

Fishlore said:


> *"Switzerland is a very very homogenous society. When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society."*
> 
> Switzerland is one of the most diverse societies in the EU. It has three major languages, Italian, French, and German as well as a local dialects spoke in remote eastern regions. It has Catholic and Protestant followers as well as a diverse and agnostic urban population. The economy is one of sophisticated, hi-tech urban centers and charming but quaint rural agricultural areas like our Pennsylvania Dutch. I could go on, but the overconfident ignorance of certain right wingers makes such effort unnecessary as well as futile.



Oh come.  Stop being so shallow.   You are looking at skin deep aspects, instead of the core of the society.

Cambridge Journals Online - Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique - Abstract - Homogeneity, Heterogeneity and Direct Democracy: The Case of Swiss Referenda

Canadian Journal of Political Science

    Canadian Journal of Political Science / Volume 40 / Issue 02 / June 2007, pp 317-342
    Copyright © 2007 Cambridge University Press



> Based on the extensive Swiss experience, the answer to our question seems quite clearly to be that the use of referenda as tools of direct democracy in a pluralistic society *tends to reflect much more the homogeneous characteristics of that society* than its heterogeneous ones.



I'm not going to argue this with you.  Go argue with the professors at Cambridge, if you really think the people who have researched aspects of Swiss society are all wrong.

Not arguing this with you any further.  Thanks.


----------



## bonehead

Androw said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Switzerland is a very very homogenous society. When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society."*
> 
> Switzerland is one of the most diverse societies in the EU. It has three major languages, Italian, French, and German as well as a local dialects spoke in remote eastern regions. It has Catholic and Protestant followers as well as a diverse and agnostic urban population. The economy is one of sophisticated, hi-tech urban centers and charming but quaint rural agricultural areas like our Pennsylvania Dutch. I could go on, but the overconfident ignorance of certain right wingers makes such effort unnecessary as well as futile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come.  Stop being so shallow.   You are looking at skin deep aspects, instead of the core of the society.
> 
> Cambridge Journals Online - Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique - Abstract - Homogeneity, Heterogeneity and Direct Democracy: The Case of Swiss Referenda
> 
> Canadian Journal of Political Science
> 
> Canadian Journal of Political Science / Volume 40 / Issue 02 / June 2007, pp 317-342
> Copyright © 2007 Cambridge University Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the extensive Swiss experience, the answer to our question seems quite clearly to be that the use of referenda as tools of direct democracy in a pluralistic society *tends to reflect much more the homogeneous characteristics of that society* than its heterogeneous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to argue this with you.  Go argue with the professors at Cambridge, if you really think the people who have researched aspects of Swiss society are all wrong.
> 
> Not arguing this with you any further.  Thanks.
Click to expand...

quite an interesting thought. now. why was it we had a revolution to kick out the British? I forget.


----------



## bonehead

Androw said:


> bonehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, the Swiss must have figured something out. theirs seems to work. and I am not saying it would be easy to set up a direct democracy. My thoughts would be a select panel of citizens to advise the voters as to the benefits, drawbacks and costs of legislation before the vote starts. these people would have to be selected by the general public and not "elected". who knows, you might find people volunteering for this to make improvements in the government. unlike most, I consider government as just a tool to assist the citizens in obtaining and maintaining the constitutional rights - unlike others who feel government must constantly inform us of their choice of what rights they have determined we may be allowed. you are correct, though, a direct democracy will require the citizens pay more attention to issues that are to be voted on. so you choose - you want to be governed by 535 rich guys, or 210,000,000 people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they are not like me.  Not at all like me.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/woBC5b3Ti0M]Obama Supporters are Idiots! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> This.... is normal.   Most people are like this.   Most people don't have a clue.   Now of course, he was interviewing Obama morons, but there are many Republican morons as well.
> 
> And you are asking me, if I want 210 Million idiots controlling the government?   Of course not.  The fact you want people like those in that audio above, running our nation, is scary.  That's scary!
> 
> Gore's campaign pulled off a huge bounce with 'the Kiss' | Jacksonville.com
> 
> Do you remember this?  Where you around when this happened?
> 
> For those who don't remember, or were not around at the time, during the 2000 campaign, Al Gore was behind in the polls by double digits.
> 
> Then during the Democratic National Convention, Gore grabbed his then wife (not sure if they are still married), and gave her a long massive mouth to mouth kiss.   A really big one, long and deep.
> 
> Now to me, that's fine.  No big deal.   At least he is committed to his wife (or so it seemed).    But then... the polls jumped.    Literally because of a kiss, suddenly because of a kiss.....  just a kiss....  he gained 5 or 6 points in the polls.  He was back in the race again.
> 
> Now think about that.   Kissing..... gets you votes?    I was a Rush Limbaugh fan at that time.  I haven't listened to him in over 10 years, but at the time, I was a fan.   Rush asked people to call in who had changed their minds on Al Gore, because of the kiss.    And people literally called in, to try and explain why they were now Gore voters, because of the kiss.  (mostly women by the way).
> 
> This is who you want running our government??!?
> 
> People who vote not based on evidence, not based on policy, not based on ideology, not based on anything logical or rational, but rather based on kissing???
> 
> Because this is what you are advocating, whether you understand that or not.    You are saying that giving people like this, who don't know the issues, don't now the policies, but they like Obama because he picked Palin to run with him, and he supports the Iraq war, and because Gore can kiss..... and you want to give them more complete control over the policies of the government???   Really?   Those people you want running the nation?
> 
> Bad plan!  If we follow your belief system to it's fullest, you will destroy this country, no question about it.
> 
> *Now some quick comments on your plan....*
> 
> Yeah, you'll get some volunteers alright.  The Unions will send their guys for sure, to push for any pro-union legislation.  You'll have the eco-nuts, sending their people to vote for anything that hinders economic growth.   You'll have the minority groups, send their people to push for any special treatment for their respective groups.
> 
> Yeah, you'll get some volunteers for sure.  No doubt about it.
> 
> Give the special interest groups more ability to affect legislation, yeah, that will most certainly reduce special interest money in government, because the groups can directly control legislation.   The value of giving money to a politician who supports you views would go down under that situation, but is that really better giving the inmates control over the asylum?
> 
> *"direct democracy will require the citizens pay more attention"*
> 
> Yeah.... and they won't.   We have more control over government today, than at any time in the past.   Think about it....  At the start of this country, only land owners could vote.   Blacks couldn't vote period.   Women couldn't vote period.
> 
> Today anyone can vote, and virtually anyone can get into politics, and if they express views that a significant portion of the public believe in, they can succeed in politics.   Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura, and numerous others that are less notable, and yet grew up in lower to middle class families, that simply stood up for something, and other people supported it.
> 
> Yet with all of this control given to the public, the public is less informed about the fundamentals of government than ever before.
> 
> And you think giving the ignorant people even more control, is going to do what?   Magically make them informed, when they have less and less interest in being informed as it is?
> 
> *"Swiss must have figured something out. theirs seems to work"*
> 
> Yes, and no, not really.   First, fundamental differences between US and them.
> 
> Ohio has 11.5 Million people, over 44K sq miles.
> Switzerland has 8 Million people, over 16K sq miles.
> 
> It is much easier to engage in a form of direct democracy at the state level, than at the Federal level.  Switzerland is more like a state.   And many states do hold referendums on policy.   We just held a vote last week on policies in our area, here in Ohio.
> 
> Further, running a vote over a massive country like the US, is not just difficult, it's completely impractical.
> 
> Yet even then, the system in Switzerland is highly difficult to actually make a real change.
> 
> First usually a special interest group, proposes a law, or change.    They must collect no less than 100,000 signatures to have the law brought up for a vote.
> 
> (so already, it's special interests taking advantage of the system).
> 
> Then the vote is put to the public in that particular canton.  If passed, the Federal government of Switzerland is required to "consider" the matter.  This results in some legislation being proposed by Parliament.
> 
> (so again, the public representatives are the ones making the laws)
> 
> The version of the law that Parliament writes, is then sent to the public for vote.    The vote must get not only a majority of the public, but also a majority of the cantons.
> 
> (almost exactly like the US election system.  You can't just win the popular vote, but you must win enough electoral votes form the states)
> 
> If they get the majority of cantons, but not public votes, they lose.  If they get the majority of public votes, but not the majority of cantons, they lose.
> 
> As a result, very very few public initiatives actually win.
> 
> Now here's another problem....  in a country our size, with 310 Million people, instead of 8 Million, and with the thousands of special interest groups, we would have so many public initiatives, we'd have a vote for 5 of them, every single week.
> 
> Some other key things I've read, include that Switzerland routinely has 2 to 3 votes a year.   That would be horrendously expensive in the US.    They actually have many cantons (could be national) that charge a fine to people who don't vote.  (try that in the US, and we'll have a riot).   Yet even so, they still only have a voter turn out of 30% to 60% tops.  (just about what we have here).
> 
> That's not going to work here.
> 
> *Lastly, a homogenous society.*
> 
> Switzerland is a very very homogenous society.   When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society.
> 
> In a diverse society like ours, you have a ton of group-think and group-political-warfare.   In those situations, many people can push policies that they believe will effect 'the other group', but not them.
> 
> For example, would the people of Switzerland ever say "I want legislation that punishes me for how I think".   Well of course not.
> 
> Here in the US, we have so-called "hate crime laws" where we give stiffer punishment because "you hated him".  Who voted for that?   Black people, and black special interest groups.    Why?   They believed it would effect the other group, and benefit their group.   The reality?  Most people convicted of hate crimes, are black people.    Would they have voted for it in a homogenous society, knowing the group that would be nailed the most by their law, would be their group?   No never.
> 
> Such a law wouldn't be passed in Switzerland, because in a homogenous society, where there is basically only one group... there is no other 'group' that it would affect and not themselves.... so they wouldn't pass such a law.
> 
> It's the same thing as health care reform.   In 2009, when the debate was at it's hottest, a poll came out.    The poll asked people a question, and if at any time they answered 'no', the poll was over for them.
> 
> The first question was 'do you support government funded universal health care?'.     The majority answered yes, I think by a 67% margin (or something like that).
> 
> Now those who said no, are gone.  Of the people left, they asked:
> Would you support government funded universal health care, if you had to pay a 0.5% additional income tax?   Then 1% additional income tax, then 2.5%, then 5% then 10% and I don't remember the rest.
> 
> On the very first question, 0.5% additional income tax, more than half said no, and at 1% tax, less than 20% of those who claimed they support gov-care said they still supported it, and above that it was only a tiny tiny sliver of people.
> 
> Now what does this tell you?   It should tell you, that the vast vast majority of those who support gov-care, all believed that "the other group" would pay for it.
> 
> In a homogenous society, there is no 'other group'.   People would instinctively understand that the 'other group' that pays for everything... is them.   Because there is no 'other group' that magically pays for everything.
> 
> So I would say again.  Yes Switzerland can get away with some amount of direct democracy, in a homogenous society.   That would not work here.
> 
> In our country, direct democracy would end up with huge costly spending programs, all built on the idea that 'the other group' would pay for it, and with a population ignorant of economics, would mindlessly support anything that's "free" paid for by the 'other group'.
Click to expand...

much of what you say may be correct. unfortunately, those who are governed will not long tolerate being talked down to as if they were the peasant class. this is how you would govern? by absolute rule? or maybe the "golden rule".


----------



## Fishlore

Androw said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Switzerland is a very very homogenous society. When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society."*
> 
> Switzerland is one of the most diverse societies in the EU. It has three major languages, Italian, French, and German as well as a local dialects spoke in remote eastern regions. It has Catholic and Protestant followers as well as a diverse and agnostic urban population. The economy is one of sophisticated, hi-tech urban centers and charming but quaint rural agricultural areas like our Pennsylvania Dutch. I could go on, but the overconfident ignorance of certain right wingers makes such effort unnecessary as well as futile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come.  Stop being so shallow.   You are looking at skin deep aspects, instead of the core of the society.
> 
> Cambridge Journals Online - Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique - Abstract - Homogeneity, Heterogeneity and Direct Democracy: The Case of Swiss Referenda
> 
> Canadian Journal of Political Science
> 
> Canadian Journal of Political Science / Volume 40 / Issue 02 / June 2007, pp 317-342
> Copyright © 2007 Cambridge University Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the extensive Swiss experience, the answer to our question seems quite clearly to be that the use of referenda as tools of direct democracy in a pluralistic society *tends to reflect much more the homogeneous characteristics of that society* than its heterogeneous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to argue this with you.  Go argue with the professors at Cambridge, if you really think the people who have researched aspects of Swiss society are all wrong.
> 
> Not arguing this with you any further.  Thanks.
Click to expand...


Language, religion and economy are shallow, skin-deep social parameters?  What a strange notion. Citing some obscure Canadian journal without even trying to summarize its content while offering absolutely no thoughts about homogeneity isn't an argument. No wonder you aren't going to argue further, you haven't even started yet.


----------



## Andylusion

bonehead said:


> much of what you say may be correct. unfortunately, those who are governed will not long tolerate being talked down to as if they were the peasant class. this is how you would govern? by absolute rule? or maybe the "golden rule".



You would rather be ruled by the stupid?   They won't talk down to you, but they'll completely ruin the entire country?

Again, if I thought the Swiss system would work here, then I'd be for it.   But it won't.    I know you think it will, but it won't!

And honestly, I have never felt like I was "talked down to" by anyone.   People who are 'looking for offense' are going to be offended no matter what anyone says.

I'm more concerned which what would be the best over all system, than 'well I don't like Obama talking down at me'.   Obama is a politician.   That's all.

Again, I would much rather have the system that we have, over a system of 210 Million idiots running the country, when they don't even realize that more energy is consumed in making Ethanol, than is produced by the Ethanol.      Or worse, that supporting Ethanol "helps farmers!" when most of the Ethanol subsidies go to Archer Daniels Midland, and Monsanto, and rich people like David Rockefeller and Jim Kennedy, and Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft).

BTW, who supports alternative energy spending?    Well leftists of course.   Every time a leftist starts screaming about how Democrats and Liberals, are for the people and against big companies and the rich and wealthy, call them liars, because they are.    All liars.

Back to the point though.   People are not going to know this stuff.  I still meet people who think Ethanol is great, and we need to work our way off oil, and just use Ethanol.

You put the majority of the stupid in charge, and the rich and wealthy are going to convince the ignorant, and will rule the country.   How is that 'better'?


----------



## Andylusion

Fishlore said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Switzerland is a very very homogenous society. When everyone has the same culture, the same world views, the same basic ideology, you can do many things that are not possible in a diverse society."*
> 
> Switzerland is one of the most diverse societies in the EU. It has three major languages, Italian, French, and German as well as a local dialects spoke in remote eastern regions. It has Catholic and Protestant followers as well as a diverse and agnostic urban population. The economy is one of sophisticated, hi-tech urban centers and charming but quaint rural agricultural areas like our Pennsylvania Dutch. I could go on, but the overconfident ignorance of certain right wingers makes such effort unnecessary as well as futile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come.  Stop being so shallow.   You are looking at skin deep aspects, instead of the core of the society.
> 
> Cambridge Journals Online - Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique - Abstract - Homogeneity, Heterogeneity and Direct Democracy: The Case of Swiss Referenda
> 
> Canadian Journal of Political Science
> 
> Canadian Journal of Political Science / Volume 40 / Issue 02 / June 2007, pp 317-342
> Copyright © 2007 Cambridge University Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the extensive Swiss experience, the answer to our question seems quite clearly to be that the use of referenda as tools of direct democracy in a pluralistic society *tends to reflect much more the homogeneous characteristics of that society* than its heterogeneous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to argue this with you.  Go argue with the professors at Cambridge, if you really think the people who have researched aspects of Swiss society are all wrong.
> 
> Not arguing this with you any further.  Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Language, religion and economy are shallow, skin-deep social parameters?  What a strange notion. Citing some obscure Canadian journal without even trying to summarize its content while offering absolutely no thoughts about homogeneity isn't an argument. No wonder you aren't going to argue further, you haven't even started yet.
Click to expand...


Yes yes, blaw blaw blaw, go argue with Cambridge.  You prove them false, have them publish a retraction, and then you'll have a point.   Until then, you are exactly the type of ignorant person I don't want running the country like bonehead is supporting.   You are actually proving my entire point.   Thanks for making my case for me.


----------



## bonehead

Androw said:


> bonehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> much of what you say may be correct. unfortunately, those who are governed will not long tolerate being talked down to as if they were the peasant class. this is how you would govern? by absolute rule? or maybe the "golden rule".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would rather be ruled by the stupid?   They won't talk down to you, but they'll completely ruin the entire country?
> 
> Again, if I thought the Swiss system would work here, then I'd be for it.   But it won't.    I know you think it will, but it won't!
> 
> And honestly, I have never felt like I was "talked down to" by anyone.   People who are 'looking for offense' are going to be offended no matter what anyone says.
> 
> I'm more concerned which what would be the best over all system, than 'well I don't like Obama talking down at me'.   Obama is a politician.   That's all.
> 
> Again, I would much rather have the system that we have, over a system of 210 Million idiots running the country, when they don't even realize that more energy is consumed in making Ethanol, than is produced by the Ethanol.      Or worse, that supporting Ethanol "helps farmers!" when most of the Ethanol subsidies go to Archer Daniels Midland, and Monsanto, and rich people like David Rockefeller and Jim Kennedy, and Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft).
> 
> BTW, who supports alternative energy spending?    Well leftists of course.   Every time a leftist starts screaming about how Democrats and Liberals, are for the people and against big companies and the rich and wealthy, call them liars, because they are.    All liars.
> 
> Back to the point though.   People are not going to know this stuff.  I still meet people who think Ethanol is great, and we need to work our way off oil, and just use Ethanol.
> 
> You put the majority of the stupid in charge, and the rich and wealthy are going to convince the ignorant, and will rule the country.   How is that 'better'?
Click to expand...

it's not better. it's the way things currently are.


----------



## Fishlore

Godboy said:


> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.



I'd like to know your definition of "better" life and what stats you have to support your claim about the benefits of capitalism for the poor.

One of the first results of capitalism was the enclosure movement which kicked huge sections of the population of Great Britain off the land in order to raise sheep for the newly profitable wool trade. Thousands upon thousands suffered and died.

The first program of modern capitalism was the enslavement and transportation of millions of Africans to the immensely profitable sugar and coffee plantations of the New World. This was genocide on the grandest scale. Between 1492 and 1776 six Africans came to the Americas for every European who immigrated. Most of those Africans died within the first year.

Over 20,000,000 Native Americans were exterminated by Europeans in their capitalist takeover of America.

The Industrial Revolution ushered in unprecedented poverty for the children and their parents slaving away in the "dark satanic mills" of the new era.

Most Americans are now worse off economically than they were a generation ago. A quarter of our kids are on food stamps. If the GOP has its way, they will be dumpster diving for supper instead.

Capitalism's foreign policy, imperialism, plunged millions into far worse poverty in places like India, China, and Latin America. 

The standard of living of the poor people in Cuba is leagues higher than that of their counterparts across the straights in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It was communism that lifted unprecedented numbers of Chinese people out of poverty, not the capitalism under which they had suffered for centuries.

No one has ever taken seriously the claim that capitalism betters the lives of the workers capital exploits. But perhaps you are thinking of iPhones and chocolate covered pretzels? That's where capitalism takes the prize.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Fishlore said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know your definition of "better" life and what stats you have to support your claim about the benefits of capitalism for the poor.
> 
> One of the first results of capitalism was the enclosure movement which kicked huge sections of the population of Great Britain off the land in order to raise sheep for the newly profitable wool trade. Thousands upon thousands suffered and died.
> 
> The first program of modern capitalism was the enslavement and transportation of millions of Africans to the immensely profitable sugar and coffee plantations of the New World. This was genocide on the grandest scale. Between 1492 and 1776 six Africans came to the Americas for every European who immigrated. Most of those Africans died within the first year.
> 
> Over 20,000,000 Native Americans were exterminated by Europeans in their capitalist takeover of America.
> 
> The Industrial Revolution ushered in unprecedented poverty for the children and their parents slaving away in the "dark satanic mills" of the new era.
> 
> Most Americans are now worse off economically than they were a generation ago. A quarter of our kids are on food stamps. If the GOP has its way, they will be dumpster diving for supper instead.
> 
> Capitalism's foreign policy, imperialism, plunged millions into far worse poverty in places like India, China, and Latin America.
> 
> The standard of living of the poor people in Cuba is leagues higher than that of their counterparts across the straights in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It was communism that lifted unprecedented numbers of Chinese people out of poverty, not the capitalism under which they had suffered for centuries.
> 
> No one has ever taken seriously the claim that capitalism betters the lives of the workers capital exploits. But perhaps you are thinking of iPhones and chocolate covered pretzels? That's where capitalism takes the prize.
Click to expand...


*I'd like to know your definition of "better" life and what stats you have to support your claim about the benefits of capitalism for the poor.*

How are the poor Chinese doing compared to 30 years ago?


----------



## Andylusion

Fishlore said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know your definition of "better" life and what stats you have to support your claim about the benefits of capitalism for the poor.
Click to expand...



The poorest people in America own cars.   That alone should tell you all you need to know.   They also own smart phones with data packages a nation wide coverage.  They have AC, and unlimited running water.    Did you know that even to this day, the majority of people in Africa have electricity for only 4 hours a day?

Did you know that in many parts of Southeast Asia, it's common that people share one single source of water between a dozen families?   There was a woman that immigrated to the US from there, where she described having a water hose lowered from the roof of an apartment complex, to each apartment window.   Each family got to use the water at a specific time, for no longer than 30 minutes.  Then it was sent to the next window.

This is the economic reality in many places of the world.  The poor people of the US live like royalty compared to the rest of the world.  That's why people come here from absolutely everywhere else.  We have people from Africa, from Asia, from Latin America, from Eastern Europe, all coming here, willing to even risk dying to get here.   And you want to know what the definition of "better" is?   What rock you been living under?  Go ask the people who immigrate here by the thousands every year.



> One of the first results of capitalism was the enclosure movement which kicked huge sections of the population of Great Britain off the land in order to raise sheep for the newly profitable wool trade. Thousands upon thousands suffered and died.



Because their lives as landless peasants was so utopian up to that point, right?   Tell me, was the land owned by the British aristocrats, gained through a capitalist system, or a socialist one?   Was the land purchased on the open market, according to free-market capitalist principals, or through some sort of top down socialized system?

I am being pointed, because I wager I know the answer to all those questions, but I honestly don't know for certain either way.  So you tell me.  What's the answer?



> The first program of modern capitalism was the enslavement and transportation of millions of Africans to the immensely profitable sugar and coffee plantations of the New World. This was genocide on the grandest scale. Between 1492 and 1776 six Africans came to the Americas for every European who immigrated. Most of those Africans died within the first year.



.... really?     Are you trying to tell me there were no slaves before Capitalism?      Come on... if that's the best argument you have, then you have no argument.



> Over 20,000,000 Native Americans were exterminated by Europeans in their capitalist takeover of America.



Um.... could have sworn that it was the military that did most of that.   So now government funded and operated military is now 'capitalism' in your world?



> The Industrial Revolution ushered in unprecedented poverty for the children and their parents slaving away in the "dark satanic mills" of the new era.



Yeah....  so you think that living in non-industrial nations is so much better?  Just try and support that idea.  If not, then what is your point?



> Most Americans are now worse off economically than they were a generation ago. A quarter of our kids are on food stamps. If the GOP has its way, they will be dumpster diving for supper instead.



By what measure?   Communications?   Home sizes?   Quality of automobiles?   And who is dumpster diving?    What are these idiotic unsupportable claims you keep spewing?



> Capitalism's foreign policy, imperialism, plunged millions into far worse poverty in places like India, China, and Latin America.



Bull crap!   India was under a very socialistic system for ages.  They moved towards capitalism in the 1990s where they liberalized the economy.   Are you telling me, people were better off prior to the 90s?   Bull!  You are full of crap!

Cuba was as far advanced as the US in the 1950s.   After the socialist Castro revolution, they became a 3rd world country, where people can't even get Aspirin.    You think they were worse off in the 1950s, when they could buy new automobiles, and had what was at the time modern medicine?    Bull!  You are full of crap!

Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America.  Now today they are the worst performing economy, and Brazil, which is home to the most CEOs in all of Latin America, is the leading economy.

You are full of absolute crap, if you really believe that.  You need to go learn something.



> The standard of living of the poor people in Cuba is leagues higher than that of their counterparts across the straights in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It was communism that lifted unprecedented numbers of Chinese people out of poverty, not the capitalism under which they had suffered for centuries.



LOL!    What a fruit cake!    Prior to 1978, 63% of Chinese people lived on less than the poverty level, of just $2.....   A DAY.    And you think that Socialism and Communism raised their standard of living?  You don't know what you are talking about!     People leave Cuba TO GET TO the Dominican Republic.   People are willing to DIE to leave Cuba.    And you think that D.R. Capitalist based economic system leaves people worse off?

You sir.....  are simply ignorant.   No question about it.  You just simply don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Andylusion

bonehead said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bonehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> much of what you say may be correct. unfortunately, those who are governed will not long tolerate being talked down to as if they were the peasant class. this is how you would govern? by absolute rule? or maybe the "golden rule".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would rather be ruled by the stupid?   They won't talk down to you, but they'll completely ruin the entire country?
> 
> Again, if I thought the Swiss system would work here, then I'd be for it.   But it won't.    I know you think it will, but it won't!
> 
> And honestly, I have never felt like I was "talked down to" by anyone.   People who are 'looking for offense' are going to be offended no matter what anyone says.
> 
> I'm more concerned which what would be the best over all system, than 'well I don't like Obama talking down at me'.   Obama is a politician.   That's all.
> 
> Again, I would much rather have the system that we have, over a system of 210 Million idiots running the country, when they don't even realize that more energy is consumed in making Ethanol, than is produced by the Ethanol.      Or worse, that supporting Ethanol "helps farmers!" when most of the Ethanol subsidies go to Archer Daniels Midland, and Monsanto, and rich people like David Rockefeller and Jim Kennedy, and Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft).
> 
> BTW, who supports alternative energy spending?    Well leftists of course.   Every time a leftist starts screaming about how Democrats and Liberals, are for the people and against big companies and the rich and wealthy, call them liars, because they are.    All liars.
> 
> Back to the point though.   People are not going to know this stuff.  I still meet people who think Ethanol is great, and we need to work our way off oil, and just use Ethanol.
> 
> You put the majority of the stupid in charge, and the rich and wealthy are going to convince the ignorant, and will rule the country.   How is that 'better'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's not better. it's the way things currently are.
Click to expand...


If it was the way things currently are, then we would have easily voted in a far worse health care policy that would have ruined health care.   If it's the way things are now, we'd have passed a "living wage" law, resulting in millions of people losing their jobs, and a massive economic recession.

No, it's better the way things are.  What you suggest would make it far worse.


----------



## Fishlore

Androw said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know your definition of "better" life and what stats you have to support your claim about the benefits of capitalism for the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The poorest people in America own cars.   That alone should tell you all you need to know.   They also own smart phones with data packages a nation wide coverage.  They have AC, and unlimited running water.    Did you know that even to this day, the majority of people in Africa have electricity for only 4 hours a day?
> 
> Did you know that in many parts of Southeast Asia, it's common that people share one single source of water between a dozen families?   There was a woman that immigrated to the US from there, where she described having a water hose lowered from the roof of an apartment complex, to each apartment window.   Each family got to use the water at a specific time, for no longer than 30 minutes.  Then it was sent to the next window.
> 
> This is the economic reality in many places of the world.  The poor people of the US live like royalty compared to the rest of the world.  That's why people come here from absolutely everywhere else.  We have people from Africa, from Asia, from Latin America, from Eastern Europe, all coming here, willing to even risk dying to get here.   And you want to know what the definition of "better" is?   What rock you been living under?  Go ask the people who immigrate here by the thousands every year.
> 
> 
> 
> Because their lives as landless peasants was so utopian up to that point, right?   Tell me, was the land owned by the British aristocrats, gained through a capitalist system, or a socialist one?   Was the land purchased on the open market, according to free-market capitalist principals, or through some sort of top down socialized system?
> 
> I am being pointed, because I wager I know the answer to all those questions, but I honestly don't know for certain either way.  So you tell me.  What's the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> .... really?     Are you trying to tell me there were no slaves before Capitalism?      Come on... if that's the best argument you have, then you have no argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Um.... could have sworn that it was the military that did most of that.   So now government funded and operated military is now 'capitalism' in your world?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....  so you think that living in non-industrial nations is so much better?  Just try and support that idea.  If not, then what is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> By what measure?   Communications?   Home sizes?   Quality of automobiles?   And who is dumpster diving?    What are these idiotic unsupportable claims you keep spewing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism's foreign policy, imperialism, plunged millions into far worse poverty in places like India, China, and Latin America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull crap!   India was under a very socialistic system for ages.  They moved towards capitalism in the 1990s where they liberalized the economy.   Are you telling me, people were better off prior to the 90s?   Bull!  You are full of crap!
> 
> Cuba was as far advanced as the US in the 1950s.   After the socialist Castro revolution, they became a 3rd world country, where people can't even get Aspirin.    You think they were worse off in the 1950s, when they could buy new automobiles, and had what was at the time modern medicine?    Bull!  You are full of crap!
> 
> Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America.  Now today they are the worst performing economy, and Brazil, which is home to the most CEOs in all of Latin America, is the leading economy.
> 
> You are full of absolute crap, if you really believe that.  You need to go learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The standard of living of the poor people in Cuba is leagues higher than that of their counterparts across the straights in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It was communism that lifted unprecedented numbers of Chinese people out of poverty, not the capitalism under which they had suffered for centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!    What a fruit cake!    Prior to 1978, 63% of Chinese people lived on less than the poverty level, of just $2.....   A DAY.    And you think that Socialism and Communism raised their standard of living?  You don't know what you are talking about!     People leave Cuba TO GET TO the Dominican Republic.   People are willing to DIE to leave Cuba.    And you think that D.R. Capitalist based economic system leaves people worse off?
> 
> You sir.....  are simply ignorant.   No question about it.  You just simply don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...



The claim that "The poorest people in America own cars.   That alone should tell you all you need to know, " tells me that like most right wing trolls, this poster knows nothing. The poorest people in America are homeless. They not only don't own cars or cellphones, they don't own a change of clothes. 

The hallmark of a Dittohead unarmed in his battle of wits is the rapid transition from a logical presentation of evidence to personal attacks and childish name calling. Having smelt this intellectual garbage for many years, I have learned that there is no point in trying to disabuse said ranter of his illiterate assertions about Western political history. Those with an educated knowledge of the field have already laughed at his pompous buffoonery; his fellow knuckle-draggers don't care about the facts, they seek only chance to vent their rage. Sad


----------



## Andylusion

Fishlore said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know your definition of "better" life and what stats you have to support your claim about the benefits of capitalism for the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poorest people in America own cars.   That alone should tell you all you need to know.   They also own smart phones with data packages a nation wide coverage.  They have AC, and unlimited running water.    Did you know that even to this day, the majority of people in Africa have electricity for only 4 hours a day?
> 
> Did you know that in many parts of Southeast Asia, it's common that people share one single source of water between a dozen families?   There was a woman that immigrated to the US from there, where she described having a water hose lowered from the roof of an apartment complex, to each apartment window.   Each family got to use the water at a specific time, for no longer than 30 minutes.  Then it was sent to the next window.
> 
> This is the economic reality in many places of the world.  The poor people of the US live like royalty compared to the rest of the world.  That's why people come here from absolutely everywhere else.  We have people from Africa, from Asia, from Latin America, from Eastern Europe, all coming here, willing to even risk dying to get here.   And you want to know what the definition of "better" is?   What rock you been living under?  Go ask the people who immigrate here by the thousands every year.
> 
> 
> 
> Because their lives as landless peasants was so utopian up to that point, right?   Tell me, was the land owned by the British aristocrats, gained through a capitalist system, or a socialist one?   Was the land purchased on the open market, according to free-market capitalist principals, or through some sort of top down socialized system?
> 
> I am being pointed, because I wager I know the answer to all those questions, but I honestly don't know for certain either way.  So you tell me.  What's the answer?
> 
> 
> 
> .... really?     Are you trying to tell me there were no slaves before Capitalism?      Come on... if that's the best argument you have, then you have no argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Um.... could have sworn that it was the military that did most of that.   So now government funded and operated military is now 'capitalism' in your world?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....  so you think that living in non-industrial nations is so much better?  Just try and support that idea.  If not, then what is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> By what measure?   Communications?   Home sizes?   Quality of automobiles?   And who is dumpster diving?    What are these idiotic unsupportable claims you keep spewing?
> 
> 
> 
> Bull crap!   India was under a very socialistic system for ages.  They moved towards capitalism in the 1990s where they liberalized the economy.   Are you telling me, people were better off prior to the 90s?   Bull!  You are full of crap!
> 
> Cuba was as far advanced as the US in the 1950s.   After the socialist Castro revolution, they became a 3rd world country, where people can't even get Aspirin.    You think they were worse off in the 1950s, when they could buy new automobiles, and had what was at the time modern medicine?    Bull!  You are full of crap!
> 
> Venezuela was the leading economy in all of Latin America.  Now today they are the worst performing economy, and Brazil, which is home to the most CEOs in all of Latin America, is the leading economy.
> 
> You are full of absolute crap, if you really believe that.  You need to go learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The standard of living of the poor people in Cuba is leagues higher than that of their counterparts across the straights in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It was communism that lifted unprecedented numbers of Chinese people out of poverty, not the capitalism under which they had suffered for centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!    What a fruit cake!    Prior to 1978, 63% of Chinese people lived on less than the poverty level, of just $2.....   A DAY.    And you think that Socialism and Communism raised their standard of living?  You don't know what you are talking about!     People leave Cuba TO GET TO the Dominican Republic.   People are willing to DIE to leave Cuba.    And you think that D.R. Capitalist based economic system leaves people worse off?
> 
> You sir.....  are simply ignorant.   No question about it.  You just simply don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that "The poorest people in America own cars.   That alone should tell you all you need to know, " tells me that like most right wing trolls, this poster knows nothing. The poorest people in America are homeless. They not only don't own cars or cellphones, they don't own a change of clothes.
> 
> The hallmark of a Dittohead unarmed in his battle of wits is the rapid transition from a logical presentation of evidence to personal attacks and childish name calling. Having smelt this intellectual garbage for many years, I have learned that there is no point in trying to disabuse said ranter of his illiterate assertions about Western political history. Those with an educated knowledge of the field have already laughed at his pompous buffoonery; his fellow knuckle-draggers don't care about the facts, they seek only chance to vent their rage. Sad
Click to expand...



Hold on....  I'm not talking about the people who intentionally live under a bridge, because they don't want to work.

I don't care what system you put in place, the people who refused to work, are always going to live in nothing world.    The homeless bum in Soviet Russia, was no better or worse off than the homeless bum in America, or China, or anywhere.

But a married couple, working at Wendy's earning minimum wage, earns over $30,000 a year.

Of course you can't really earn minimum wage, unless you are part time, and if you work for 6 months, you automatically get a 50¢ raise.

So as long as they are working a stead job at 40 hours a week, they are not earning minimum wage.

You realize that a mere $32,000 a year, puts you at the top 1% of wage earners IN THE WORLD??     The lowest paid US truck driver, is the wealthiest 1%.     Two people working at Wendy's, is the wealthiest 1%.

I will earn roughly $20,000 or a little more this year.   That places me in the top 3% of income earners in the entire world.

I own a Grand Marquis luxury car.   Great car.   That places me in the top 8% of people in the world that own their own automobile.   Of course I wager very few own a vehicle as good as mine.

Census: Americans in ?Poverty? Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves | CNS News



> Americans who live in households whose income is below the federal poverty level typically have cell phones (as well as landline phones), computers, televisions, video recorders, air conditioning, refrigerators, gas or electric stoves, and washers and dryers and microwaves, according to a newly released report from the Census Bureau.
> 
> Clothes washer: 68.7%
> 
> Clothes dryer: 65.3%
> 
> Dish washer: 44.9%
> 
> Refrigerator: 97.8%
> 
> Food freezer: 26.2%
> 
> Stove: 96.6%
> 
> Microwave: 93.2%
> 
> Air conditioner: 83.4%
> 
> Television: 96.1%
> 
> Video recorder/DVD: 83.2%
> 
> Computer: 58.2%
> 
> Telephone (landline): 54.9%
> 
> Cell phone: 80.9%



Oh those poor poor people who have nothing.... nothing at all.   Just look at the devastation Capitalism has brought to them living below the poverty line.

Again, the people who absolutely refuse to work, and are homeless doing nothing, yeah they don't have anything.

Actually, some of those people have more than you know....

[ame=http://youtu.be/uti_PkR3hn0]Fake Homeless Person Make $100000 a year - YouTube[/ame]

But for the average working person in the US, they have a standard of living, far better than anywhere else in the world.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> Bullshit! It wasn't capitalism which screwed up, it was the government. It would not matter what economic system would have if the government is corrupt and keeps the items and sells them for a profit. (which by the way is a typical trait of socialism: owning or controlling production and distribution.)
> 
> Blah, blah, blah. Moral failings do not occur because of capitalism. Since capitalism is the only system which creates sufficient wealth to care for the truly needy. Nothing else needs to be discussed.
> 
> What you need to do if you really want to talk about Marxism or any of its similar economic systems, is to study their failures, and they have all failed.
> 
> What you need to do if you really want to talk about Marxism or any of its similar economic systems, is to study their failures, and they have all failed. Your idealism reflected in your self proclaimed liberal desires are insufficient to prove your point. You first have to find a long running successful socialist experiment which does not have to be dictatorial to keep the high achievers from escaping. Beyond that, I have no interest in digging further into academic debate. And I don't need an argument for Capitalism other than no other system has made as great a % of the people under the system as prosperous and taken care of by our social programs. Also, as I have said before, social programs do not socialism make and neither does the government seeking research assistance by contracts with private enterprise. The biggest subsidies we experience in the US today are to the needy as defined by the Fed set poverty line. My wife and I live on less per year than any other couple under the poverty line; and though I make much more I give a lot for my personal charities. My favorite is a school in India with orphans or kids their parents cannot care for. Depending on their need I send them between $5,00 and $10,000 a year, enough to pay for the food for all the kids. I sure as hell would rather see them get it than some elitist unionist worker.



You must have me confused with someone else. Just because I claim to have criticism of capitalism on moral grounds (as well as economic grounds) does not make me Marxist, socialist etc. Although I've actually read Marx, I am no Marxist. There is no -ism like it in the sciences. There is no Einstein-ism. There is also no such thing as Marxism unless one chooses to go beyond his empirical observations to deify Marx. It's no use to deify someone when it detracts from the work they did. Marx's critiques of Capital was factual observations about capital production, commodities, the whole 9 yard. One observation he elaborates on is capitalists are not involved in capitalism for the stuff of life or goods, rather, they is involved for more inert money. Isn't is odd that the goal is not to spend or consume the money, but to use it to make more money for it's own sake? Seems like it detracts from the real economy by directing money away from production. Maybe I'm mistaken. 

I could very well be confused about many issues here. I hope you have the same openness. From the start, you appear to speak dogmatically and quick to label. Perhaps that's just my false perception. Quite possible. I understand terms need to be defined, but if our goal isn't shared--to come to a better understanding of one another's dogma--then I'm wasting your time. One can have dogmas without being dogmatic. I have no intention of convincing you of anything; though I may offer persuasion, it is not my goal.

But to address the content of your reply you use terms like socialism, communism and Marxism. In fact, you tell me that I need to study how they all failed. That assumes they were tried. I'm no scholar on the Russian Revolution or Bolshevism, Stalinism and other alleged non-capitalist systems. But I do in fact know a bit about them and I firmly believe that you are confusing propaganda socialism (used to describe regimes that are allegedly antagonistic to capitalism but are fundamentally capitalist where the workers do not control the means of production) with real socialism (the workers ownership of the means of production). Maybe real socialism as I've listed it here is a failure but it's never been tried in reality. When workers in Russia handed the key to the factories from the Russian Aristocracy over to the State and Lenin, the means of production were still governed by a narrow group of people and the participation of the workers daily lives changed zero. They just had a different supervisor and owner. Collective farming is not communist when you are commanded at gun point where many thousands were slaughtered during the inception of such farms.

In summary, you assume I'm socialist when I have yet to positively assert views on political economy. I'm offering genuine critique of capitalism and you seem to want to ignore the critique for the fact that there's no better system. Or you dismiss the moral critique because you shift the burden on individuals instead of policy. So you prefer to ignore the conditions under which the workers exist in favor of identifying personal shortcomings. I question whether this distinction makes sense to you so let me offer an example.

When people go to work, they work in a totalitarian structure where they have little to no say over their job. Especially when it comes to shipping their livelihood to a more waged depressed area. Do you think if the workers had control over their lives that they would allow their job to be terminated so profits of the board of directors is higher? Why is there a board of directors in the first place? They decide how their workers live, not the workers. This is capitalist enterprise, with deep conflicts with Democracy. So if I understand correctly the goal of an economic system should be the welfare of the board of directors while largely ignoring the well being of communities and the lives of fellow human beings when they close factories?

Lastly, you assume you know about socialism etc. I don't doubt you do but I question how much exposure you've had and the source of exposure. The messenger is often more important than the message in determining the meaning. My opinion is that you've not sought to genuinely understand the substantive debate over capitalism/socialism. I hope you're willing to reconsider some of your assumptions about socialism and economics in general. I also want to state that I respect your earnest and honest reply. Thanks.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> You must have me confused with someone else. Just because I claim to have criticism of capitalism on moral grounds (as well as economic grounds) does not make me Marxist, socialist etc. Although I've actually read Marx, I am no Marxist. There is no -ism like it in the sciences. There is no Einstein-ism. There is also no such thing as Marxism unless one chooses to go beyond his empirical observations to deify Marx. It's no use to deify someone when it detracts from the work they did. Marx's critiques of Capital was factual observations about capital production, commodities, the whole 9 yard. One observation he elaborates on is capitalists are not involved in capitalism for the stuff of life or goods, rather, they is involved for more inert money. Isn't is odd that the goal is not to spend or consume the money, but to use it to make more money for it's own sake? Seems like it detracts from the real economy by directing money away from production. Maybe I'm mistaken.
> 
> I could very well be confused about many issues here. I hope you have the same openness. From the start, you appear to speak dogmatically and quick to label. Perhaps that's just my false perception. Quite possible. I understand terms need to be defined, but if our goal isn't shared--to come to a better understanding of one another's dogma--then I'm wasting your time. One can have dogmas without being dogmatic. I have no intention of convincing you of anything; though I may offer persuasion, it is not my goal.
> 
> But to address the content of your reply you use terms like socialism, communism and Marxism. In fact, you tell me that I need to study how they all failed. That assumes they were tried. I'm no scholar on the Russian Revolution or Bolshevism, Stalinism and other alleged non-capitalist systems. But I do in fact know a bit about them and I firmly believe that you are confusing propaganda socialism (used to describe regimes that are allegedly antagonistic to capitalism but are fundamentally capitalist where the workers do not control the means of production) with real socialism (the workers ownership of the means of production). Maybe real socialism as I've listed it here is a failure but it's never been tried in reality. When workers in Russia handed the key to the factories from the Russian Aristocracy over to the State and Lenin, the means of production were still governed by a narrow group of people and the participation of the workers daily lives changed zero. They just had a different supervisor and owner. Collective farming is not communist when you are commanded at gun point where many thousands were slaughtered during the inception of such farms.
> 
> In summary, you assume I'm socialist when I have yet to positively assert views on political economy. I'm offering genuine critique of capitalism and you seem to want to ignore the critique for the fact that there's no better system. Or you dismiss the moral critique because you shift the burden on individuals instead of policy. So you prefer to ignore the conditions under which the workers exist in favor of identifying personal shortcomings. I question whether this distinction makes sense to you so let me offer an example.
> 
> When people go to work, they work in a totalitarian structure where they have little to no say over their job. Especially when it comes to shipping their livelihood to a more waged depressed area. Do you think if the workers had control over their lives that they would allow their job to be terminated so profits of the board of directors is higher? Why is there a board of directors in the first place? They decide how their workers live, not the workers. This is capitalist enterprise, with deep conflicts with Democracy. So if I understand correctly the goal of an economic system should be the welfare of the board of directors while largely ignoring the well being of communities and the lives of fellow human beings when they close factories?
> 
> Lastly, you assume you know about socialism etc. I don't doubt you do but I question how much exposure you've had and the source of exposure. The messenger is often more important than the message in determining the meaning. My opinion is that you've not sought to genuinely understand the substantive debate over capitalism/socialism. I hope you're willing to reconsider some of your assumptions about socialism and economics in general. I also want to state that I respect your earnest and honest reply. Thanks.



There is only two fundamental economic methods.    There is either Capitalism, or there is Socialism.

All economic models, either believe in people owning their own property, and doing with it as they see fit.... or they believe in some form of government controlling property.

Free-Market Capitalism, is the economic theory of private ownership, private control.

All other theories are just various forms of Socialism.   Social ownership, and social control over property.

When you are "critical" of capitalism, you imply that Socialism is better.  Because Socialism is the only alternative to Capitalism.   There is no non-private control, non-government control, system.   

There is no non-government control over private capital.   I'm going to do with my car, my home, and my money whatever I want.  The only way you are going to change what I do with my property, is by using the force of government, which is socialism.

And by any and all measurements possible, socialism is consistently and universally worse than Capitalism.

So if you do not support Socialism, and you are only critical of the best possible economic system, with zero idea for a better system.... then why heck are you here wasting our time and yours?

If you have a better system, let's hear it.  But there is only two systems... private control, or government control.   You can pick your choice of government control versions,  Marxism, Maoism, Stalinism, Communism, Nazism.... but all of them are just variations of Socialism.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> Laissez-faire capitalism is too severe for the average citizen but our system of regulation and oversight takes out most of the harshness of laissez-faire. But the moral failings are not the fault of capitalism, it is the fault of the government for not managing our social programs well.



You note that really free markets is too severe for the normal person. It concentrates wealth to the haves and destitutes the have nots. Though you recognize this fact and seem to acknowledge the validity of re-distribution, you come down against the government--always assuring capitalism is far from responsible.

Here's the kernel of critque:

We have an economic system that concentrates wealth in such a way that it cannot sustain itself so that you must "fix capitalism" as noted by Keynes, his words not mine. Why have a system that unravels itself, or put differently, why distribute the wealth poorly in the first place? The current means of distributing wealth is not a law of nature, it's a matter of economic policy. The policy creates such disastrous situations in communities and individuals that are constantly under stress often facing major financial insecurities. It's commonplace.

So the idea is to blame the government, ignoring the reality that the economic system distributes wealth in such a way as to conflict with the interest of the majority of the citizenry? That only makes sense if you buy the hotair that the profit motive is all there is but that plainly can't be true. You act out of love towards your wife I'm sure. The relationships we care most to cultivate are one's not motivated out of profit. So why base an economic system around an appealing veneer when what it offers to the majority of humans is commonplace misery and insecurity?

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23725-better-than-redistributing-income


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> There is only two fundamental economic methods.    There is either Capitalism, or there is Socialism.
> 
> All economic models, either believe in people owning their own property, and doing with it as they see fit.... or they believe in some form of government controlling property.
> 
> Free-Market Capitalism, is the economic theory of private ownership, private control.
> 
> All other theories are just various forms of Socialism.   Social ownership, and social control over property.



What animates property? What justifies the claim to a stake in something?

That you made the thing? Nope. Didn't create land.

That you bought it? Who could you buy it from originally? It presumes there was an owner, but supposing, as we know at one time there was no such thing as ownership since as we also know humans did not exist.

Upon the arrivals of human beings did humans start to lay claim to land (or rather much later after the advent of society, mostly around the 17th century and John Locke et al). They simply invented the idea and eventually drew up documents claiming no one else was allowed access. So what legitimizes such a document? Other humans with similar interests (the government with it's military and police might). Sounds like a good bunch of bro's ready to hustle and swindle to exclude the majority of people from access to life (i.e. earth). 

So despite property being ad hoc, why is it legitimate? We can see it's use is clear: to maintain a ruling class like unto an aristocracy. But no one thinks such a use is justification for property. So what makes property legitimate? The fact that the self-proclaimed owners of property want it that way? That is not very settling justification either. Are you willing to tell me that human beings are incapable of organizing raw materials, labor etc. in such a way as to produce adequate food, water, medical care etc. without ownership? You realize ownership does not change the nature of things or people in any way. As long as we have the knowledge we do about how the world operates, property becomes superfluous in arranging society in a productive economy. Economy is not defined by property. It is defined by how people organize their labor, production of goods, distribution etc.

There is no legitimate justification of property in the first place. So your extremely narrow range of economic theories rests on a flawed premise. I guess you've never heard of the Magna Carta and the idea of the Commons.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only two fundamental economic methods.    There is either Capitalism, or there is Socialism.
> 
> All economic models, either believe in people owning their own property, and doing with it as they see fit.... or they believe in some form of government controlling property.
> 
> Free-Market Capitalism, is the economic theory of private ownership, private control.
> 
> All other theories are just various forms of Socialism.   Social ownership, and social control over property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What animates property? What justifies the claim to a stake in something?
> 
> That you made the thing? Nope. Didn't create land.
> 
> That you bought it? Who could you buy it from originally? It presumes there was an owner, but supposing, as we know at one time there was no such thing as ownership since as we also know humans did not exist.
> 
> Upon the arrivals of human beings did humans start to lay claim to land (or rather much later after the advent of society, mostly around the 17th century and John Locke et al). They simply invented the idea and eventually drew up documents claiming no one else was allowed access. So what legitimizes such a document? Other humans with similar interests (the government with it's military and police might). Sounds like a good bunch of bro's ready to hustle and swindle to exclude the majority of people from access to life (i.e. earth).
> 
> So despite property being ad hoc, why is it legitimate? We can see it's use is clear: to maintain a ruling class like unto an aristocracy. But no one thinks such a use is justification for property. So what makes property legitimate? The fact that the self-proclaimed owners of property want it that way? That is not very settling justification either. Are you willing to tell me that human beings are incapable of organizing raw materials, labor etc. in such a way as to produce adequate food, water, medical care etc. without ownership? You realize ownership does not change the nature of things or people in any way. As long as we have the knowledge we do about how the world operates, property becomes superfluous in arranging society in a productive economy. Economy is not defined by property. It is defined by how people organize their labor, production of goods, distribution etc.
> 
> There is no legitimate justification of property in the first place. So your extremely narrow range of economic theories rests on a flawed premise.
Click to expand...



Property rights are a means of distributing _control_ over land and resources. Private ownership of property allows us to distribute that control freely through voluntary trade. State ownership of property assigns that control exclusively to government.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laissez-faire capitalism is too severe for the average citizen but our system of regulation and oversight takes out most of the harshness of laissez-faire. But the moral failings are not the fault of capitalism, it is the fault of the government for not managing our social programs well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You note that really free markets is too severe for the normal person. It concentrates wealth to the haves and destitutes the have nots. Though you recognize this fact and seem to acknowledge the validity of re-distribution, you come down against the government--always assuring capitalism is far from responsible.
> 
> Here's the kernel of critque:
> 
> We have an economic system that concentrates wealth in such a way that it cannot sustain itself so that you must "fix capitalism" as noted by Keynes, his words not mine. Why have a system that unravels itself, or put differently, why distribute the wealth poorly in the first place? The current means of distributing wealth is not a law of nature, it's a matter of economic policy. The policy creates such disastrous situations in communities and individuals that are constantly under stress often facing major financial insecurities. It's commonplace.
> 
> So the idea is to blame the government, ignoring the reality that the economic system distributes wealth in such a way as to conflict with the interest of the majority of the citizenry? That only makes sense if you buy the hotair that the profit motive is all there is but that plainly can't be true. You act out of love towards your wife I'm sure. The relationships we care most to cultivate are one's not motivated out of profit. So why base an economic system around an appealing veneer when what it offers to the majority of humans is commonplace misery and insecurity?
Click to expand...


*It concentrates wealth to the haves and destitutes the have nots. *

That's only possible when the have nots freely purchase the goods offered by the haves.

The Waltons are worth billions not because a single customer was forced to shop at WalMart. Their customers shop there to save money, not because the goods are too expensive.

Bill Gates is worth billions not because anyone was forced to buy Windows. 

Your claims are idiotic, as usual.


----------



## hipeter924

gnarlylove said:


> [...]*So the idea is to blame the government*, ignoring the reality that the economic system distributes wealth in such a way as to conflict with the interest of the majority of the citizenry? That only makes sense if you buy the hotair that the profit motive is all there is but that plainly can't be true. You act out of love towards your wife I'm sure. The relationships we care most to cultivate are one's not motivated out of profit. So why base an economic system around an appealing veneer when what it offers to the majority of humans is commonplace misery and insecurity?


 Which makes no sense, as you have to blame institutions, corporations and governments, not either or. Neo-Liberalism is a cancer in society, as it teaches people to ignore reality, and believe that all the problems of the world are caused by poor people; and that the rich are being exploited by the poverty stricken. 

But I consider the French Revolution, and would warn the '1%' that if they cut the welfare net, we will have another revolution but on a global scale. Neoliberals ignore that modern day capitalism can't exist without a welfare state, as if you remove the veneer of civilized society (which is the welfare system) we are left with slavery and exploitation - a perfect breeding ground for revolution. When Europe was in ruins after WW2 and most of the population was poverty stricken, the US feared that it would fall to communism - because as poverty and inequality increases so will lack of faith in capitalism. 

But in the meantime, watching neoliberals and lasseiz faire capitalists shoot themselves in the foot and lose their credibility would be a form of entertainment, if they didn't still have so much control over the global economy.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What problem?
> 
> 
> 
> Predatory capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Though admirable as a humanist ideal, study after study has shown that in the real world socialism doesnt work very well. Sadly, it leaves the work force insufficiently motivated to put forth its best effortsimply because it doesnt finally pay to do so. So such a political or commercial system ends up stunting individual initiative, and also leaves the economy floundering.*
> 
> I agree, we should avoid socialism.
Click to expand...

*We should cure cancer:*

"On the other hand, capitalismand competitionis regularly extolled as bringing out the best in us. It prods us to be more productive and remunerates our efforts accordingly. 

"At least, capitalism at its best does that.

"But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulatedor both. 

"One that's all too likely to reward those who excel not in generating useful products or fertile ideas, but rather in manipulating and deceiving the populace for personal gain. 

"One that enables cold-blooded individualists to craftily 'work' the system to their economic advantage (loopholes, anyone?). 

"These relentless opportunistsor corporationsfrequently prevent others from succeeding through hard work, diligence, and perseverance. 

"In other words, the American Way (not to mention the American Dream) has become increasingly perverted."

Are You a Victim of Predatory Capitalism? | Psychology Today


----------



## georgephillip

bonehead said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama and his Republican AND Democrat predecessors serve the same 1% of Americans.
> If you have the slightest interest in enhancing opportunity of equality, choosing between rich Republicans or rich Democrats won't help you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.
Click to expand...

*Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?

CH Douglas suggested the following three choices:*

"1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.

"2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.

"3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?



These are to very different questions.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.
> 
> 
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with the premise.   I have never met a rich person that felt "entitled" to being rich.   They were rich because they did something that people found worth while to pay them for.
> 
> My uncle made well over six-figures for years.   He didn't feel "entitled" to it.   He worked his butt off, making high end manufacturing equipment that other people found valuable.   He was paid that much because others deemed him worth paying for what he did.
> 
> The reason the burger flipper gets paid what they are paid, is because customers don't want to pay $30 for a cheap fast food burger.  What the burger flipper is doing, isn't worth as much, as what my uncle was doing.
> 
> Equally, my uncle invest tons of that money into worthy investments.   He didn't feel "entitled" to a huge return on investments.  He simply got it because he invested wisely.
> 
> You people on the left, simply 'make up' what you think other people are thinking.   I would guess, this is because you yourselves are the ones who feel they are entitled to stuff, so you just assume everyone else is like you.
> 
> We're not.   I don't feel 'entitled' to anything.   My stock portfolio made 23% last year.   Not because I was 'entitled' to it. I simply picked wise investments, and they paid off.   Perhaps next they will only get 5%, or maybe negative.
> 
> Most of the wealthy, make their money on investments.  Instead of b!tching about them, how about you stop complaining and start investing.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?

Today's titans of capitalism don't get rich from producing wealth; they prosper from extracting wealth. They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.

Is that worth a 23% return to you?


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are to very different questions.
Click to expand...

Pick one.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bonehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Inequality is an inevitable product of capitalist activity, and expanding equality of opportunity only increases it *
> 
> 
> 
> your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?
> 
> CH Douglas suggested the following three choices:*
> 
> "1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.
> 
> "2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.
> 
> "3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."
> 
> Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...



Determining the purpose of an economy is like determining the purpose of a forest.  It just is.  They are a fact of nature.

Each actor in an economy has a purpose.  An economy, on the other hand, is simply the result of people acting to achieve their goals.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the premise.   I have never met a rich person that felt "entitled" to being rich.   They were rich because they did something that people found worth while to pay them for.
> 
> My uncle made well over six-figures for years.   He didn't feel "entitled" to it.   He worked his butt off, making high end manufacturing equipment that other people found valuable.   He was paid that much because others deemed him worth paying for what he did.
> 
> The reason the burger flipper gets paid what they are paid, is because customers don't want to pay $30 for a cheap fast food burger.  What the burger flipper is doing, isn't worth as much, as what my uncle was doing.
> 
> Equally, my uncle invest tons of that money into worthy investments.   He didn't feel "entitled" to a huge return on investments.  He simply got it because he invested wisely.
> 
> You people on the left, simply 'make up' what you think other people are thinking.   I would guess, this is because you yourselves are the ones who feel they are entitled to stuff, so you just assume everyone else is like you.
> 
> We're not.   I don't feel 'entitled' to anything.   My stock portfolio made 23% last year.   Not because I was 'entitled' to it. I simply picked wise investments, and they paid off.   Perhaps next they will only get 5%, or maybe negative.
> 
> Most of the wealthy, make their money on investments.  Instead of b!tching about them, how about you stop complaining and start investing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?
> 
> 
> Is that worth a 23% return to you?
Click to expand...


The Walton heirs and John Paulson are not parasites, moron.  They didn't take their money from anyone.  Learn the definition of the term.  It doesn't mean "rich people you don't like."



georgephillip said:


> Today's titans of capitalism don't get rich from producing wealth; they prosper from extracting wealth.



Horseshit.  The term "extracting" is just a pejorative term meaning "producing."



georgephillip said:


> They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.



Corporations profit from taxation?   That's news to me.  How do the Waltons make use of the NSA?  Your hero Obama is the one who authorized them to record all our phone calls, not the the Waltons.   You can't just go around blaming corporations for everything the government does without at least posting some kind of plausible connection.  Otherwise people will write you off as a kook.

Whoops1  Too late.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bonehead said:
> 
> 
> 
> your solution to this problem, please. I'm quite sure many would be interested in hearing it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?
> 
> CH Douglas suggested the following three choices:*
> 
> "1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.
> 
> "2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.
> 
> "3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."
> 
> Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Determining the purpose of an economy is like determining the purpose of a forest.  It just is.  They are a fact of nature.
> 
> Each actor in an economy has a purpose.  An economy is simply the result of people acting to achieve their goals.
Click to expand...

Economies are man made, and since the time of the first surpluses, the richest actors in every economy have defined the goals in ways to privatize their profits while socializing the costs.

BTW, forests serve an existential purpose without which economies vanish along with the specie.


----------



## Fishlore

Economies are organized and maintained by governments; this, along with defense is the fundamental purpose of government. Different societies have different values and different goals. For this reason, different societies establish different systems of government and create differently structured economic systems.

The values and goals of the US government and the economy which it regulates are stated with unusual clarity and inspiring idealism in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. Both are worth a read.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Predatory capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Though admirable as a humanist ideal, study after study has shown that in the real world socialism doesnt work very well. Sadly, it leaves the work force insufficiently motivated to put forth its best effortsimply because it doesnt finally pay to do so. So such a political or commercial system ends up stunting individual initiative, and also leaves the economy floundering.*
> 
> I agree, we should avoid socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *We should cure cancer:*
> 
> "On the other hand, capitalismand competitionis regularly extolled as bringing out the best in us. It prods us to be more productive and remunerates our efforts accordingly.
> 
> "At least, capitalism at its best does that.
> 
> "But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulatedor both.
> 
> "One that's all too likely to reward those who excel not in generating useful products or fertile ideas, but rather in manipulating and deceiving the populace for personal gain.
> 
> "One that enables cold-blooded individualists to craftily 'work' the system to their economic advantage (loopholes, anyone?).
> 
> "These relentless opportunistsor corporationsfrequently prevent others from succeeding through hard work, diligence, and perseverance.
> 
> "In other words, the American Way (not to mention the American Dream) has become increasingly perverted."
> 
> Are You a Victim of Predatory Capitalism? | Psychology Today
Click to expand...


*But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulatedor both.*

Government is screwing up capitalism? That's a shocker.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the premise.   I have never met a rich person that felt "entitled" to being rich.   They were rich because they did something that people found worth while to pay them for.
> 
> My uncle made well over six-figures for years.   He didn't feel "entitled" to it.   He worked his butt off, making high end manufacturing equipment that other people found valuable.   He was paid that much because others deemed him worth paying for what he did.
> 
> The reason the burger flipper gets paid what they are paid, is because customers don't want to pay $30 for a cheap fast food burger.  What the burger flipper is doing, isn't worth as much, as what my uncle was doing.
> 
> Equally, my uncle invest tons of that money into worthy investments.   He didn't feel "entitled" to a huge return on investments.  He simply got it because he invested wisely.
> 
> You people on the left, simply 'make up' what you think other people are thinking.   I would guess, this is because you yourselves are the ones who feel they are entitled to stuff, so you just assume everyone else is like you.
> 
> We're not.   I don't feel 'entitled' to anything.   My stock portfolio made 23% last year.   Not because I was 'entitled' to it. I simply picked wise investments, and they paid off.   Perhaps next they will only get 5%, or maybe negative.
> 
> Most of the wealthy, make their money on investments.  Instead of b!tching about them, how about you stop complaining and start investing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?
> 
> Today's titans of capitalism don't get rich from producing wealth; they prosper from extracting wealth. They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.
> 
> Is that worth a 23% return to you?
Click to expand...


* parasites like the Walton heirs *

Parasites?  You must have a different definition of the word.

Perhaps you could share your definition?


----------



## gnarlylove

Property rights are a means of distributing _control_ over land and resources. Private ownership of property allows us to distribute that control freely through voluntary trade. State ownership of property assigns that control exclusively to government.[/QUOTE]

Well put. But I don't see how it is distributed freely. It seems to cost money by definition (stealing and fraud works fine too if you're "too big to fail") and that isn't very free in my understanding. Unless by freely and voluntary trade you mean the concentration of property (75% of stocks, bonds and similar instruments are owned by 1%) is happily and voluntarily distributed between those who own the cards (for simplicity, the 1%) who control the levers of government, which is very, very true (see Marcy Kaptur warns ?there are domestic enemies to the Republic?). But such a situation leaves out voluntary and freely from the average person, at least 90% of the populous. So your satisfied with the result of free and voltunary trade when it isn't free or voluntary to most people?


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Property rights are a means of distributing _control_ over land and resources. Private ownership of property allows us to distribute that control freely through voluntary trade. State ownership of property assigns that control exclusively to government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well put. But I don't see how it is distributed freely.
Click to expand...


I mean each individual decides how to distribute the fruits of their labor. That freedom is fundamental to a free market and a free society.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> Determining the purpose of an economy is like determining the purpose of a forest.  It just is.  They are a fact of nature.
> 
> Each actor in an economy has a purpose.  An economy, on the other hand, is simply the result of people acting to achieve their goals.



Exactly. It's the desire to control the _actors_ in the economy that drives the presumption that the economy itself is an entity to be managed and maintained.


----------



## gnarlylove

They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?
> 
> CH Douglas suggested the following three choices:*
> 
> "1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.
> 
> "2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.
> 
> "3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."
> 
> Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Determining the purpose of an economy is like determining the purpose of a forest.  It just is.  They are a fact of nature.
> 
> Each actor in an economy has a purpose.  An economy is simply the result of people acting to achieve their goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Economies are man made, and since the time of the first surpluses, the richest actors in every economy have defined the goals in ways to privatize their profits while socializing the costs.
> 
> BTW, forests serve an existential purpose without which economies vanish along with the specie.
Click to expand...


Economies are "man made" only in the sense that dandruff is man made.  An economy is artifact of human societies.  Your theory that they have a "purpose" is pure moonshine.  Your claim that the rich define the goals of an economy is even more absurd.  Rich people may have goals, but economies don't.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.



Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.


----------



## Erand7899

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Determine the purpose of an economy; what is the prime reason for individual and collective toil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are to very different questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pick one.
Click to expand...


The prime reason for individual toil is survival.  The provision of food, water, clothing, and shelter.

Once that has been established, humans toil to provide the luxuries of life.  Those luxuries vary by circumstance and ability.  Central heat and air is a luxury, but so is a pent house or a yacht.  Perhaps just keeping up with the Jones.

Finally, individuals toil for personal satisfaction, such as self esteem, reputation, pride, etc.

There is no such thing as collective toil, any more than there is collective death or collective pain.  Humans can have collective goals, but they still labor individually toward those goals.

The basic driver of any economic system is enlightened self interest.  People normally act in their own self interest, even when doing so in a group.  In every economic system, except capitalism, enlightened self interest means staying on the right side of the people who have political power.  Sadly, that is where all liberal/socialists seem to want to push this nation towards.  You get to succeed, but only if the government smiles favorably on your success.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.
Click to expand...


As long as universal, individual rights are upheld, the freedom to apply your labor as you see fit isn't predetermined by 'accident of birth'.


----------



## sameech

georgephillip said:


> Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.



Then that problem is being perpetuated by stealing the fruits of others' labors to enable the problem to remain unaddressed.  The issue really boils down to the misapplication of public resources.  We can almost universally agree, or at least with a supermajority, that education is of public importance.  When we take money that could be used for better education and instead spend it on companies destined for bankruptcy in alternative energy, then disagreements abound.  

Winning more votes than/getting more fundraising money than the other party should not be how we prioritize our public square and public treasure.  The current welfare models clearly have some pretty nasty feedback looping but yet we refuse to change anything because to do so would be to admit that "We were wrong," and we certainly cannot have anybody telling truth in politics these days.


----------



## Erand7899

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.
Click to expand...


An accident of birth predetermines that people are only born equal as free citizens.  Some are going to be better looking than others.  A definite plus.  Some are going to be born with talents.  A definite plus.  Some are going to have more resouces from their families.  A definite plus.  Others are going to be tall, short, strong, weak, smart or dumb.  

The game of life is not what you started with, but how far you can get with what you have been given.  The simple fact that a baby born poor, ugly, and untalented, can become a very rich person through his/her own efforts, belies all of your propaganda about how the game is rigged.  

The vast majority of disadvantaged adults in this society are the products of their own bad decisions.  They have rigged the system against themselves.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.
Click to expand...


The word "freedom" does not refer to circumstances that may constrain you.  It refers only to government constraints.  

Changing the meaning of words is a favorite leftist propaganda technique.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the premise.   I have never met a rich person that felt "entitled" to being rich.   They were rich because they did something that people found worth while to pay them for.
> 
> My uncle made well over six-figures for years.   He didn't feel "entitled" to it.   He worked his butt off, making high end manufacturing equipment that other people found valuable.   He was paid that much because others deemed him worth paying for what he did.
> 
> The reason the burger flipper gets paid what they are paid, is because customers don't want to pay $30 for a cheap fast food burger.  What the burger flipper is doing, isn't worth as much, as what my uncle was doing.
> 
> Equally, my uncle invest tons of that money into worthy investments.   He didn't feel "entitled" to a huge return on investments.  He simply got it because he invested wisely.
> 
> You people on the left, simply 'make up' what you think other people are thinking.   I would guess, this is because you yourselves are the ones who feel they are entitled to stuff, so you just assume everyone else is like you.
> 
> We're not.   I don't feel 'entitled' to anything.   My stock portfolio made 23% last year.   Not because I was 'entitled' to it. I simply picked wise investments, and they paid off.   Perhaps next they will only get 5%, or maybe negative.
> 
> Most of the wealthy, make their money on investments.  Instead of b!tching about them, how about you stop complaining and start investing.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?
> 
> 
> Is that worth a 23% return to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Walton heirs and John Paulson are not parasites, moron.  They didn't take their money from anyone.  Learn the definition of the term.  It doesn't mean "rich people you don't like."
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today's titans of capitalism don't get rich from producing wealth; they prosper from extracting wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  The term "extracting" is just a pejorative term meaning "producing."
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corporations profit from taxation?   That's news to me.  How do the Waltons make use of the NSA?  Your hero Obama is the one who authorized them to record all our phone calls, not the the Waltons.   You can't just go around blaming corporations for everything the government does without at least posting some kind of plausible connection.  Otherwise people will write you off as a kook.
> 
> Whoops1  Too late.
Click to expand...

US corporations currently profit from paying less federal income tax than they paid fifty years ago, and directly from wars of aggression, or do you imagine Haliburton's Iraq billions did not come from taxpayers?

The NSA's corporate partners may not include Walmart, but Walton heirs still benefit from a surveillance state that's owned by the richest 1% of its citizens.

"Every day, there is new information on the shrinking of the scope of liberty and personal privacy.

"Thursday, for example, the New York Times reported:

"The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders and behind-the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major tools protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet age, according to newly disclosed documents.

"In court documents filed by Google and obtained by Consumer Watchdog, the tech giant argued '*a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.*' 

"Basically, Google claims the right to read the e-mail of all its customers in order to push ads to them based on key words in the communications.

"Earlier, The New American reported on the participation of Facebook with government inquiries into users private data stored by the social-media company.

"In light of the collusion of corporate, technological, and government interests it is important to rehearse the list of those companies whose cooperation in the various NSA snooping programs is facilitating the construction of the surveillance state."

Who Are the NSA's Corporate Partners?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Though admirable as a humanist ideal, study after study has shown that in the real world socialism doesnt work very well. Sadly, it leaves the work force insufficiently motivated to put forth its best effortsimply because it doesnt finally pay to do so. So such a political or commercial system ends up stunting individual initiative, and also leaves the economy floundering.*
> 
> I agree, we should avoid socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> *We should cure cancer:*
> 
> "On the other hand, capitalismand competitionis regularly extolled as bringing out the best in us. It prods us to be more productive and remunerates our efforts accordingly.
> 
> "At least, capitalism at its best does that.
> 
> "But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulatedor both.
> 
> "One that's all too likely to reward those who excel not in generating useful products or fertile ideas, but rather in manipulating and deceiving the populace for personal gain.
> 
> "One that enables cold-blooded individualists to craftily 'work' the system to their economic advantage (loopholes, anyone?).
> 
> "These relentless opportunistsor corporationsfrequently prevent others from succeeding through hard work, diligence, and perseverance.
> 
> "In other words, the American Way (not to mention the American Dream) has become increasingly perverted."
> 
> Are You a Victim of Predatory Capitalism? | Psychology Today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulatedor both.*
> 
> Government is screwing up capitalism? That's a shocker.
Click to expand...

There's little shocking about rich bitches screwing up government.


----------



## georgephillip

Erand7899 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are to very different questions.
> 
> 
> 
> Pick one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prime reason for individual toil is survival.  The provision of food, water, clothing, and shelter.
> 
> Once that has been established, humans toil to provide the luxuries of life.  Those luxuries vary by circumstance and ability.  Central heat and air is a luxury, but so is a pent house or a yacht.  Perhaps just keeping up with the Jones.
> 
> Finally, individuals toil for personal satisfaction, such as self esteem, reputation, pride, etc.
> 
> There is no such thing as collective toil, any more than there is collective death or collective pain.  Humans can have collective goals, but they still labor individually toward those goals.
> 
> The basic driver of any economic system is enlightened self interest.  People normally act in their own self interest, even when doing so in a group.  In every economic system, except capitalism, enlightened self interest means staying on the right side of the people who have political power.  Sadly, that is where all liberal/socialists seem to want to push this nation towards.  You get to succeed, but only if the government smiles favorably on your success.
Click to expand...

In capitalism you get to succeed only if investment bankers approve of your business model. Imagine the difference if Google or Microsoft had tried to secure funding as non-profits? National economies are collective in nature, and they have a purpose. Is it to maximize the number of jobs or supply goods and services with the minimum number of jobs? Or is it actually disguised government, designed to impose political blinders on a majority of the population?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with the premise.   I have never met a rich person that felt "entitled" to being rich.   They were rich because they did something that people found worth while to pay them for.
> 
> My uncle made well over six-figures for years.   He didn't feel "entitled" to it.   He worked his butt off, making high end manufacturing equipment that other people found valuable.   He was paid that much because others deemed him worth paying for what he did.
> 
> The reason the burger flipper gets paid what they are paid, is because customers don't want to pay $30 for a cheap fast food burger.  What the burger flipper is doing, isn't worth as much, as what my uncle was doing.
> 
> Equally, my uncle invest tons of that money into worthy investments.   He didn't feel "entitled" to a huge return on investments.  He simply got it because he invested wisely.
> 
> You people on the left, simply 'make up' what you think other people are thinking.   I would guess, this is because you yourselves are the ones who feel they are entitled to stuff, so you just assume everyone else is like you.
> 
> We're not.   I don't feel 'entitled' to anything.   My stock portfolio made 23% last year.   Not because I was 'entitled' to it. I simply picked wise investments, and they paid off.   Perhaps next they will only get 5%, or maybe negative.
> 
> Most of the wealthy, make their money on investments.  Instead of b!tching about them, how about you stop complaining and start investing.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?
> 
> Today's titans of capitalism don't get rich from producing wealth; they prosper from extracting wealth. They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.
> 
> Is that worth a 23% return to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * parasites like the Walton heirs *
> 
> Parasites?  You must have a different definition of the word.
> 
> Perhaps you could share your definition?
Click to expand...

"parasite (plural parasites)
(pejorative) A person who lives on other people's efforts or expense and gives little back. [from 16th c.]
(biology) an organism that lives on or in another organism, deriving benefit from living on or in that other organism, while not contributing towards that other organism sufficiently to cover the cost to that other organism..."

Wal-Mart?s Walton family are parasites and moral pariahs and should be treated that way | Dangerous Minds

"As everyone should know by now, but it still bears repeating, the Walton family is the richest family in the world and they collectively own over 50% of Wal-Mart, the worlds largest retailer and second largest corporation. 

"The family is worth a combined total of $150 billion as of August 2013 and the six most prominent members of the family have approximately the same net worth as the bottom 30% of American families combined.

"They didnt do a goddamn thing to earn this money. 

"Nothing. 

"They inherited every cent of their billions..."

"If it was a sea of faceless shareholders, well, thats harder to personify, but this is ONE family.

"Wal-Mart is Americas #1 private employer.

"And they dont pay a living wage."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We should cure cancer:*
> 
> "On the other hand, capitalismand competitionis regularly extolled as bringing out the best in us. It prods us to be more productive and remunerates our efforts accordingly.
> 
> "At least, capitalism at its best does that.
> 
> "But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulatedor both.
> 
> "One that's all too likely to reward those who excel not in generating useful products or fertile ideas, but rather in manipulating and deceiving the populace for personal gain.
> 
> "One that enables cold-blooded individualists to craftily 'work' the system to their economic advantage (loopholes, anyone?).
> 
> "These relentless opportunistsor corporationsfrequently prevent others from succeeding through hard work, diligence, and perseverance.
> 
> "In other words, the American Way (not to mention the American Dream) has become increasingly perverted."
> 
> Are You a Victim of Predatory Capitalism? | Psychology Today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But in this country today, we seem to have drifted toward a mutant (cancerous?) form of capitalism, or free enterprise. One that's under-regulated, dysregulatedor both.*
> 
> Government is screwing up capitalism? That's a shocker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's little shocking about rich bitches screwing up government.
Click to expand...


Or about the poor bitches who voted for liberals and whine about the results.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?
> 
> Today's titans of capitalism don't get rich from producing wealth; they prosper from extracting wealth. They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.
> 
> Is that worth a 23% return to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * parasites like the Walton heirs *
> 
> Parasites?  You must have a different definition of the word.
> 
> Perhaps you could share your definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "parasite (plural parasites)
> (pejorative) A person who lives on other people's efforts or expense and gives little back. [from 16th c.]
> (biology) an organism that lives on or in another organism, deriving benefit from living on or in that other organism, while not contributing towards that other organism sufficiently to cover the cost to that other organism..."
> 
> Wal-Mart?s Walton family are parasites and moral pariahs and should be treated that way | Dangerous Minds
> 
> "As everyone should know by now, but it still bears repeating, the Walton family is the richest family in the world and they collectively own over 50% of Wal-Mart, the worlds largest retailer and second largest corporation.
> 
> "The family is worth a combined total of $150 billion as of August 2013 and the six most prominent members of the family have approximately the same net worth as the bottom 30% of American families combined.
> 
> "They didnt do a goddamn thing to earn this money.
> 
> "Nothing.
> 
> "They inherited every cent of their billions..."
> 
> "If it was a sea of faceless shareholders, well, thats harder to personify, but this is ONE family.
> 
> "Wal-Mart is Americas #1 private employer.
> 
> "And they dont pay a living wage."
Click to expand...


* A person who lives on other people's efforts or expense and gives little back*

Sounds more like the typical Dem voter than the Waltons.

*They didnt do a goddamn thing to earn this money. *

Sure they did. And they sure as hell did a lot more than the typical whiny liberal did to earn that money.

*"Wal-Mart is Americas #1 private employer.*

Awesome! And unlike Obama's "Green jobs" that we've wasted billions on, WalMart provides a product that hundreds of millions freely purchase, pays billions in wages, taxes and dividends.

*"And they dont pay a living wage."*

If you don't make enough at your low-skill, low-wage job, stop whining on the internet and acquire a skill. Nothing worse than a whiny, poor little bitch.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the difference between producers like your uncle and parasites like the Walton heirs or John Paulson who earn more in a single hour than your industrious uncle earns in an entire year?
> 
> 
> Is that worth a 23% return to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Walton heirs and John Paulson are not parasites, moron.  They didn't take their money from anyone.  Learn the definition of the term.  It doesn't mean "rich people you don't like."
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  The term "extracting" is just a pejorative term meaning "producing."
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> They ship millions of jobs to China and India. They control the levers of government and the Federal Reserve. The profit from eternal wars and endless taxation, and the corporations they control use government agencies like the NSA to deprive productive citizens of their right to privacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corporations profit from taxation?   That's news to me.  How do the Waltons make use of the NSA?  Your hero Obama is the one who authorized them to record all our phone calls, not the the Waltons.   You can't just go around blaming corporations for everything the government does without at least posting some kind of plausible connection.  Otherwise people will write you off as a kook.
> 
> Whoops1  Too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US corporations currently profit from paying less federal income tax than they paid fifty years ago, and directly from wars of aggression, or do you imagine Haliburton's Iraq billions did not come from taxpayers?
> 
> The NSA's corporate partners may not include Walmart, but Walton heirs still benefit from a surveillance state that's owned by the richest 1% of its citizens.
> 
> "Every day, there is new information on the shrinking of the scope of liberty and personal privacy.
> 
> "Thursday, for example, the New York Times reported:
> 
> "The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders and behind-the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major tools protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet age, according to newly disclosed documents.
> 
> "In court documents filed by Google and obtained by Consumer Watchdog, the tech giant argued '*a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.*'
> 
> "Basically, Google claims the right to read the e-mail of all its customers in order to push ads to them based on key words in the communications.
> 
> "Earlier, The New American reported on the participation of Facebook with government inquiries into users private data stored by the social-media company.
> 
> "In light of the collusion of corporate, technological, and government interests it is important to rehearse the list of those companies whose cooperation in the various NSA snooping programs is facilitating the construction of the surveillance state."
> 
> Who Are the NSA's Corporate Partners?
Click to expand...


*US corporations currently profit from paying less federal income tax than they paid fifty years ago*

And they pay much much more to comply with idiotic liberal regulations.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.
Click to expand...


Yeah, everyone except slaves. Slaves being defined as those with extremely limited options. Turns out, most laborers are slaves in this sense (where over between half and 80% of all new jobs are low paying jobs, mostly service where you are not in control of your labor but are told what to do).

A person born in a family with a ticket to Harvard is free to apply their labor to any field, including those unrelated to the productive economy (financial speculation).

A person born in a family with 120,000 in debt is not offered the choice to apply their labor in positions they desire. They have a range of options that consist of Retail, Fast Food, Landscaping and migrant work or unemployment, food stamps and homelessness. These conditions are not the result of free choice but are indeed the result of free markets. They are the result of narrow choices made by virtue of their birth, which they had nothing to do with of course.

The core premise of free markets is that humans don't have rights except those gained on the labor market. So unless you work (or someone works for you) you don't have rights to food, clean water etc.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> They plainly don't have freedoms there. No one decides what family they are born into. Thus not choosing what school, what type of education, college prep. etc. So by the time a child is suppose to look out for herself, she is already determined by unchosen influences. So free choice is just sophistry. It has nothing to do with actual free choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, everyone except slaves.
Click to expand...

Yep.


> Slaves being defined as those with extremely limited options.


Nope. "Slave" being defined as those without the freedom to decide how to apply their labor.


----------



## gnarlylove

You're telling me low-income workers with no ability to pay for college or a lucrative trade without assuming major debts is able to choose how to apply their labor? Well if they want to survive, they must apply it where it's accepted. Currently the rate of acceptance in our economy is 11% of folks who apply each month can expect to be accepted and hired. See, that isn't a choice. A person must accept whatever job there is and even then only 11% percent of people can become employed. How is that genuine free application of labor? Your idea of free application of labor sounds like any application of labor is free but then that makes the word free meaningless.

If you want truly free markets look at Sub-Saharan Africa. The restrictions on capital are near zero. Free markets are flourishing there and making a very narrow sector wealthy while slaughtering and starving millions. Even enslaving children to work to produce chocolate, like Nestle. Free market conditions are alive and well there but no one wants a society like that unless you're among the narrow sector benefiting...but that can't be the aim of an economy for it destitutes much of humanity.


----------



## dblack

Gnarly, you're conflating freedom and ability.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> *You're telling me low-income workers with no ability to pay for college or a lucrative trade without assuming major debts is able to choose how to apply their labor?* Well if they want to survive, they must apply it where it's accepted. Currently the rate of acceptance in our economy is 11% of folks who apply each month can expect to be accepted and hired. See, that isn't a choice. A person must accept whatever job there is and even then only 11% percent of people can become employed. How is that genuine free application of labor? Your idea of free application of labor sounds like any application of labor is free but then that makes the word free meaningless.
> 
> If you want truly free markets look at Sub-Saharan Africa. The restrictions on capital are near zero. Free markets are flourishing there and making a very narrow sector wealthy while slaughtering and starving millions. Even enslaving children to work to produce chocolate, like Nestle. Free market conditions are alive and well there but no one wants a society like that unless you're among the narrow sector benefiting...but that can't be the aim of an economy for it destitutes much of humanity.



Phil Robertson.
Steve Jobs.
Dave Thomas.

Lowell Hawthorne (immigrant from Jamiaca. No education.  Worked in a stock room.  Now runs Golden Krust Caribbean Bakery and Grill.  Millionaire)

Carlos Castro.  (Worked in a Factory in El Salvador during the guerilla wars.  Escaped to the US, worked as a janitor, and later a cook at a restaurant.  Started a new job at a construction site.  Saved up money until he could pay to have his wife and kids come to the US legally.    Saved up more money and opened a construction business.  Millionaire.)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-self-made-immigrant-millionaires.html?page=all

Numerous other similar stories.

Michael Rubin.  At age 12 was running a business in his parents basement.  By high school he had a small chain of shops.  Started an online business, and sold out to Ebay for 2.1 Million.

John Paul DeJoria.   Never went to college.  Had a job as janitor.  When he started selling hair products, he was homeless, living in his car.  Now a billionaire.

Chris Gardner.  At one point homeless.   Got a job at Dean Witter Reynolds, for a mere $1,000 a month.   Later opened his own company.  Now a multi-Millionaire.

Sidney Weinberg.  Worked as a janitor.  Promoted to "mail room".   Instead of hating the executives like most dumb leftist Americans, he actually liked them, and Goldman Sachs funded his college education, and later promoted to a board member, and later CEO.

I could list you hundreds of other stories, of people who had no money, could not, or did not, go to college, and didn't buy your liberal leftard belief that they were locked into poverty for life.

They made choices that made them extremely wealthy.

And I have specifically left off the hundreds of other stories of people who while earning minimum wage, or low wages, were able to work their way through college.

I'm sorry but this mythical crap you people make up, that someone people who make choices that result in them being poor, means they are stuck in perpetual poverty with no hope of escape....  it's all crap.

And you people have to make up that crap to justify your ideology.  Because the reality is, it's the poor impoverished farmers in Pre-78 China, that were truly hopeless.   You were born poor, you lived poor, and you died poor.  You had no hope of anything better.  Equality for all... equally impoverished, with nothing to look forward to in the future, but death.

*Lastly....*

You are confusing free-markets, with lawlessness.

Not the same thing.  In fact, Capitalism requires law.   Without law to enforce property rights, there is no real free-market capitalism.  That's more like Anarchy and whoever has enough force wins.   That's not a free market system of voluntary exchange.

In order for people to have property, they have to have property rights.  If I can enslave you, that's not property rights, because you have no rights.  Automatically that isn't capitalism.

Capitalism requires laws to enforce justice.   The difference is, you seemingly equate justice, with dictating what other people do with their property.   I view justice, as protecting people's rights to do with their property as they see fit.

Mixing in these completely unrelated problems of people slaughtering each other, is just proof you lost this argument.    

Look at all the people being slaughtered and killed in Venezuela.   Well that must be a problem of socialism.... right?   They have nationalized nearly everything.  So obviously socialism causes people to kill each other!

That argument there, is just as valid as your argument above.   They are equally stupid arguments.  Singapore is one of the most Capitalistic city-states in the world, and also has the lowest crime rate of any major city (last I looked).   A few years back it made number 1, on the top safest tourist destinations.  Must be capitalism that caused that.

The two are not directly linked.  Anyone who doesn't have their head shoved so far up their ideology, that they can't see, would know this.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Gnarly, you're conflating freedom and ability.



What is freedom? The ability to act according to one's desire when applying one's labor? If that's what you mean by freedom, you're right, my idea of freedom doesn't fit. Most people can't choose the life and career they desire despite hardwork and persistence. They must apply their labor according to whoever accepts them, according to an external force. In cases of the government you call this violence, in the case of capitalist enterprise you call it freedom/free market/free application of labor?


----------



## georgephillip

Erand7899 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.
> 
> 
> 
> Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An accident of birth predetermines that people are only born equal as free citizens.  Some are going to be better looking than others.  A definite plus.  Some are going to be born with talents.  A definite plus.  Some are going to have more resouces from their families.  A definite plus.  Others are going to be tall, short, strong, weak, smart or dumb.
> 
> The game of life is not what you started with, but how far you can get with what you have been given.  The simple fact that a baby born poor, ugly, and untalented, can become a very rich person through his/her own efforts, belies all of your propaganda about how the game is rigged.
> 
> The vast majority of disadvantaged adults in this society are the products of their own bad decisions.  They have rigged the system against themselves.
Click to expand...

"President Obamas second Inaugural Address used soaring language to reaffirm Americas commitment to the dream of equality of opportunity: 'We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.'

*Do you actually believe Obama meant what he said?*

"Another way of looking at equality of opportunity is to ask to what extent the life chances of a child are dependent on the education and income of his parents. 

"Is it just as likely that a child of poor or poorly educated parents gets a good education and rises to the middle class as someone born to middle-class parents with college degrees? 

"Even in a more egalitarian society, the answer would be no. 

"But the life prospects of an American are more dependent on the income and education of his parents than in almost any other advanced country for which there is data.

"How do we explain this?"

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/equal-opportunity-our-national-myth/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> You are confusing free-markets, with lawlessness.
> 
> Not the same thing. In fact, Capitalism requires law. Without law to enforce property rights, there is no real free-market capitalism. That's more like Anarchy and whoever has enough force wins. That's not a free market system of voluntary exchange..



You're both right and wrong. Capitalism depends upon law. Property is a contract. However, property was never determined according to law. Whoever could create the most destructive weaponry could win land and vital access to new resources. So law becomes a law for others but not to be enforced on those in power. If you are in power and can conquer, do so and reap the rewards. Try to do that to the powerful and you'll have 3 divisions of the law descend upon you with rapacity. And we clearly see examples where the powerful are exempt from law...they ask us to forgive and to look forward, forgetting the past. But law can only be just if it is universal. So the problem with free markets is they are not applied universally. Free market principles are enforced on the poor but when it comes to the rich, they receive overwhelming subsidy, access to political policy and tax breaks, even negative effective tax rates. So how can free markets, which are not universal, be defined by law when law must be universal unless one can care less about being a moral hypocrite.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is born with the innate freedom to decide how to apply their labor. Securing this freedom is the core premise of a free market, and it is currently under attack.
> 
> 
> 
> Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "freedom" does not refer to circumstances that may constrain you.  It refers only to government constraints.
> 
> Changing the meaning of words is a favorite leftist propaganda technique.
Click to expand...

You're projecting.
Again.

*"free·dom
&#712;fr&#275;d&#601;m/Submit
noun
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
"we do have some freedom of choice"
absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
"he was a champion of Irish freedom"
synonyms:	independence, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, home rule, sovereignty, nonalignment, autonomy; More
antonyms:	dependence
the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
"the shark thrashed its way to freedom"
synonyms:	liberty, liberation, release, deliverance, delivery, discharge..."*

https://www.google.com/search?q=freedom&oq=freedom&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2j69i65l3.3647j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarly, you're conflating freedom and ability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is freedom? The ability to act according to one's desire when applying one's labor? If that's what you mean by freedom, you're right, my idea of freedom doesn't fit. Most people can't choose the life and career they desire despite hardwork and persistence. They must apply their labor according to whoever accepts them, according to an external force. In cases of the government you call this violence, in the case of capitalist enterprise you call it freedom/free market/free application of labor?
Click to expand...


I can't choose between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini.  Does that mean I'm not free?  

What "force" does capitalist enterprise use?

Your conception of freedom means to be free from the laws of nature.  No government can provide that kind of freedom.  Anyone who argues that it can or should is a demagogue trying to trick you into selling yourself into slavery.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which doesn't address the point that an accident of birth predetermines one's freedom to decide how to apply their labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word "freedom" does not refer to circumstances that may constrain you.  It refers only to government constraints.
> 
> Changing the meaning of words is a favorite leftist propaganda technique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're projecting.
> Again.
> 
> *"free·dom
> &#712;fr&#275;d&#601;m/Submit
> noun
> the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
> "we do have some freedom of choice"
> absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
> "he was a champion of Irish freedom"
> synonyms:	independence, self-government, self-determination, self-rule, home rule, sovereignty, nonalignment, autonomy; More
> antonyms:	dependence
> the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
> "the shark thrashed its way to freedom"
> synonyms:	liberty, liberation, release, deliverance, delivery, discharge..."*
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=freedom&oq=freedom&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2j69i65l3.3647j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
Click to expand...


Your definition supports my claim.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarly, you're conflating freedom and ability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is freedom? The ability to act according to one's desire when applying one's labor? If that's what you mean by freedom, you're right, my idea of freedom doesn't fit. Most people can't choose the life and career they desire despite hardwork and persistence. They must apply their labor according to whoever accepts them, according to an external force. In cases of the government you call this violence, in the case of capitalist enterprise you call it freedom/free market/free application of labor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't choose between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini.  Does that mean I'm not free?
> 
> Your conception of freedom means to be free from the laws of nature.  No government can provide that kind of freedom.  Anyone who argues that it can or should is a demagogue trying to trick you into selling yourself into slavery.
Click to expand...



What you offered is not choice. Do you have a choice of not getting a car or using public transit? 

I'm not talking about choices between luxury. The choice has nothing to do with luxury, it has to do with humans having interests and being able to pursue them. Most college grads do not go into fields they studied thereby being relatively forced to seek cash from extruding debts instead of pursuing what they could be most productive in since they "choose" their field of study.

Free markets for the poor means a choice between a turd and shit for sustenance, pardon the general terms. Relative to our living standard, most Americans will dip below the poverty line in their lifetime for at least a year or more. But it isn't free choice when your offered doing what your told if you're lucky OR being demonized if you aren't so lucky meaning you are a failure and cannot achieve sustenance.



bripat9643 said:


> What "force" does capitalist enterprise use?



When you cannot engage in the choice of applying your labor according to your will, then you are not free. It's clear in the structure of employment that supervisors tell the majority of people what to do. Furthermore, propaganda and advertising (as it's done) undermines freedom by creating irrational consumption, implanting fiat desires and erecting a framework for what's thinkable thought--clearly it works because none of you think I have anything worthwhile to say since all my thoughts are outside the expressed spectrum of acceptable thought.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarly, you're conflating freedom and ability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is freedom? The ability to act according to one's desire when applying one's labor?
Click to expand...


No - not the ability. The freedom. This is the classic philosophical confusion of substituting empowerment for liberty.



> Most people can't choose the life and career they desire despite hardwork and persistence.



I didn't say anything about choosing the 'life and career' they desire. Freedom, politically, is the lack of constraints, not the power to act.
What you want isn't freedom, it's the power to force others to bend to your will.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarly, you're conflating freedom and ability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is freedom? The ability to act according to one's desire when applying one's labor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No - not the ability. The freedom. This is the classic philosophical confusion of substituting empowerment for liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people can't choose the life and career they desire despite hardwork and persistence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about choosing the 'life and career' they desire. Freedom, politically, is the lack of constraints, not the power to act.
> What you want isn't freedom, it's the power to force others to bend to your will.
Click to expand...


I learned from this post that: 
1) freedom does not involve action or real life since freedom is not related to ability--ability is the range of actual actions possible; so if ability is irrelevant, than freedom is not concerned with the conditions under which humans exercise their actual action from the range of possible actions.
2) the mere aim to apply my labor according to my free choice is using power to force others thereby undermining their freedom. So freedom is the lack of action for anyone choosing to act automatically violates the freedom of another.

Please correct this flawed interpretation. Or please define freedom. Is freedom a term of pure negation? If so, this might make some sense but my personal view of freedom is not negatory alone. Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


----------



## gnarlylove

A important aside, dblack, is "are you critical of your views on free markets?" Like, how did you arrive to your conclusions? When did you last gather research and evidence that supports your equivocation of freedom and free markets? Did you simply choose to absorb such free market ideology because it spoke to an already existing core of beliefs (which for you is clearly "individual freedom is ultimate")? Or did you weigh the alternatives views and evidence on free markets, comparing the validity/invalidity of each and decided your current views express most accurately "objective" and empirical reality?

From my perspective you appear to be a spokesperson marketing the ideological brand you prefer best instead offering critical thoughts about economic reality. So if this is actually reflective of how you think and came to your core beliefs, that you don't care to deeply challenge your equivocation of freedom and free markets, then I'm sorry to be challenging you and wasting your time. Please let me know your purpose of engaging me (I'm very eager to learn but if you are not, then I just lost my appetite). I don't want to waste your time on challenging ideas about which you do not care much to consider.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is freedom? The ability to act according to one's desire when applying one's labor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - not the ability. The freedom. This is the classic philosophical confusion of substituting empowerment for liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people can't choose the life and career they desire despite hardwork and persistence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about choosing the 'life and career' they desire. Freedom, politically, is the lack of constraints, not the power to act.
> What you want isn't freedom, it's the power to force others to bend to your will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I learned from this post that:
> 1) freedom does not involve action or real life since freedom is not related to ability--ability is the range of actual actions possible; so if ability is irrelevant, than freedom is not concerned with the conditions under which humans exercise their actual action from the range of possible actions.
> 2) the mere aim to apply my labor according to my free choice is using power to force others thereby undermining their freedom. So freedom is the lack of action for anyone choosing to act automatically violates the freedom of another.
> 
> Please correct this flawed interpretation.
Click to expand...


I can't say I even understand it, so I won't presume to correct it. Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.



> ... please define freedom. Is freedom a term of pure negation? If so, this might make some sense but my personal view of freedom is not negatory alone. Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)



Yeah. I've read all about 'positive' freedom, and I find it vaguely Orwellian - a deliberate attempt to twist the term into its negation. 

Politically protected freedom is about ensuring that we don't get bullied in social interactions. The freedom of speech, for example, means you're protected from those who would silence you. It doesn't mean that government must _enable_ you to speak, or that anyone will listen to you if you do.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> A important aside, dblack, is "are you critical of your views on free markets?" Like, how did you arrive to your conclusions? When did you last gather research and evidence that supports your equivocation of freedom and free markets? Did you simply choose to absorb such free market ideology because it spoke to an already existing core of beliefs (which for you is clearly "individual freedom is ultimate")? Or did you weigh the alternatives views and evidence on free markets, comparing the validity/invalidity of each and decided your current views express most accurately "objective" and empirical reality?
> 
> From my perspective you appear to be a spokesperson marketing the ideological brand you prefer best instead offering critical thoughts about economic reality. So if this is actually reflective of how you think and came to your core beliefs, that you don't care to deeply challenge your equivocation of freedom and free markets, then I'm sorry to be challenging you and wasting your time. Please let me know your purpose of engaging me (I'm very eager to learn but if you are not, then I just lost my appetite). I don't want to waste your time on challenging ideas about which you do not care much to consider.



I've been down this road before gnarly. I've been reading and thinking critically about this stuff since I was in high school and I simply don't see anything new in your posts. It's the same old Marxist antipathy for individual freedom. It's an ideology that simply doesn't tolerate the 'live and let live' ethos at the core of my moral foundation, and that's why I find it unacceptable.


----------



## editec

85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.

Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following

*Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality*​
CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.

So YES capitalism is *premised *on the need for SOME wealth inequity.

But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.


----------



## georgephillip

editec said:


> 85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.
> 
> Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following
> 
> *Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality*​
> CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.
> 
> So YES capitalism is *premised *on the need for SOME wealth inequity.
> 
> But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.


*I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
(Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)*

"Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx. 

"But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II. 

"The main driver of inequality&#8212;the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth&#8212;today threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values. 

"But economic trends are not acts of God. 

"Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."

Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No - not the ability. The freedom. This is the classic philosophical confusion of substituting empowerment for liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about choosing the 'life and career' they desire. Freedom, politically, is the lack of constraints, not the power to act.
> What you want isn't freedom, it's the power to force others to bend to your will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I learned from this post that:
> 1) freedom does not involve action or real life since freedom is not related to ability--ability is the range of actual actions possible; so if ability is irrelevant, than freedom is not concerned with the conditions under which humans exercise their actual action from the range of possible actions.
> 2) the mere aim to apply my labor according to my free choice is using power to force others thereby undermining their freedom. So freedom is the lack of action for anyone choosing to act automatically violates the freedom of another.
> 
> Please correct this flawed interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't say I even understand it, so I won't presume to correct it. Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... please define freedom. Is freedom a term of pure negation? If so, this might make some sense but my personal view of freedom is not negatory alone. Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I've read all about 'positive' freedom, and I find it vaguely Orwellian - a deliberate attempt to twist the term into its negation.
> 
> Politically protected freedom is about ensuring that we don't get bullied in social interactions. The freedom of speech, for example, means you're protected from those who would silence you. It doesn't mean that government must _enable_ you to speak, or that anyone will listen to you if you do.
Click to expand...


So freedom is not being prohibited to act (ie. negative freedom)? So if it could be proved that propaganda is very real, that would mean freedom is greatly reduced to the narrow spectrum of allowable thought?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No - not the ability. The freedom. This is the classic philosophical confusion of substituting empowerment for liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about choosing the 'life and career' they desire. Freedom, politically, is the lack of constraints, not the power to act.
> What you want isn't freedom, it's the power to force others to bend to your will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I learned from this post that:
> 1) freedom does not involve action or real life since freedom is not related to ability--ability is the range of actual actions possible; so if ability is irrelevant, than freedom is not concerned with the conditions under which humans exercise their actual action from the range of possible actions.
> 2) the mere aim to apply my labor according to my free choice is using power to force others thereby undermining their freedom. So freedom is the lack of action for anyone choosing to act automatically violates the freedom of another.
> 
> Please correct this flawed interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't say I even understand it, so I won't presume to correct it. Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... please define freedom. Is freedom a term of pure negation? If so, this might make some sense but my personal view of freedom is not negatory alone. Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I've read all about 'positive' freedom, and I find it vaguely Orwellian - a deliberate attempt to twist the term into its negation.
> 
> Politically protected freedom is about ensuring that we don't get bullied in social interactions. The freedom of speech, for example, means you're protected from those who would silence you. It doesn't mean that government must _enable_ you to speak, or that anyone will listen to you if you do.
Click to expand...


*Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.*

He has no logic.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> I've been down this road before gnarly. I've been reading and thinking critically about this stuff since I was in high school and I simply don't see anything new in your posts. It's the same old Marxist antipathy for individual freedom. It's an ideology that simply doesn't tolerate the 'live and let live' ethos at the core of my moral foundation, and that's why I find it unacceptable.



A very fair reply. I respect your ideology of individual freedom entirely. Since it is a core of your worldview and logically prior to most other beliefs we've discussed, I would like to address it formally. My other reply above is doing just that.

But I can't make sense of calling me Marxist. There is no -ism like it in the sciences. There is no Einstein-ism. There is also no such thing as Marxism unless one chooses to go beyond his empirical observations to deify Marx. It's no use to deify someone when it detracts from the work they did. Marx's critiques of Capital was factual observations about capital production, commodities, free competition, the whole 9 yards.

So you're labeling me but I don't perceive the due cause since the way you use it sounds as a "Marxist" one is immediately removed from relevant discussion. That's just a deceitful tactic to dismiss genuine critiques. I may disagree with your idea of individual freedom but it's not due to Marx or some deity. No, I disagree with it because I have reasons for it, I am not approaching this from some high moral ground looking down at you. I am entirely willing to concede your concept of freedom but I hope you are willing to defend as well as explain your concept of freedom, leaving unnecessary labels aside. Let's just discuss ideas and be willing to hear all manner of critique (I'd be massively excited if I am taught lessons on freedom etc.).


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I learned from this post that:
> 1) freedom does not involve action or real life since freedom is not related to ability--ability is the range of actual actions possible; so if ability is irrelevant, than freedom is not concerned with the conditions under which humans exercise their actual action from the range of possible actions.
> 2) the mere aim to apply my labor according to my free choice is using power to force others thereby undermining their freedom. So freedom is the lack of action for anyone choosing to act automatically violates the freedom of another.
> 
> Please correct this flawed interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say I even understand it, so I won't presume to correct it. Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... please define freedom. Is freedom a term of pure negation? If so, this might make some sense but my personal view of freedom is not negatory alone. Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I've read all about 'positive' freedom, and I find it vaguely Orwellian - a deliberate attempt to twist the term into its negation.
> 
> Politically protected freedom is about ensuring that we don't get bullied in social interactions. The freedom of speech, for example, means you're protected from those who would silence you. It doesn't mean that government must _enable_ you to speak, or that anyone will listen to you if you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So freedom is not being prohibited to act (ie. negative freedom)? So if it could be proved that propaganda is very real, that would mean freedom is greatly reduced to the narrow spectrum of allowable thought?
Click to expand...


No, it would only prove that propaganda exists.  No one has ever denied that propaganda exists.  However, humans have the capacity for rational thought.  Aside from leftists, they aren't automatons who meekly and blindly obey whatever the television or radio tells them to do.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I learned from this post that:
> 1) freedom does not involve action or real life since freedom is not related to ability--ability is the range of actual actions possible; so if ability is irrelevant, than freedom is not concerned with the conditions under which humans exercise their actual action from the range of possible actions.
> 2) the mere aim to apply my labor according to my free choice is using power to force others thereby undermining their freedom. So freedom is the lack of action for anyone choosing to act automatically violates the freedom of another.
> 
> Please correct this flawed interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say I even understand it, so I won't presume to correct it. Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... please define freedom. Is freedom a term of pure negation? If so, this might make some sense but my personal view of freedom is not negatory alone. Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I've read all about 'positive' freedom, and I find it vaguely Orwellian - a deliberate attempt to twist the term into its negation.
> 
> Politically protected freedom is about ensuring that we don't get bullied in social interactions. The freedom of speech, for example, means you're protected from those who would silence you. It doesn't mean that government must _enable_ you to speak, or that anyone will listen to you if you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Frankly, have a hard time tracking your logic.*
> 
> He has no logic.
Click to expand...


Now you're catching on.  Gnarly just spouts an endless stream of Marxist talking points.  There's no logic behind them.  They sound plausible but the minute you start comparing them with reality they fall apart.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been down this road before gnarly. I've been reading and thinking critically about this stuff since I was in high school and I simply don't see anything new in your posts. It's the same old Marxist antipathy for individual freedom. It's an ideology that simply doesn't tolerate the 'live and let live' ethos at the core of my moral foundation, and that's why I find it unacceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very fair reply. I respect your ideology of individual freedom entirely. Since it is a core of your worldview and logically prior to most other beliefs we've discussed, I would like to address it formally. My other reply above is doing just that.
> 
> But I can't make sense of calling me Marxist. There is no -ism like it in the sciences. There is no Einstein-ism. There is also no such thing as Marxism unless one chooses to go beyond his empirical observations to deify Marx. It's no use to deify someone when it detracts from the work they did. Marx's critiques of Capital was factual observations about capital production, commodities, free competition, the whole 9 yards.
> 
> So you're labeling me but I don't perceive the due cause since the way you use it sounds as a "Marxist" one is immediately removed from relevant discussion. That's just a deceitful tactic to dismiss genuine critiques. I may disagree with your idea of individual freedom but it's not due to Marx or some deity. No, I disagree with it because I have reasons for it, I am not approaching this from some high moral ground looking down at you. I am entirely willing to concede your concept of freedom but I hope you are willing to defend as well as explain your concept of freedom, leaving unnecessary labels aside. Let's just discuss ideas and be willing to hear all manner of critique (I'd be massively excited if I am taught lessons on freedom etc.).
Click to expand...


Most of your ideas are directly or indirectly attributable to Marx.  They are definitely leftist and anti-capitalists.  Hence, you fit the common understanding of the term "Marxist."


----------



## Dot Com

neo liberal capitalism (what Establishment-types of both parties are supporting because they're bought-off by the banksters) is the absolute worst:

Capitalism simply isn't working and here are the reasons why | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer


> Like Friedman, Piketty is a man for the times. For 1970s anxieties about inflation substitute today's concerns about the emergence of the plutocratic rich and their impact on economy and society. Piketty is in no doubt, as he indicates in an interview in today's Observer New Review, that the current level of rising wealth inequality, set to grow still further, now imperils the very future of capitalism. He has proved it.


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.
> 
> Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following
> 
> *Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality*​
> CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.
> 
> So YES capitalism is *premised *on the need for SOME wealth inequity.
> 
> But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.
> 
> 
> 
> *I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
> When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
> (Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)*
> 
> "Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.
> 
> "But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.
> 
> "The main driver of inequalitythe tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growthtoday threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.
> 
> "But economic trends are not acts of God.
> 
> "Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."
> 
> Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press
Click to expand...


Free markets ensure rising inequality. Piketty notes the difference of those who own wealth and those who only own their labor. Corporations (defined by their unlimited treasury to influence the political process in their favor) in one for or another will always arise from free market system. As folks gain wealth, naturally they desire to influence the political, social, and economic for their security. All free market models operate this way. So it definitely ensures rising inequality indefinitely. Given the profit motive, no one would not use their wealth to secure their wealth and expand their wealth, using whatever means necessary. Piketty says free markets are great at producing new wealth and that's evident.

Past a certain threshold, all free market models end up collapsing or needing massive regulation--becoming incompatible with meritocratic values. Piketty argues for the latter of regulation to balance the un-meritocratic and unequal distribution.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been down this road before gnarly. I've been reading and thinking critically about this stuff since I was in high school and I simply don't see anything new in your posts. It's the same old Marxist antipathy for individual freedom. It's an ideology that simply doesn't tolerate the 'live and let live' ethos at the core of my moral foundation, and that's why I find it unacceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very fair reply. I respect your ideology of individual freedom entirely. Since it is a core of your worldview and logically prior to most other beliefs we've discussed, I would like to address it formally. My other reply above is doing just that.
> 
> But I can't make sense of calling me Marxist. There is no -ism like it in the sciences. There is no Einstein-ism. There is also no such thing as Marxism unless one chooses to go beyond his empirical observations to deify Marx. It's no use to deify someone when it detracts from the work they did. Marx's critiques of Capital was factual observations about capital production, commodities, free competition, the whole 9 yards.
> 
> So you're labeling me but I don't perceive the due cause since the way you use it sounds as a "Marxist" one is immediately removed from relevant discussion. That's just a deceitful tactic to dismiss genuine critiques. I may disagree with your idea of individual freedom but it's not due to Marx or some deity. No, I disagree with it because I have reasons for it, I am not approaching this from some high moral ground looking down at you. I am entirely willing to concede your concept of freedom but I hope you are willing to defend as well as explain your concept of freedom, leaving unnecessary labels aside. Let's just discuss ideas and be willing to hear all manner of critique (I'd be massively excited if I am taught lessons on freedom etc.).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of your ideas are directly or indirectly attributable to Marx.  They are definitely leftist and anti-capitalists.  Hence, you fit the common understanding of the term "Marxist."
Click to expand...


How do you know those ideas are attributable to Marx? What is your understanding of Marx? It sounds like an understanding where anything you disagree with becomes Marxist. Now if I said a commodity is to be exchanged for either money or another commodity, you wouldn't call me Marxist would you? Did you know he talks at length about commodities?  If you wouldn't label that thought Marxist, why not? Because you agree with it? I'm beginning to doubt the validity of your understanding of Marx. It sounds like your entire accusation rests on hearsay of what others have told you about Marx when you've not read primary sources and developed a valid view. Instead you are just letting me know that in your fast and loose terminology, a critique of capitalism is synonymous with the left and Marx. Boy, that makes it easy to respond: you don't have to defend capitalism from valid critiques, instead, you just wave the term Marxism and discussion falls silent for you. What a trump card that involves no reasoning whatsoever!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dot Com said:


> neo liberal capitalism (what Establishment-types of both parties are supporting because they're bought-off by the banksters) is the absolute worst:
> 
> Capitalism simply isn't working and here are the reasons why | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer
> 
> 
> 
> Like Friedman, Piketty is a man for the times. For 1970s anxieties about inflation substitute today's concerns about the emergence of the plutocratic rich and their impact on economy and society. Piketty is in no doubt, as he indicates in an interview in today's Observer New Review, that the current level of rising wealth inequality, set to grow still further, now imperils the very future of capitalism. He has proved it.
Click to expand...


*He has proved it.*

No he hasn't.


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.
> 
> Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following
> 
> *Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality*​
> CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.
> 
> So YES capitalism is *premised *on the need for SOME wealth inequity.
> 
> But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.
> 
> 
> 
> *I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
> When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
> (Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)*
> 
> "Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.
> 
> "But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.
> 
> "The main driver of inequalitythe tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growthtoday threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.
> 
> "But economic trends are not acts of God.
> 
> "Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."
> 
> Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free markets ensure rising inequality. Piketty notes the difference of those who own wealth and those who only own their labor. Corporations (defined by their unlimited treasury to influence the political process in their favor) in one for or another will always arise from free market system. As folks gain wealth, naturally they desire to influence the political, social, and economic for their security. All free market models operate this way. So it definitely ensures rising inequality indefinitely. Given the profit motive, no one would not use their wealth to secure their wealth and expand their wealth, using whatever means necessary. Piketty says free markets are great at producing new wealth and that's evident.
> 
> Past a certain threshold, all free market models end up collapsing or needing massive regulation--becoming incompatible with meritocratic values. Piketty argues for the latter of regulation to balance the un-meritocratic and unequal distribution.
Click to expand...

*Krugman seems to interpret Piketty in a way that implies meritocracy is giving way to family dynasties in the US:*

"In America in particular the share of national income going to the top one percent has followed a great U-shaped arc. 

"Before World War I the one percent received around a fifth of total income in both Britain and the United States. 

"By 1950 that share had been cut by more than half. 

"But since 1980 the one percent has seen its income share surge againand in the United States its back to what it was a century ago.

"Still, todays economic elite is very different from that of the nineteenth century, isnt it? 

"Back then, great wealth tended to be inherited; arent todays economic elite people who earned their position? 

"Well, Piketty tells us that this isnt as true as you think, and that in any case this state of affairs may prove no more durable than the middle-class society that flourished for a generation after World War II. 

"The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we havent just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, were also on a path back to 'patrimonial capitalism,' in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties."

Why We?re in a New Gilded Age by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books


----------



## Erand7899

georgephillip said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.
> 
> Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following
> 
> *Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality*​
> CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.
> 
> So YES capitalism is *premised *on the need for SOME wealth inequity.
> 
> But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.
> 
> 
> 
> *I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
> When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
> (Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)*
> 
> "Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.
> 
> "But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.
> 
> "The main driver of inequalitythe tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growthtoday threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.
> 
> "But economic trends are not acts of God.
> 
> "Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."
> 
> Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press
Click to expand...


Discontent over wealth inequality is a false premise generated by demogogues for the purpose of gaining political power by firing up the greed and envy of people who do not have wealth.  And, that is the only danger to freedom.  

The concept that wealth is a finite quantity that needs to be divided up fairly, is only viable to people who have no idea of how wealth is created, or how it is divided up.  

Anyone can generate wealth for themselves, at any time that their skills, knowledge, and endeavor can be used to add value to a product that is marketable.  Adding value to a marketable product is the only way that wealth can be generated.  The rest is just moving that wealth around.  

And, since anyone can generate their own wealth, the amount of wealth that others have is immaterial.  The biggest drawback to people creating their own wealth is government over regulation, followed by over taxation of the profits.  

If you wish to mitigate wealth inequality, start with government.


----------



## Dot Com

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
> When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
> (Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)*
> 
> "Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.
> 
> "But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.
> 
> "The main driver of inequalitythe tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growthtoday threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.
> 
> "But economic trends are not acts of God.
> 
> "Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."
> 
> Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free markets ensure rising inequality. Piketty notes the difference of those who own wealth and those who only own their labor. Corporations (defined by their unlimited treasury to influence the political process in their favor) in one for or another will always arise from free market system. As folks gain wealth, naturally they desire to influence the political, social, and economic for their security. All free market models operate this way. So it definitely ensures rising inequality indefinitely. Given the profit motive, no one would not use their wealth to secure their wealth and expand their wealth, using whatever means necessary. Piketty says free markets are great at producing new wealth and that's evident.
> 
> Past a certain threshold, all free market models end up collapsing or needing massive regulation--becoming incompatible with meritocratic values. Piketty argues for the latter of regulation to balance the un-meritocratic and unequal distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Krugman seems to interpret Piketty in a way that implies meritocracy is giving way to family dynasties in the US:*
> 
> "In America in particular the share of national income going to the top one percent has followed a great U-shaped arc.
> 
> "Before World War I the one percent received around a fifth of total income in both Britain and the United States.
> 
> "By 1950 that share had been cut by more than half.
> 
> "But since 1980 the one percent has seen its income share surge againand in the United States its back to what it was a century ago.
> 
> "Still, todays economic elite is very different from that of the nineteenth century, isnt it?
> 
> "Back then, great wealth tended to be inherited; arent todays economic elite people who earned their position?
> 
> "Well, Piketty tells us that this isnt as true as you think, and that in any case this state of affairs may prove no more durable than the middle-class society that flourished for a generation after World War II.
> 
> "The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we havent just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, were also on a path back to 'patrimonial capitalism,' in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties."
> 
> Why We?re in a New Gilded Age by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books
Click to expand...


yep. ANOTHER Gilded Age yet Repub-voters think (I use that term loosely) that everything is A OK.  NEWSFLASH!!! The gov't has been captured by the monied-interests & the gov't consequently works for them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
> When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
> (Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)*
> 
> "Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.
> 
> "But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.
> 
> "The main driver of inequalitythe tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growthtoday threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.
> 
> "But economic trends are not acts of God.
> 
> "Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."
> 
> Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free markets ensure rising inequality. Piketty notes the difference of those who own wealth and those who only own their labor. Corporations (defined by their unlimited treasury to influence the political process in their favor) in one for or another will always arise from free market system. As folks gain wealth, naturally they desire to influence the political, social, and economic for their security. All free market models operate this way. So it definitely ensures rising inequality indefinitely. Given the profit motive, no one would not use their wealth to secure their wealth and expand their wealth, using whatever means necessary. Piketty says free markets are great at producing new wealth and that's evident.
> 
> Past a certain threshold, all free market models end up collapsing or needing massive regulation--becoming incompatible with meritocratic values. Piketty argues for the latter of regulation to balance the un-meritocratic and unequal distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Krugman seems to interpret Piketty in a way that implies meritocracy is giving way to family dynasties in the US:*
> 
> "In America in particular the share of national income going to the top one percent has followed a great U-shaped arc.
> 
> "Before World War I the one percent received around a fifth of total income in both Britain and the United States.
> 
> "By 1950 that share had been cut by more than half.
> 
> "But since 1980 the one percent has seen its income share surge againand in the United States its back to what it was a century ago.
> 
> "Still, todays economic elite is very different from that of the nineteenth century, isnt it?
> 
> "Back then, great wealth tended to be inherited; arent todays economic elite people who earned their position?
> 
> "Well, Piketty tells us that this isnt as true as you think, and that in any case this state of affairs may prove no more durable than the middle-class society that flourished for a generation after World War II.
> 
> "The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we havent just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, were also on a path back to 'patrimonial capitalism,' in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties."
> 
> Why We?re in a New Gilded Age by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books
Click to expand...


*were also on a path back to 'patrimonial capitalism,' in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties."*

Exactly! Because the 3 richest Americans, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison all inherited their wealth. No wait.

Numbers 4 & 5, Charles and David Koch inherited their billions. No, wait, when ther dad died in 1967, Koch Industries was worth millions, not tens of billions. They must have done some work.

Numbers 6-9, members of the Walton family, must have benefitted from a family dynasty. No, wait, Sam Walton didn't open the first WalMart until 1962. WalMart stock didn't get listed until 1970. No dynasty there.

Number 10 is Bloomberg. 
Number 11 is Sheldon Adelson.
Number 12 is Jeff Bezos.
Number 13 & 14 are Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

Haven't seen any evidence of dynasties yet.
Perhaps you have someone in mind?


----------



## gnarlylove

Erand7899 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.
> 
> Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following
> 
> *Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality*​
> CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.
> 
> So YES capitalism is *premised *on the need for SOME wealth inequity.
> 
> But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.
> 
> 
> 
> *I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
> When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
> (Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)*
> 
> "Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.
> 
> "But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.
> 
> "The main driver of inequality&#8212;the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth&#8212;today threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.
> 
> "But economic trends are not acts of God.
> 
> "Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."
> 
> Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discontent over wealth inequality is a false premise generated by demogogues for the purpose of gaining political power by firing up the greed and envy of people who do not have wealth.  And, that is the only danger to freedom.
> 
> The concept that wealth is a finite quantity that needs to be divided up fairly, is only viable to people who have no idea of how wealth is created, or how it is divided up.
> 
> Anyone can generate wealth for themselves, at any time that their skills, knowledge, and endeavor can be used to add value to a product that is marketable.  Adding value to a marketable product is the only way that wealth can be generated.  The rest is just moving that wealth around.
> 
> And, since anyone can generate their own wealth, the amount of wealth that others have is immaterial.  The biggest drawback to people creating their own wealth is government over regulation, followed by over taxation of the profits.
> 
> If you wish to mitigate wealth inequality, start with government.
Click to expand...


The premise that wealth can be generated by anyone is false. It depends upon conditions under which a human exists. Namely, access to land, access to credit, access to political influence. A large number of humans do not have access to land, credit or political influence (i.e. speech=money).

If a person lacks access to those things, they cannot generate wealth except through becoming used as a tool or instrument in generating wealth for another. And if a large number of people do not have access, they must be subordinate instruments in wealth generation for someone else.

How can a person generate wealth when they are generating wealth for another?

Being paid for labor is not itself wealth creation. It is remuneration. The human serves her function using her time and brains. Remuneration is a an input of wealth creation; it is the portion of wealth that is owed, a cost among other inputs (land, tools etc.) of generating wealth. Indeed, the lower the remuneration or wage, the more the wealth. So built into capitalism, the profit motive, is this urge to subordinate others, which is far from freedom.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
> When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
> (Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)*
> 
> "Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.
> 
> "But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.
> 
> "The main driver of inequalitythe tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growthtoday threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.
> 
> "But economic trends are not acts of God.
> 
> "Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."
> 
> Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discontent over wealth inequality is a false premise generated by demogogues for the purpose of gaining political power by firing up the greed and envy of people who do not have wealth.  And, that is the only danger to freedom.
> 
> The concept that wealth is a finite quantity that needs to be divided up fairly, is only viable to people who have no idea of how wealth is created, or how it is divided up.
> 
> Anyone can generate wealth for themselves, at any time that their skills, knowledge, and endeavor can be used to add value to a product that is marketable.  Adding value to a marketable product is the only way that wealth can be generated.  The rest is just moving that wealth around.
> 
> And, since anyone can generate their own wealth, the amount of wealth that others have is immaterial.  The biggest drawback to people creating their own wealth is government over regulation, followed by over taxation of the profits.
> 
> If you wish to mitigate wealth inequality, start with government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The premise that wealth can be generated by anyone is false. It depends upon conditions under which a human exists. Namely, access to land, access to credit, access to political influence. A large number of humans do not have access to land, credit or political influence (i.e. speech=money).
> 
> If a person lacks access to those things, they cannot generate wealth except through becoming used as a tool or instrument in generating wealth for another. And if a large number of people do not have access, they must be subordinate instruments in wealth generation for someone else.
> 
> How can a person generate wealth when they are generating wealth for another?
> 
> Being paid for labor is not itself wealth creation. It is remuneration. The human serves her function using her time and brains. Remuneration is a an input of wealth creation; it is the portion of wealth that is owed, a cost among other inputs (land, tools etc.) of generating wealth.
Click to expand...


*How can a person generate wealth when they are generating wealth for another?*

Personally, I've tried to put at least 10% a year into a 401K or Roth IRA.

It's amazing how much wealth that has generated for me.


----------



## georgephillip

Erand7899 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 85 pages of back and forth meanderings about economics, society and the indiviudual.
> 
> Still not sure if anyone has addressed the following
> 
> *Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality*​
> CAPITALISM is premised on the assumption that capital formation will occur when some have more money than they need for immediate use and can invest it into wealth making endeavors.
> 
> So YES capitalism is *premised *on the need for SOME wealth inequity.
> 
> But it does not have to, and certainly it does not guarantee a RISING wealth inequity.
> 
> 
> 
> *I think Thomas Piketty has provided a useful metric for this discussion: r>g
> When the rate of returns on economic investments exceed the rate of growth of the economy, that's the point at which capitalism guarantees rising wealth inequality.
> (Of course, I could be wrong about that, too)*
> 
> "Piketty shows that modern economic growth and the diffusion of knowledge have allowed us to avoid inequalities on the apocalyptic scale predicted by Karl Marx.
> 
> "But we have not modified the deep structures of capital and inequality as much as we thought in the optimistic decades following World War II.
> 
> "The main driver of inequalitythe tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growthtoday threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values.
> 
> "But economic trends are not acts of God.
> 
> "Political action has curbed dangerous inequalities in the past, Piketty says, and may do so again."
> 
> Capital in the Twenty-First Century ? Thomas Piketty | Harvard University Press
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discontent over wealth inequality is a false premise generated by demogogues for the purpose of gaining political power by firing up the greed and envy of people who do not have wealth.  And, that is the only danger to freedom.
> 
> The concept that wealth is a finite quantity that needs to be divided up fairly, is only viable to people who have no idea of how wealth is created, or how it is divided up.
> 
> Anyone can generate wealth for themselves, at any time that their skills, knowledge, and endeavor can be used to add value to a product that is marketable.  Adding value to a marketable product is the only way that wealth can be generated.  The rest is just moving that wealth around.
> 
> And, since anyone can generate their own wealth, the amount of wealth that others have is immaterial.  The biggest drawback to people creating their own wealth is government over regulation, followed by over taxation of the profits.
> 
> If you wish to mitigate wealth inequality, start with government.
Click to expand...

Government serves its wealthiest citizens first, hence its unlikely to propose a property tax on intangible property like stocks and bonds, or even a Tobin Tax on financial transactions

Maybe government could extend FICA taxes beyond its current limit if the richest 1% of taxpayers didn't already buy and sell politicians like toilet paper? 

"If your definition of "wealth" corresponds to marketable assets such as real estate, stocks, and bonds minus all debt, how do the vast majority of citizens "generate their own wealth" when middle class income has stagnated over the past 40 years? 

On the eve of WWI Europe had accumulated capital worth six of seven times national income. 

"One Great Depression and a pair of World Wars sliced that ratio in half; however, since 1970 we've seen slow growth rates lead to a rising capital ratio slowly approaching that of a century ago. 

Government can mitigate wealth inequality through progressive taxation.

Why We?re in a New Gilded Age by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books


----------



## Chris

Our entire system is set up to reward ownership, not work.

Tax capital gains as income and raise the minimum wage.

Reward work.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free markets ensure rising inequality. Piketty notes the difference of those who own wealth and those who only own their labor. Corporations (defined by their unlimited treasury to influence the political process in their favor) in one for or another will always arise from free market system. As folks gain wealth, naturally they desire to influence the political, social, and economic for their security. All free market models operate this way. So it definitely ensures rising inequality indefinitely. Given the profit motive, no one would not use their wealth to secure their wealth and expand their wealth, using whatever means necessary. Piketty says free markets are great at producing new wealth and that's evident.
> 
> Past a certain threshold, all free market models end up collapsing or needing massive regulation--becoming incompatible with meritocratic values. Piketty argues for the latter of regulation to balance the un-meritocratic and unequal distribution.
> 
> 
> 
> *Krugman seems to interpret Piketty in a way that implies meritocracy is giving way to family dynasties in the US:*
> 
> "In America in particular the share of national income going to the top one percent has followed a great U-shaped arc.
> 
> "Before World War I the one percent received around a fifth of total income in both Britain and the United States.
> 
> "By 1950 that share had been cut by more than half.
> 
> "But since 1980 the one percent has seen its income share surge againand in the United States its back to what it was a century ago.
> 
> "Still, todays economic elite is very different from that of the nineteenth century, isnt it?
> 
> "Back then, great wealth tended to be inherited; arent todays economic elite people who earned their position?
> 
> "Well, Piketty tells us that this isnt as true as you think, and that in any case this state of affairs may prove no more durable than the middle-class society that flourished for a generation after World War II.
> 
> "The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we havent just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, were also on a path back to 'patrimonial capitalism,' in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties."
> 
> Why We?re in a New Gilded Age by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *were also on a path back to 'patrimonial capitalism,' in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties."*
> 
> Exactly! Because the 3 richest Americans, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison all inherited their wealth. No wait.
> 
> Numbers 4 & 5, Charles and David Koch inherited their billions. No, wait, when ther dad died in 1967, Koch Industries was worth millions, not tens of billions. They must have done some work.
> 
> Numbers 6-9, members of the Walton family, must have benefitted from a family dynasty. No, wait, Sam Walton didn't open the first WalMart until 1962. WalMart stock didn't get listed until 1970. No dynasty there.
> 
> Number 10 is Bloomberg.
> Number 11 is Sheldon Adelson.
> Number 12 is Jeff Bezos.
> Number 13 & 14 are Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
> 
> Haven't seen any evidence of dynasties yet.
> Perhaps you have someone in mind?
Click to expand...

*Charles and David and all the Waltons inherited their wealth.
Maybe you're wearing your rich-bitch blinders?*

"Also, there is a strong correlation between inequalities in capital distribution with those in income distribution. So typically, while the top 10 per cent of the population has access to 20 per cent of total income, they actually have access to 50 per cent of capital or wealth.

The bottom 50 per cent would own no wealth. The question really posed is that when we look forward to the next 50 or 100 years, will these inequalities increase or move down?

"(Piketty's) key take is that as long as the return on capital is higher than the rate of growth of the economy, there would be a natural tendency for inequalities to increase.

Marx for the millennials | Business Line


----------



## priceless

What do these percentages of wealth even refer to?  If a single king would own the entire planet, he could print money and allow the people to engage in commerce using the money and paper assets.  Then, if the economy of printed money would stratify the population, the lower strata could claim that the higher strata controlled a disproportionate amount of the wealth.  Still, the only real owner would be the king and that king would continue to own 100% of the wealth despite everyone else stewarding it for him.  

The only reason anyone complains about wealth-stratification is to justify entitling themselves to more printed money or just to pump more printed money into the economy to grow their businesses faster.  What other purpose is there?


----------



## georgephillip

Chris said:


> Our entire system is set up to reward ownership, not work.
> 
> Tax capital gains as income and raise the minimum wage.
> 
> Reward work.


Lift the FICA tax cap on earned income and apply FICA taxes to unearned income.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Krugman seems to interpret Piketty in a way that implies meritocracy is giving way to family dynasties in the US:*
> 
> "In America in particular the share of national income going to the top one percent has followed a great U-shaped arc.
> 
> "Before World War I the one percent received around a fifth of total income in both Britain and the United States.
> 
> "By 1950 that share had been cut by more than half.
> 
> "But since 1980 the one percent has seen its income share surge againand in the United States its back to what it was a century ago.
> 
> "Still, todays economic elite is very different from that of the nineteenth century, isnt it?
> 
> "Back then, great wealth tended to be inherited; arent todays economic elite people who earned their position?
> 
> "Well, Piketty tells us that this isnt as true as you think, and that in any case this state of affairs may prove no more durable than the middle-class society that flourished for a generation after World War II.
> 
> "The big idea of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that we havent just gone back to nineteenth-century levels of income inequality, were also on a path back to 'patrimonial capitalism,' in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties."
> 
> Why We?re in a New Gilded Age by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *were also on a path back to 'patrimonial capitalism,' in which the commanding heights of the economy are controlled not by talented individuals but by family dynasties."*
> 
> Exactly! Because the 3 richest Americans, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison all inherited their wealth. No wait.
> 
> Numbers 4 & 5, Charles and David Koch inherited their billions. No, wait, when ther dad died in 1967, Koch Industries was worth millions, not tens of billions. They must have done some work.
> 
> Numbers 6-9, members of the Walton family, must have benefitted from a family dynasty. No, wait, Sam Walton didn't open the first WalMart until 1962. WalMart stock didn't get listed until 1970. No dynasty there.
> 
> Number 10 is Bloomberg.
> Number 11 is Sheldon Adelson.
> Number 12 is Jeff Bezos.
> Number 13 & 14 are Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
> 
> Haven't seen any evidence of dynasties yet.
> Perhaps you have someone in mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Charles and David and all the Waltons inherited their wealth.
> Maybe you're wearing your rich-bitch blinders?*
> 
> "Also, there is a strong correlation between inequalities in capital distribution with those in income distribution. So typically, while the top 10 per cent of the population has access to 20 per cent of total income, they actually have access to 50 per cent of capital or wealth.
> 
> The bottom 50 per cent would own no wealth. The question really posed is that when we look forward to the next 50 or 100 years, will these inequalities increase or move down?
> 
> "(Piketty's) key take is that as long as the return on capital is higher than the rate of growth of the economy, there would be a natural tendency for inequalities to increase.
> 
> Marx for the millennials | Business Line
Click to expand...


*Charles and David*

How much did they inherit in 1967? Spell it out.

*and all the Waltons inherited their wealth.*

Wealth created starting in the 1960s.
Hardly a dynasty of ever lasting wealth.
Seems like fairly recent wealth to me.

Maybe you're wearing your dumb liberal poor-bitch blinders?


----------



## georgephillip

priceless said:


> What do these percentages of wealth even refer to?  If a single king would own the entire planet, he could print money and allow the people to engage in commerce using the money and paper assets.  Then, if the economy of printed money would stratify the population, the lower strata could claim that the higher strata controlled a disproportionate amount of the wealth.  Still, the only real owner would be the king and that king would continue to own 100% of the wealth despite everyone else stewarding it for him.
> 
> The only reason anyone complains about wealth-stratification is to justify entitling themselves to more printed money or just to pump more printed money into the economy to grow their businesses faster.  What other purpose is there?


*I'm not sure if this helps or not:*

"The Wealth Distribution

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. 

"As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). 

"In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 2 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012)."

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power


----------



## dblack

Chris said:


> Our entire system is set up to reward ownership, not work.



Is it? Do you think people who merely "own" things make money purely from passive ownership? They really don't. If they don't do something productive with what they own, they won't make money.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our entire system is set up to reward ownership, not work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? Do you think people who merely "own" things make money purely from passive ownership? They really don't. If they don't do something productive with what they own, they won't make money.
Click to expand...

*What if economic elites do something extractive with their money instead of doing something productive?*

"An 'Extraction Economy is a concept from economics that refers to nation that derives most of its productivity from non-renewable resources, with the implication that elites are skimming a certain percentage off the top, and instead of investing that money in productive enterprises, spend it on non-productive activities instead. "

America as an Extraction Economy: Acemoglu and Robinsons's "Why Nations Fail" - * *D. Mark Key

*Some elites in the US are, essentially, gambling in the global Wall Street casino with their money instead of using it to create jobs at home.*


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our entire system is set up to reward ownership, not work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? Do you think people who merely "own" things make money purely from passive ownership? They really don't. If they don't do something productive with what they own, they won't make money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What if economic elites do something extractive with their money instead of doing something productive?*
> 
> "An 'Extraction Economy is a concept from economics that refers to nation that derives most of its productivity from non-renewable resources, with the implication that elites are skimming a certain percentage off the top, and instead of investing that money in productive enterprises, spend it on non-productive activities instead. "
> 
> America as an Extraction Economy: Acemoglu and Robinsons's "Why Nations Fail" - * *D. Mark Key
> 
> *Some elites in the US are, essentially, gambling in the global Wall Street casino with their money instead of using it to create jobs at home.*
Click to expand...


I'm not not sure what you mean by "extractive". If someone manages to generate a profit by squirreling away certain resources, resources that end up being rare in the future, I'd argue that their decision was indeed "productive ".


----------



## bripat9643

priceless said:


> What do these percentages of wealth even refer to?  If a single king would own the entire planet, he could print money and allow the people to engage in commerce using the money and paper assets.  Then, if the economy of printed money would stratify the population, the lower strata could claim that the higher strata controlled a disproportionate amount of the wealth.  Still, the only real owner would be the king and that king would continue to own 100% of the wealth despite everyone else stewarding it for him.
> 
> The only reason anyone complains about wealth-stratification is to justify entitling themselves to more printed money or just to pump more printed money into the economy to grow their businesses faster.  What other purpose is there?



What kind of commerce could people engage in if they didn't own anything?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our entire system is set up to reward ownership, not work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? Do you think people who merely "own" things make money purely from passive ownership? They really don't. If they don't do something productive with what they own, they won't make money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What if economic elites do something extractive with their money instead of doing something productive?*
> 
> "An 'Extraction Economy is a concept from economics that refers to nation that derives most of its productivity from non-renewable resources, with the implication that elites are skimming a certain percentage off the top, and instead of investing that money in productive enterprises, spend it on non-productive activities instead. "
> 
> America as an Extraction Economy: Acemoglu and Robinsons's "Why Nations Fail" - * *D. Mark Key
> 
> *Some elites in the US are, essentially, gambling in the global Wall Street casino with their money instead of using it to create jobs at home.*
Click to expand...


There is no such economic term as "extractive economy," or even "extractive," for that matter.  It's purely a term of your invention.  I think it's an attempt to paint certain industries as non-productive, as if copper an iron were just laying around on the ground in ingot form for someone to collect.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? Do you think people who merely "own" things make money purely from passive ownership? They really don't. If they don't do something productive with what they own, they won't make money.
> 
> 
> 
> *What if economic elites do something extractive with their money instead of doing something productive?*
> 
> "An 'Extraction Economy is a concept from economics that refers to nation that derives most of its productivity from non-renewable resources, with the implication that elites are skimming a certain percentage off the top, and instead of investing that money in productive enterprises, spend it on non-productive activities instead. "
> 
> America as an Extraction Economy: Acemoglu and Robinsons's "Why Nations Fail" - * *D. Mark Key
> 
> *Some elites in the US are, essentially, gambling in the global Wall Street casino with their money instead of using it to create jobs at home.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such economic term as "extractive economy," or even "extractive," for that matter.  It's purely a term of your invention.  I think it's an attempt to paint certain industries as non-productive, as if copper an iron were just laying around on the ground in ingot form for someone to collect.
Click to expand...

*My imagination isn't good enough to be a capitalist:*

Democracy and markets: More on the extractive/inclusive debate | The Economist

"Inclusive political institutions tend to support inclusive economic institutions. 

"This leads to a more equal distribution of income, empowering a broad segment of society and making the political playing field even more level. 

"This limits what one can achieve by usurping political power and resources the incentive to re-create extractive political institutions.

"That mechanism hasn't worked in the last 30 years. 

"In contract to the 'Great Compression' from the 1940s to 1980s, economic inequality has widened sharply in the US and parts of Europe. 

"So why hasn't the political playing field become more level? Acemoglu and Robinson give a hint suggesting that

"Markets can be dominated by a few firms, charging exorbitant prices and blocking the entry of mnore efficent rivals and new technologies."


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What if economic elites do something extractive with their money instead of doing something productive?*
> 
> "An 'Extraction Economy is a concept from economics that refers to nation that derives most of its productivity from non-renewable resources, with the implication that elites are skimming a certain percentage off the top, and instead of investing that money in productive enterprises, spend it on non-productive activities instead. "
> 
> America as an Extraction Economy: Acemoglu and Robinsons's "Why Nations Fail" - * *D. Mark Key
> 
> *Some elites in the US are, essentially, gambling in the global Wall Street casino with their money instead of using it to create jobs at home.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such economic term as "extractive economy," or even "extractive," for that matter.  It's purely a term of your invention.  I think it's an attempt to paint certain industries as non-productive, as if copper an iron were just laying around on the ground in ingot form for someone to collect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *My imagination isn't good enough to be a capitalist:*
> 
> Democracy and markets: More on the extractive/inclusive debate | The Economist
> 
> "Inclusive political institutions tend to support inclusive economic institutions.
> 
> "This leads to a more equal distribution of income, empowering a broad segment of society and making the political playing field even more level.
> 
> "This limits what one can achieve by usurping political power and resources the incentive to re-create extractive political institutions.
> 
> "That mechanism hasn't worked in the last 30 years.
> 
> "In contract to the 'Great Compression' from the 1940s to 1980s, economic inequality has widened sharply in the US and parts of Europe.
> 
> "So why hasn't the political playing field become more level? Acemoglu and Robinson give a hint suggesting that
> 
> "Markets can be dominated by a few firms, charging exorbitant prices and blocking the entry of mnore efficent rivals and new technologies."
Click to expand...


Quotefest.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our entire system is set up to reward ownership, not work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? Do you think people who merely "own" things make money purely from passive ownership? They really don't. If they don't do something productive with what they own, they won't make money.
Click to expand...


"Productive" often happens to be unrelated to the "productive" or "real" economy (opposed to speculative/financial economy).

The system is designed for those with a large sum of capital with few taxes and limits on capital flows in the financial economy. Since the regulation and taxation is low and the chance for gain is high (and the risk is off-set by "too big to fail" insurance) we see your definition of productive does not correspond to the real economy of the everyman. But isn't your ideology about everyone? why then does your idea of productive need not relate to the world of productive growth, but can be "productive" so long as wealth is being generated (and either sent to tax havens or re-invested to make more wealth for themselves--not to be spent on the real economy).


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our entire system is set up to reward ownership, not work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? Do you think people who merely "own" things make money purely from passive ownership? They really don't. If they don't do something productive with what they own, they won't make money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Productive" often happens to be unrelated to the "productive" or "real" economy (opposed to speculative/financial economy).
> 
> The system is designed for those with a large sum of capital with few taxes and limits on capital flows in the financial economy. Since the regulation and taxation is low and the chance for gain is high (and the risk is off-set by "too big to fail" insurance) we see your definition of productive does not correspond to the real economy of the everyman. But isn't your ideology about everyone? why then does your idea of productive need not relate to the world of productive growth, but can be "productive" so long as wealth is being generated (and either sent to tax havens or re-invested to make more wealth for themselves--not to be spent on the real economy).
Click to expand...


I like the way you make-up your own personal idiosyncratic definitions for the words people use and then base your arguments on those bogus definitions.  You definition of "productive" is pure fantasy.  If I have some woodworking machinery in my garage, and I use to make duck calls which I sell at the local sporting goods store, I have produce something.  It didn't require any regulations, a large sum of capital, restrictions on capital flows or any of the other humbug you listed.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our entire system is set up to reward ownership, not work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? Do you think people who merely "own" things make money purely from passive ownership? They really don't. If they don't do something productive with what they own, they won't make money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Productive" often happens to be unrelated to the "productive" or "real" economy (opposed to speculative/financial economy).
> 
> The system is designed for those with a large sum of capital with few taxes and limits on capital flows in the financial economy. Since the regulation and taxation is low and the chance for gain is high (and the risk is off-set by "too big to fail" insurance) we see your definition of productive does not correspond to the real economy of the everyman. But isn't your ideology about everyone? why then does your idea of productive need not relate to the world of productive growth, but can be "productive" so long as wealth is being generated (and either sent to tax havens or re-invested to make more wealth for themselves--not to be spent on the real economy).
Click to expand...


The too big to fail shit isn't part of my ideology.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? Do you think people who merely "own" things make money purely from passive ownership? They really don't. If they don't do something productive with what they own, they won't make money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Productive" often happens to be unrelated to the "productive" or "real" economy (opposed to speculative/financial economy).
> 
> The system is designed for those with a large sum of capital with few taxes and limits on capital flows in the financial economy. Since the regulation and taxation is low and the chance for gain is high (and the risk is off-set by "too big to fail" insurance) we see your definition of productive does not correspond to the real economy of the everyman. But isn't your ideology about everyone? why then does your idea of productive need not relate to the world of productive growth, but can be "productive" so long as wealth is being generated (and either sent to tax havens or re-invested to make more wealth for themselves--not to be spent on the real economy).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like the way you make-up your own personal idiosyncratic definitions for the words people use and then base your arguments on those bogus definitions.  You definition of "productive" is pure fantasy.  If I have some woodworking machinery in my garage, and I use to make duck calls which I sell at the local sporting goods store, I have produce something.  It didn't require any regulations, a large sum of capital, restrictions on capital flows or any of the other humbug you listed.
Click to expand...


You're hopeless. I posted a link demonstrating the validity of the distinction meaning that I did not invent it but there is genuine economics behind distinguishing between the real economy and the speculative economy.  The distinction "...lay in the fact, emphasized by both Marx and Keynes, that the capital accumulation process was twofold: involving the ownership of real assets and also the holding of paper claims to those real assets. Under these circumstances the possibility of a contradiction between real accumulation and financial speculation was intrinsic to the system from the start." The Financialization of Capitalism

But you're right otherwise. It would be dubious to invent idiosyncratic terms. But given your alleged understanding of economics and my stupidity (read: Marxism) you ought to know this but I'm beginning to doubt you have any substantive knowledge about some of your more forthright assertions and allegations.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? Do you think people who merely "own" things make money purely from passive ownership? They really don't. If they don't do something productive with what they own, they won't make money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Productive" often happens to be unrelated to the "productive" or "real" economy (opposed to speculative/financial economy).
> 
> The system is designed for those with a large sum of capital with few taxes and limits on capital flows in the financial economy. Since the regulation and taxation is low and the chance for gain is high (and the risk is off-set by "too big to fail" insurance) we see your definition of productive does not correspond to the real economy of the everyman. But isn't your ideology about everyone? why then does your idea of productive need not relate to the world of productive growth, but can be "productive" so long as wealth is being generated (and either sent to tax havens or re-invested to make more wealth for themselves--not to be spent on the real economy).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The too big to fail shit isn't part of my ideology.
Click to expand...


The free market necessitates it. Capitalists always seek to secure against risk (i.e. profit motive). The best way to do that is to have a strong government that can extract from the taxpayer, the working citizen to secure against their risks.

You may start with a free market, but as soon as certain companies begin to accumulate capital, they inevitably use their capital to secure against capital loss. It's only natural. So inevitably free markets become heavily regulated or insured--favoring those with the capital to afford such influence.

If a government didn't exist before free markets, they would be formed to protect and insure capitalists and land holders from risk.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Productive" often happens to be unrelated to the "productive" or "real" economy (opposed to speculative/financial economy).
> 
> The system is designed for those with a large sum of capital with few taxes and limits on capital flows in the financial economy. Since the regulation and taxation is low and the chance for gain is high (and the risk is off-set by "too big to fail" insurance) we see your definition of productive does not correspond to the real economy of the everyman. But isn't your ideology about everyone? why then does your idea of productive need not relate to the world of productive growth, but can be "productive" so long as wealth is being generated (and either sent to tax havens or re-invested to make more wealth for themselves--not to be spent on the real economy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The too big to fail shit isn't part of my ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The free market necessitates it.
Click to expand...


A free market prohibits it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Productive" often happens to be unrelated to the "productive" or "real" economy (opposed to speculative/financial economy).
> 
> The system is designed for those with a large sum of capital with few taxes and limits on capital flows in the financial economy. Since the regulation and taxation is low and the chance for gain is high (and the risk is off-set by "too big to fail" insurance) we see your definition of productive does not correspond to the real economy of the everyman. But isn't your ideology about everyone? why then does your idea of productive need not relate to the world of productive growth, but can be "productive" so long as wealth is being generated (and either sent to tax havens or re-invested to make more wealth for themselves--not to be spent on the real economy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The too big to fail shit isn't part of my ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The free market necessitates it. Capitalists always seek to secure against risk (i.e. profit motive). The best way to do that is to have a strong government that can extract from the taxpayer, the working citizen to secure against their risks.
> 
> You may start with a free market, but as soon as certain companies begin to accumulate capital, they inevitably use their capital to secure against capital loss. It's only natural. So inevitably free markets become heavily regulated or insured--favoring those with the capital to afford such influence.
> 
> If a government didn't exist before free markets, they would be formed to protect and insure capitalists and land holders from risk.
Click to expand...


*You may start with a free market, but as soon as certain companies begin to accumulate capital, they inevitably use their capital to secure against capital loss. *

Which is why no bank lost a single dollar during the financial crisis. 

If you ever listened to what you post, you'd realize how stupid it sounds.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The too big to fail shit isn't part of my ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The free market necessitates it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A free market prohibits it.
Click to expand...


Free markets do not exist in a vacuum unlike your ideology. The market is not in a permanent state. It is dynamic. It is a living process that develops as capital accumulates. A free market creates capital and capital is distributed according to who does well (free competition). As those who do well accumulate capital, they necessarily seek to preserve it by instituting methods for insuring their wealth. There are many manifestations of the method (too big to fail, threatening to move the company unless given subsidies, on and on) but the method generally speaking is turning the free market into a market that favors them. But any market that favors one over another is not a free market. Thus we clearly see the dynamic nature of a free market naturally and inevitably undermines the free market.


----------



## bayoubill

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



oh gee... yet another thread posted by someone who has no fucking idea about how capitalism works...

here's a clue... it ain't a zero-sum game, dumb fuck...


eta: and regarding the meltdown to which you referred, it was driven by the government's fuck-headed intrusion into the market economy and the wrong-headed mandates the government placed upon it...


----------



## bayoubill

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What if economic elites do something extractive with their money instead of doing something productive?*
> 
> "An 'Extraction Economy is a concept from economics that refers to nation that derives most of its productivity from non-renewable resources, with the implication that elites are skimming a certain percentage off the top, and instead of investing that money in productive enterprises, spend it on non-productive activities instead. "
> 
> America as an Extraction Economy: Acemoglu and Robinsons's "Why Nations Fail" - * *D. Mark Key
> 
> *Some elites in the US are, essentially, gambling in the global Wall Street casino with their money instead of using it to create jobs at home.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such economic term as "extractive economy," or even "extractive," for that matter.  It's purely a term of your invention.  I think it's an attempt to paint certain industries as non-productive, as if copper an iron were just laying around on the ground in ingot form for someone to collect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *My imagination isn't good enough to be a capitalist:*
> 
> Democracy and markets: More on the extractive/inclusive debate | The Economist
> 
> "Inclusive political institutions tend to support inclusive economic institutions.
> 
> "This leads to a more equal distribution of income, empowering a broad segment of society and making the political playing field even more level.
> 
> "This limits what one can achieve by usurping political power and resources the incentive to re-create extractive political institutions.
> 
> "That mechanism hasn't worked in the last 30 years.
> 
> "In contract to the 'Great Compression' from the 1940s to 1980s, economic inequality has widened sharply in the US and parts of Europe.
> 
> "So why hasn't the political playing field become more level? Acemoglu and Robinson give a hint suggesting that
> 
> "Markets can be dominated by a few firms, charging exorbitant prices and blocking the entry of mnore efficent rivals and new technologies."
Click to expand...


your imagination in doing just fine...

but mebbe you were dropped on your head as a child...


eta:  meh... my apologies about that comment...

I'm jes' tryin' to figure out how otherwise smart folks can be so fuckin' stupid regarding the subject of economics...


----------



## georgephillip

bayoubill said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh gee... yet another thread posted by someone who has no fucking idea about how capitalism works...
> 
> here's a clue... it ain't a zero-sum game, dumb fuck...
> 
> 
> eta: and regarding the meltdown to which you referred, it was driven by the government's fuck-headed intrusion into the market economy and the wrong-headed mandates the government placed upon it...
Click to expand...

Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
That's how capitalism works.
Players begin with equal amounts of money.
The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
BTW, the FBI predicted that meltdown in 2004 when it warned of massive amounts of fraud in the private mortgage markets. Maybe government should have prosecuted more Wall Street bankers for their part in the Great Recession?


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
> That's how capitalism works.
> Players begin with equal amounts of money.
> The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
> Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.



LOL, that really is your simplistic view of the world.  Monopoly is a zero sum game, there is a fixed amount of money on the table.  That is not like real life.

In real life, companies make profits.  Now granted those profits are evil, but they actually are what grows the economy making it not a zero sum game.

The sad part of your view is that it is the liberal view.  There is a certain amount of money, all government is doing is as Obama said, "spreading it around."  But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it.  And as government gets too powerful, the destruction becomes too much for companies to make up.  We are seeing the effects of that now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh gee... yet another thread posted by someone who has no fucking idea about how capitalism works...
> 
> here's a clue... it ain't a zero-sum game, dumb fuck...
> 
> 
> eta: and regarding the meltdown to which you referred, it was driven by the government's fuck-headed intrusion into the market economy and the wrong-headed mandates the government placed upon it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
> That's how capitalism works.
> Players begin with equal amounts of money.
> The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
> Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
> BTW, the FBI predicted that meltdown in 2004 when it warned of massive amounts of fraud in the private mortgage markets. Maybe government should have prosecuted more Wall Street bankers for their part in the Great Recession?
Click to expand...


*Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
That's how capitalism works.*

Confusing real life with a board game? It's no wonder why you fell for communism.

*The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.*

What's the net worth of the winner at the end?
Is that higher than the total net worth of all the players at the beginning? LOL!


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
> That's how capitalism works.
> Players begin with equal amounts of money.
> The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
> Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, that really is your simplistic view of the world.  Monopoly is a zero sum game, there is a fixed amount of money on the table.  That is not like real life.
> 
> In real life, companies make profits.  Now granted those profits are evil, but they actually are what grows the economy making it not a zero sum game.
> 
> The sad part of your view is that it is the liberal view.  There is a certain amount of money, all government is doing is as Obama said, "spreading it around."  But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it.  And as government gets too powerful, the destruction becomes too much for companies to make up.  We are seeing the effects of that now.
Click to expand...


What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).

The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
> That's how capitalism works.
> Players begin with equal amounts of money.
> The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
> Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, that really is your simplistic view of the world.  Monopoly is a zero sum game, there is a fixed amount of money on the table.  That is not like real life.
> 
> In real life, companies make profits.  Now granted those profits are evil, but they actually are what grows the economy making it not a zero sum game.
> 
> The sad part of your view is that it is the liberal view.  There is a certain amount of money, all government is doing is as Obama said, "spreading it around."  But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it.  And as government gets too powerful, the destruction becomes too much for companies to make up.  We are seeing the effects of that now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).
> 
> The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?
Click to expand...


I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.  And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh gee... yet another thread posted by someone who has no fucking idea about how capitalism works...
> 
> here's a clue... it ain't a zero-sum game, dumb fuck...
> 
> 
> eta: and regarding the meltdown to which you referred, it was driven by the government's fuck-headed intrusion into the market economy and the wrong-headed mandates the government placed upon it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
> That's how capitalism works.
> Players begin with equal amounts of money.
> The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
> Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
> BTW, the FBI predicted that meltdown in 2004 when it warned of massive amounts of fraud in the private mortgage markets. Maybe government should have prosecuted more Wall Street bankers for their part in the Great Recession?
Click to expand...


FWIW, the board game _Monopoly_, like all games, represents an ideology - one specifically and deliberately critical of capitalism. _Monopoly_ is the game designers _opinion_ of how capitalism works.


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
> That's how capitalism works.
> Players begin with equal amounts of money.
> The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
> Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, that really is your simplistic view of the world.  Monopoly is a zero sum game, there is a fixed amount of money on the table.  That is not like real life.
> 
> In real life, companies make profits.  Now granted those profits are evil, but they actually are what grows the economy making it not a zero sum game.
> 
> The sad part of your view is that it is the liberal view.  There is a certain amount of money, all government is doing is as Obama said, "spreading it around."  But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it.  And as government gets too powerful, the destruction becomes too much for companies to make up.  We are seeing the effects of that now.
Click to expand...

The logic of globalization works like Monopoly: Amass all the wealth on the board by bankrupting all other players then wait for the next round of QE and continue rolling the dice. 

I'm not sure how much "value" government has destroyed lately or whether that amount exceeds the two-thirds of tax savings over the last few years that have gone to the top quintile of households, but it's clear the richest 0.1% of "earners" are happy with the $371,000 they've saved on their tax bills. 

I'm less sure about how the poor feel about their $66 savings during the same time period.

Diary of a Heartland Radical: THE PAINFUL TRUTH: CAPITALISM IS A ZERO-SUM GAME


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, that really is your simplistic view of the world.  Monopoly is a zero sum game, there is a fixed amount of money on the table.  That is not like real life.
> 
> In real life, companies make profits.  Now granted those profits are evil, but they actually are what grows the economy making it not a zero sum game.
> 
> The sad part of your view is that it is the liberal view.  There is a certain amount of money, all government is doing is as Obama said, "spreading it around."  But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it.  And as government gets too powerful, the destruction becomes too much for companies to make up.  We are seeing the effects of that now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).
> 
> The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.  And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


So you accept the rich prefer a [large and powerful] government with security, but how do you pay for security? Taxes. Taxes come from surplus. The people who are unrelated to the production of goods (i.e. police and military) must be supported by the surplus of those producing. So you don't mind taxation up to a certain point. So what constitutes the line in the sand of the right amount of taxation beyond which is too much? Does taxation for education, water utility and roads constitute excess taxation? Why or why not?


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, that really is your simplistic view of the world.  Monopoly is a zero sum game, there is a fixed amount of money on the table.  That is not like real life.
> 
> In real life, companies make profits.  Now granted those profits are evil, but they actually are what grows the economy making it not a zero sum game.
> 
> The sad part of your view is that it is the liberal view.  There is a certain amount of money, all government is doing is as Obama said, "spreading it around."  But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it.  And as government gets too powerful, the destruction becomes too much for companies to make up.  We are seeing the effects of that now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).
> 
> The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.  And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You said, "But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it." If I understand gnarly's point, it's that government, working as a protection racket for its richest citizens, is what enables companies to create value in the first place. Without government there is no capitalism.


----------



## Antares

Capitalism only creates inequality when the bottom feeders refuse to play the game.

They tend to remain inert and wait for the rest of us to pay for them.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).
> 
> The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.  And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you accept the rich prefer a [large and powerful] government with security, but how do you pay for security? Taxes. Taxes come from surplus. The people who are unrelated to the production of goods (i.e. police and military) must be supported by the surplus of those producing. So you don't mind taxation up to a certain point. So what constitutes the line in the sand of the right amount of taxation beyond which is too much? Does taxation for education, water utility and roads constitute excess taxation? Why or why not?
Click to expand...


Because we create government to deal with specific problems, not as a general purpose tool. Government is required to resolve disputes peacefully. The irony is that many people today want to use government as a means of getting what they want out of others, quite non-peacefully. We have a choice between government that protects us from bullies, and one that does their bidding.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh gee... yet another thread posted by someone who has no fucking idea about how capitalism works...
> 
> here's a clue... it ain't a zero-sum game, dumb fuck...
> 
> 
> eta: and regarding the meltdown to which you referred, it was driven by the government's fuck-headed intrusion into the market economy and the wrong-headed mandates the government placed upon it...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
> That's how capitalism works.
> Players begin with equal amounts of money.
> The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
> Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
> BTW, the FBI predicted that meltdown in 2004 when it warned of massive amounts of fraud in the private mortgage markets. Maybe government should have prosecuted more Wall Street bankers for their part in the Great Recession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FWIW, the board game _Monopoly_, like all games, represents an ideology - one specifically and deliberately critical of capitalism. _Monopoly_ is the game designers _opinion_ of how capitalism works.
Click to expand...

"The history of the board game Monopoly can be traced back to the early 20th century. The earliest known version of Monopoly, known as The Landlord's Game, was designed by an American, Elizabeth Magie, and first patented in 1904 but existed as early as 1902.[1]

"Magie, a follower of Henry George, originally intended The Landlord's Game to illustrate the economic consequences of Ricardo's Law of Economic rent and the Georgist concept of a single tax on land value."

*Now, I guess, we have to decide if the game designers's opinion of capitalism is accurate.*

History of the board game Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Fishlore

The peculiar Enlightement origin of our system of goverment has given Americans the mistaken idea that governments are produced from scratch like cupcakes. This is very far from the truth. The American colonies created our supposedly brand new system out bits and pieces of the English parliamentary system as modified by a century and a half of our colonial development. Yes, the new nation did introduce some significant new components but, on the whole, the Constitution contains far more of the traditional Rights of Englishmen than brand new French-style theories.

Government is a bit like language. Both cultural elements evolve significantly over time but in neither case is it possible for a society to start its language or its government from scratch.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
> That's how capitalism works.
> Players begin with equal amounts of money.
> The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
> Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
> BTW, the FBI predicted that meltdown in 2004 when it warned of massive amounts of fraud in the private mortgage markets. Maybe government should have prosecuted more Wall Street bankers for their part in the Great Recession?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, the board game _Monopoly_, like all games, represents an ideology - one specifically and deliberately critical of capitalism. _Monopoly_ is the game designers _opinion_ of how capitalism works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The history of the board game Monopoly can be traced back to the early 20th century. The earliest known version of Monopoly, known as The Landlord's Game, was designed by an American, Elizabeth Magie, and first patented in 1904 but existed as early as 1902.[1]
> 
> "Magie, a follower of Henry George, originally intended The Landlord's Game to illustrate the economic consequences of Ricardo's Law of Economic rent and the Georgist concept of a single tax on land value."
> 
> *Now, I guess, we have to decide if the game designers's opinion of capitalism is accurate.*
> 
> History of the board game Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Exactly. It's just someone else's opinion. All the best games are commentary - idealized perceptions of reality. Monopoly is _designed_ as a zero-sum game, it's a closed system with limited resources and no productive work. Real markets aren't limited in that way.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).
> 
> The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.  And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said, "But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it." If I understand gnarly's point, it's that government, working as a protection racket for its richest citizens, is what enables companies to create value in the first place. Without government there is no capitalism.
Click to expand...


In the first place, that's bullshit.  In the second place, the amount of government providing protection to capitalists is about 10% of what government extracts from the country in revenue.  The other 90% of government is a drain on wealth creation and capitalists.

Marxists keep trying to claim that government contributes to wealth creation, but the fact is precisely the opposite, and it's easily demonstrated.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).
> 
> The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.  And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said, "But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it." If I understand gnarly's point, it's that government, working as a protection racket for its richest citizens, is what enables companies to create value in the first place. Without government there is no capitalism.
Click to expand...


Government acts as a protection racket for itself.  It threatens all of us with confiscation of our property if we don't pay it the protection money it demands.  The rich pay the most of all.  The rich do not benefit from the existence of government.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, the board game _Monopoly_, like all games, represents an ideology - one specifically and deliberately critical of capitalism. _Monopoly_ is the game designers _opinion_ of how capitalism works.
> 
> 
> 
> "The history of the board game Monopoly can be traced back to the early 20th century. The earliest known version of Monopoly, known as The Landlord's Game, was designed by an American, Elizabeth Magie, and first patented in 1904 but existed as early as 1902.[1]
> 
> "Magie, a follower of Henry George, originally intended The Landlord's Game to illustrate the economic consequences of Ricardo's Law of Economic rent and the Georgist concept of a single tax on land value."
> 
> *Now, I guess, we have to decide if the game designers's opinion of capitalism is accurate.*
> 
> History of the board game Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. It's just someone else's opinion. All the best games are commentary - idealized perceptions of reality. Monopoly is _designed_ as a zero-sum game, it's a closed system with limited resources and no productive work. Real markets aren't limited in that way.
Click to expand...

Today real markets produce a few players that accumulate winnings millions of times larger than billions of other players. That fact tells me we are dealing with a zero sum economy where wins are balanced by losses, producing a pie that doesn't grow and a tide
that doesn't lift all boats.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The history of the board game Monopoly can be traced back to the early 20th century. The earliest known version of Monopoly, known as The Landlord's Game, was designed by an American, Elizabeth Magie, and first patented in 1904 but existed as early as 1902.[1]
> 
> "Magie, a follower of Henry George, originally intended The Landlord's Game to illustrate the economic consequences of Ricardo's Law of Economic rent and the Georgist concept of a single tax on land value."
> 
> *Now, I guess, we have to decide if the game designers's opinion of capitalism is accurate.*
> 
> History of the board game Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. It's just someone else's opinion. All the best games are commentary - idealized perceptions of reality. Monopoly is _designed_ as a zero-sum game, it's a closed system with limited resources and no productive work. Real markets aren't limited in that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today real markets produce a few players that accumulate winnings millions of times larger than billions of other players. That fact tells me we are dealing with a zero sum economy where wins are balanced by losses, producing a pie that doesn't grow and a tide
> that doesn't lift all boats.
Click to expand...


How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?


----------



## georgephillip

Fishlore said:


> The peculiar Enlightement origin of our system of goverment has given Americans the mistaken idea that governments are produced from scratch like cupcakes. This is very far from the truth. The American colonies created our supposedly brand new system out bits and pieces of the English parliamentary system as modified by a century and a half of our colonial development. Yes, the new nation did introduce some significant new components but, on the whole, the Constitution contains far more of the traditional Rights of Englishmen than brand new French-style theories.
> 
> Government is a bit like language. Both cultural elements evolve significantly over time but in neither case is it possible for a society to start its language or its government from scratch.


*America's founders had strong opinions on class interest, as well:*

"An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is a 1913 book by American historian Charles A. Beard. It argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers. 

"More specifically, Beard contends that the Constitutional Convention was attended by, and the Constitution was therefore written by, a 'cohesive elite seeking to protect its personal property (especially bonds) and economic standing."

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peculiar Enlightement origin of our system of goverment has given Americans the mistaken idea that governments are produced from scratch like cupcakes. This is very far from the truth. The American colonies created our supposedly brand new system out bits and pieces of the English parliamentary system as modified by a century and a half of our colonial development. Yes, the new nation did introduce some significant new components but, on the whole, the Constitution contains far more of the traditional Rights of Englishmen than brand new French-style theories.
> 
> Government is a bit like language. Both cultural elements evolve significantly over time but in neither case is it possible for a society to start its language or its government from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *America's founders had strong opinions on class interest, as well:*
> 
> "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is a 1913 book by American historian Charles A. Beard. It argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers.
> 
> "More specifically, Beard contends that the Constitutional Convention was attended by, and the Constitution was therefore written by, a 'cohesive elite seeking to protect its personal property (especially bonds) and economic standing."
> 
> An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


That sounds more like a commie interpretation of the Constitution.


----------



## gnarlylove

Fishlore said:


> The peculiar Enlightement origin of our system of goverment has given Americans the mistaken idea that governments are produced from scratch like cupcakes. This is very far from the truth. The American colonies created our supposedly brand new system out bits and pieces of the English parliamentary system as modified by a century and a half of our colonial development. Yes, the new nation did introduce some significant new components but, on the whole, the Constitution contains far more of the traditional Rights of Englishmen than brand new French-style theories.
> 
> Government is a bit like language. Both cultural elements evolve significantly over time but in neither case is it possible for a society to start its language or its government from scratch.



In Aristotle's "The Politics" he offers adept observation and convincing reason of the naturalness of rule, of government and slavery ("self governance" was not a term he used but it is the reason or the soul ruling over the body and desires). Too few people consider the foundation and evolution of society into increasing complexity from household, tribe, village, city, nation. So many think government has some dial on which you can control its size as if size is the determining factor in its operation.

The sad result of teaching HS seniors about "capitalist democracy" and skimming real discussion of governance is it produces a fantasia like you describe about your roots. I was under its spell too, luckily, I investigated and researched.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peculiar Enlightement origin of our system of goverment has given Americans the mistaken idea that governments are produced from scratch like cupcakes. This is very far from the truth. The American colonies created our supposedly brand new system out bits and pieces of the English parliamentary system as modified by a century and a half of our colonial development. Yes, the new nation did introduce some significant new components but, on the whole, the Constitution contains far more of the traditional Rights of Englishmen than brand new French-style theories.
> 
> Government is a bit like language. Both cultural elements evolve significantly over time but in neither case is it possible for a society to start its language or its government from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Aristotle's "The Politics" he offers adept observation and convincing reason of the naturalness of rule, of government and slavery ("self governance" was not a term he used but it is the reason or the soul ruling over the body and desires). Too few people consider the foundation and evolution of society into increasing complexity from household, tribe, village, city, nation. So many think government has some dial on which you can control its size as if size is the determining factor in its operation.
> 
> The sad result of teaching HS seniors about "capitalist democracy" and skimming real discussion of governance is it produces a fantasia like you describe about your roots. I was under its spell too, luckily, I investigated and researched.
Click to expand...


Meaningless babble.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peculiar Enlightement origin of our system of goverment has given Americans the mistaken idea that governments are produced from scratch like cupcakes. This is very far from the truth. The American colonies created our supposedly brand new system out bits and pieces of the English parliamentary system as modified by a century and a half of our colonial development. Yes, the new nation did introduce some significant new components but, on the whole, the Constitution contains far more of the traditional Rights of Englishmen than brand new French-style theories.
> 
> Government is a bit like language. Both cultural elements evolve significantly over time but in neither case is it possible for a society to start its language or its government from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Aristotle's "The Politics" he offers adept observation and convincing reason of the naturalness of rule, of government and slavery ("self governance" was not a term he used but it is the reason or the soul ruling over the body and desires). Too few people consider the foundation and evolution of society into increasing complexity from household, tribe, village, city, nation. So many think government has some dial on which you can control its size as if size is the determining factor in its operation.
> 
> The sad result of teaching HS seniors about "capitalist democracy" and skimming real discussion of governance is it produces a fantasia like you describe about your roots. I was under its spell too, luckily, I investigated and researched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless babble.
Click to expand...


That's what he does best.


----------



## gnarlylove

THOMA Piketty notes an important mechanism contributing to the rising inequality.

The mechanism works "on the excess on the rate of return on capital with the rate of growth for the economy to siphon income to the very top part of the income distribution. So far as I know, nobody had fastened on that before...it's not some kind of market failure of a capitalist economy. It's a mechanism that's there..."

The rate of return on capital averages between 4-5%, larger parcels can be 6%. The rate of growth in the economy varies, 0-3.5%. So these rates contribute to the dynamic wealth accumulation of individuals who have capital leaving those who "only have their labor" behind. These numbers range from over 20 countries and centuries as far as reliable data exists. One can expect the rate of growth to remain steady for the global economy around 3% but in America we can expect lower. The rate of return on capital can change but as wealth concentrates, we can expect policy to reflect the interests of high returns on capital.

Piketty has described how we got to the point where 95% of income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1%. But in the foreseeable future we can expect these trends to continue.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. It's just someone else's opinion. All the best games are commentary - idealized perceptions of reality. Monopoly is _designed_ as a zero-sum game, it's a closed system with limited resources and no productive work. Real markets aren't limited in that way.
> 
> 
> 
> Today real markets produce a few players that accumulate winnings millions of times larger than billions of other players. That fact tells me we are dealing with a zero sum economy where wins are balanced by losses, producing a pie that doesn't grow and a tide
> that doesn't lift all boats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?
Click to expand...


Scarcity is your answer. All economists teach you we live in a world of scarcity. The world is not infinite. If I take 100 jelly beans, that leaves a portion of the original to be divided among the rest. So my consumption has reduced the total jelly beans. My pursuit of self has led to fewer for everyone else. You can make more jelly beans. But you can't make more land and oil unless your model expects to colonize Mars and new planets. I don't think that's reasonable to expect.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peculiar Enlightement origin of our system of goverment has given Americans the mistaken idea that governments are produced from scratch like cupcakes. This is very far from the truth. The American colonies created our supposedly brand new system out bits and pieces of the English parliamentary system as modified by a century and a half of our colonial development. Yes, the new nation did introduce some significant new components but, on the whole, the Constitution contains far more of the traditional Rights of Englishmen than brand new French-style theories.
> 
> Government is a bit like language. Both cultural elements evolve significantly over time but in neither case is it possible for a society to start its language or its government from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Aristotle's "The Politics" he offers adept observation and convincing reason of the naturalness of rule, of government and slavery ("self governance" was not a term he used but it is the reason or the soul ruling over the body and desires). Too few people consider the foundation and evolution of society into increasing complexity from household, tribe, village, city, nation. So many think government has some dial on which you can control its size as if size is the determining factor in its operation.
> 
> The sad result of teaching HS seniors about "capitalist democracy" and skimming real discussion of governance is it produces a fantasia like you describe about your roots. I was under its spell too, luckily, I investigated and researched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless babble.
Click to expand...


Then why did you waste your time replying? Taking you at your word, you have nothing else to say except meaningless babble.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Aristotle's "The Politics" he offers adept observation and convincing reason of the naturalness of rule, of government and slavery ("self governance" was not a term he used but it is the reason or the soul ruling over the body and desires). Too few people consider the foundation and evolution of society into increasing complexity from household, tribe, village, city, nation. So many think government has some dial on which you can control its size as if size is the determining factor in its operation.
> 
> The sad result of teaching HS seniors about "capitalist democracy" and skimming real discussion of governance is it produces a fantasia like you describe about your roots. I was under its spell too, luckily, I investigated and researched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless babble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did you waste your time replying? Taking you at your word, you have nothing else to say except meaningless babble.
Click to expand...



You expend a lot of bandwidth saying almost nothing.   What you do say is idiotic.  Only a fool believes that the size of government has no impact on how it functions.  Furthermore, even a child understands that less of something bad is better than more of something bad.  Apparently you dispute such this indisputable fact.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. It's just someone else's opinion. All the best games are commentary - idealized perceptions of reality. Monopoly is _designed_ as a zero-sum game, it's a closed system with limited resources and no productive work. Real markets aren't limited in that way.
> 
> 
> 
> Today real markets produce a few players that accumulate winnings millions of times larger than billions of other players. That fact tells me we are dealing with a zero sum economy where wins are balanced by losses, producing a pie that doesn't grow and a tide
> that doesn't lift all boats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?
Click to expand...







Income has been redistributed over the past four decades from wage labor to corporate profits and investments in IT.
That is making a few rich at the expense of millions of workers.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peculiar Enlightement origin of our system of goverment has given Americans the mistaken idea that governments are produced from scratch like cupcakes. This is very far from the truth. The American colonies created our supposedly brand new system out bits and pieces of the English parliamentary system as modified by a century and a half of our colonial development. Yes, the new nation did introduce some significant new components but, on the whole, the Constitution contains far more of the traditional Rights of Englishmen than brand new French-style theories.
> 
> Government is a bit like language. Both cultural elements evolve significantly over time but in neither case is it possible for a society to start its language or its government from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *America's founders had strong opinions on class interest, as well:*
> 
> "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is a 1913 book by American historian Charles A. Beard. It argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers.
> 
> "More specifically, Beard contends that the Constitutional Convention was attended by, and the Constitution was therefore written by, a 'cohesive elite seeking to protect its personal property (especially bonds) and economic standing."
> 
> An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds more like a commie interpretation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

"Beard pointed out, for example, that George Washington was the wealthiest landowner in the country, and had provided significant funding towards the Revolution. Beard traces the Constitutional guarantee that the newly formed nation would pay its debts to the desire of Washington and similarly situated lenders to have their costs refunded."

*You sound like a bond holder.*

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today real markets produce a few players that accumulate winnings millions of times larger than billions of other players. That fact tells me we are dealing with a zero sum economy where wins are balanced by losses, producing a pie that doesn't grow and a tide
> that doesn't lift all boats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income has been redistributed over the past four decades from wage labor to corporate profits and investments in IT.
> That is making a few rich at the expense of millions of workers.
Click to expand...


"Labor Income _As a Share of Total Income_" - this doesn't answer the question. It speaks only to relative income. I'm asking you how someone else having more than you makes you poorer. And the fact of the matter is, unless they are stealing it from you (which, admittedly, does happen), someone else's good fortune doesn't imply your loss.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income has been redistributed over the past four decades from wage labor to corporate profits and investments in IT.
> That is making a few rich at the expense of millions of workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Labor Income _As a Share of Total Income_" - this doesn't answer the question. It speaks only to relative income. I'm asking you how someone else having more than you makes you poorer. And the fact of the matter is, unless they are stealing it from you (which, admittedly, does happen), someone else's good fortune doesn't imply your loss.
Click to expand...

If it's true those at the very top of wealth distribution usually have the most income, and their income gains over the past forty years  have come largely from redistributing middle class jobs to China, the few who have become rich over that time period did so by making millions of productive workers poorer.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless babble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did you waste your time replying? Taking you at your word, you have nothing else to say except meaningless babble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You expend a lot of bandwidth saying almost nothing.   What you do say is idiotic.  Only a fool believes that the size of government has no impact on how it functions.  Furthermore, even a child understands that less of something bad is better than more of something bad.  Apparently you dispute such this indisputable fact.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your enthusiasm for your beliefs as objective truth. But if you wish to actually have objective beliefs, you cannot define objective truth as your belief. We have all kinds of beliefs that are not objective or founded in reason; our psychology works by grafting beliefs with your core beliefs already in place. This means truth is a secondary consideration of beliefs--the primary consideration is how it fits with other beliefs, opinions and assumptions.

But surely you don't think every single opinion, assumption and belief you have are facts of objective reality? So you need to be willing to stop being hostile to new and strange views in order to determine the validity of your beliefs. If you don't care to check the validity of your beliefs by listening to criticism, then who are you to say "what you say is stupid?" That statement becomes a hollow and uninformed opinion if you don't care to validate your beliefs through discussion and criticism.

Again, I respect the tenacity you possess and extreme confidence but there are a lot smarter people than you (or me) and some happen to agree while others strongly disagree with you (and me). So don't you think it's worth hearing respectfully the arguments from others? Please let me know.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever play the old board game, Monopoly?
> That's how capitalism works.
> Players begin with equal amounts of money.
> The "winner" triumphs by bankrupting her rivals.
> Which sounds a lot like zero-sum, to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, that really is your simplistic view of the world.  Monopoly is a zero sum game, there is a fixed amount of money on the table.  That is not like real life.
> 
> In real life, companies make profits.  Now granted those profits are evil, but they actually are what grows the economy making it not a zero sum game.
> 
> The sad part of your view is that it is the liberal view.  There is a certain amount of money, all government is doing is as Obama said, "spreading it around."  But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it.  And as government gets too powerful, the destruction becomes too much for companies to make up.  We are seeing the effects of that now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The logic of globalization works like Monopoly: Amass all the wealth on the board by bankrupting all other players then wait for the next round of QE and continue rolling the dice.
> 
> I'm not sure how much "value" government has destroyed lately or whether that amount exceeds the two-thirds of tax savings over the last few years that have gone to the top quintile of households, but it's clear the richest 0.1% of "earners" are happy with the $371,000 they've saved on their tax bills.
> 
> I'm less sure about how the poor feel about their $66 savings during the same time period.
> 
> Diary of a Heartland Radical: THE PAINFUL TRUTH: CAPITALISM IS A ZERO-SUM GAME
Click to expand...


You can work wealth envy into any post, can't you Georgie?

That there is any comparison between the ... game ... of Monopoly and real life doesn't mean they are the same in every way.  As I already explained, Companies make profits, they aren't just moving money around.  They are creating value.  No value is created in Monopoly.  Money is just moved around.

Capitalism is not your, let's say "forte" is it there big guy?


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).
> 
> The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.  And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what constitutes the line in the sand of the right amount of taxation beyond which is too much?
Click to expand...


Government is the worst solution to any problem, therefore it should logically be used when it is the only solution to a problem.

Government is the only solution to military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights.  90% of government should be doing those functions.

On the other hand wealth redistribution is simply plunder and is no more moral than a criminal holding you up in a back alley.



gnarlylove said:


> Does taxation for education, water utility and roads constitute excess taxation? Why or why not?



Again, you pick things that even a libertarian supports.  Though I would do education far differently.  Your argument goes that if any government can be justified, all government can be justified.  No, it can't.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call the insurance/protection that all capitalist/wealth producers invest in? The government. What does the gov't do? They create the police and military (and often taxation to insure against risk--socialization of risk).
> 
> The police protect/insure domestic property and the military expand access/control over foreign resources. All free market proponents must submit to the insurance and protection of property devised by and for the capitalist. Therefore the government must exist and have a very powerful hand. Maybe I'm way off base, whaddaya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.  And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said, "But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it." If I understand gnarly's point, it's that government, working as a protection racket for its richest citizens, is what enables companies to create value in the first place. Without government there is no capitalism.
Click to expand...


Functions like the police and military protect value while not creating value do destroy value.  It's like if you buy an insurance policy.  It costs money, it makes you poorer.  However, you spend it to protect what you have.  I support those functions.

Tax and spending destroy value and having nothing to do with protecting anything.  Government creates nothing, it just spends.  And that destroys value since the money it spends comes out of the economy from productive businesses.


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.  And no one is questioning the police or the military, so your point is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it." If I understand gnarly's point, it's that government, working as a protection racket for its richest citizens, is what enables companies to create value in the first place. Without government there is no capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Functions like the police and military protect value while not creating value do destroy value.  It's like if you buy an insurance policy.  It costs money, it makes you poorer.  However, you spend it to protect what you have.  I support those functions.
> 
> Tax and spending destroy value and having nothing to do with protecting anything.  Government creates nothing, it just spends.  And that destroys value since the money it spends comes out of the economy from productive businesses.
Click to expand...

*FDR used taxation and spending to create the Tennessee Valley Authority; do you approve?*

"Even by Depression standards, the Tennessee Valley was economically dismal in 1933. 

"Thirty percent of the population was affected by malaria, and the average income was only $639 per year, with some families surviving on as little as $100 per year.[citation needed] 

"Much of the land had been farmed too hard for too long, eroding and depleting the soil. 

"Crop yields had fallen along with farm incomes. 

"The best timber had been cut, with another 10% of forests being burnt each year.[citation needed]

"TVA was designed to modernize the region, using experts and electricity to combat human and economic problems."

Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?*


----------



## dnsmith35

Not2BSubjugated said:


> All men might be created equal in the eyes of the law.  Genetically, tho?  LMFAO


In the eyes of God! Every other equality only exists based on disability or not at all. Those who are not disabled only have he opportunity to excel based on their own recognizance! There are no guarantees in this life other than motivation, ambition work. If a person is capable of work, it is their obligation to make the most out of life. Short term assistance in certain times of economic difficulty only!


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it." If I understand gnarly's point, it's that government, working as a protection racket for its richest citizens, is what enables companies to create value in the first place. Without government there is no capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolute BS. The government protects all our citizens not just the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Functions like the police and military protect value while not creating value do destroy value.  It's like if you buy an insurance policy.  It costs money, it makes you poorer.  However, you spend it to protect what you have.  I support those functions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax and spending destroy value and having nothing to do with protecting anything.  Government creates nothing, it just spends.  And that destroys value since the money it spends comes out of the economy from productive businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct! Government is a net taker to provide our federal services and to redistribute money from the rich to the less wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FDR used taxation and spending to create the Tennessee Valley Authority; do you approve?*
> 
> "Even by Depression standards, the Tennessee Valley was economically dismal in 1933.
> 
> "Thirty percent of the population was affected by malaria, and the average income was only $639 per year, with some families surviving on as little as $100 per year.[citation needed]
> 
> "Much of the land had been farmed too hard for too long, eroding and depleting the soil.
> 
> "Crop yields had fallen along with farm incomes.
> 
> "The best timber had been cut, with another 10% of forests being burnt each year.[citation needed]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are, most burnt timber is what gives us new growth and is natures way of regenerating our forests. We have done huge damage by trying to keep forests from that regeneration. That our fire fighters try to control fires to protect homes tends to be because people stupidly built too close to common forest fire areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "TVA was designed to modernize the region, using experts and electricity to combat human and economic problems."
> 
> Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With that I totally agree. TVA helped Appalachia to move out of the dark ages and has furnished electricity of many outside of the poverty areas.
> 
> Obviously we require the government to build infrastructure for the benefit of all, but it should never be used to enhance life for a privileged few. Remember too that the infrastructure build for the benefit of all is take from the economy and paid principally by the 51% who pay the income tax to fund those projects. It may be another way to redistribute wealth, but it is a necessary expense.
> 
> Every penny spent by the government comes mostly from the top 50% of our tax payers. It is the price of function.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said, "But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it." If I understand gnarly's point, it's that government, working as a protection racket for its richest citizens, is what enables companies to create value in the first place. Without government there is no capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Functions like the police and military protect value while not creating value do destroy value.  It's like if you buy an insurance policy.  It costs money, it makes you poorer.  However, you spend it to protect what you have.  I support those functions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?*
Click to expand...


So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism.  LOL, sure I do...

It's the endless game you leftists play.  Oh, well you want roads, you get a welfare State.  You want police, you get confiscatory taxes.

You're FOS, there is no reason wanting my wanting a limited government justifies you getting an unlimited one.


----------



## Doubletap

"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don&#8217;t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.&#8221;-Atlas Shrugged


----------



## dnsmith35

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Functions like the police and military protect value while not creating value do destroy value.  It's like if you buy an insurance policy.  It costs money, it makes you poorer.  However, you spend it to protect what you have.  I support those functions.
> 
> 
> 
> *Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism.  LOL, sure I do...
> 
> It's the endless game you leftists play.  Oh, well you want roads, you get a welfare State.  You want police, you get confiscatory taxes.
> 
> You're FOS, there is no reason wanting my wanting a limited government justifies you getting an unlimited one.
Click to expand...

One of the principle purposes of government besides protecting private property is the creation of infrastructure. No landowner will be willing to create the roads he needs to bring his production to market.


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> Government is the worst solution to any problem, therefore it should logically be used when it is the only solution to a problem.
> 
> Government is the only solution to military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. 90% of government should be doing those functions.



So government must exist. But to what extent? This is the question. You think somehow you are being tricked into accepting Marxism. No one is tricking you--the question is are you capable of rationally defending your particular idea of government?

So far you are.

So you'd do education differently. That's a fine position. But the way you talk about government is it provides absolutely zero benefits. I admit is screws up often in applying legislation and so on. But why does it screw up? The answer is the interests of those who control the government (i.e. the architects of policy, the capitalists and their lawyers) are often pitted against those of the public.

Wealth concentration causes division, pitting the interests of one class against others. This prevents the government from executing duties in an excellent manner. The government must decide who to serve and recent surveys indicate the government almost exclusively vetoes the interest of the public in favor of the rich.

So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you.


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is the worst solution to any problem, therefore it should logically be used when it is the only solution to a problem.
> 
> Government is the only solution to military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. 90% of government should be doing those functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So government must exist. But to what extent? This is the question. You think somehow you are being tricked into accepting Marxism. No one is tricking you--the question is are you capable of rationally defending your particular idea of government?
> 
> So far you are.
> 
> So you'd do education differently. That's a fine position. But the way you talk about government is it provides absolutely zero benefits. I admit is screws up often in applying legislation and so on. But why does it screw up? The answer is the interests of those who control the government (i.e. the architects of policy, the capitalists and their lawyers) are often pitted against those of the public.
> 
> Wealth concentration causes division, pitting the interests of one class against others. This prevents the government from executing duties in an excellent manner. The government must decide who to serve and recent surveys indicate the government almost exclusively vetoes the interest of the public in favor of the rich.
> 
> So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you.
Click to expand...


Rhetoric


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> That is absolute BS. The government protects all our citizens not just the rich.  Correct! Government is a net taker to provide our federal services and to redistribute money from the rich to the less wealthy.



This sounds true. But is it? Let's investigate, shall we?

Do the rich receive any sort of government aide? Well, we know the police rarely target white collar crime though we know white collar crime has exploded since the 80s. So it's at least nice to not go to jail, right? If you don't believe me, read this bit explaining a man with a joint-in-pocket spends 47 days in Riker Prison while HSBC, the banking conglomerate, admitted to 800 million in drug laundering and spent no time in jail, let alone prison, because they "were not the right type of person for jail." And if you know anything about pre-crime you know it hones in on poverty, not white collar crime. We can expect a greater targeting of minorities and low income from the police in the coming years as this technology develops.

But further, is there positive aide? I don't think we need too look far to understand how the rich are paid handsomely by the government. Tax breaks to the rich, tax breaks to corporations who just spend it on lobbying and high salaries, subsidies for corporations to do business or stay in a particular city and not move, consumer subsidies on gasoline, government promises to buy planes like Boeing, developing the internet and the fastest super computer through Cray Research and handing it over to private corporations like Microsoft, not to mention the bailouts that have happened every decade since the Reagan years (Savings and Loan bailout, Tech bailout, Banking bailout)...the list goes on. These are undoubtedly numerous kinds of public funds spent to ultimately reward the rich. Maybe, I'm amiss, or maybe you need specific examples...

Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich and Corporations*|*Bill Quigley

Welfare for the Rich : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> But further, is there positive aide? I don't think we need too look far to understand tax breaks to the rich, tax breaks to corporations, subsidies for corporations to do business, consumer subsidies on gasoline, government promises to buy planes like Boeing, developing the internet and the fastest super computer through Cray Research and handing it over to private corporations like Microsoft...the list goes on. These are undoubtedly numerous kinds of public funds spent to ultimately reward the rich. Maybe, I'm amiss, or maybe you need specific examples...



Dude, if you could tone down the rhetoric it would be a lot easier to respond to whatever point you think you're making.

I'm rich, I live in a rich neighborhood.  When our power goes out, we're the first ones back on line.  The police are very polite and helpful when they are in our neighborhood.  I love it.  I should get that, my taxes are incredible.


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is the worst solution to any problem, therefore it should logically be used when it is the only solution to a problem.
> 
> Government is the only solution to military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. 90% of government should be doing those functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So government must exist. But to what extent? This is the question. You think somehow you are being tricked into accepting Marxism. No one is tricking you--the question is are you capable of rationally defending your particular idea of government?
> 
> So far you are.
> 
> So you'd do education differently. That's a fine position. But the way you talk about government is it provides absolutely zero benefits. I admit is screws up often in applying legislation and so on. But why does it screw up? The answer is the interests of those who control the government (i.e. the architects of policy, the capitalists and their lawyers) are often pitted against those of the public.
> 
> Wealth concentration causes division, pitting the interests of one class against others. This prevents the government from executing duties in an excellent manner. The government must decide who to serve and recent surveys indicate the government almost exclusively vetoes the interest of the public in favor of the rich.
> 
> So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rhetoric
Click to expand...


I am making falsifiable and empirical claims. We can determine whether what I'm claiming is real. Does the government really serve the interests of the rich? That is an empirical question and has an empirical answer. Numerous surveys answer this according to the affirmative.

So if the government is largely dominated by the rich, then we expect the decisions of government to be in the interests of the rich. This is also an empirical claim and can be tested and verified. And upon scrutiny we see that yes indeed the profits are overflowing among the rich. So it makes sense that policy is reflecting their interests: more profits.

So if "the government is the shadow cast by big business" then your rage against the government should be properly directed at those who operate the government. Right? And those who operate the government are by and large the rich and this is verifiable fact, not rhetoric.


----------



## dnsmith35

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. It's just someone else's opinion. All the best games are commentary - idealized perceptions of reality. Monopoly is _designed_ as a zero-sum game, it's a closed system with limited resources and no productive work. Real markets aren't limited in that way.
> 
> 
> 
> Today real markets produce a few players that accumulate winnings millions of times larger than billions of other players. That fact tells me we are dealing with a zero sum economy where wins are balanced by losses, producing a pie that doesn't grow and a tide
> that doesn't lift all boats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?
Click to expand...

Based on real studies, only the top .01% have much income over the other 99.09% . It is a left wing mantra used to keep the left wing in power. According to A BLS Graph the inequality ranges from 6 million to 31 million, major inequality. From .1% to the next lower group of 1% the difference is approximately  $5 million. The next group down or the bottom 99% is from 0 to $350K. When we look at the quintile graph it reflects the same thing. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 When comparing the bottom 4 quintiles, which range between $11,200 to $178K, one can readily see the top 80% reflect nothing more or less than the relative achievement of our labor force and the major inequality of income occurs broadly between $178K and up.

If you choose to debate those assertions you should first read http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/ which discusses what the reason there is a disparity between the bottom quintile and the 3rd or 4th quintile. 

As I said earlier, it is only the left wing power rant that these relative inequality of income is not at the lower pay levels, but rather between the top level and the 3d or 4th quintile.


----------



## gnarlylove

I'm beginning to think your term "rhetoric" means nothing more than "I disagree."

Naturally you disagree but why? Calling it rhetoric is tautological and thus unhelpful.

The police do indeed respond to the whites and rich fastest. Does that mean low income or minorities deserve to suffer a rape because they weren't given the same chances to attend a good school to get a good job to pay the high taxes?

That sounds like a morality based on money, not morality. But maybe human beings don't have inherent value, that a child born in the ghettos of Chicago is less valuable than a baby born to a white rich mother. I don't know how'd you'd determine than but sounds like you did. I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> So government must exist. But to what extent? This is the question. You think somehow you are being tricked into accepting Marxism. No one is tricking you--the question is are you capable of rationally defending your particular idea of government?
> 
> So far you are.
> 
> So you'd do education differently. That's a fine position. But the way you talk about government is it provides absolutely zero benefits. I admit is screws up often in applying legislation and so on. But why does it screw up? The answer is the interests of those who control the government (i.e. the architects of policy, the capitalists and their lawyers) are often pitted against those of the public.
> 
> Wealth concentration causes division, pitting the interests of one class against others. This prevents the government from executing duties in an excellent manner. The government must decide who to serve and recent surveys indicate the government almost exclusively vetoes the interest of the public in favor of the rich.
> 
> So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rhetoric
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am making falsifiable and empirical claims. We can determine whether what I'm claiming is real. Does the government really serve the interests of the rich? That is an empirical question and has an empirical answer. Numerous surveys answer this according to the affirmative.
> 
> So if the government is largely dominated by the rich, then we expect the decisions of government to be in the interests of the rich. This is also an empirical claim and can be tested and verified. And upon scrutiny we see that yes indeed the profits are overflowing among the rich. So it makes sense that policy is reflecting their interests: more profits.
> 
> So if "the government is the shadow cast by big business" then your rage against the government should be properly directed at those who operate the government. Right? And those who operate the government are by and large the rich and this is verifiable fact, not rhetoric.
Click to expand...


Fifty percent of tax filers pay zero or negative tax.  The top one percent pay 40% of taxes.  The top five percent pay 60% of taxes.

There are more and expanded welfare programs like prescription drug for medicare and ever increasing Food Stamp recipients.  Government is subsidizing medical insurance for the poor through Obamacare.  Meanwhile taxes and regulations are permeating our investments and our businesses because we are "wealthy."  And we have a Marxist in the White House.

And you say we are calling the shots?  You're clueless, LOL.  We wouldn't call any of these shots.


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> I'm beginning to think your term "rhetoric" means nothing more than "I disagree."
> 
> Naturally you disagree but why? Calling it rhetoric is tautological and thus unhelpful.
> 
> The police do indeed respond to the whites and rich fastest. Does that mean low income or minorities deserve to suffer a rape because they weren't given the same chances to attend a good school to get a good job to pay the high taxes?
> 
> That sounds like a morality based on money, not morality. But maybe human beings don't have inherent value, that a child born in the ghettos of Chicago is less valuable than a baby born to a white rich mother. I don't know how'd you'd determine than but sounds like you did. I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.



This is pure rhetoric:  So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you."


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolute BS. The government protects all our citizens not just the rich.  Correct! Government is a net taker to provide our federal services and to redistribute money from the rich to the less wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz-
> 
> This sounds true. But is it? Let's investigate, shall we?
> 
> Do the rich receive any sort of government aide? Well, we know the police rarely target white collar crime though we know white collar crime has exploded since the 80s. So it's at least nice to not go to jail, right? If you don't believe me,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That may be true of some police departments, but I don't believe it is true of most. BTW, I would not read that extremist left wing propaganda site alter net with your eyes. I can't believe you have the nerve to ever use that as a source with anecdotal accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz- explaining a man with a joint-in-pocket spends 47 days in Riker Prison while HSBC, the banking conglomerate, admitted to 800 million in drug laundering and spent no time in jail, let alone prison, because they "were not the right type of person for jail." And if you know anything about pre-crime you know it hones in on poverty,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who traditionally do the most crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz- not white collar crime. We can expect a greater targeting of minorities and low income from the police in the coming years as this technology develops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Police are trained to look at different groups based on their propensity to commit crimes, and white collar crime, which may or may not be as financially larger than other crimes, tend not to hurt any one physically. But many high financially white color crimes have drawn as much as life in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz-
> 
> But further, is there positive aide? I don't think we need too look far to understand how the rich are paid handsomely by the government. Tax breaks to the rich, tax breaks to corporations who just spend it on lobbying and high salaries, subsidies for corporations to do business or stay in a particular city and not move, consumer subsidies on gasoline, government promises to buy planes like Boeing, developing the internet and the fastest super computer through Cray Research and handing it over to private corporations like Microsoft, not to mention the bailouts that have happened every decade since the Reagan years (Savings and Loan bailout, Tech bailout, Banking bailout)...the list goes on. These are undoubtedly numerous kinds of public funds spent to ultimately reward the rich. Maybe, I'm amiss, or maybe you need specific examples...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strange you would bring up how " the rich are paid handsomely by tax breaks" in recent history tax cuts were given to the rich and corporations by the JFK administration, how Corp. get tax breaks to prevent them from moving, buying US products to protect our labor force, government development of APARNET for its own use by paid contractors, bailout of essential businesses in all administrations at some point or another. Yes, you are amiss. You tend to blame every one but left wing extremists for the ills of the economy and it is bullshit.
> 
> Do I believe there are still the remnants of racism? Of course I do, but we have come a long way and will continue to advance in racial equality. I also recognize that crime among the poor is not normally a poverty driven issue. Actually the traits of criminal behavior tends to lead to the poverty syndrome. Part of the Study for my EdS in psychology was a discussion of just this subject along with, the issue of education, or the lack thereof, being another common cause of poverty. Yet criminal behavior is not a trait driven as much by economic status as it is a personality trait.
Click to expand...


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think your term "rhetoric" means nothing more than "I disagree."
> 
> Naturally you disagree but why? Calling it rhetoric is tautological and thus unhelpful.
> 
> The police do indeed respond to the whites and rich fastest. Does that mean low income or minorities deserve to suffer a rape because they weren't given the same chances to attend a good school to get a good job to pay the high taxes?
> 
> That sounds like a morality based on money, not morality. But maybe human beings don't have inherent value, that a child born in the ghettos of Chicago is less valuable than a baby born to a white rich mother. I don't know how'd you'd determine than but sounds like you did. I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure rhetoric:  So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you."
Click to expand...


We know you don't like the government. But what is the government? The government operates according to the interests of the wealthy. The government is not an end in itself. It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it. The government makes you mad because it is used against your interests. The interests it disfavors are yours. The interests if favors is the rich and the rich like it that way. So you're disagreement with how the government operates is one caused by the near unanimous preference to favor the rich.

Therefore the government is secondary to the primary concern of who actually operates the government.


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think your term "rhetoric" means nothing more than "I disagree."
> 
> Naturally you disagree but why? Calling it rhetoric is tautological and thus unhelpful.
> 
> The police do indeed respond to the whites and rich fastest. Does that mean low income or minorities deserve to suffer a rape because they weren't given the same chances to attend a good school to get a good job to pay the high taxes?
> 
> That sounds like a morality based on money, not morality. But maybe human beings don't have inherent value, that a child born in the ghettos of Chicago is less valuable than a baby born to a white rich mother. I don't know how'd you'd determine than but sounds like you did. I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure rhetoric:  So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know you don't like the government. But what is the government? The government operates according to the interests of the wealthy. The government is not an end in itself. It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it. The government makes you mad because it is used against your interests. The interests it disfavors are yours. The interests if favors is the rich and the rich like it that way. So you're disagreement with how the government operates is one caused by the near unanimous preference to favor the rich.
> 
> Therefore the government is secondary to the primary concern of who actually operates the government.
Click to expand...


Dude, I'm rich, so you're FOS.  Sorry man.  I'm a rich business owner who lives in a wealthy area.  The government favors people who want control.  That includes some wealthy, some corporations.  It also includes special interests like teachers and other unions, environmentalists, liberal womens and minority groups.  They all lobby and buy government.

The government doesn't act in my interest, but that is because i believe in freedom.  Liberty.  I don't want favors from government.  But your contention it's just for the wealthy is crap.  And as a liberal, you want bigger government, which shows that your belief it's for the wealthy is a lie.  If you really believed that, you'd be a small government libertarian like me.  And for the same reason, to limit government power.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think your term "rhetoric" means nothing more than "I disagree."
> 
> Naturally you disagree but why? Calling it rhetoric is tautological and thus unhelpful.
> 
> The police do indeed respond to the whites and rich fastest. Does that mean low income or minorities deserve to suffer a rape because they weren't given the same chances to attend a good school to get a good job to pay the high taxes?
> 
> That sounds like a morality based on money, not morality. But maybe human beings don't have inherent value, that a child born in the ghettos of Chicago is less valuable than a baby born to a white rich mother. I don't know how'd you'd determine than but sounds like you did. I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure rhetoric:  So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know you don't like the government. But what is the government? The government operates according to the interests of the wealthy. The government is not an end in itself. It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it. The government makes you mad because it is used against your interests. The interests it disfavors are yours. The interests if favors is the rich and the rich like it that way. So you're disagreement with how the government operates is one caused by the near unanimous preference to favor the rich.
> 
> Therefore the government is secondary to the primary concern of who actually operates the government.
Click to expand...


*It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it.*

That sure worked out for Jimmy Cayne and Dick Fuld.
Not sure how Jimmy and Dick benefit from record food stamp spending.
I'm sure you'll explain.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> Strange you would bring up how " the rich are paid handsomely by tax breaks" in recent history tax cuts were given to the rich and corporations by the JFK administration, how Corp. get tax breaks to prevent them from moving, buying US products to protect our labor force, government development of APARNET for its own use by paid contractors, bailout of essential businesses in all administrations at some point or another. Yes, you are amiss. You tend to blame every one but left wing extremists for the ills of the economy and it is bullshit.
> 
> Do I believe there are still the remnants of racism? Of course I do, but we have come a long way and will continue to advance in racial equality. I also recognize that crime among the poor is not normally a poverty driven issue. Actually the traits of criminal behavior tends to lead to the poverty syndrome. Part of the Study for my EdS in psychology was a discussion of just this subject along with, the issue of education, or the lack thereof, being another common cause of poverty. Yet criminal behavior is not a trait driven as much by economic status as it is a personality trait.



Am I a JFK supporter? I didn't know. Defining essential business comes down to who is bedfellows with the government and who isn't. That's not the most sound political, social or economic way to decide who is essential and who is not.

Why do you pigeon hole my criticism? It serves the purpose of you dismissing my point. That's a sophist tactic, nothing more. It doesn't address the factual criticism. So the fact is the poor by and large ignored compared to the overall tax breaks, subsidies etc. So going back to your point about how re-distribution works (that it takes care of the poor) is fairly one sided analysis, of the kind you are accusing me. It's clear the rich are heavily favored in government funds aka public taxation. GE had a negative effective tax rate meaning they earned money. How cool would it be to receive literal billions as a large corporation during tax day?

However, I am very open to being wrong and say it regularly. But saying I don't criticize left wing extremists is not relevant, they are extremists. Why would I criticize extremists when you and I are talking, not me and some extremist? Don't divert attention, let's just calmly stick to our discussion. I am not a left wing extremist and don't really know what it means--The context of extremism implies idiots so I don't have much to say about idiots.

Regarding your analysis of personal failure/economic realities. Just ask yourself, was it easy for you to get out of poverty? No. It took decades according to you and the apparent luxury of attending college. You probably consider yourself exceptional and should. You were one of the lucky few born into poverty who relied on others to teach you the skills you needed to do eventually make enough money. But just because you did doesn't mean an equally talented people will. We don't live in an equal opportunity society. Other low income people are born in different cities with different fortuitous events and misfortune than you. You were not solely responsible for your success but relied on teachers, parents, friends, wife, etc. to make it possible. Equally talented folks have different circumstances and thus may not have a wife, the right teachers, dead parents etc.

So to blame a person for their inability to be self-sufficient is uncritical. Numerous variables  contribute to the success and well being of a person outside their control. So why are you blaming them solely? Are you praising yourself in solitude for your success? I hope not because we both know that isn't how success works.

So de facto we do not live in a meritocratic society as you've been taught. A person born with a low income obviously lacks the opportunities afforded wealthy children. So to demand the disadvantaged to achieve equal success or be damned in a world of scarcity is dubious social theorizing. Ignoring the conditions under which people exist and develop is to ignore the most significant factor in shaping the characteristics of a person and determining their aims in life.


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure rhetoric:  So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know you don't like the government. But what is the government? The government operates according to the interests of the wealthy. The government is not an end in itself. It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it. The government makes you mad because it is used against your interests. The interests it disfavors are yours. The interests if favors is the rich and the rich like it that way. So you're disagreement with how the government operates is one caused by the near unanimous preference to favor the rich.
> 
> Therefore the government is secondary to the primary concern of who actually operates the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm rich, so you're FOS.  Sorry man.  I'm a rich business owner who lives in a wealthy area.  The government favors people who want control.  That includes some wealthy, some corporations.  It also includes special interests like teachers and other unions, environmentalists, liberal womens and minority groups.  They all lobby and buy government.
> 
> The government doesn't act in my interest, but that is because i believe in freedom.  Liberty.  I don't want favors from government.  But your contention it's just for the wealthy is crap.  And as a liberal, you want bigger government, which shows that your belief it's for the wealthy is a lie.  If you really believed that, you'd be a small government libertarian like me.  And for the same reason, to limit government power.
Click to expand...


Definitely appreciate and respect your honest reply. Socio-economic status helps determine what is thinkable and what is not. 

But I'd ask you do you think money should determine how people think? Or should empirical reality should determine that? I believe there should be a common ground on which all people can interact but if you grant money with such power (to radically determine your beliefs) than science and most empirical investigation becomes an exercise for the wealthy, not humanity.

So should the world reflect wealth or humans?

The matter of achieving freedom is a question about conditions. People cannot be free who lack essentials like water. And if your standard of freedom stays abreast of the wealth generated here in America, then people who lack electric and transportation are far less free than those with easy access. So should some people be less free while others accumulate all the freedom (the freedom from prosecution).

But personally I'm an anarchist. No government authority should exist without justifying it's existence and I doubt much of the government can be justified. But we don't live in that world and the one we do often abuses low income just because they are poor--this is no justification. So I think we need to protect the rights of all because once you allow some to be abused openly, than it's a slippery slope to abusing someone you care about because of some failure or flaw they allegedly have. Allowing people to survive, be treated fairly...now this is real freedom.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think your term "rhetoric" means nothing more than "I disagree."
> 
> Naturally you disagree but why? Calling it rhetoric is tautological and thus unhelpful.
> 
> The police do indeed respond to the whites and rich fastest. Does that mean low income or minorities deserve to suffer a rape because they weren't given the same chances to attend a good school to get a good job to pay the high taxes?
> 
> That sounds like a morality based on money, not morality. But maybe human beings don't have inherent value, that a child born in the ghettos of Chicago is less valuable than a baby born to a white rich mother. I don't know how'd you'd determine than but sounds like you did. I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure rhetoric:  So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know you don't like the government. But what is the government? The government operates according to the interests of the wealthy. The government is not an end in itself. It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it. The government makes you mad because it is used against your interests. The interests it disfavors are yours. The interests if favors is the rich and the rich like it that way. So you're disagreement with how the government operates is one caused by the near unanimous preference to favor the rich.
> 
> Therefore the government is secondary to the primary concern of who actually operates the government.
Click to expand...

It is the intent of government (and generally followed) to respond to all. That varies from place to place to place, but the lack of response to the least wealth tends to be in the big cities where there are more racial/cultural problems, NYC, Chicago, LA, Miami et al, than in the smaller cities. When you base your opinions on larger or inner cities, you over look the majority of America where such biases tend to not be so obvious. To claim otherwise is an expression of left wing extremism trying to knock us moderates or conservatives. It is rather amazing how left wingers use the extreme and unusual situation to describe their opinions.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolute BS. The government protects all our citizens not just the rich.  Correct! Government is a net taker to provide our federal services and to redistribute money from the rich to the less wealthy.   The facts are, most burnt timber is what gives us new growth and is natures way of regenerating our forests. We have done huge damage by trying to keep forests from that regeneration. That our fire fighters try to control fires to protect homes tends to be because people stupidly built too close to common forest fire areas. With that I totally agree. TVA helped Appalachia to move out of the dark ages and has furnished electricity of many outside of the poverty areas.
> 
> Obviously we require the government to build infrastructure for the benefit of all, but it should never be used to enhance life for a privileged few. Remember too that the infrastructure build for the benefit of all is take from the economy and paid principally by the 51% who pay the income tax to fund those projects. It may be another way to redistribute wealth, but it is a necessary expense.
> 
> Every penny spent by the government comes mostly from the top 50% of our tax payers. It is the price of function.
> 
> 
> 
> What should it tell us about how government "protects all our citizens not just the rich" when only half of US workers earn enough every year to pay income taxes? Specifically, what does it say about the 25 highest paid hedge fund managers earning twice as much all kindergarten teachers in America combined, AND paying a tax rate about half what the teachers paid?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/opinion/krugman-now-thats-rich.html?_r=0
> 
> It tells us the rich rule this government just as they have every government since the first surpluses thousands of years ago.
> 
> Government isn't the problem.
> 
> The rich are.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange you would bring up how " the rich are paid handsomely by tax breaks" in recent history tax cuts were given to the rich and corporations by the JFK administration, how Corp. get tax breaks to prevent them from moving, buying US products to protect our labor force, government development of APARNET for its own use by paid contractors, bailout of essential businesses in all administrations at some point or another. Yes, you are amiss. You tend to blame every one but left wing extremists for the ills of the economy and it is bullshit.
> 
> Do I believe there are still the remnants of racism? Of course I do, but we have come a long way and will continue to advance in racial equality. I also recognize that crime among the poor is not normally a poverty driven issue. Actually the traits of criminal behavior tends to lead to the poverty syndrome. Part of the Study for my EdS in psychology was a discussion of just this subject along with, the issue of education, or the lack thereof, being another common cause of poverty. Yet criminal behavior is not a trait driven as much by economic status as it is a personality trait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley -
> 
> Am I a JFK supporter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post suggest you are for his agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley - I didn't know. Defining essential business comes down to who is bedfellows with the government and who isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are assuming that that is fact instead of left wing fiction. I don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley - That's not the most sound political, social or economic way to decide who is essential and who is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is essential? I don't recall discussing that. Please link me to such an assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley -
> 
> Why do you pigeon hole my criticism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I pigeon hole anything about you? That is a strange assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley -  It serves the purpose of you dismissing my point. That's a sophist tactic, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you show me that I did such a thing, link me too it and I will asses your criticisms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley - It doesn't address the factual criticism. So the fact is the poor by and large ignored compared to the overall tax breaks, subsidies etc. So going back to your point about how re-distribution works (that it takes care of the poor) is fairly one sided analysis, of the kind you are accusing me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I could care less what your left wing concept about who gets the most tax breaks when as far as federal income tax it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the bottom 49% of our wage earners get the biggest federal income tax break as they pay little to no income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear the rich are heavily favored in government funds aka public taxation. GE had a negative effective tax rate meaning they earned money. How cool would it be to receive literal billions as a large corporation during tax day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting that appropriate deductions of the cost of doing business should be eliminated? How absolutely economics/socially challenged your are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley -
> 
> However, I am very open to being wrong and say it regularly. But saying I don't criticize left wing extremists is not relevant, they are extremists. Why would I criticize extremists when you and I are talking, not me and some extremist? Don't divert attention, let's just calmly stick to our discussion. I am not a left wing extremist and don't really know what it means--The context of extremism implies idiots so I don't have much to say about idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The context of left wing extremism is easily observed in what you say relative to our society. That is what it means. IE 90% of the people are to the right of you, down to moderates or conservatives or RW extremists, you are a left wing extremist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley - Regarding your analysis of personal failure/economic realities. Just ask yourself, was it easy for you to get out of poverty? No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .Easy? No! Reasonable? ABSOLUTELY! Why should anyone have the right or the ability to do it quick time unless they have an extreme ability, intelligence, motivation, or ambition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley - It took decades according to you and the apparent luxury of attending college. You probably consider yourself exceptional and should. You were one of the lucky few born into poverty who relied on others to teach you the skills you needed to do eventually make enough money. But just because you did doesn't mean an equally talented people will. We don't live in an equal opportunity society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolute bull shit! Any one with the desire to succeed on a high level can if they make the right choices and efforts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley - Other low income people are born in different cities with different fortuitous events and misfortune than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, I was born into poverty and made it my business to do what I had to do to succeed, which included moving to a location with better opportunities. That is one of the choices I mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley -  You were not solely responsible for your success but relied on teachers, parents, friends, wife, etc. to make it possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yeah, a small town southern community with the best and brightest teachers! Friends? I left them all when I moved. Wife? A personal choice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley - Equally talented folks have different circumstances and thus may not have a wife, the right teachers, dead parents etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All choices except the death of parents, who in fact did nothing for me but to teach me right and wrong. Again, choices!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley -
> So to blame a person for their inability to be self-sufficient is uncritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blame a person? Generally it is responsibility, not blame.
> within the choices they make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley - Numerous variables  contribute to the success and well being of a person outside their control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Positively, like motivation, ambition, wherewithal, work et al.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley - So why are you blaming them solely? Are you praising yourself in solitude for your success? I hope not because we both know that isn't how success works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blame? Not really blame, just observation of facts. Praising myself? No, I simply posted the example I followed. I am sure if I had more motivation and ambition I could have achieved more, but I settled. Some people settle for less and some for more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley -
> 
> So de facto we do not live in a meritocratic society as you've been taught. A person born with a low income obviously lacks the opportunities afforded wealthy children. So to demand the disadvantaged to achieve equal success or be damned in a world of scarcity is dubious social theorizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equality with whom? Warren Buffet? Don't be silly. Equality with me? Only in accordance with their motivation and ambition would a normally intelligent person not succeed to my marginal level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley - Ignoring the conditions under which people exist and develop is to ignore the most significant factor in shaping the characteristics of a person and determining their aims in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People must make their own conditions, as I an many others have. I moved away from poverty and chose to proceed in a given direction. The old adage, "if at first you don't succeed, try and try again" is very appropriate. Except for those born into wealth, which is becoming an oddity today, the only draw back to reasonable success falls to choices, ambition, motivation and willingness to work. In fact, those ARE the variables of relevance. As I have pointed out in other posts, disabilities are the exception, mental or physical disabilities, and that is the point of our safety nets. Does that mean that every one will succeed under those conditions? No, but it is a significant minority who failed based primarily on arbitrary negative variables. As I progressed in my career, most of my counterparts did as well (including non-whites) with only a minority failing, and generally attitude was the cause of failure. Not intelligence or ambition, but attitude. Poo poo this all you wish, but it is infact the formula and most people CAN follow it no matter where they come from or whose influence under which they were raised.
> 
> So to recap, most, the high minority of those with opportunities of equality in the US can succeed, and those few who don't can blame their failures mostly on their choices, not on arbitrary conditions of their primary existence. To suggest other wise is the epitome of ignorance.
Click to expand...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What should it tell us about how government "protects all our citizens not just the rich" when only half of US workers earn enough every year to pay income taxes? Specifically, what does it say about the 25 highest paid hedge fund managers earning twice as much all kindergarten teachers in America combined, AND paying a tax rate about half what the teachers paid?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/opinion/krugman-now-thats-rich.html?_r=0
> 
> It tells us the rich rule this government just as they have every government since the first surpluses thousands of years ago.
> 
> Government isn't the problem.
> 
> The rich are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What should it tell us about how government "protects all our citizens not just the rich" when only half of US workers earn enough every year to pay income taxes? *
> 
> It tells me that the government protects the bottom half from income taxes, even though that protection doesn't protect or help the rich.
> 
> *Specifically, what does it say about the 25 highest paid hedge fund managers earning twice as much all kindergarten teachers in America combined, AND paying a tax rate about half what the teachers paid?*
> 
> 
> That says that you're really bad at math.
> Please tell me how much those saintly kindergarten teachers earn and what tax rate you feel they pay.
> I'll be happy to show you your error.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dblack

Icantdomessagboards said:
			
		

> Hodor


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Functions like the police and military protect value while not creating value do destroy value.  It's like if you buy an insurance policy.  It costs money, it makes you poorer.  However, you spend it to protect what you have.  I support those functions.
> 
> 
> 
> *Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism.  LOL, sure I do...
> 
> It's the endless game you leftists play.  Oh, well you want roads, you get a welfare State.  You want police, you get confiscatory taxes.
> 
> You're FOS, there is no reason wanting my wanting a limited government justifies you getting an unlimited one.
Click to expand...

"TVA's service area covers most of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia."

*How many Marxists have you known?
Did any originate in Tennessee, Alabama, or North Carolina?
Did they have to forsake religion to get electricity?
Righties like you need to learn the difference between big business and big government.*


----------



## dnsmith35

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What should it tell us about how government "protects all our citizens not just the rich" when only half of US workers earn enough every year to pay income taxes? *
> 
> It tells me that the government protects the bottom half from income taxes, even though that protection doesn't protect or help the rich.
> 
> *Specifically, what does it say about the 25 highest paid hedge fund managers earning twice as much all kindergarten teachers in America combined, AND paying a tax rate about half what the teachers paid?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That says that you're really bad at math.
> Please tell me how much those saintly kindergarten teachers earn and what tax rate you feel they pay.
> I'll be happy to show you your error.
Click to expand...

 DNsmithThere are different kinds of income, and generally the government's intent is to treat the taxation of each to the benefit of revenue, not as a privilege to the rich or the poor. Many people complain that the rich pay lower tax rates because their income is from capital gains. Increase capital gains tax and their is a negative influence on government revenue and the retention or increase in jobs. It is absolute ignorance to try to compare capital gains with typical wage income, which significantly is advantageous to the lowest 49% of the people. One of the common mistakes left wing extremists make, is to cherry pick a significant minority situation and used it as a general example. Sure, there are some people, based on position, ambition, motivation, luck, et al, who make extreme incomes. That does not mean much in the way of comparison with the extreme minority who are on the other extreme of the income range.


----------



## georgephillip

Doubletap said:


> "When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws dont protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.-Atlas Shrugged


"She (Ayn Rand) headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophya body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism. 

"She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and 'the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent' who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. 

"He is 'mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.' 

"It is evil to show kindness to these 'lice': The 'only virtue' is 'selfishness.'"

Two biographies of Ayn Rand.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism.  LOL, sure I do...
> 
> It's the endless game you leftists play.  Oh, well you want roads, you get a welfare State.  You want police, you get confiscatory taxes.
> 
> You're FOS, there is no reason wanting my wanting a limited government justifies you getting an unlimited one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "TVA's service area covers most of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia."
> 
> *How many Marxists have you known?
> Did any originate in Tennessee, Alabama, or North Carolina?
> Did they have to forsake religion to get electricity?
> Righties like you need to learn the difference between big business and big government.*
Click to expand...

I think your suggestion that it is the "righty" who has problems with the difference between big business  and big government. We moderates object to the definitions of big business and big government by both extremes.

You people seem to believe that if we are not at your particular extreme we must be on the other end of the spectrum. NOT TRUE! We moderates dislike the intent of both extremes.

Now as to your question, "how many Marxists have you known?" Many! And many in the South. An example is a Marxist commune in Louisiana near Leesville, and one near Elizabeth. I  have also known Marxist in India, South and Central America, and some in Great Britain. Marxism is the evil of the 19th to 21St century and has never succeeded in any of its experiments.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws dont protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.-Atlas Shrugged
> 
> 
> 
> "She (Ayn Rand) headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophya body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism.
> 
> "She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and 'the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent' who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them.
> 
> "He is 'mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.'
> 
> "It is evil to show kindness to these 'lice': The 'only virtue' is 'selfishness.'"
> 
> Two biographies of Ayn Rand.
Click to expand...

Though Ayn Rand was extremist in her writing, muting some of her extremes reflect a great deal of knowledge about human kind if we consider the status of all the citizens of the world. I disagree with here derogative comments about the poor  but recognize beyond her insulting comments there is a lot of truth when considered from a pure economic situation.


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolute BS. The government protects all our citizens not just the rich.  Correct! Government is a net taker to provide our federal services and to redistribute money from the rich to the less wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds true. But is it? Let's investigate, shall we?
> 
> Do the rich receive any sort of government aide? Well, we know the police rarely target white collar crime though we know white collar crime has exploded since the 80s. So it's at least nice to not go to jail, right? If you don't believe me, read this bit explaining a man with a joint-in-pocket spends 47 days in Riker Prison while HSBC, the banking conglomerate, admitted to 800 million in drug laundering and spent no time in jail, let alone prison, because they "were not the right type of person for jail." And if you know anything about pre-crime you know it hones in on poverty, not white collar crime. We can expect a greater targeting of minorities and low income from the police in the coming years as this technology develops.
> 
> But further, is there positive aide? I don't think we need too look far to understand how the rich are paid handsomely by the government. Tax breaks to the rich, tax breaks to corporations who just spend it on lobbying and high salaries, subsidies for corporations to do business or stay in a particular city and not move, consumer subsidies on gasoline, government promises to buy planes like Boeing, developing the internet and the fastest super computer through Cray Research and handing it over to private corporations like Microsoft, not to mention the bailouts that have happened every decade since the Reagan years (Savings and Loan bailout, Tech bailout, Banking bailout)...the list goes on. These are undoubtedly numerous kinds of public funds spent to ultimately reward the rich. Maybe, I'm amiss, or maybe you need specific examples...
> 
> Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich and Corporations*|*Bill Quigley
> 
> Welfare for the Rich : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
Click to expand...

"Big business learned long ago that the easiest way to handle taxes and regulations is to divert 'public' money into its own hands and to influence the regulators to enforce measures that disproportionately burden upstart competitors."

Welfare for the Rich : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> "Big business learned long ago that the easiest way to handle taxes and regulations is to divert 'public' money into its own hands and to influence the regulators to enforce measures that disproportionately burden upstart competitors."
> 
> Welfare for the Rich : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education



Heh.. yep. Dragons at the gate. And we just keep falling for it.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws dont protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.-Atlas Shrugged
> 
> 
> 
> "She (Ayn Rand) headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophya body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism.
> 
> "She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and 'the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent' who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them.
> 
> "He is 'mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.'
> 
> "It is evil to show kindness to these 'lice': The 'only virtue' is 'selfishness.'"
> 
> Two biographies of Ayn Rand.
Click to expand...


Ayn Rand never said those words, moron.  Those are her critics paraphrasing what she said.  In other words, it's total bullshit, just like every other thing you have ever posted.


----------



## bripat9643

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws dont protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.-Atlas Shrugged
> 
> 
> 
> "She (Ayn Rand) headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophya body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism.
> 
> "She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and 'the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent' who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them.
> 
> "He is 'mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.'
> 
> "It is evil to show kindness to these 'lice': The 'only virtue' is 'selfishness.'"
> 
> Two biographies of Ayn Rand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Though Ayn Rand was extremist in her writing, muting some of her extremes reflect a great deal of knowledge about human kind if we consider the status of all the citizens of the world. I disagree with here derogative comments about the poor  but recognize beyond her insulting comments there is a lot of truth when considered from a pure economic situation.
Click to expand...


Those comments are not by Ayn Rand.  Georgie posted a smear.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolute BS. The government protects all our citizens not just the rich.  Correct! Government is a net taker to provide our federal services and to redistribute money from the rich to the less wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds true. But is it? Let's investigate, shall we?
> 
> Do the rich receive any sort of government aide? Well, we know the police rarely target white collar crime though we know white collar crime has exploded since the 80s. So it's at least nice to not go to jail, right? If you don't believe me, read this bit explaining a man with a joint-in-pocket spends 47 days in Riker Prison while HSBC, the banking conglomerate, admitted to 800 million in drug laundering and spent no time in jail, let alone prison, because they "were not the right type of person for jail." And if you know anything about pre-crime you know it hones in on poverty, not white collar crime. We can expect a greater targeting of minorities and low income from the police in the coming years as this technology develops.
> 
> But further, is there positive aide? I don't think we need too look far to understand how the rich are paid handsomely by the government. Tax breaks to the rich, tax breaks to corporations who just spend it on lobbying and high salaries, subsidies for corporations to do business or stay in a particular city and not move, consumer subsidies on gasoline, government promises to buy planes like Boeing, developing the internet and the fastest super computer through Cray Research and handing it over to private corporations like Microsoft, not to mention the bailouts that have happened every decade since the Reagan years (Savings and Loan bailout, Tech bailout, Banking bailout)...the list goes on. These are undoubtedly numerous kinds of public funds spent to ultimately reward the rich. Maybe, I'm amiss, or maybe you need specific examples...
> 
> Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich and Corporations*|*Bill Quigley
> 
> Welfare for the Rich : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Big business learned long ago that the easiest way to handle taxes and regulations is to divert 'public' money into its own hands and to influence the regulators to enforce measures that disproportionately burden upstart competitors."
> 
> Welfare for the Rich : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
Click to expand...


Yep, and Democrats are the ones who vote for this drek.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today real markets produce a few players that accumulate winnings millions of times larger than billions of other players. That fact tells me we are dealing with a zero sum economy where wins are balanced by losses, producing a pie that doesn't grow and a tide
> that doesn't lift all boats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on real studies, only the top .01% have much income over the other 99.09% . It is a left wing mantra used to keep the left wing in power. According to A BLS Graph the inequality ranges from 6 million to 31 million, major inequality. From .1% to the next lower group of 1% the difference is approximately  $5 million. The next group down or the bottom 99% is from 0 to $350K. When we look at the quintile graph it reflects the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When comparing the bottom 4 quintiles, which range between $11,200 to $178K, one can readily see the top 80% reflect nothing more or less than the relative achievement of our labor force and the major inequality of income occurs broadly between $178K and up.
> 
> If you choose to debate those assertions you should first read Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet which discusses what the reason there is a disparity between the bottom quintile and the 3rd or 4th quintile.
> 
> As I said earlier, it is only the left wing power rant that these relative inequality of income is not at the lower pay levels, but rather between the top level and the 3d or 4th quintile.
Click to expand...

*From your link:*

"Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities. 

"That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."

*Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.

When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?
> 
> 
> 
> Based on real studies, only the top .01% have much income over the other 99.09% . It is a left wing mantra used to keep the left wing in power. According to A BLS Graph the inequality ranges from 6 million to 31 million, major inequality. From .1% to the next lower group of 1% the difference is approximately  $5 million. The next group down or the bottom 99% is from 0 to $350K. When we look at the quintile graph it reflects the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When comparing the bottom 4 quintiles, which range between $11,200 to $178K, one can readily see the top 80% reflect nothing more or less than the relative achievement of our labor force and the major inequality of income occurs broadly between $178K and up.
> 
> If you choose to debate those assertions you should first read Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet which discusses what the reason there is a disparity between the bottom quintile and the 3rd or 4th quintile.
> 
> As I said earlier, it is only the left wing power rant that these relative inequality of income is not at the lower pay levels, but rather between the top level and the 3d or 4th quintile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *From your link:*
> 
> "Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.
> 
> "That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.
> 
> When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.*
Click to expand...


*Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.*

When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?


----------



## gnarlylove

"*your left wing concept* about who gets the most tax breaks when as far as federal income tax it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the bottom 49% of our wage earners get the biggest federal income tax break as they pay little to no income tax."

You are right, it is left wing because the sources you go to for info do not offer these facts. Conveniently so. So you cal them left wing concepts but because you don't hear them doesn't make them any less a fact. I dare you to actually read the links I provided demonstrating how significant it really is. Calling them "left-wing" facts sounds like an attempt to eschew honest inquiry.

Regarding your joke rebuttal of federal income tax which is paid according to progressive measures... The federal income tax is not the only tax in America. Why would we only look at one type of tax to determine who gets taxed the most? Sounds like yet another shady tactic.

City taxes (like property tax), sales taxes for the goods we all need to live are equally levied on the low income. Turns out stocks and bonds and all sorts of intangible wealth is not taxed at all. Where is a lot of wealth held? In intangible wealth not taxed by the government. 75% of the shares are owned by 1% of the shareholders...not being taxed a dime.

"Wife? A personal choice!"

Not true at all. All of life is constrained optimization. You did not choose her from all the women in the world. In fact, you got to know a narrow group of females in your life and selected one among the few you knew. Your personal choice is thus a result of several constraints outside your control. To think of it as purely your choice is mistaken. The possibilities exist but were narrowed sharply by events outside your control and demonstrates my point about how economic facts shape human lives. I say more below.

"Numerous variables contribute to the success and well being of a person outside their control."
"Positively, like motivation, ambition, wherewithal, work et al."

Those are the exact opposite of outside a person's control. But I have a feeling you don't care to reconcile your belief of "the person is solely responsible" with the facts of reality: you and all humans are largely shaped through processes outside our control like the school we went to, the neighborhood(s) we lived in, the things your parents value, what the media tells you, what the major cultural events take place...these are not determined by any one individual but have monumental effects on how one thinks about themselves, what life is, their aims and motivation etc.

Many college students overwhelmed by debt have killed themselves due to the insurmountable bills. These are not dumb people. Some are a lot smarter than you or me but their talent is terminated because they needed to forsake talent and pursue marketable.

Your irresponsible belaboring of personal shortcoming is precisely why these students end their lives. They think they are worthless because they can't afford to live. So they kill themselves. That's a natural way to go if the person believes they are solely responsible for their actions. It is irresponsible to defend such a radically untrue and murderous vision of human responsiblity.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on real studies, only the top .01% have much income over the other 99.09% . It is a left wing mantra used to keep the left wing in power. According to A BLS Graph the inequality ranges from 6 million to 31 million, major inequality. From .1% to the next lower group of 1% the difference is approximately  $5 million. The next group down or the bottom 99% is from 0 to $350K. When we look at the quintile graph it reflects the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When comparing the bottom 4 quintiles, which range between $11,200 to $178K, one can readily see the top 80% reflect nothing more or less than the relative achievement of our labor force and the major inequality of income occurs broadly between $178K and up.
> 
> If you choose to debate those assertions you should first read Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet which discusses what the reason there is a disparity between the bottom quintile and the 3rd or 4th quintile.
> 
> As I said earlier, it is only the left wing power rant that these relative inequality of income is not at the lower pay levels, but rather between the top level and the 3d or 4th quintile.
> 
> 
> 
> *From your link:*
> 
> "Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.
> 
> "That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.
> 
> When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.*
> 
> When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?
Click to expand...

*Who said it was?*

"As a result of these trends, black men younger than 35 without a high school degree are now more likely in America to be imprisoned than employed in the labor market.

"These disproportionate impacts extend to their children: As of 2009, 62 percent of black children under 17, whose parents had not completed high school, have had a parent in prison. 

"The same was true for 17 percent of Hispanic children and 15 percent of white children (with similarly educated parents)."

The meteoric, costly and unprecedented rise of incarceration in America


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> "*your left wing concept* about who gets the most tax breaks when as far as federal income tax it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the bottom 49% of our wage earners get the biggest federal income tax break as they pay little to no income tax."
> 
> You are right, it is left wing because the sources you go to for info do not offer these facts. Conveniently so. So you cal them left wing concepts but because you don't hear them doesn't make them any less a fact. I dare you to actually read the links I provided demonstrating how significant it really is. Calling them "left-wing" facts sounds like an attempt to eschew honest inquiry.
> 
> Regarding your joke rebuttal of federal income tax which is paid according to progressive measures... The federal income tax is not the only tax in America. Why would we only look at one type of tax to determine who gets taxed the most? Sounds like yet another shady tactic.
> 
> City taxes (like property tax), sales taxes for the goods we all need to live are equally levied on the low income. Turns out stocks and bonds and all sorts of intangible wealth is not taxed at all. Where is a lot of wealth held? In intangible wealth not taxed by the government. 75% of the shares are owned by 1% of the shareholders...not being taxed a dime.
> 
> "Wife? A personal choice!"
> 
> Not true at all. All of life is constrained optimization. You did not choose her from all the women in the world. In fact, you got to know a narrow group of females in your life and selected one among the few you knew. Your personal choice is thus a result of several constraints outside your control. To think of it as purely your choice is mistaken. The possibilities exist but were narrowed sharply by events outside your control and demonstrates my point about how economic facts shape human lives. I say more below.
> 
> "Numerous variables contribute to the success and well being of a person outside their control."
> "Positively, like motivation, ambition, wherewithal, work et al."
> 
> Those are the exact opposite of outside a person's control. But I have a feeling you don't care to reconcile your belief of "the person is solely responsible" with the facts of reality: you and all humans are largely shaped through processes outside our control like the school we went to, the neighborhood(s) we lived in, the things your parents value, what the media tells you, what the major cultural events take place...these are not determined by any one individual but have monumental effects on how one thinks about themselves, what life is, their aims and motivation etc.
> 
> Many college students overwhelmed by debt have killed themselves due to the insurmountable bills. These are not dumb people. Some are a lot smarter than you or me but their talent is terminated because they needed to forsake talent and pursue marketable.
> 
> Your irresponsible belaboring of personal shortcoming is precisely why these students end their lives. They think they are worthless because they can't afford to live. So they kill themselves. That's a natural way to go if the person believes they are solely responsible for their actions. It is irresponsible to defend such a radically untrue and murderous vision of human responsiblity.



*Turns out stocks and bonds and all sorts of intangible wealth is not taxed at all.*

Untrue!

Corporations pay billions in corporate taxes. 
Billions in sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, use taxes, license fees.
They pay billions in salaries which are then taxed. 
They pay dividends which are then taxed again when received by the shareholder.
They pay billions in interest on their bonds which is then taxed as income for the recipient.

It turns out you're wrong, as usual.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From your link:*
> 
> "Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.
> 
> "That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.
> 
> When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.*
> 
> When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Who said it was?*
> 
> "As a result of these trends, black men younger than 35 without a high school degree are now more likely in America to be imprisoned than employed in the labor market.
> 
> "These disproportionate impacts extend to their children: As of 2009, 62 percent of black children under 17, whose parents had not completed high school, have had a parent in prison.
> 
> "The same was true for 17 percent of Hispanic children and 15 percent of white children (with similarly educated parents)."
> 
> The meteoric, costly and unprecedented rise of incarceration in America
Click to expand...


The "jails not jobs policies" aren't the fault of the white man?

Well that's a relief.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?
> 
> 
> 
> Based on real studies, only the top .01% have much income over the other 99.09% . It is a left wing mantra used to keep the left wing in power. According to A BLS Graph the inequality ranges from 6 million to 31 million, major inequality. From .1% to the next lower group of 1% the difference is approximately  $5 million. The next group down or the bottom 99% is from 0 to $350K. When we look at the quintile graph it reflects the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When comparing the bottom 4 quintiles, which range between $11,200 to $178K, one can readily see the top 80% reflect nothing more or less than the relative achievement of our labor force and the major inequality of income occurs broadly between $178K and up.
> 
> If you choose to debate those assertions you should first read Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet which discusses what the reason there is a disparity between the bottom quintile and the 3rd or 4th quintile.
> 
> As I said earlier, it is only the left wing power rant that these relative inequality of income is not at the lower pay levels, but rather between the top level and the 3d or 4th quintile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *From your link:*
> 
> "Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.
> 
> "That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.
> 
> When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.*
Click to expand...


Yet, in spite of some trends being observed it is obvious that the articles do not believe it is the 1% who are causing the trend, which is the cry of the left wing extremists, ie THE RICH ARE THE CAUSE OF INCOME INEQUALITY. They are not. We didn't create the worlds largest prison population, criminals who made bad choices are responsible for their own actions.

It helps when you respond to an assertion that you answer my orange with an orange, not an apple. Sure, those guys are concerned as to why the .01% have such an unequal income as compared to the .1% or the 1%.


----------



## dnsmith35

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on real studies, only the top .01% have much income over the other 99.09% . It is a left wing mantra used to keep the left wing in power. According to A BLS Graph the inequality ranges from 6 million to 31 million, major inequality. From .1% to the next lower group of 1% the difference is approximately  $5 million. The next group down or the bottom 99% is from 0 to $350K. When we look at the quintile graph it reflects the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When comparing the bottom 4 quintiles, which range between $11,200 to $178K, one can readily see the top 80% reflect nothing more or less than the relative achievement of our labor force and the major inequality of income occurs broadly between $178K and up.
> 
> If you choose to debate those assertions you should first read Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet which discusses what the reason there is a disparity between the bottom quintile and the 3rd or 4th quintile.
> 
> As I said earlier, it is only the left wing power rant that these relative inequality of income is not at the lower pay levels, but rather between the top level and the 3d or 4th quintile.
> 
> 
> 
> *From your link:*
> 
> "Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.
> 
> "That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.
> 
> When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.*
> 
> When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?
Click to expand...

That is the what; now, shall we discuss the why? I am baffled when people talk about statistics as to how many are "mistreated", but don't want to discuss the why. We may actually agree.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> DNSmith said,"*your left wing concept* about who gets the most tax breaks when as far as federal income tax it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the bottom 49% of our wage earners get the biggest federal income tax break as they pay little to no income tax."




You are right, it is left wing because the sources you go to for info do not offer these facts.[/quote]Oh? And of course you know which sources I use? UNBIASED MSMEDIA, when possible.





> Conveniently so.


 Sure so the Washington Post and CNN/Money are so biased against the left? ROTHFLMAO! So you calL them left wing concepts but because you don't hear them doesn't make them any less a fact. I dare you to actually read the links I provided demonstrating how significant it really is. Calling them "left-wing" facts sounds like an attempt to eschew honest inquiry.[/quote]The links I refuse to read a second time are Mother Jones, Daily KOS, and the like. They are extreme left wing in nature.





> Regarding your joke rebuttal of federal income tax which is paid according to progressive measures... The federal income tax is not the only tax in America. Why would we only look at one type of tax to determine who gets taxed the most? Sounds like yet another shady tactic.


I labeled what I was talking about. So how is that shady? State income tax is also progressive. Sales taxes ARE regressive and I would like to eliminate them. So called "payroll" taxes were intended to be offset for the poor by the EIC. Specific programs such as snaps, welfare, public housing were designed to put more into the hands of the poor by charging either small fees or no fees at all.





> City taxes (like property tax), sales taxes for the goods we all need to live are equally levied on the low income. Turns out stocks and bonds and all sorts of intangible wealth is not taxed at all. Where is a lot of wealth held? In intangible wealth not taxed by the government. 75% of the shares are owned by 1% of the shareholders...not being taxed a dime.


Property taxes are not charged for low cost housing in most venues by the homestead exemption, and capital gains are taxed at a lower rate to maintain investment and jobs.





> "Wife? A personal choice!"


Was your spouse chosen for you? ROTHFLMAO!





> Not true at all. All of life is constrained optimization. You did not choose her from all the women in the world. In fact, you got to know a narrow group of females in your life and selected one among the few you knew. Your personal choice is thus a result of several constraints outside your control. To think of it as purely your choice is mistaken. The possibilities exist but were narrowed sharply by events outside your control and demonstrates my point about how economic facts shape human lives. I say more below.


I made my choice from women from over 20 countries, 3 US states, 2 universities, 3 high schools. It was a mutual choice between my spouse of 59 years and myself. So yes, MY choice.





> "Numerous variables contribute to the success and well being of a person outside their control."


"Positively, like motivation, ambition, wherewithal, work et al."


> Those are the exact opposite of outside a person's control. But I have a feeling you don't care to reconcile your belief of "the person is solely responsible" with the facts of reality: you and all humans are largely shaped through processes outside our control like the school we went to, the neighborhood(s) we lived in, the things your parents value, what the media tells you, what the major cultural events take place...these are not determined by any one individual but have monumental effects on how one thinks about themselves, what life is, their aims and motivation etc.


If that were the actual case, I would be destitute and living in a slum.





> Many college students overwhelmed by debt have killed themselves due to the insurmountable bills. These are not dumb people. Some are a lot smarter than you or me but their talent is terminated because they needed to forsake talent and pursue marketable.


Talk about dumb choices, garnering high education loans is just one of the myriad dumb choices people make. I chose to work to earn my education. I chose a career which helped me pay for part of it, but mostly I worked for my expenses and cost of living. CLEAR CHOICES! Are a few people left out of the equation by other than choices? Some, yes, but most out of lack of traits I stated earlier. My point is, no one OWES ANYONE THE COSTS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. One must make the choice and go for it, whereas many give up.





> Your irresponsible belaboring of personal shortcoming is precisely why these students end their lives.


I don't do or say irresponsible. Your suggesting that people ARE DUE FREE EDUCATION IS BULLSHIT.





> They think they are worthless because they can't afford to live.


If they think they are worthless it is their own failure, not anything I have said or done.





> So they kill themselves. That's a natural way to go if the person believes they are solely responsible for their actions. It is irresponsible to defend such a radically untrue and murderous vision of human responsiblity.


You are so full of crap you can be smelled over the internet. Like I said, we moderates who are liberal socially can recognize a left wing extremist a mile off. A quick test defines who is liberal and who is a left wing extremist. If you believe that the elite unionist labor force deserves a raise or should be protected from a small decrease in enumeration before a starving Indian is given a job at the common prevailing wage, or if you make up shit about, "India is polluting the world" or that "India does not protect its workers to the same extent we do in the US" or any other of the crap excuses you left wingers cry about.

The difference between you and I? I am a liberal, not a left wing freak who is more concerned about how to improve the social existence  of the less fortunate in the US to include trying to help them make good choices, not condoning those poor choices and laboring over excuses for their failure.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From your link:*
> 
> "Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.
> 
> "That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.
> 
> When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.*
> 
> When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Who said it was?*
> 
> "As a result of these trends, black men younger than 35 without a high school degree are now more likely in America to be imprisoned than employed in the labor market.
> 
> "These disproportionate impacts extend to their children: As of 2009, 62 percent of black children under 17, whose parents had not completed high school, have had a parent in prison.
> 
> "The same was true for 17 percent of Hispanic children and 15 percent of white children (with similarly educated parents)."
> 
> The meteoric, costly and unprecedented rise of incarceration in America
Click to expand...

You could just as well dscuss the concept of helping people make good choices.


----------



## dnsmith35

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*your left wing concept* about who gets the most tax breaks when as far as federal income tax it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the bottom 49% of our wage earners get the biggest federal income tax break as they pay little to no income tax."
> 
> You are right, it is left wing because the sources you go to for info do not offer these facts. Conveniently so. So you cal them left wing concepts but because you don't hear them doesn't make them any less a fact. I dare you to actually read the links I provided demonstrating how significant it really is. Calling them "left-wing" facts sounds like an attempt to eschew honest inquiry.
> 
> Regarding your joke rebuttal of federal income tax which is paid according to progressive measures... The federal income tax is not the only tax in America. Why would we only look at one type of tax to determine who gets taxed the most? Sounds like yet another shady tactic.
> 
> City taxes (like property tax), sales taxes for the goods we all need to live are equally levied on the low income. Turns out stocks and bonds and all sorts of intangible wealth is not taxed at all. Where is a lot of wealth held? In intangible wealth not taxed by the government. 75% of the shares are owned by 1% of the shareholders...not being taxed a dime.
> 
> "Wife? A personal choice!"
> 
> Not true at all. All of life is constrained optimization. You did not choose her from all the women in the world. In fact, you got to know a narrow group of females in your life and selected one among the few you knew. Your personal choice is thus a result of several constraints outside your control. To think of it as purely your choice is mistaken. The possibilities exist but were narrowed sharply by events outside your control and demonstrates my point about how economic facts shape human lives. I say more below.
> 
> "Numerous variables contribute to the success and well being of a person outside their control."
> "Positively, like motivation, ambition, wherewithal, work et al."
> 
> Those are the exact opposite of outside a person's control. But I have a feeling you don't care to reconcile your belief of "the person is solely responsible" with the facts of reality: you and all humans are largely shaped through processes outside our control like the school we went to, the neighborhood(s) we lived in, the things your parents value, what the media tells you, what the major cultural events take place...these are not determined by any one individual but have monumental effects on how one thinks about themselves, what life is, their aims and motivation etc.
> 
> Many college students overwhelmed by debt have killed themselves due to the insurmountable bills. These are not dumb people. Some are a lot smarter than you or me but their talent is terminated because they needed to forsake talent and pursue marketable.
> 
> Your irresponsible belaboring of personal shortcoming is precisely why these students end their lives. They think they are worthless because they can't afford to live. So they kill themselves. That's a natural way to go if the person believes they are solely responsible for their actions. It is irresponsible to defend such a radically untrue and murderous vision of human responsiblity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Turns out stocks and bonds and all sorts of intangible wealth is not taxed at all.*
> 
> Untrue!
> 
> Corporations pay billions in corporate taxes.
> Billions in sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, use taxes, license fees.
> They pay billions in salaries which are then taxed.
> They pay dividends which are then taxed again when received by the shareholder.
> They pay billions in interest on their bonds which is then taxed as income for the recipient.
> 
> It turns out you're wrong, as usual.
Click to expand...

Stocks and bonds are not taxed until.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith, what are your unbiased media sources?

Our disagreement arises out of how you view the human. You clearly don't think humans have inherent value. That money determines their value. Why do you think this?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on real studies, only the top .01% have much income over the other 99.09% . It is a left wing mantra used to keep the left wing in power. According to A BLS Graph the inequality ranges from 6 million to 31 million, major inequality. From .1% to the next lower group of 1% the difference is approximately  $5 million. The next group down or the bottom 99% is from 0 to $350K. When we look at the quintile graph it reflects the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When comparing the bottom 4 quintiles, which range between $11,200 to $178K, one can readily see the top 80% reflect nothing more or less than the relative achievement of our labor force and the major inequality of income occurs broadly between $178K and up.
> 
> If you choose to debate those assertions you should first read Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet which discusses what the reason there is a disparity between the bottom quintile and the 3rd or 4th quintile.
> 
> As I said earlier, it is only the left wing power rant that these relative inequality of income is not at the lower pay levels, but rather between the top level and the 3d or 4th quintile.
> 
> 
> 
> *From your link:*
> 
> "Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.
> 
> "That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.
> 
> When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.*
> 
> When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?
Click to expand...

How is the failure of the black community to educate all their children the fault of those getting rich from the New Jim Crow?
Bystander effect.

"Since its founding, America has depended on a permanent underclass of Black and brown bodies working for little or nothing. 

"In 2014, the disproportionately non-white prison population continues this tradition, making next to nothing (often less than $1 an hour) to create products for mass consumption. 

"Major entities  Victorias Secret, Nike, Starbucks, Microsoft, Nintendo, even the U.S. military  have at different points used prison labor to pump out products we all consume. 

"Prisoners are sometimes subjected to heavy metals and toxic chemicals in industries like computer recycling at the expense of their own health.

"Our communities contribute unknowingly to this new Jim Crow through our purchases and our taxes, which are used to pay state-contracted, for-profit prison operators. 

"George Zoley, the CEO of for-profit prison company GEO Group, for example, is one of Americas highest paid government 'corrections officers,' making $22 million a year. 

"Its estimated that GEO Group makes 86 percent of its revenue from taxpayers."

Commentary: Fighting Against the New Jim Crow | News | BET

*Those who've become rich over the past forty years prospered in part because millions of mostly non-white citizens have been warehoused in prisons, often for non-violent drug offenses.

Still think the rhymes-with-bitch white man had nothing to do with that?*


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.*
> 
> When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?
> 
> 
> 
> *Who said it was?*
> 
> "As a result of these trends, black men younger than 35 without a high school degree are now more likely in America to be imprisoned than employed in the labor market.
> 
> "These disproportionate impacts extend to their children: As of 2009, 62 percent of black children under 17, whose parents had not completed high school, have had a parent in prison.
> 
> "The same was true for 17 percent of Hispanic children and 15 percent of white children (with similarly educated parents)."
> 
> The meteoric, costly and unprecedented rise of incarceration in America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "jails not jobs policies" aren't the fault of the white man?
> 
> Well that's a relief.
Click to expand...

Just like the Koch brothers and Walmart heirs didn't inherit fortunes, right?


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on real studies, only the top .01% have much income over the other 99.09% . It is a left wing mantra used to keep the left wing in power. According to A BLS Graph the inequality ranges from 6 million to 31 million, major inequality. From .1% to the next lower group of 1% the difference is approximately  $5 million. The next group down or the bottom 99% is from 0 to $350K. When we look at the quintile graph it reflects the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When comparing the bottom 4 quintiles, which range between $11,200 to $178K, one can readily see the top 80% reflect nothing more or less than the relative achievement of our labor force and the major inequality of income occurs broadly between $178K and up.
> 
> If you choose to debate those assertions you should first read Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet which discusses what the reason there is a disparity between the bottom quintile and the 3rd or 4th quintile.
> 
> As I said earlier, it is only the left wing power rant that these relative inequality of income is not at the lower pay levels, but rather between the top level and the 3d or 4th quintile.
> 
> 
> 
> *From your link:*
> 
> "Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.
> 
> "That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.
> 
> When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, in spite of some trends being observed it is obvious that the articles do not believe it is the 1% who are causing the trend, which is the cry of the left wing extremists, ie THE RICH ARE THE CAUSE OF INCOME INEQUALITY. They are not. We didn't create the worlds largest prison population, criminals who made bad choices are responsible for their own actions.
> 
> It helps when you respond to an assertion that you answer my orange with an orange, not an apple. Sure, those guys are concerned as to why the .01% have such an unequal income as compared to the .1% or the 1%.
Click to expand...

The richest 1% earned about 8% of US income forty years ago, and they earn over 20% today. In order for an income and wealth transfer that large to take effect, two million superfluous young workers were transferred into prisons, and the only mistake thousands of those "criminals" made was not having enough money to hire a competent attorney.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

dnsmith35 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*your left wing concept* about who gets the most tax breaks when as far as federal income tax it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the bottom 49% of our wage earners get the biggest federal income tax break as they pay little to no income tax."
> 
> You are right, it is left wing because the sources you go to for info do not offer these facts. Conveniently so. So you cal them left wing concepts but because you don't hear them doesn't make them any less a fact. I dare you to actually read the links I provided demonstrating how significant it really is. Calling them "left-wing" facts sounds like an attempt to eschew honest inquiry.
> 
> Regarding your joke rebuttal of federal income tax which is paid according to progressive measures... The federal income tax is not the only tax in America. Why would we only look at one type of tax to determine who gets taxed the most? Sounds like yet another shady tactic.
> 
> City taxes (like property tax), sales taxes for the goods we all need to live are equally levied on the low income. Turns out stocks and bonds and all sorts of intangible wealth is not taxed at all. Where is a lot of wealth held? In intangible wealth not taxed by the government. 75% of the shares are owned by 1% of the shareholders...not being taxed a dime.
> 
> "Wife? A personal choice!"
> 
> Not true at all. All of life is constrained optimization. You did not choose her from all the women in the world. In fact, you got to know a narrow group of females in your life and selected one among the few you knew. Your personal choice is thus a result of several constraints outside your control. To think of it as purely your choice is mistaken. The possibilities exist but were narrowed sharply by events outside your control and demonstrates my point about how economic facts shape human lives. I say more below.
> 
> "Numerous variables contribute to the success and well being of a person outside their control."
> "Positively, like motivation, ambition, wherewithal, work et al."
> 
> Those are the exact opposite of outside a person's control. But I have a feeling you don't care to reconcile your belief of "the person is solely responsible" with the facts of reality: you and all humans are largely shaped through processes outside our control like the school we went to, the neighborhood(s) we lived in, the things your parents value, what the media tells you, what the major cultural events take place...these are not determined by any one individual but have monumental effects on how one thinks about themselves, what life is, their aims and motivation etc.
> 
> Many college students overwhelmed by debt have killed themselves due to the insurmountable bills. These are not dumb people. Some are a lot smarter than you or me but their talent is terminated because they needed to forsake talent and pursue marketable.
> 
> Your irresponsible belaboring of personal shortcoming is precisely why these students end their lives. They think they are worthless because they can't afford to live. So they kill themselves. That's a natural way to go if the person believes they are solely responsible for their actions. It is irresponsible to defend such a radically untrue and murderous vision of human responsiblity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Turns out stocks and bonds and all sorts of intangible wealth is not taxed at all.*
> 
> Untrue!
> 
> Corporations pay billions in corporate taxes.
> Billions in sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, use taxes, license fees.
> They pay billions in salaries which are then taxed.
> They pay dividends which are then taxed again when received by the shareholder.
> They pay billions in interest on their bonds which is then taxed as income for the recipient.
> 
> It turns out you're wrong, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stocks and bonds are not taxed until.
Click to expand...


Until the company makes a profit, buys something, pays an employee, occupies space or you receive a dividend or interest payment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From your link:*
> 
> "Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.
> 
> "That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.
> 
> When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.*
> 
> When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the failure of the black community to educate all their children the fault of those getting rich from the New Jim Crow?
> Bystander effect.
> 
> "Since its founding, America has depended on a permanent underclass of Black and brown bodies working for little or nothing.
> 
> "In 2014, the disproportionately non-white prison population continues this tradition, making next to nothing (often less than $1 an hour) to create products for mass consumption.
> 
> "Major entities  Victorias Secret, Nike, Starbucks, Microsoft, Nintendo, even the U.S. military  have at different points used prison labor to pump out products we all consume.
> 
> "Prisoners are sometimes subjected to heavy metals and toxic chemicals in industries like computer recycling at the expense of their own health.
> 
> "Our communities contribute unknowingly to this new Jim Crow through our purchases and our taxes, which are used to pay state-contracted, for-profit prison operators.
> 
> "George Zoley, the CEO of for-profit prison company GEO Group, for example, is one of Americas highest paid government 'corrections officers,' making $22 million a year.
> 
> "Its estimated that GEO Group makes 86 percent of its revenue from taxpayers."
> 
> Commentary: Fighting Against the New Jim Crow | News | BET
> 
> *Those who've become rich over the past forty years prospered in part because millions of mostly non-white citizens have been warehoused in prisons, often for non-violent drug offenses.
> 
> Still think the rhymes-with-bitch white man had nothing to do with that?*
Click to expand...


*Since its founding, America has depended on a permanent underclass of Black and brown bodies working for little or nothing. *

That's awful. Why do millions still break the law to come here?

*In 2014, the disproportionately non-white prison population continues this tradition, making next to nothing (often less than $1 an hour) to create products for mass consumption. *

That's awful. Let's put it in perspective. What is the total value of prison manufactured goods each year in the US?

*Our communities contribute unknowingly to this new Jim Crow *

Jim Crow? Is that what happens when Holder doesn't prosecute someone, based on skin color?

*millions of mostly non-white citizens have been warehoused in prisons, often for non-violent drug offenses.*

My old friend Sammy used to say, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From your link:*
> 
> "Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.
> 
> "That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.
> 
> When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, in spite of some trends being observed it is obvious that the articles do not believe it is the 1% who are causing the trend, which is the cry of the left wing extremists, ie THE RICH ARE THE CAUSE OF INCOME INEQUALITY. They are not. We didn't create the worlds largest prison population, criminals who made bad choices are responsible for their own actions.
> 
> It helps when you respond to an assertion that you answer my orange with an orange, not an apple. Sure, those guys are concerned as to why the .01% have such an unequal income as compared to the .1% or the 1%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The richest 1% earned about 8% of US income forty years ago, and they earn over 20% today. In order for an income and wealth transfer that large to take effect, two million superfluous young workers were transferred into prisons, and the only mistake thousands of those "criminals" made was not having enough money to hire a competent attorney.
Click to expand...


dnsmith assumes all people who go to jail are guilty criminals from the premise that all people who are in jail are there because they committed crimes. We know there are many crimes that are committed that go unpunished, especially white collar crime. Moreover, we know there are numerous innocents who experience death row but are found innocent (6 people were exonerated in my state of Ohio this year alone!). *Think of how many go undiscovered and are put to death*. Think of the innocents who spend their life in prison over crimes they didn't commit! The numbers are far higher than 4%.

Hiring the right attorneys and being wealthy has a near 1-1 correspondence to "get out of jail free." That would mean rich people are not nearly as responsible for their actions as others are _more_ responsible for their actions and pay with their life and freedom. And this is dnsmiths view of jurisprudence? Totally bogus!


----------



## Manonthestreet

Did you know the wealthy in the UK doubled their wealth in the last five yrs? The zero interest rate is wiping out SRs nest eggs as they navigate retirement.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith, what are your unbiased media sources?


It depends on the issues. For Economic issues the Wall Street Journal or CNN Money (which has been accused of being to the left). For other news I read various and sort out the fluff (commentary) and go for the what, when, where, how. 





> Our disagreement arises out of how you view the human. You clearly don't think humans have inherent value. That money determines their value. Why do you think this?


ROTFLMAO! In fact I view humans in a more sympathetic manner than you do. It is the basis of my basic liberal positions. Perhaps it was my having lived in 3rd world countries, but my compassion for humans stems from my experiences with truly poor people rather than the typical relatively poor in the US who tend to be below the government determined poverty line. Having said that, since you actually do not strike me as a liberal based on your posts, but rather a left wing extremists who tend to blur the lines such that you are "liberals with borders" and I am a "liberal without borders."


----------



## Againsheila

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



On the contrary, Capitalism would work, but we don't have capitalism.  If we did, all those banks wouldn't have gotten $billions of our tax dollars, they would have been allowed to go broke.  Our government wouldn't have raised the amount of immigrants let into this country when our citizens were brainwashed into limiting their birthrate to less than replacement value.  Unions would once again be powerful, because a capitalistic society allows such things to reign in greed.

No, we don't have capitalism, we have fascism.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From your link:*
> 
> "Scholars are also taking note of social issues underlying America's income divide. In his new book, Coming Apart, conservative social scientist Charles Murray documents far higher divorce rates and more children living with one parent in working-class communities.
> 
> "That's a trend that has also caught the attention of liberals like Harvard's Robert Putnam, who describes 'gaps that didn't exist decades ago but are widening at an alarming rate today' and are reinforced as wealthy parents spend far more time with their children."
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.
> 
> When comparing the economic stratification among the bottom 80%, we need to factor in the socio-economic consequences of creating the world's largest prison population in the Land of the Free.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.*
> 
> When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is the failure of the black community to educate all their children the fault of those getting rich from the New Jim Crow?
> Bystander effect.
> 
> "Since its founding, America has depended on a permanent underclass of Black and brown bodies working for little or nothing.
> 
> "In 2014, the disproportionately non-white prison population continues this tradition, making next to nothing (often less than $1 an hour) to create products for mass consumption.
> 
> "Major entities &#8211; Victoria&#8217;s Secret, Nike, Starbucks, Microsoft, Nintendo, even the U.S. military &#8212; have at different points used prison labor to pump out products we all consume.
> 
> "Prisoners are sometimes subjected to heavy metals and toxic chemicals in industries like computer recycling at the expense of their own health.
> 
> "Our communities contribute unknowingly to this new Jim Crow through our purchases and our taxes, which are used to pay state-contracted, for-profit prison operators.
> 
> "George Zoley, the CEO of for-profit prison company GEO Group, for example, is one of America&#8217;s highest paid government 'corrections officers,' making $22 million a year.
> 
> "It&#8217;s estimated that GEO Group makes 86 percent of its revenue from taxpayers."
> 
> Commentary: Fighting Against the New Jim Crow | News | BET
> 
> *Those who've become rich over the past forty years prospered in part because millions of mostly non-white citizens have been warehoused in prisons, often for non-violent drug offenses.
> 
> Still think the rhymes-with-bitch white man had nothing to do with that?*
Click to expand...

In fact, I question the validity of most of your comments or links. The fact of the matter is, education must be the same for all regardless of race or culture because that is the education needed to succeed no matter the career.

In so far as drug use issues, whether they are violent crimes or not is irrelevant. People who break the law are being irresponsible. Criminality is an undesirable personality trait no matter what the race is, so stuff that up your excremental orifice.

In so far as Jim Crow, having observed many successful blacks with parallel careers to myself, there was nothing which kept them back to include race or culture.

Your accusations of anti-black issues with the military is decades old and no longer true, at least not since I have been aware in 1961.

As to blacks being statistically more likely to go to prison reflects on the likely criminality. Being poor or culturally different is no excuse for criminality. Dropping out of school is also not an acceptable excuse for failure. Those issues are self responsibility issues, not racial issues.

The fact that we have had racist issues over our history, and in accordance with what successful blacks like Bill Cosby, have said, it really does not apply today. So when you talk about institutional or personal racism, be aware that I am aware of reality as it is today, and will never be concerned with past issues.

To recap, all racist and cultural excuses are bullshit today. The individual needs the ambition, motivation, and ability, all of which are not excuses in this day and age and so long as blacks or other culturally different people whine and cry that our education system is not tailored to their culture, also miss the reality of the situation that minorities must adapt to the world in which they live.  Your left wing extremism is bullshit. 

I am 78 and have lived with the old Jim Crow issues and know for a fact that things are no longer what you and your left wing citations say. Especially this one which says, "The bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely related to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. Several variables help to explain why the bystander effect occurs. These variables include: ambiguity, cohesiveness and diffusion of responsibility. Bystander effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As a Ed.S graduate Psychologist, I understand all of the so called issues, and tell you they are little more than left wing extremist propaganda. 

As a liberal, who respects all races and cultures, good public education, universal medical care, welfare for the truly needy, and respect for all humanity NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE. I challenge you to be as truly liberal as I instead of being a left wing extremist.


----------



## georgephillip

Againsheila said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Capitalism would work, but we don't have capitalism.  If we did, all those banks wouldn't have gotten $billions of our tax dollars, they would have been allowed to go broke.  Our government wouldn't have raised the amount of immigrants let into this country when our citizens were brainwashed into limiting their birthrate to less than replacement value.  Unions would once again be powerful, because a capitalistic society allows such things to reign in greed.
> 
> No, we don't have capitalism, we have fascism.
Click to expand...

And the oligarchs who own the US Government have less use for a Republic than they have for democracy. As long as a majority of US voters think they can change that by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when selecting their House and Senate members, it will only get worse.

Scholar Behind Viral 'Oligarchy' Study Tells You What It Means


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> .....


Yet, in spite of some trends being observed it is obvious that the articles do not believe it is the 1% who are causing the trend, which is the cry of the left wing extremists, ie THE RICH ARE THE CAUSE OF INCOME INEQUALITY. They are not. We didn't create the worlds largest prison population, criminals who made bad choices are responsible for their own actions.

It helps when you respond to an assertion that you answer my orange with an orange, not an apple. Sure, those guys are concerned as to why the .01% have such an unequal income as compared to the .1% or the 1%.





> dnsmith assumes all people who go to jail are guilty criminals from the premise that all people who are in jail are there because they committed crimes.


On the contrary, I do know that there are innocent people, black and white. That is a judicial problem, not a racist problem. 





> We know there are many crimes that are committed that go unpunished, especially white collar crime. Moreover, we know there are numerous innocents who experience death row but are found innocent (6 people were exonerated in my state of Ohio this year alone!). *Think of how many go undiscovered and are put to death*. Think of the innocents who spend their life in prison over crimes they didn't commit! The numbers are far higher than 4%


That there is a disproportion of Black to White in prison is not a racist issue and the conviction of innocent people is wrong, but again, not a racist issue. I also do not accept the suggestion that statistics which reflect what you claim are relevant.





> Hiring the right attorneys and being wealthy has a near 1-1 correspondence to "get out of jail free." That would mean rich people are not nearly as responsible for their actions as others are _more_ responsible for their actions and pay with their life and freedom.
> And this is dnsmiths view of jurisprudence? Totally bogus!


Again, you are taking liberties of what my view is and posting your opinion of my views which are in error. From middle class up better attorneys can be paid for. This is not a racist issue it is a judicial issue. Everyone is responsible for his actions regardless of race or culture. It is my opinion that if an attorney is to be provided for those who cannot afford a lawyer, the attorney of his choice should be covered by the state. 

In other words, your entire post of accusations about me are just so much bullshit. Your tendency to create excuses for lack of personal responsibility is noted, which btw is not a conservative issue, but one of all political beings with common sense.


----------



## bedowin62

there is MORE inequality in the EIGHTH-STRAIGHT year of Progressive majority government

 libs are just idiots.................who lie to themselves


----------



## dnsmith35

bedowin62 said:


> there is MORE inequality in the EIGHTH-STRAIGHT year of Progressive majority government
> 
> libs are just idiots.................who lie to themselves


I don't agree with your comment about liberals, but if you change that to left wing extremists I do agree.


----------



## dnsmith35

To add to my last response to gnarley: I believe that blacks are as capable of learning and are just as intelligent as anyone else. Their propensity to drop out of school is a personality trait of the individuals. There is no excuse for a person to opt out of education and then complain they are being discriminated against in the job world. That is so much horse puckey.


----------



## Erand7899

dnsmith35 said:


> To add to my last response to gnarley: I believe that blacks are as capable of learning and are just as intelligent as anyone else. Their propensity to drop out of school is a personality trait of the individuals. There is no excuse for a person to opt out of education and then complain they are being discriminated against in the job world. That is so much horse puckey.



The major reason that most kids drop out of school has to do with their inability to comprehend what is being taught because they were failed in the first six years of their public schooling.  That is a shared responsibility of their parents and the public schools.

When public schools are proud that 76% of their fourth grade students can read at grade level, and that 72% of their third grade students can compute math at their grade level, you know you have a problem.  They are failing at least one quarter of their charges, and are creating disfunctional adults.


----------



## dnsmith35

Erand7899 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To add to my last response to gnarley: I believe that blacks are as capable of learning and are just as intelligent as anyone else. Their propensity to drop out of school is a personality trait of the individuals. There is no excuse for a person to opt out of education and then complain they are being discriminated against in the job world. That is so much horse puckey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The major reason that most kids drop out of school has to do with their inability to comprehend what is being taught because they were failed in the first six years of their public schooling.  That is a shared responsibility of their parents and the public schools.
> 
> When public schools are proud that 76% of their fourth grade students can read at grade level, and that 72% of their third grade students can compute math at their grade level, you know you have a problem.  They are failing at least one quarter of their charges, and are creating disfunctional adults.
Click to expand...

I do agree that parental emphasis is a great thing to assist school success. But I further blame the teachers who do not accept the fact that some parents either can't or won't help their kids. Therefore it is up to the school system to give them that assistance which the parents do not afford. To say, "it is the fault of lax parental assistance" is a cop out. Face it, not only do some parents not help, some can actually be hostile to the concept to education, and the schoOl system MUST DO WHAT IS NECESSARY.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith, what are your unbiased media sources?
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the issues. For Economic issues the Wall Street Journal or CNN Money (which has been accused of being to the left).
Click to expand...


If CNN is accused of left leaning, then how is it unbiased?

The Wall Street Journal is liberal in reporting.  "In a 2004 study, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo calculated the ideological bias of 20 media outlets by counting the frequency they cited particular think tanks and comparing that to the frequency that legislators cited the same think tanks. They found that the news reporting of The [Wall Street] Journal was the most liberal, more liberal than NPR or The New York Times. The study did not factor in editorials." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Reporting_bias

So it is verifiable that your "unbiased" journals have biases. Therefore they are not unbiased sources. Since you used all caps when mentioning "unbiased sources" it must mean a lot to you...sadly it's a fact your sources are biased. So I hope you have enough intellectual honesty to come to terms with the disjunct between your false perceptions and reality.

It sounds like you need advice on (as-close-as-possible to) unbias sources. My advice is you can commonly find largely unbiased reports in government releases (like Congressional Budget Office), declassified documents (from decades ago or recent leaks), international bodies (like CERN, World Bank) and peer-reviewed journals (like those published by Council on Foreign Relations who publish phenomenal work in economics).

Your idea of unbiased sources is really disturbing.

So the question becomes why believe the bias you read and not some elses? Because yours are factual? Good answer. We can verify that too. If we return to the reason we are discussing this, you were alluding that the rich do not benefit from government aide. That is factually verifiable claim and turns out to be absolutely false. Let me post some research for you to scan regarding the overwhelming aide that the rich receive from public funds:

"About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006."

This coming from the CATO institute. The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses | Cato Institute

"To clarify what is and isnt corporate welfare, a no-bid Iraq contract for the prestigious Halliburton, would not be considered corporate welfare because the government technically directly receives some good or service in exchange for this expenditure. Based on the Pentagons Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) findings of $1.4 billion of overcharging and fraud"

Think by Numbers » Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs

This site provides numerous citations of unbiased reporting and numbers regarding how the rich benefit as the poor lag far behind. But ask yourself, do the rich need welfare? Are they the one's that have to decide between taking a lunch or going without so that her son doesn't have to do without?

So the rich, despite their superior talent, receive more government aide than low income and poverty-stricken who desperately need it. Is this how you understand welfare from CNN and WSJ? In case you don't trust anything other than WSJ, they too identify corporate welfare as factually far larger than low income welfare. Review & Outlook: The Corporate Welfare State - WSJ.com





dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our disagreement arises out of how you view the human. You clearly don't think humans have inherent value. That money determines their value. Why do you think this?
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO! In fact I view humans in a more sympathetic manner than you do. It is the basis of my basic liberal positions. Perhaps it was my having lived in 3rd world countries, but my compassion for humans stems from my experiences with truly poor people rather than the typical relatively poor in the US who tend to be below the government determined poverty line. Having said that, since you actually do not strike me as a liberal based on your posts, but rather a left wing extremists who tend to blur the lines such that you are "liberals with borders" and I am a "liberal without borders."
Click to expand...


This is not a competition for who has more compassion. That is a different issue and a personal one that only a misanthrope would decide over a message board. You must have a delicate ego that needs flattery often. So I grant you are greatly more compassionate than me. Even if you are more compassionate than me, that doesn't change what you believe: that poor people deserve/earned their situation and the rich deserve/earned theirs.

Neither is this a competition between countries. Justice is not based on relative comparisons. If you had to decide between Hitler or Stalin, would your analysis of justice conclude that Germany was just? Is that how we should understand inherent human value?

People, if they have inherent value at all (which you distinctly left out of your reply), they should all be treated with dignity. Your concept of justice is skewed to relative justice but lacks an understanding of inherent justice.

The homeless in America may be better off in potential access to sustenance than the poorest African. Is that any way to understand inherent human dignity? What if both suffer malnutrition, preventable and treatable diseases, lack of medical care? Does the one that doesn't get spit (like they do in America) become suddenly deserving of compassion whereas the impoverished American deserves continued malnutrition, poor/no education, diseases and rarely affordable medical care in a land that gives twice as much aide to rich people?


----------



## bedowin62

millions of people desperately try to make it to these shores just for an opportunity to be "exploited" by capitalism; "gaurantees" of rising inequality or not


honestly only the mindless morons on the Left; wallowing in self-hatred for their own country; could come up with such an idiotic thread while people literally die trying to come here


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.*
> 
> When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?
> 
> 
> 
> How is the failure of the black community to educate all their children the fault of those getting rich from the New Jim Crow?
> Bystander effect.
> 
> "Since its founding, America has depended on a permanent underclass of Black and brown bodies working for little or nothing.
> 
> "In 2014, the disproportionately non-white prison population continues this tradition, making next to nothing (often less than $1 an hour) to create products for mass consumption.
> 
> "Major entities  Victorias Secret, Nike, Starbucks, Microsoft, Nintendo, even the U.S. military  have at different points used prison labor to pump out products we all consume.
> 
> "Prisoners are sometimes subjected to heavy metals and toxic chemicals in industries like computer recycling at the expense of their own health.
> 
> "Our communities contribute unknowingly to this new Jim Crow through our purchases and our taxes, which are used to pay state-contracted, for-profit prison operators.
> 
> "George Zoley, the CEO of for-profit prison company GEO Group, for example, is one of Americas highest paid government 'corrections officers,' making $22 million a year.
> 
> "Its estimated that GEO Group makes 86 percent of its revenue from taxpayers."
> 
> Commentary: Fighting Against the New Jim Crow | News | BET
> 
> *Those who've become rich over the past forty years prospered in part because millions of mostly non-white citizens have been warehoused in prisons, often for non-violent drug offenses.
> 
> Still think the rhymes-with-bitch white man had nothing to do with that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, I question the validity of most of your comments or links. The fact of the matter is, education must be the same for all regardless of race or culture because that is the education needed to succeed no matter the career.
> 
> In so far as drug use issues, whether they are violent crimes or not is irrelevant. People who break the law are being irresponsible. Criminality is an undesirable personality trait no matter what the race is, so stuff that up your excremental orifice.
> 
> In so far as Jim Crow, having observed many successful blacks with parallel careers to myself, there was nothing which kept them back to include race or culture.
> 
> Your accusations of anti-black issues with the military is decades old and no longer true, at least not since I have been aware in 1961.
> 
> As to blacks being statistically more likely to go to prison reflects on the likely criminality. Being poor or culturally different is no excuse for criminality. Dropping out of school is also not an acceptable excuse for failure. Those issues are self responsibility issues, not racial issues.
> 
> The fact that we have had racist issues over our history, and in accordance with what successful blacks like Bill Cosby, have said, it really does not apply today. So when you talk about institutional or personal racism, be aware that I am aware of reality as it is today, and will never be concerned with past issues.
> 
> To recap, all racist and cultural excuses are bullshit today. The individual needs the ambition, motivation, and ability, all of which are not excuses in this day and age and so long as blacks or other culturally different people whine and cry that our education system is not tailored to their culture, also miss the reality of the situation that minorities must adapt to the world in which they live.  Your left wing extremism is bullshit.
> 
> I am 78 and have lived with the old Jim Crow issues and know for a fact that things are no longer what you and your left wing citations say. Especially this one which says, "The bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely related to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. Several variables help to explain why the bystander effect occurs. These variables include: ambiguity, cohesiveness and diffusion of responsibility. Bystander effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As a Ed.S graduate Psychologist, I understand all of the so called issues, and tell you they are little more than left wing extremist propaganda.
> 
> As a liberal, who respects all races and cultures, good public education, universal medical care, welfare for the truly needy, and respect for all humanity NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE. I challenge you to be as truly liberal as I instead of being a left wing extremist.
Click to expand...

More African Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system today than were enslaved in 1850. Today's felons experience discrimination in housing, education, employment, and voting rights which is perfectly legal and just as socially acceptable as segregation was fifty years ago. And since many more people of color than whites are currently made felons by a system of mass incarceration, racial discrimination exists today just as it did under slavery and Jim Crow.

Your centrist bull shit about living in a color blind society society today, backed up with anecdotes of "successful" Black entertainers, would be comical if rich Blacks weren't profiting from four decades of income redistribution in favor of the richest 1% of citizens just as rich whites are.

Black criminality is due to situation at least as much as character.
The situations that a majority of Blacks find themselves in today are not of their own making.
Their principal situation is one of caste, and it's entirely the product of self-absorbed elites who preach ambition, motivation, and self-responsibility to those they know lack the fundamental opportunity to acquire any of those valuable character traits.

To recap: your centrist tripe in behalf of the status quo remind me of American apologetics   
a century ago; your defense of rising inequality of opportunity today makes as much sense as those supporting racial segregation did then.


----------



## georgephillip

bedowin62 said:


> millions of people desperately try to make it to these shores just for an opportunity to be "exploited" by capitalism; "gaurantees" of rising inequality or not
> 
> 
> honestly only the mindless morons on the Left; wallowing in self-hatred for their own country; could come up with such an idiotic thread while people literally die trying to come here


How many are dying to come here because of NAFTA?


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know you don't like the government. But what is the government? The government operates according to the interests of the wealthy. The government is not an end in itself. It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it. The government makes you mad because it is used against your interests. The interests it disfavors are yours. The interests if favors is the rich and the rich like it that way. So you're disagreement with how the government operates is one caused by the near unanimous preference to favor the rich.
> 
> Therefore the government is secondary to the primary concern of who actually operates the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm rich, so you're FOS.  Sorry man.  I'm a rich business owner who lives in a wealthy area.  The government favors people who want control.  That includes some wealthy, some corporations.  It also includes special interests like teachers and other unions, environmentalists, liberal womens and minority groups.  They all lobby and buy government.
> 
> The government doesn't act in my interest, but that is because i believe in freedom.  Liberty.  I don't want favors from government.  But your contention it's just for the wealthy is crap.  And as a liberal, you want bigger government, which shows that your belief it's for the wealthy is a lie.  If you really believed that, you'd be a small government libertarian like me.  And for the same reason, to limit government power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definitely appreciate and respect your honest reply. Socio-economic status helps determine what is thinkable and what is not.
> 
> But I'd ask you do you think money should determine how people think? Or should empirical reality should determine that?
> 
> I believe there should be a common ground on which all people can interact but if you grant money with such power (to radically determine your beliefs) than science and most empirical investigation becomes an exercise for the wealthy, not humanity.
> 
> So should the world reflect wealth or humans?
> 
> The matter of achieving freedom is a question about conditions. People cannot be free who lack essentials like water. And if your standard of freedom stays abreast of the wealth generated here in America, then people who lack electric and transportation are far less free than those with easy access. So should some people be less free while others accumulate all the freedom (the freedom from prosecution).
> 
> But personally I'm an anarchist. No government authority should exist without justifying it's existence and I doubt much of the government can be justified. But we don't live in that world and the one we do often abuses low income just because they are poor--this is no justification. So I think we need to protect the rights of all because once you allow some to be abused openly, than it's a slippery slope to abusing someone you care about because of some failure or flaw they allegedly have. Allowing people to survive, be treated fairly...now this is real freedom.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure why you're asking a libertarian those questions.  I want government limited to only those functions which only government can do.  Primarily the police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights.  All citizens benefit from those things equally.  There is no wealth envy or redistribution, no buying schemes.

When you say things like should the world reflect wealth or humans, I have no idea what that means in the context of my ideology.  The government should be limited to maximize liberty because government is the greatest threat and infringer of our liberty.  Can you rephrase the question in that context so it makes sense to me regarding what I think?


----------



## bedowin62

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> millions of people desperately try to make it to these shores just for an opportunity to be "exploited" by capitalism; "gaurantees" of rising inequality or not
> 
> 
> honestly only the mindless morons on the Left; wallowing in self-hatred for their own country; could come up with such an idiotic thread while people literally die trying to come here
> 
> 
> 
> How many are dying to come here because of NAFTA?
Click to expand...




are people dying to get here or not leftard?
 it really is that simple


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> It tells us the rich rule this government just as they have every government since the first surpluses thousands of years ago.
> 
> Government isn't the problem.
> 
> The rich are.



Duh, I want more government.  Why?  It's controlled by the rich, so I want more of it.  Um ... so you want to make the rich ... more ... powerful?  Say what?

Liar, you don't believe that.  If you did, you would not fight for bigger government.   It's clearly just your talking point.  You never noticed it makes no sense.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism.  LOL, sure I do...
> 
> It's the endless game you leftists play.  Oh, well you want roads, you get a welfare State.  You want police, you get confiscatory taxes.
> 
> You're FOS, there is no reason wanting my wanting a limited government justifies you getting an unlimited one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "TVA's service area covers most of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia."
> 
> *How many Marxists have you known?
> Did any originate in Tennessee, Alabama, or North Carolina?
> Did they have to forsake religion to get electricity?
> Righties like you need to learn the difference between big business and big government.*
Click to expand...


Non-sequitur


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism.  LOL, sure I do...
> 
> It's the endless game you leftists play.  Oh, well you want roads, you get a welfare State.  You want police, you get confiscatory taxes.
> 
> You're FOS, there is no reason wanting my wanting a limited government justifies you getting an unlimited one.
> 
> 
> 
> "TVA's service area covers most of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia."
> 
> *How many Marxists have you known?
> Did any originate in Tennessee, Alabama, or North Carolina?
> Did they have to forsake religion to get electricity?
> Righties like you need to learn the difference between big business and big government.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non-sequitur
Click to expand...

Congratulations.
You spelled it correctly.
Now learn its correct meaning.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "TVA's service area covers most of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia."
> 
> *How many Marxists have you known?
> Did any originate in Tennessee, Alabama, or North Carolina?
> Did they have to forsake religion to get electricity?
> Righties like you need to learn the difference between big business and big government.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non-sequitur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congratulations.
> You spelled it correctly.
> Now learn its correct meaning.
Click to expand...


I used it correctly.  Now learn to read so you can address what I said, not what I didn't say.


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-sequitur
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations.
> You spelled it correctly.
> Now learn its correct meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used it correctly.  Now learn to read so you can address what I said, not what I didn't say.
Click to expand...

What is it you think you said?


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations.
> You spelled it correctly.
> Now learn its correct meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used it correctly.  Now learn to read so you can address what I said, not what I didn't say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it you think you said?
Click to expand...


It wasn't complicated, but since you didn't grasp it the first time, why would my saying it again help rather than your going back and reading it and comprehending it this time?  There is no way a rational person who speaks the English language and has reading comprehension could think I said what you thought I said.  I did not say electricity = Communism, in fact I said it's not.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith, what are your unbiased media sources?


It depends on the issues. For Economic issues the Wall Street Journal or CNN Money (which has been accused of being to the left).[/quote]I SAID they were accused, I did not say they were. But now I see part of your problem, you can't understand straight English.

The Wall Street Journal is liberal in reporting.  "In a 2004 study, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo calculated the ideological bias of 20 media outlets by counting the frequency they cited particular think tanks and comparing that to the frequency that legislators cited the same think tanks. They found that the news reporting of The [Wall Street] Journal was the most liberal, more liberal than NPR or The New York Times. The study did not factor in editorials." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Reporting_bias

So it is verifiable that your "unbiased" journals have biases. Therefore they are not unbiased sources. Since you used all caps when mentioning "unbiased sources" it must mean a lot to you...sadly it's a fact your sources are biased. So I hope you have enough intellectual honesty to come to terms with the disjunct between your false perceptions and reality.[/quote]Some say they are biased, but aside Daily Kos, Mother Jones et all, they are not left wing. Liberal or Moderate is fine with me, and they tend to tell the story before the commentary, which I told you I ignore. 





> It sounds like you need advice on (as-close-as-possible to) unbias sources. My advice is you can commonly find largely unbiased reports in government releases (like Congressional Budget Office),


 I do use the CBO for government information, as I also read the Bureau of Labor and some other Govt sources but I also treat them with a grain of salt because they are sometimes as biased as the NYTimes. I trust the world bank as far as I can throw them. (A classmate of mine made his career with them and he made me aware of their biases. I could care less what disturbs you, but I sift the garbage and throw out the commentary which actually has no place in the news.





> So the question becomes why believe the bias you read and not some elses? Because yours are factual? Good answer. We can verify that too. If we return to the reason we are discussing this, you were alluding that the rich do not benefit from government aide. That is factually verifiable claim and turns out to be absolutely false. Let me post some research for you to scan regarding the overwhelming aide that the rich receive from public funds:


Factually verifiable from whom? A government source?





> "About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006."


My lord, do you believe that? The government spends almost $500 billion a year on various safety net programs to include food stamps, Medicaid, direct aid, extension of unemployment etc etc etc. Looks like your source is not a good one. But yes, the government does spend corporate subsidies, like to solar energy companies that go bankrupt, supporting key industries the that are critical to governmental functions. I agree they should, but they are not but about 20% of your "verifiable sources" tell you. BTW, the CATO institute is very RW in bias.





> "To clarify what is and isnt corporate welfare, a no-bid Iraq contract for the prestigious Halliburton, would not be considered corporate welfare because the government technically directly receives some good or service in exchange for this expenditure. Based on the Pentagons Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) findings of $1.4 billion of overcharging and fraud"


That distresses me too, but are you sure your source is correct? The one below is not Verifiable? No, erroneous.





> Think by Numbers » Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs
> 
> This site provides numerous citations of unbiased reporting and numbers regarding how the rich benefit as the poor lag far behind. But ask yourself, do the rich need welfare? Are they the one's that have to decide between taking a lunch or going without so that her son doesn't have to do without?


Since that site is obviously incorrect, why would you trust it?





> So the rich, despite their superior talent, receive more government aide than low income and poverty-stricken who desperately need it. Is this how you understand welfare from CNN and WSJ? In case you don't trust anything other than WSJ, they too identify corporate welfare as factually far larger than low income welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factually? I think not. Do a little research. I always do before I believe any source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our disagreement arises out of how you view the human. You clearly don't think humans have inherent value. That money determines their value. Why do you think this?
> 
> 
> 
> I said, ROTFLMAO! In fact I view humans in a more sympathetic manner than you do. It is the basis of my basic liberal positions. Perhaps it was my having lived in 3rd world countries, but my compassion for humans stems from my experiences with truly poor people rather than the typical relatively poor in the US who tend to be below the government determined poverty line. Having said that, since you actually do not strike me as a liberal based on your posts, but rather a left wing extremists who tend to blur the lines such that you are "liberals with borders" and I am a "liberal without borders."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a competition for who has more compassion. That is a different issue and a personal one that only a misanthrope would decide over a message board. You must have a delicate ego that needs flattery often.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with ego, but rather the insulting way you accused me of not having compassion for the poor, which of course is a lot of BS. 





> So I grant you are greatly more compassionate than me. Even if you are more compassionate than me, that doesn't change what you believe: that poor people deserve/earned their situation and the rich deserve/earned theirs.


You still do not understand English if you believe that crap.





> Neither is this a competition between countries. Justice is not based on relative comparisons. If you had to decide between Hitler or Stalin, would your analysis of justice conclude that Germany was just? Is that how we should understand inherent human value?


I have never suggested that. What I said, and you obviously did not understand the language in which I expressed it, is, "the poorest people on this earth deserve our aid before we start to improve the life style of the "relatively poor" in any other country. If you can't understand that you do not have the compassion for the poor you are trying to  imply you have. My concept of justice is, if you break the law you deserve to be punished, period.





> The homeless in America may be better off in potential access to sustenance than the poorest African.


 The homeless in America is a minute % of our people, and I have compassion for them and help them in any way possible





> .Is that any way to understand inherent human dignity?


Certainly not the way you think I do. 





> What if both suffer malnutrition, preventable and treatable diseases, lack of medical care? Does the one that doesn't get spit (like they do in America) become suddenly deserving of compassion whereas the impoverished American deserves continued malnutrition, poor/no education, diseases and rarely affordable medical care in a land that gives twice as much aide to rich people?


Did you fail to read where I believe in universal medical care? Or are you just too ignorant to understand what you read. 

I shall reiterate, when I have a specific amount of money to give, I will give it to a charity which helps the least wealthy people in the world before I give it to someone who is relatively poor in that they are less wealth than those who have more wealth. That should be easily understood, unless you are totally unfeeling toward the least of our human brethren.

If you choose to believe that people should not be held responsible for their actions you are a lost cause to humanity. If you choose to believe that adding some dignity to someone who is relatively poor instead of someone who is destitute with no food or means to get it, but instead can be fed by local food pantry or "soup kitchen". That is the difference between, you have no compassion for the poverty you can't see, but would rather improve the life style of the relative poor. 

That said, there are a very small % of our population who slip through the safety net. We should take care of them before the above described relative poor.

One of our problems in the US is, we don't have a consistent solution to handle those who slip through the net. Most of our homeless people have mental issues, some of whom I know, but can't get help for simple reasons the government does not recognize. Many years ago, a man wealthy from construction industry offered the city of Atlanta to build a series of small "efficiency" apartments on his own land in what ever number was required to handle the homeless. The city of Atlanta turned him down because the size did not meet code for the size per individual inhabitant. So instead he built another luxury development and made a few more million $$$s. I see that as abject stupidity. Or the homeless person who can't get food stamps because he has no physical address. Or the government rules which require the housing authority to evict a person for even minor and non habituation drugs.  There are technicalities such as the current federal laws which prohibit putting a mentally ill homeless person in an institution which will house him/her and feed them. I see those issues as the lack of compassion for the truly needy. 

What distresses me also are the left wing extremists who try to judge those of us really trying to help the truly needy instead of helping fewer to a level of dignity. Fortunately for us we have a Capitalist Economic system, albeit a regulated one, which allows our government to collect sufficient revenues to address many of the social needs of our less fortunate citizens. Unfortunately countries like India do not have such a system, mainly because of the population exceeding their fiscal potential, thus they need help more than the absolute majority of US people in poverty. The welfare system in India is private, middle class Indian families (certainly not as well off as our lower middle class) hire several servants which tends to be all some of those poor can get. There are some free clinics, enough to tend to maybe half a million people country wide in a country of 1 billion people. Some people who sound like you wail and cry about us off shoring some labor intensive jobs which in the US at minimum wage makes the output uncompetitive, even though studies show that between 1 and 1.7 jobs are created in the US with minimal wage loss for every job outsourced. I cannot abide the phony liberals who wail about that. 

So to recap, I do have compassion for the poor, the poor of the whole world, not just the relative poor in the US, but the truly poor in the entire world, to whom I give a couple of $1,000 a month when I can dig it up. I support the entire costs of a small foster home in Tamil Nadu run by a Catholic order, to include utilities, food, school books and supplies and the needs of the staff who get no salary. When you accuse me of no human compassion it is obvious you have your head firmly implanted in your excremental orifice.


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used it correctly.  Now learn to read so you can address what I said, not what I didn't say.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you think you said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't complicated, but since you didn't grasp it the first time, why would my saying it again help rather than your going back and reading it and comprehending it this time?  There is no way a rational person who speaks the English language and has reading comprehension could think I said what you thought I said.  I did not say electricity = Communism, in fact I said it's not.
Click to expand...

What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"

Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?

Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the failure of the black community to educate all their children the fault of those getting rich from the New Jim Crow?
> Bystander effect.
> 
> "Since its founding, America has depended on a permanent underclass of Black and brown bodies working for little or nothing.
> 
> "In 2014, the disproportionately non-white prison population continues this tradition, making next to nothing (often less than $1 an hour) to create products for mass consumption.
> 
> "Major entities  Victorias Secret, Nike, Starbucks, Microsoft, Nintendo, even the U.S. military  have at different points used prison labor to pump out products we all consume.
> 
> "Prisoners are sometimes subjected to heavy metals and toxic chemicals in industries like computer recycling at the expense of their own health.
> 
> "Our communities contribute unknowingly to this new Jim Crow through our purchases and our taxes, which are used to pay state-contracted, for-profit prison operators.
> 
> "George Zoley, the CEO of for-profit prison company GEO Group, for example, is one of Americas highest paid government 'corrections officers,' making $22 million a year.
> 
> "Its estimated that GEO Group makes 86 percent of its revenue from taxpayers."
> 
> Commentary: Fighting Against the New Jim Crow | News | BET
> 
> *Those who've become rich over the past forty years prospered in part because millions of mostly non-white citizens have been warehoused in prisons, often for non-violent drug offenses.
> 
> Still think the rhymes-with-bitch white man had nothing to do with that?*
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, I question the validity of most of your comments or links. The fact of the matter is, education must be the same for all regardless of race or culture because that is the education needed to succeed no matter the career.
> 
> In so far as drug use issues, whether they are violent crimes or not is irrelevant. People who break the law are being irresponsible. Criminality is an undesirable personality trait no matter what the race is, so stuff that up your excremental orifice.
> 
> In so far as Jim Crow, having observed many successful blacks with parallel careers to myself, there was nothing which kept them back to include race or culture.
> 
> Your accusations of anti-black issues with the military is decades old and no longer true, at least not since I have been aware in 1961.
> 
> As to blacks being statistically more likely to go to prison reflects on the likely criminality. Being poor or culturally different is no excuse for criminality. Dropping out of school is also not an acceptable excuse for failure. Those issues are self responsibility issues, not racial issues.
> 
> The fact that we have had racist issues over our history, and in accordance with what successful blacks like Bill Cosby, have said, it really does not apply today. So when you talk about institutional or personal racism, be aware that I am aware of reality as it is today, and will never be concerned with past issues.
> 
> To recap, all racist and cultural excuses are bullshit today. The individual needs the ambition, motivation, and ability, all of which are not excuses in this day and age and so long as blacks or other culturally different people whine and cry that our education system is not tailored to their culture, also miss the reality of the situation that minorities must adapt to the world in which they live.  Your left wing extremism is bullshit.
> 
> I am 78 and have lived with the old Jim Crow issues and know for a fact that things are no longer what you and your left wing citations say. Especially this one which says, "The bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely related to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. Several variables help to explain why the bystander effect occurs. These variables include: ambiguity, cohesiveness and diffusion of responsibility. Bystander effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As a Ed.S graduate Psychologist, I understand all of the so called issues, and tell you they are little more than left wing extremist propaganda.
> 
> As a liberal, who respects all races and cultures, good public education, universal medical care, welfare for the truly needy, and respect for all humanity NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE. I challenge you to be as truly liberal as I instead of being a left wing extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More African Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system today than were enslaved in 1850. Today's felons experience discrimination in housing, education, employment, and voting rights which is perfectly legal and just as socially acceptable as segregation was fifty years ago. And since many more people of color than whites are currently made felons by a system of mass incarceration, racial discrimination exists today just as it did under slavery and Jim Crow.
> 
> Your centrist bull shit about living in a color blind society society today, backed up with anecdotes of "successful" Black entertainers, would be comical if rich Blacks weren't profiting from four decades of income redistribution in favor of the richest 1% of citizens just as rich whites are.
> 
> Black criminality is due to situation at least as much as character.
> The situations that a majority of Blacks find themselves in today are not of their own making.
> Their principal situation is one of caste, and it's entirely the product of self-absorbed elites who preach ambition, motivation, and self-responsibility to those they know lack the fundamental opportunity to acquire any of those valuable character traits.
> 
> To recap: your centrist tripe in behalf of the status quo remind me of American apologetics
> a century ago; your defense of rising inequality of opportunity today makes as much sense as those supporting racial segregation did then.
Click to expand...

Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you think you said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't complicated, but since you didn't grasp it the first time, why would my saying it again help rather than your going back and reading it and comprehending it this time?  There is no way a rational person who speaks the English language and has reading comprehension could think I said what you thought I said.  I did not say electricity = Communism, in fact I said it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"
> 
> Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?
> 
> Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?
Click to expand...

You may remind him, social programs do not make Marxism. I wonder if some people realize that TVA charges for the power? One purpose of it was to employ jobless people during the construction? Many people in those areas did not have power even available to buy before the TVA.  That the push  to Electric Coops (pushed very hard by my father in Louisiana during the thirties) was to make electricity available to rural folks, not to give it to them free.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws dont protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.-Atlas Shrugged
> 
> 
> 
> "She (Ayn Rand) headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophya body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism.
> 
> "She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and 'the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent' who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them.
> 
> "He is 'mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.'
> 
> "It is evil to show kindness to these 'lice': The 'only virtue' is 'selfishness.'"
> 
> Two biographies of Ayn Rand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand never said those words, moron.  Those are her critics paraphrasing what she said.  In other words, it's total bullshit, just like every other thing you have ever posted.
Click to expand...

*She wrote those words at an early point in her career:*

"The first edition of We the Living contained language which has been interpreted as advocating ruthless elitism: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?"[104] 

"Robert Mayhew cautions, 'We should not conclude too quickly that these passages are strong evidence of an earlier Nietzschean phase in Ayn Rands development, because such language can be strictly metaphorical (even if the result of an early interest in Nietzsche)'[106]"

Ayn Rand


----------



## gnarlylove

"My lord, do you believe that? The government spends almost $500 billion a year on various safety net programs to include food stamps, Medicaid, direct aid, extension of unemployment "

Care to back that claim up of ~500 billion? The numbers I gave were for 2006. No doubt it has changed but we also know 40 billion food stamps was cut (12 billion already, another 26 billion around the corner); unemployment benefits were not renewed in 2014. So spending is being cut as you know.






"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that federal spending on means-tested programs other than health care will fall substantially as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) as the economy recovers (see graph) &#8212; and fall below its 1972-2011 average."

What happens when the government gives money for keeping people from abject circumstances? They spend the money on services, food, and growing the economy. The money ends up going to corporations in large portion and sales tax reaps another major chunk.

When corporations and the rich are given around 100 billion of welfare in 2012, they don't use it to grow the economy. They let the money sit in off-shore bank accounts, they speculate on currencies driving down growth in the relevant countries. In short, they don't use their welfare to benefit anyone but themselves.

So in point of fact corporations are being handed free money whereas the poor are being handed the ability to buy groceries for 3 weeks out of 4 every month (average food stamp payout). *Is this your idea of a healthy society?*

Regarding your compassion, I said only a misanthrope would be concerned about how compassionate they are in comparison with someone else. This is not a competition so please stop your spirited campaign. I am not so childish as to compare us. I am trying to get you to think in a more principled way about these matters. Then you said something principled:

""the poorest people on this earth deserve our aid before we start to improve the life style of the "relatively poor" in any other country."

That is very silly way to approach compassion yet you take it to be the most obvious. Well ask yourself, what is the most obvious way to be compassionate? Sending 83 cents to an African impersonally every day? It's a lot harder to ensure your welfare is actually contributing to the welfare of a human being in another area. Why do you think it makes sense to first offer help to those you will never see? The most sensible ethic is to start with those closest to you and exhibit compassion (latin meaning to "suffer with"). You can only express legitimate compassion with whom you are in direct contact--suffering with them.

This is not an attack on your personal shortcomings as you seem to think. This is a critique of your principles. You can be a fine and loving person but have false principles.


"If you choose to believe that people should not be held responsible for their actions you are a lost cause to humanity"

Good thing because I am not making this claim. I believe people are responsible for their actions and we must also consider what events shaped them that were not in their control. Case by case basis. We cannot generalize "all poor Americans deserve it." Having been homeless many months I lived among fellow homeless and got to know them and what happens day to day. It's much harder to declare these people deserve homelessness when you learn how each became that way. In fact, almost none deserve it and have tried to do what's right according to their meager means.

"Some people who sound like you wail and cry about us off shoring some labor intensive jobs which in the US at minimum wage makes the output uncompetitive, even though studies show that between 1 and 1.7 jobs are created in the US with minimal wage loss for every job outsourced. I cannot abide the phony liberals who wail about that. "

Yeah, tell that to the cities like Detroit who lost the outsourced job and gained all those jobs back. Tell that to the families in Youngstown who had their jobs outsourced and are working in minimum wage jobs, which are around 80% of those created each quarter. As long as you don't ask what a job is and assume all jobs are the same then I guess 1.7 jobs for every job lost is good but then again you need to neglect whether it pays sufficient wages to support a family.


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm rich, so you're FOS.  Sorry man.  I'm a rich business owner who lives in a wealthy area.  The government favors people who want control.  That includes some wealthy, some corporations.  It also includes special interests like teachers and other unions, environmentalists, liberal womens and minority groups.  They all lobby and buy government.
> 
> The government doesn't act in my interest, but that is because i believe in freedom.  Liberty.  I don't want favors from government.  But your contention it's just for the wealthy is crap.  And as a liberal, you want bigger government, which shows that your belief it's for the wealthy is a lie.  If you really believed that, you'd be a small government libertarian like me.  And for the same reason, to limit government power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely appreciate and respect your honest reply. Socio-economic status helps determine what is thinkable and what is not.
> 
> But I'd ask you do you think money should determine how people think? Or should empirical reality should determine that?
> 
> I believe there should be a common ground on which all people can interact but if you grant money with such power (to radically determine your beliefs) than science and most empirical investigation becomes an exercise for the wealthy, not humanity.
> 
> So should the world reflect wealth or humans?
> 
> The matter of achieving freedom is a question about conditions. People cannot be free who lack essentials like water. And if your standard of freedom stays abreast of the wealth generated here in America, then people who lack electric and transportation are far less free than those with easy access. So should some people be less free while others accumulate all the freedom (the freedom from prosecution).
> 
> But personally I'm an anarchist. No government authority should exist without justifying it's existence and I doubt much of the government can be justified. But we don't live in that world and the one we do often abuses low income just because they are poor--this is no justification. So I think we need to protect the rights of all because once you allow some to be abused openly, than it's a slippery slope to abusing someone you care about because of some failure or flaw they allegedly have. Allowing people to survive, be treated fairly...now this is real freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you're asking a libertarian those questions.  I want government limited to only those functions which only government can do.  Primarily the police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights.  All citizens benefit from those things equally.  There is no wealth envy or redistribution, no buying schemes.
> 
> When you say things like should the world reflect wealth or humans, I have no idea what that means in the context of my ideology.  The government should be limited to maximize liberty because government is the greatest threat and infringer of our liberty.  Can you rephrase the question in that context so it makes sense to me regarding what I think?
Click to expand...


Basically, I had two points but freedom is one I'll stick to. I understand you aim for freedom.

Does that mean you aim for freedom for all persons regardless of wealth (excluding those incarcerated naturally)?

Does freedom mean all persons should have the right to exist? If so, is water and food also human rights since without it we cannot live?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "She (Ayn Rand) headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophya body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism.
> 
> "She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and 'the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent' who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them.
> 
> "He is 'mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.'
> 
> "It is evil to show kindness to these 'lice': The 'only virtue' is 'selfishness.'"
> 
> Two biographies of Ayn Rand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayn Rand never said those words, moron.  Those are her critics paraphrasing what she said.  In other words, it's total bullshit, just like every other thing you have ever posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *She wrote those words at an early point in her career:*
> 
> "The first edition of We the Living contained language which has been interpreted as advocating ruthless elitism: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?"[104]
> 
> "Robert Mayhew cautions, 'We should not conclude too quickly that these passages are strong evidence of an earlier Nietzschean phase in Ayn Rands development, because such language can be strictly metaphorical (even if the result of an early interest in Nietzsche)'[106]"
> 
> Ayn Rand
Click to expand...


That sentence is spoken by Kira the heroine to Andrei the villain to describe his attitude towards humanity, which he claims to care about.  It's an attack on collectivism, dolt.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely appreciate and respect your honest reply. Socio-economic status helps determine what is thinkable and what is not.
> 
> But I'd ask you do you think money should determine how people think? Or should empirical reality should determine that?
> 
> I believe there should be a common ground on which all people can interact but if you grant money with such power (to radically determine your beliefs) than science and most empirical investigation becomes an exercise for the wealthy, not humanity.
> 
> So should the world reflect wealth or humans?
> 
> The matter of achieving freedom is a question about conditions. People cannot be free who lack essentials like water. And if your standard of freedom stays abreast of the wealth generated here in America, then people who lack electric and transportation are far less free than those with easy access. So should some people be less free while others accumulate all the freedom (the freedom from prosecution).
> 
> But personally I'm an anarchist. No government authority should exist without justifying it's existence and I doubt much of the government can be justified. But we don't live in that world and the one we do often abuses low income just because they are poor--this is no justification. So I think we need to protect the rights of all because once you allow some to be abused openly, than it's a slippery slope to abusing someone you care about because of some failure or flaw they allegedly have. Allowing people to survive, be treated fairly...now this is real freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you're asking a libertarian those questions.  I want government limited to only those functions which only government can do.  Primarily the police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights.  All citizens benefit from those things equally.  There is no wealth envy or redistribution, no buying schemes.
> 
> When you say things like should the world reflect wealth or humans, I have no idea what that means in the context of my ideology.  The government should be limited to maximize liberty because government is the greatest threat and infringer of our liberty.  Can you rephrase the question in that context so it makes sense to me regarding what I think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically, I had two points but freedom is one I'll stick to. I understand you aim for freedom.
> 
> Does that mean you aim for freedom for all persons regardless of wealth (excluding those incarcerated naturally)?
> 
> Does freedom mean all persons should have the right to exist? If so, is water and food also human rights since without it we cannot live?
Click to expand...


You have a right not to be killed by other humans.  I have no idea what a "right to exist" would entail.  How can you have a right to food and water if you are stranded in the middle of the Sahara desert?  Rights are inalienable, which means they can't be separated from your person.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> You have a right not to be killed by other humans.  I have no idea what a "right to exist" would entail.  How can you have a right to food and water if you are stranded in the middle of the Sahara desert?  Rights are inalienable, which means they can't be separated from your person.



That's a start (the right to not be killed). But the right to not be killed is not the right to not be tortured. Do you grant that humans should not torture other humans in the same manner that one has the right to not be killed?

People naturally can only exist around sources of food and water among other stabilities. So your example of the desert is not all that relevant.

The right to exist, if you think about it, is natural. People born in nature are obviously born where food and water is supplied otherwise the mother would have perished without giving birth. Only in the formation of complex society, especially modern society, did the right to exist perish. That's because once you allow people to privately own and control water and land (agriculture) then you undermine the basis for access, the natural state of persons to exist.

I can't imagine anyone keeping the purpose of society in mind could disagree with such a virtue or right. Society exists for the betterment of all, not a few or some or only most. It should exist for all humans (within society) since all human beings in society have the capacity to learn, love, think, feel, smile etc. it's only a matter of allowing their flourishing or withering by allowing access to sustenance (which is not denied in nature but through human action). Since they are denied sustenance through ownership of land and water, they are actively denied life. And if you think about who controls land and water, it is largely a game of profit, not a matter of human flourishing. But is this how we want society to operate?

So should society reflect the interests of the wealthy or the common good of society?


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> "My lord, do you believe that? The government spends almost $500 billion a year on various safety net programs to include food stamps, Medicaid, direct aid, extension of unemployment "
> 
> Care to back that claim up of ~500 billion? The numbers I gave were for 2006. No doubt it has changed but we also know 40 billion food stamps was cut (12 billion already, another 26 billion around the corner); unemployment benefits were not renewed in 2014. So spending is being cut as you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that federal spending on means-tested programs other than health care will fall substantially as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) as the economy recovers (see graph) &#8212; and fall below its 1972-2011 average."
> 
> What happens when the government gives money for keeping people from abject circumstances? They spend the money on services, food, and growing the economy. The money ends up going to corporations in large portion and sales tax reaps another major chunk.
> 
> When corporations and the rich are given around 100 billion of welfare in 2012, they don't use it to grow the economy. They let the money sit in off-shore bank accounts, they speculate on currencies driving down growth in the relevant countries. In short, they don't use their welfare to benefit anyone but themselves.
> 
> So in point of fact corporations are being handed free money whereas the poor are being handed the ability to buy groceries for 3 weeks out of 4 every month (average food stamp payout). *Is this your idea of a healthy society?*
> 
> Regarding your compassion, I said only a misanthrope would be concerned about how compassionate they are in comparison with someone else.


LMAO! In fact it takes a misanthrope to be more concerned with giving to persons who have a roof over their heads and food to eat to add to their dignity rather than to a poor man and his family starving to death in India, or Bangladesh. No, it is not a competition, it is the compassion of giving to the most needy first, to include not crying and wailing about a few off shored jobs. 





> This is not a competition so please stop your spirited campaign. I am not so childish as to compare us. I am trying to get you to think in a more principled way about these matters.


In fact I AM THINKING IN THE MOST PRINCIPLED MANNER. A liberal or humanist who values one live over another because of geography is no true liberal, and not a humanist at all.





> Then you said something principled:
> 
> ""the poorest people on this earth deserve our aid before we start to improve the life style of the "relatively poor" in any other country."
> 
> That is very silly way to approach compassion yet you take it to be the most obvious.


 It is in fact the most compassionate way to give aid and it is obvious that it is the correct way to approach the subject. 





> Well ask yourself, what is the most obvious way to be compassionate? Sending 83 cents to an African impersonally every day? It's a lot harder to ensure your welfare is actually contributing to the welfare of a human being in another area.


 I do agree with you on one point, it is ridiculous to send 83 cents to anyone. I send more like $1,000 a month and that counts. Are they faceless? No, I have been at the "orphanage"/school, (really not an orphanage as some children do have parents who are living in abject poverty like you have likely never seen) and I see the good they do. The  kids may be different over the years but I see their pictures and I read their letters. 





> Why do you think it makes sense to first offer help to those you will never see?


First, I do occasionally see them, but even when I don't, I understand their life if they don't get the help.





> The most sensible ethic is to start with those closest to you and exhibit compassion (latin meaning to "suffer with").


 Wrong answer, the ONLY sensible ethic is to give to the person who needs the help the most, even if you don't ever see them or get to take credit in their eyes.





> You can only express legitimate compassion with whom you are in direct contact--suffering with them.


That is probably the most idiotic thing anyone has ever said to me. You should be ashamed.





> This is not an attack on your personal shortcomings as you seem to think. This is a critique of your principles. You can be a fine and loving person but have false principles.


Wow, another idiotic thing to say. You get less reasonable the more you say.





> "If you choose to believe that people should not be held responsible for their actions you are a lost cause to humanity"


Still true!





> Good thing because I am not making this claim. I believe people are responsible for their actions and we must also consider what events shaped them that were not in their control. Case by case basis. We cannot generalize "all poor Americans deserve it."


I agree, not all poor Americans deserve it.





> Having been homeless many months I lived among fellow homeless and got to know them and what happens day to day. It's much harder to declare these people deserve homelessness when you learn how each became that way.


 No one deserves homelessness. But the homeless man with no food or homeless shelter has priority as a human than one who can go to a "soup kitchen" occasionally. 





> In fact, almost none deserve it and have tried to do what's right according to their meager means.


I do agree with that.





> "Some people who sound like you wail and cry about us off shoring some labor intensive jobs which in the US at minimum wage makes the output uncompetitive, even though studies show that between 1 and 1.7 jobs are created in the US with minimal wage loss for every job outsourced. I cannot abide the phony liberals who wail about that. "
> 
> Yeah, tell that to the cities like Detroit who lost the outsourced job and gained all those jobs back.


I am not being specific about any one person or group. What I know is, over all for every job lost off shoring the US creates between 1 and 1.7 new jobs in the US. Tell that to the families in Youngstown who had their jobs outsourced and are working in minimum wage jobs, which are around 80% of those created each quarter. As long as you don't ask what a job is and assume all jobs are the same then I guess 1.7 jobs for every job lost is good but then again you need to neglect whether it pays sufficient wages to support a family.[/quote]According to other economic studies, the gross loss in wage per worker losing his job and  another job created (across the spectrum) is only 3% if the job is in the same industry and 7% if in a different industry. So do you believe a union worker making $60,000 a year loses one job and gets one only $58,000 on a new job than creating a new middle class in India greater than our own population? Sorry Gnarley, I damned sure don't. 

BTW, I am sorry Gnarley, I made a drastic mistake. I UNDERESTIMATED THE EXPENDITURES. Here is the FULL story. But first, outsourcing jobs did not cost over all job loss in the US. Some people lost jobs but over all between 1 and 1.7 jobs were created for every job sent overseas.  STUDY:  Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says. Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says

BTW, why did you leave out the $275 billion of Medicaid? Oh, and I forgot about the almost $30 Billion the federal government came up with to extend unemployment beyond the normal period covered by employee/er in 2012. That is in and of itself equals $305,000,000,000. See how easy the totals add up?

*Now to correct my egregious mistake*:

Federal Safety Net Programs and *Their Cost in Billions*
The following programs target low-income individuals and families
2012 2011
Negative Income tax- Earned income tax credit (EITC) and child tax credit $ 77 $ 78
Cash is paid to working families who pay no income tax. 
SNAP - Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program 81 78
Formally food stamp program. Debit cards are distributed to the poor to buy food. 
Housing Assistance - HUD housing programs 48 51
Includes rent vouchers, public housing and community development programs.
SSI - Supplemental Security Income 48 53
Cash is paid to disabled, blind or seniors over 65 years of age.
Pell Grants 35 38 
Grants are made to students to help pay for college tuition, room and board. 
TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 16 17
Cash is paid to support low-income families and move them from welfare to work.
Child Nutrition 18 17 
School lunch, breakfast and after school food programs.
Head Start - Preschool programs 10 11
Job Training - Various programs & employment support for adults, youth and seniors. 6 7
WIC - Women, Infants and Children 7 7 High protein food for pregnant women and children up to five years old. 
Child Care - Child care and after school programs 5 6
LIHEAP - Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 4 4
Aid for heating or cooling a residential dwelling. 
Lifeline (Obama Phone) - Phone subsidy including cell phones 2 2
Total costs from 13 Welfare Programs 357 369 
Medicaid Costs - health care for low-income Americans 251 275
*Total Federal Welfare costs 2011-$ 607 Billion 2012-$ 644 Billion *

*State and local governments spent an additional $222 billion on antipoverty programs in 2012; $75 billion on welfare programs and $147 billion on Medicaid. Including state and local expenditures we spent $829 billion fighting poverty in 2012. * http://http://federalsafetynet.com/safety-net-programs.html

First let me remind you of what I said so there is no argument later on, ""My lord, do you believe that? The government spends almost $500 billion a year on various safety net programs to include food stamps, Medicaid, direct aid, extension of unemployment." Have you got that clear in your head? I was off by 329 billion. Sorry for my error.

To recap, if all the so called aid to business essential to our national security is added up, there is no way they get even near what we spend on the needy. But that is not the issue, the needy have urgent need for what we give them....here in the US and in other countries. Like I said before, a liberal with borders is not a true liberal and is no humanist at all. He is more concerned with the elitist union workers in Detroit or Youngstown, Ohio (You forgot the tire workers in Akron) that the truly poor people of the 3rd world. That is why I make my $$$s really count helping the maximum people I can; those who need it the most. Your excuses are....just excuses for not having real compassion for the most poor of the poor. You ask why, even if I will never meet them. The simple answer is, BECAUSE I CARE!


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, I question the validity of most of your comments or links. The fact of the matter is, education must be the same for all regardless of race or culture because that is the education needed to succeed no matter the career.
> 
> In so far as drug use issues, whether they are violent crimes or not is irrelevant. People who break the law are being irresponsible. Criminality is an undesirable personality trait no matter what the race is, so stuff that up your excremental orifice.
> 
> In so far as Jim Crow, having observed many successful blacks with parallel careers to myself, there was nothing which kept them back to include race or culture.
> 
> Your accusations of anti-black issues with the military is decades old and no longer true, at least not since I have been aware in 1961.
> 
> As to blacks being statistically more likely to go to prison reflects on the likely criminality. Being poor or culturally different is no excuse for criminality. Dropping out of school is also not an acceptable excuse for failure. Those issues are self responsibility issues, not racial issues.
> 
> The fact that we have had racist issues over our history, and in accordance with what successful blacks like Bill Cosby, have said, it really does not apply today. So when you talk about institutional or personal racism, be aware that I am aware of reality as it is today, and will never be concerned with past issues.
> 
> To recap, all racist and cultural excuses are bullshit today. The individual needs the ambition, motivation, and ability, all of which are not excuses in this day and age and so long as blacks or other culturally different people whine and cry that our education system is not tailored to their culture, also miss the reality of the situation that minorities must adapt to the world in which they live.  Your left wing extremism is bullshit.
> 
> I am 78 and have lived with the old Jim Crow issues and know for a fact that things are no longer what you and your left wing citations say. Especially this one which says, "The bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely related to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. Several variables help to explain why the bystander effect occurs. These variables include: ambiguity, cohesiveness and diffusion of responsibility. Bystander effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As a Ed.S graduate Psychologist, I understand all of the so called issues, and tell you they are little more than left wing extremist propaganda.
> 
> As a liberal, who respects all races and cultures, good public education, universal medical care, welfare for the truly needy, and respect for all humanity NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE. I challenge you to be as truly liberal as I instead of being a left wing extremist.
> 
> 
> 
> More African Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system today than were enslaved in 1850. Today's felons experience discrimination in housing, education, employment, and voting rights which is perfectly legal and just as socially acceptable as segregation was fifty years ago. And since many more people of color than whites are currently made felons by a system of mass incarceration, racial discrimination exists today just as it did under slavery and Jim Crow.
> 
> Your centrist bull shit about living in a color blind society society today, backed up with anecdotes of "successful" Black entertainers, would be comical if rich Blacks weren't profiting from four decades of income redistribution in favor of the richest 1% of citizens just as rich whites are.
> 
> Black criminality is due to situation at least as much as character.
> The situations that a majority of Blacks find themselves in today are not of their own making.
> Their principal situation is one of caste, and it's entirely the product of self-absorbed elites who preach ambition, motivation, and self-responsibility to those they know lack the fundamental opportunity to acquire any of those valuable character traits.
> 
> To recap: your centrist tripe in behalf of the status quo remind me of American apologetics
> a century ago; your defense of rising inequality of opportunity today makes as much sense as those supporting racial segregation did then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.
Click to expand...

*When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?*

"Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that 
is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just 
going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a 
punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize 
people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize 
poverty.)" 

http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf


----------



## bedowin62

planes leave hourly for the non-capitalist country of your choice

 i bet not one of the left-wing losers here will be on one


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't complicated, but since you didn't grasp it the first time, why would my saying it again help rather than your going back and reading it and comprehending it this time?  There is no way a rational person who speaks the English language and has reading comprehension could think I said what you thought I said.  I did not say electricity = Communism, in fact I said it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"
> 
> Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?
> 
> Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may remind him, social programs do not make Marxism. I wonder if some people realize that TVA charges for the power? One purpose of it was to employ jobless people during the construction? Many people in those areas did not have power even available to buy before the TVA.  That the push  to Electric Coops (pushed very hard by my father in Louisiana during the thirties) was to make electricity available to rural folks, not to give it to them free.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, was FDR doing the moral thing when he taxed the rich to fund the TVA?


----------



## georgephillip

bedowin62 said:


> planes leave hourly for the non-capitalist country of your choice
> 
> i bet not one of the left-wing losers here will be on one


I bet you're too stupid to know that has nothing to do with capitalism guaranteeing rising economic inequality.


----------



## bedowin62

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> planes leave hourly for the non-capitalist country of your choice
> 
> i bet not one of the left-wing losers here will be on one
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you're too stupid to know that has nothing to do with capitalism guaranteeing rising economic inequality.
Click to expand...




it has everything to do with it. you got a beef against capitalism but not the courage of your convictions
 you're a coward pure and simple


----------



## georgephillip

bedowin62 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> planes leave hourly for the non-capitalist country of your choice
> 
> i bet not one of the left-wing losers here will be on one
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you're too stupid to know that has nothing to do with capitalism guaranteeing rising economic inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has everything to do with it. you got a beef against capitalism but not the courage of your convictions
> you're a coward pure and simple
Click to expand...

Only devout chicken shits confuse running with courage.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"
> 
> Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?
> 
> Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?
> 
> 
> 
> You may remind him, social programs do not make Marxism. I wonder if some people realize that TVA charges for the power? One purpose of it was to employ jobless people during the construction? Many people in those areas did not have power even available to buy before the TVA.  That the push  to Electric Coops (pushed very hard by my father in Louisiana during the thirties) was to make electricity available to rural folks, not to give it to them free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your opinion, was FDR doing the moral thing when he taxed the rich to fund the TVA?
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> More African Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system today than were enslaved in 1850. Today's felons experience discrimination in housing, education, employment, and voting rights which is perfectly legal and just as socially acceptable as segregation was fifty years ago. And since many more people of color than whites are currently made felons by a system of mass incarceration, racial discrimination exists today just as it did under slavery and Jim Crow.
> 
> Your centrist bull shit about living in a color blind society society today, backed up with anecdotes of "successful" Black entertainers, would be comical if rich Blacks weren't profiting from four decades of income redistribution in favor of the richest 1% of citizens just as rich whites are.
> 
> Black criminality is due to situation at least as much as character.
> The situations that a majority of Blacks find themselves in today are not of their own making.
> Their principal situation is one of caste, and it's entirely the product of self-absorbed elites who preach ambition, motivation, and self-responsibility to those they know lack the fundamental opportunity to acquire any of those valuable character traits.
> 
> To recap: your centrist tripe in behalf of the status quo remind me of American apologetics
> a century ago; your defense of rising inequality of opportunity today makes as much sense as those supporting racial segregation did then.
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?*
> 
> "Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
> is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
> going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
> punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
> people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
> poverty.)"
> 
> http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf
Click to expand...


How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
$1 billion? $2 billion? LOL!


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> More African Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system today than were enslaved in 1850. Today's felons experience discrimination in housing, education, employment, and voting rights which is perfectly legal and just as socially acceptable as segregation was fifty years ago. And since many more people of color than whites are currently made felons by a system of mass incarceration, racial discrimination exists today just as it did under slavery and Jim Crow.
> 
> Your centrist bull shit about living in a color blind society society today, backed up with anecdotes of "successful" Black entertainers, would be comical if rich Blacks weren't profiting from four decades of income redistribution in favor of the richest 1% of citizens just as rich whites are.
> 
> Black criminality is due to situation at least as much as character.
> The situations that a majority of Blacks find themselves in today are not of their own making.
> Their principal situation is one of caste, and it's entirely the product of self-absorbed elites who preach ambition, motivation, and self-responsibility to those they know lack the fundamental opportunity to acquire any of those valuable character traits.
> 
> To recap: your centrist tripe in behalf of the status quo remind me of American apologetics
> a century ago; your defense of rising inequality of opportunity today makes as much sense as those supporting racial segregation did then.
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?*
> 
> "Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
> is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
> going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
> punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
> people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
> poverty.)"
> 
> http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf
Click to expand...


Poverty is not against the law.  However, stealing is.


----------



## freedombecki

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.
> 
> 
> 
> *When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?*
> 
> "Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
> is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
> going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
> punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
> people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
> poverty.)"
> 
> http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
> $1 billion? $2 billion? LOL!
Click to expand...

It's hard to find information on prison costs, but with more 3 strikes your out laws, there are more aging prisoners that cost more than average pri do:



> After all, a third of all inmates are older than 50, and many are so debilitated that the state spends north of $100,000 per inmate to care for them. Discussion at USAToday





> A report by the organization, "The Price of Prisons," states that the cost of incarcerating one inmate in Fiscal 2010 was $31,307 per year. "In states like Connecticut, Washington state, New York, it's anywhere from $50,000 to $60,000," he said.
> 
> Yes - $60,000 a year. That's a teacher's salary, or a firefighter's. Our epidemic of incarceration costs us taxpayers $63.4 billion a year.
> CBS Discussion of Incarceration Costs in 2012


 
 At least 2 articles I found that were not quoted from, one claims a 300% rise in the last 6 years for Canada, and another claims as much in the last 3 years in the US.


----------



## bedowin62

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you're too stupid to know that has nothing to do with capitalism guaranteeing rising economic inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has everything to do with it. you got a beef against capitalism but not the courage of your convictions
> you're a coward pure and simple
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only devout chicken shits confuse running with courage.
Click to expand...




only a coward is against something; but wont have the courage of his convictions

according to you capitalism isnt "fixable" it is inherently bad and will always "gaurantee inequality"

but i bet you wont leave for the non-capitalist country of your liking

you arent even as credible as the people who advocate for a European-type of Socialist Democracy

you're simply an idiot


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith

From the outset of our conversation I made it clear what my aim was. But shaming me seems to be your main aim. You are accomplished in feeling superior, that much is evident. Just like you, those who sling mud are indeed the victors. No matter the topic, those who expressly smear opposition win the conversation. Since I don't care to do the same, by standards of verbal mud slinging, I loose.

If you could put aside the need for winning and self-flattery then this would have been worthwhile. Instead, you will forever remain like most if not all Americans: trained to view themselves as the center of the world, truth and everything good. Any opposition, like mine, is pure evil, extremism and shameful.

It takes about 3 seconds of thinking to realize you and I both are human beings and human beings naturally wish to preserve what is good. There is a lot of common ground we can agree on and good in the world. There is also a lot that needs to be rectified. This much is obvious and agreeable. But it takes a lifetime of indoctrination to bury this obvious fact of reality and feel justified in dismissing any and all opposition as extremist idiocy (only because it doesn't fall within your narrow parameter understanding).

In my academic training and personal life, criticism is essential to developing a proper view of the self, others and the world. It's clear your life has been spent avoiding criticism and demonizing it by magnifying your pre-conceived notions to drown out valid criticisms.

Please don't waste our time replying to me anymore.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you think you said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't complicated, but since you didn't grasp it the first time, why would my saying it again help rather than your going back and reading it and comprehending it this time?  There is no way a rational person who speaks the English language and has reading comprehension could think I said what you thought I said.  I did not say electricity = Communism, in fact I said it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"
> 
> Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?
> 
> Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?
Click to expand...


You are a poster child against government schools.  You even quoted the right lines and still don't understand what it means.  Amazing, simply amazing.  I would sue your parents and your school system, they have failed you.


----------



## kaz

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely appreciate and respect your honest reply. Socio-economic status helps determine what is thinkable and what is not.
> 
> But I'd ask you do you think money should determine how people think? Or should empirical reality should determine that?
> 
> I believe there should be a common ground on which all people can interact but if you grant money with such power (to radically determine your beliefs) than science and most empirical investigation becomes an exercise for the wealthy, not humanity.
> 
> So should the world reflect wealth or humans?
> 
> The matter of achieving freedom is a question about conditions. People cannot be free who lack essentials like water. And if your standard of freedom stays abreast of the wealth generated here in America, then people who lack electric and transportation are far less free than those with easy access. So should some people be less free while others accumulate all the freedom (the freedom from prosecution).
> 
> But personally I'm an anarchist. No government authority should exist without justifying it's existence and I doubt much of the government can be justified. But we don't live in that world and the one we do often abuses low income just because they are poor--this is no justification. So I think we need to protect the rights of all because once you allow some to be abused openly, than it's a slippery slope to abusing someone you care about because of some failure or flaw they allegedly have. Allowing people to survive, be treated fairly...now this is real freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you're asking a libertarian those questions.  I want government limited to only those functions which only government can do.  Primarily the police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights.  All citizens benefit from those things equally.  There is no wealth envy or redistribution, no buying schemes.
> 
> When you say things like should the world reflect wealth or humans, I have no idea what that means in the context of my ideology.  The government should be limited to maximize liberty because government is the greatest threat and infringer of our liberty.  Can you rephrase the question in that context so it makes sense to me regarding what I think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically, I had two points but freedom is one I'll stick to. I understand you aim for freedom.
> 
> Does that mean you aim for freedom for all persons regardless of wealth (excluding those incarcerated naturally)?
Click to expand...


Obviously, as I said, I want government to be limited to those functions that only government can do, and I said a list of things that has nothing to do with wealth.  I don't understand what you're looking for.



gnarlylove said:


> Does freedom mean all persons should have the right to exist? If so, is water and food also human rights since without it we cannot live?



Again, I don't understand what you're looking for.  Do people have the "right" to have those things provided for them by other?  No.  Do they have the "right" to seek those things out without being artificially impeded by others?  Yes.  I don't get your implication.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"
> 
> Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?
> 
> Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?
> 
> 
> 
> You may remind him, social programs do not make Marxism. I wonder if some people realize that TVA charges for the power? One purpose of it was to employ jobless people during the construction? Many people in those areas did not have power even available to buy before the TVA.  That the push  to Electric Coops (pushed very hard by my father in Louisiana during the thirties) was to make electricity available to rural folks, not to give it to them free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your opinion, was FDR doing the moral thing when he taxed the rich to fund the TVA?
Click to expand...


Where in the Constitution does it refer to electricity as a Federal government power?  Liberals never can divide discussions into levels of government because you view all government as subjugated to the central government.

So the direct answer to your question is that yes, it was immoral.  The Federal government has no constitutional power to redistribute money.  But that does not imply as you will take it that "government" has no power regarding electricity.  In fact I listed management of limited resources as a legitimate power of government.  I'm thinking this is lost on you because it doesn't fit your paradigm of thinking regarding government, confirm or deny.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> More African Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system today than were enslaved in 1850. Today's felons experience discrimination in housing, education, employment, and voting rights which is perfectly legal and just as socially acceptable as segregation was fifty years ago. And since many more people of color than whites are currently made felons by a system of mass incarceration, racial discrimination exists today just as it did under slavery and Jim Crow.
> 
> Your centrist bull shit about living in a color blind society society today, backed up with anecdotes of "successful" Black entertainers, would be comical if rich Blacks weren't profiting from four decades of income redistribution in favor of the richest 1% of citizens just as rich whites are.
> 
> Black criminality is due to situation at least as much as character.
> The situations that a majority of Blacks find themselves in today are not of their own making.
> Their principal situation is one of caste, and it's entirely the product of self-absorbed elites who preach ambition, motivation, and self-responsibility to those they know lack the fundamental opportunity to acquire any of those valuable character traits.
> 
> To recap: your centrist tripe in behalf of the status quo remind me of American apologetics
> a century ago; your defense of rising inequality of opportunity today makes as much sense as those supporting racial segregation did then.
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?*
> 
> "Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
> is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
> going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
> punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
> people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
> poverty.)"
> 
> http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf
Click to expand...

Criminal acts are criminal acts. If it is against the law don't do it. BTW, your left wing site is BS.

But to get down to the nitty gritty, if you don't like drug addiction as a crime, THEN LEGALIZE DRUGS. Everyone who uses illegal drugs supports criminality of the entire chain of distribution, thus when you "break the law" by using you help create a viscous and violent chain of distribution. I do not accept that as a public health problem, nor does it criminalize poverty. That statement is Bullshit and your source is typically left wing extremist.


----------



## dnsmith35

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may remind him, social programs do not make Marxism. I wonder if some people realize that TVA charges for the power? One purpose of it was to employ jobless people during the construction? Many people in those areas did not have power even available to buy before the TVA.  That the push  to Electric Coops (pushed very hard by my father in Louisiana during the thirties) was to make electricity available to rural folks, not to give it to them free.
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion, was FDR doing the moral thing when he taxed the rich to fund the TVA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution does it refer to electricity as a Federal government power?  Liberals never can divide discussions into levels of government because you view all government as subjugated to the central government.
Click to expand...

Kaz, I generally agree with you about big central government getting to big and too authoritative. But we differ on the subject of the general welfare. I believe that the acts of the Federal government which are designed to help entire classes of people, either by culture or geography, are within those bounds. The TVA project was one of those acts. Not only did it create employment in the creation of that program, it also extended electric power to millions of people who did not have that power prior to the program. But don't forget, they still had to pay for that power. I personally believe it was a good program, just like the Rural Electrification programs all over rural America. 





> So the direct answer to your question is that yes, it was immoral.  The Federal government has no constitutional power to redistribute money.  But that does not imply as you will take it that "government" has no power regarding electricity.


The redistribution of money, power, health care et al, all fall under the GENERAL WELFARE clause of the constitution. You may not like the way that is interpreted, but as a "catch all" it applies to what most federal social programs accomplish. We may not like the way the Congress and Administrations have usurped the 9th and the 10th amendments, but unfortunately that becomes a political issue, not a constitutional issue. 





> In fact I listed management of limited resources as a legitimate power of government.  I'm thinking this is lost on you because it doesn't fit your paradigm of thinking regarding government, confirm or deny.


----------



## kaz

dnsmith35 said:


> Kaz, I generally agree with you about big central government getting to big and too authoritative. But we differ on the subject of the general welfare. I believe that the acts of the Federal government which are designed to help entire classes of people, either by culture or geography, are within those bounds.



And then you've just eliminated "general" from general welfare because if you can divide people by "culture or geography" then you can divide them by anything and you've just authorized redistribution of wealth between classes.  The Constitution was intended to protect the people, not subjugation them.  You just authorized subjugation.



dnsmith35 said:


> The TVA project was one of those acts. Not only did it create employment in the creation of that program, it also extended electric power to millions of people who did not have that power prior to the program. But don't forget, they still had to pay for that power. I personally believe it was a good program, just like the Rural Electrification programs all over rural America.



Liking the program doesn't make it a Federal authority.  Show where in the Constitution you find the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to provide electricity.  And again, I did not say I am against utilities, I said I am against the Federal government doing it.



dnsmith35 said:


> The redistribution of money, power, health care et al, all fall under the GENERAL WELFARE clause of the constitution. You may not like the way that is interpreted, but as a "catch all" it applies to what most federal social programs accomplish. We may not like the way the Congress and Administrations have usurped the 9th and the 10th amendments, but unfortunately that becomes a political issue, not a constitutional issue.



I guess after Dred Scott, they should have dropped the blacks aren't property thing...


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a right not to be killed by other humans.  I have no idea what a "right to exist" would entail.  How can you have a right to food and water if you are stranded in the middle of the Sahara desert?  Rights are inalienable, which means they can't be separated from your person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a start (the right to not be killed). But the right to not be killed is not the right to not be tortured. Do you grant that humans should not torture other humans in the same manner that one has the right to not be killed?
> 
> People naturally can only exist around sources of food and water among other stabilities. So your example of the desert is not all that relevant.
> 
> The right to exist, if you think about it, is natural. People born in nature are obviously born where food and water is supplied otherwise the mother would have perished without giving birth. Only in the formation of complex society, especially modern society, did the right to exist perish. That's because once you allow people to privately own and control water and land (agriculture) then you undermine the basis for access, the natural state of persons to exist.
> 
> I can't imagine anyone keeping the purpose of society in mind could disagree with such a virtue or right. Society exists for the betterment of all, not a few or some or only most. It should exist for all humans (within society) since all human beings in society have the capacity to learn, love, think, feel, smile etc. it's only a matter of allowing their flourishing or withering by allowing access to sustenance (which is not denied in nature but through human action). Since they are denied sustenance through ownership of land and water, they are actively denied life. And if you think about who controls land and water, it is largely a game of profit, not a matter of human flourishing. But is this how we want society to operate?
> 
> So should society reflect the interests of the wealthy or the common good of society?
Click to expand...

The right to exist is inalienable to the extent that some criminal acts causes one to lose that right. Society does exist for the betterment of all, but not in the way you seem to believe it does. The right to exist includes the responsibility of the individual to be sufficiently responsible, within their physical and mental capacity, to provide for themselves in a reasonable manner withing that society.

(Gnarley said, "Since they are denied sustenance through ownership of land and water, they are actively denied life.)

Wow, right out of the Georgist hand book. Persons owning land or controlling land does not in any way deny others of sustenance; and since the government controls water (at one level of government (the community) or another, that part of your statement is moot. The facts of the matter are, if someone does not develop the land and its resources then no one gains sustenance from that land. In addition, even when the community owns or controls the land, it is still EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS for the person paying that land value tax to the exclusion of all others. The issue is DISTRIBUTION, NOT OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL. If I have an exclusive right to occupy property and I choose to use it to feed my family and my family only, even under Georgism I have that right. Thus in effect, LVT system or freehold ownership is not that different in result. Every one pays rent in one manner or another, either to a private entity or to the community.

Except for the disabled (physical or mental) no one has the absolute right to mooch off his neighbor except to the extent that his neighbor chooses to allow.

That being said, our neighbors (government), chooses to allow social programs to help those who cannot help themselves and I approve of those programs. However, I categorically deny the right of the community to control all the land and collect LVT (rent). Ownership of land is the way it can be used to its highest and best purpose because the owners want it to live on, or make a profit, or both. It is that profit through renting it out or performing profit making production which creates the prosperity which allows funding of our social programs. 

Every socialist experiment (either government or smaller communes) have failed miserably because the concept of "from each to his ability and to each according to his need" creates a situation in which the High Achievers get tired of doing all the "work" (to include investing and actual production) and will eventually choose to leave the commune. At a country level, it requires a dictatorial government with the power to prevent migration to keep those HIGH ACHIEVERS  in check. Their next method of "leaving" is to stop performing at a high rate such that he only supports himself, thus the whole community goes down hill economically. Only the leaders (commissars) achieve any kind of wealth.

*Capitalism is THE ONLY SYSTEM which has created sufficient prosperity to support social programs for the needy.*


----------



## dnsmith35

kaz said:


> dnsmith35 said "Kaz, I generally agree with you about big central government getting to big and too authoritative. But we differ on the subject of the general welfare. I believe that the acts of the Federal government which are designed to help entire classes of people, either by culture or geography, are within those bounds."
> 
> And then you've just eliminated "general" from general welfare because if you can divide people by "culture or geography" then you can divide them by anything and you've just authorized redistribution of wealth between classes.  The Constitution was intended to protect the people, not subjugation them.  You just authorized subjugation.





dnsmith35 said:


> The TVA project was one of those acts. Not only did it create employment in the creation of that program, it also extended electric power to millions of people who did not have that power prior to the program. But don't forget, they still had to pay for that power. I personally believe it was a good program, just like the Rural Electrification programs all over rural America.





> Liking the program doesn't make it a Federal authority.  Show where in the Constitution you find the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to provide electricity.  And again, I did not say I am against utilities, I said I am against the Federal government doing it.


   If you wish to describe functions of the government to achieve "the general welfare" of a given class of people subjugation that is your choice. But those programs which help entire classes of people either culturally or geographically tends to end up benefiting all of the people. Even today, the existence of the TVA has an effect of reducing electric costs even for those who are well off in the effective region. As to "the general welfare" clause, it effectively is a blanket authorization for many public infrastructure creation, just like the creation of roads, keeping the population healthy, controlling streams or the environment, et al. You may not believe you personally are getting the benefits of the TVA, and you may effectively not getting any benefit of THAT program. But if you dig deep enough, there is some benefit you get which does not apply to the whole.





> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The redistribution of money, power, health care et al, all fall under the GENERAL WELFARE clause of the constitution. You may not like the way that is interpreted, but as a "catch all" it applies to what most federal social programs accomplish. We may not like the way the Congress and Administrations have usurped the 9th and the 10th amendments, but unfortunately that becomes a political issue, not a constitutional issue.
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

dnsmith35 said:


> If you wish to describe functions of the government to achieve "the general welfare" of a given class of people subjugation that is your choice. But those programs which help entire classes of people either culturally or geographically tends to end up benefiting all of the people.



LOL, wealth redistribution "tends to end up benefiting all of the people."  What color is the sky in your world?


----------



## dnsmith35

kaz said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish to describe functions of the government to achieve "the general welfare" of a given class of people subjugation that is your choice. But those programs which help entire classes of people either culturally or geographically tends to end up benefiting all of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, wealth redistribution "tends to end up benefiting all of the people."  What color is the sky in your world?
Click to expand...


1. Recognize first, all of their "redistributed" money is put back into the economy, which of course creates employment and prosperity for the whole.
2. Helping poverty stricken people reduces the strain on society in many ways, to include health care costs and by keeping those health people available for the kind of labor they are capable of performing.
3. By reducing the squalor found in most 3rd world countries which in turn breeds disease and vermin exposing the entire population.

So Kaz, if we had the kind of third world conditions, even in an area away from your habitat, you would still be exposed to some of the negative conditions those conditions breed. I am sure there are more reasons that can be expressed, but really I don't feel the need to do that much research on the issue. I am satisfied to make the assertion and if you choose to accept it good. If you don't that is your choice.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may remind him, social programs do not make Marxism. I wonder if some people realize that TVA charges for the power? One purpose of it was to employ jobless people during the construction? Many people in those areas did not have power even available to buy before the TVA.  That the push  to Electric Coops (pushed very hard by my father in Louisiana during the thirties) was to make electricity available to rural folks, not to give it to them free.
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion, was FDR doing the moral thing when he taxed the rich to fund the TVA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

*Point out the immorality in the following:*

"U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933. 

"The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region. 

"An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley. 

"Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933. 

"The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications."

CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - History

*Capitalists are always too busy getting rich to spend money on little things like malaria.*


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.
> 
> 
> 
> *When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?*
> 
> "Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
> is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
> going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
> punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
> people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
> poverty.)"
> 
> http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
> $1 billion? $2 billion? LOL!
Click to expand...

"Corrections Corporation of America

66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the countrys largest private prison company based on number of facilities

91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia

$1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011

$17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"

"The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.s second largest private detention company

$1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.

65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.s domestic correctional facilities

$2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"

*Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
What capitalism does best.*

By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica


----------



## kaz

dnsmith35 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish to describe functions of the government to achieve "the general welfare" of a given class of people subjugation that is your choice. But those programs which help entire classes of people either culturally or geographically tends to end up benefiting all of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, wealth redistribution "tends to end up benefiting all of the people."  What color is the sky in your world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Recognize first, all of their "redistributed" money is put back into the economy, which of course creates employment and prosperity for the whole.
Click to expand...


Because of course the money poof, appears from no where!  Actually, the money is taking from producers.  They pay people to work, and make a profit, and that grows the economy and "creates employment and prosperity for the whole."  Your scenario that taking it away from the one who earned the money and giving it to someone who didn't who spends it not having worked or created any economic value providing a boost to the economy is, let's go with, reality challenged...



dnsmith35 said:


> 2. Helping poverty stricken people reduces the strain on society in many ways, to include health care costs and by keeping those health people available for the kind of labor they are capable of performing.


Trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty not changing poverty rates and creating what is now multi-generational dependency belies that claim.



dnsmith35 said:


> 3. By reducing the squalor found in most 3rd world countries which in turn breeds disease and vermin exposing the entire population.



I'm waiving my hand over my head right now and saying, "swoosh"...



dnsmith35 said:


> So Kaz, if we had the kind of third world conditions, even in an area away from your habitat, you would still be exposed to some of the negative conditions those conditions breed. I am sure there are more reasons that can be expressed, but really I don't feel the need to do that much research on the issue. I am satisfied to make the assertion and if you choose to accept it good. If you don't that is your choice.



I'm waiving my hand over my head right now and saying, "swoosh"...


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.
> 
> 
> 
> *When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?*
> 
> "Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
> is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
> going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
> punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
> people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
> poverty.)"
> 
> http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poverty is not against the law.  However, stealing is.
Click to expand...

"A story is told about an incident that happened during the thirties in New York, on one of the coldest days of the year. The world was in the grip of the Great Depression, and all over the city, the poor were close to starvation.

It happened that the judge was sitting on the bench that day, hearing a complaint against a woman who was charged with stealing a loaf of bread. She pleaded that her daughter was sick, and her grandchildren were starving, because their father had abandoned the family. 

"But the shopkeeper, whose loaf had been stolen, refused to drop the charge. He insisted that an example be made of the poor old woman, as a deterrent to others.

"The judge sighed. He was almost reluctant to pass judgment on the woman, yet he had no alternative. 'I'm sorry," he turned to her, "But I can't make any exceptions. The law is the law. I sentence you to a fine of ten dollars, and if you can't pay I must send you to jail for ten days.'

"The woman was heartbroken, but even as he was passing sentence, the judge was reaching into his pocket for the money to pay off the ten-dollar fine. He took off his hat, tossed the ten-dollar bill into it, and then addressed the crowd:

"'I am also going to impose a fine of fifty cents on every person here present in this courtroom, for living in a town where a person has to steal bread to save her grandchildren from starvation. Please collect the fines, Mr. Bailiff, in this hat, and pass them across to the defendant.'"

"And so the accused went home that day from the courtroom with forty-seven dollars and fifty cents  fifty cents of which has been paid by the shame-faced grocery store keeper who had brought the charge against her. And as she left the courtroom, the gathering of petty criminals and New York policemen gave the judge a standing ovation."

Spirituality & Practice: Spiritual Quotations: Justice, Forgiveness, Stealing, Poverty, Judgment by James N. McCutcheon


----------



## georgephillip

bedowin62 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it has everything to do with it. you got a beef against capitalism but not the courage of your convictions
> you're a coward pure and simple
> 
> 
> 
> Only devout chicken shits confuse running with courage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only a coward is against something; but wont have the courage of his convictions
> 
> according to you capitalism isnt "fixable" it is inherently bad and will always "gaurantee inequality"
> 
> but i bet you wont leave for the non-capitalist country of your liking
> 
> you arent even as credible as the people who advocate for a European-type of Socialist Democracy
> 
> you're simply an idiot
Click to expand...

I'll type slower.
There's a Big Fight coming to the US.
The Rich v. the Rest.
I've been waiting for it all my life.
Maybe punks like you should run?
Moron.


----------



## gnarlylove

kaz said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does freedom mean all persons should have the right to exist? If so, is water and food also human rights since without it we cannot live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't understand what you're looking for.  Do people have the "right" to have those things provided for them by other?  No.  Do they have the "right" to seek those things out without being artificially impeded by others?  Yes.  I don't get your implication.
Click to expand...


You get it, I just don't think you understand its implication.

The corporate world has enclosed and restricted access to much of the earths resources, granting them exclusive freedoms to extract resources at virtually no cost (subsidies and tax incentives reduce actual costs) and selling them to the people for unsightly amounts of gain--the fact that people survive or are satisfied is secondary to the profit motive. Now why is it ok for much of the earth to be restricted to being exploited for profit instead of the common good of all, the freedom of all?

If you are serious about freedom, you must fight for all people, as I'm sure you agree. Favoritism (giving wild freedoms) towards wealth is cowardice and shallow; defending the freedom of those trampled underfoot is virtue and courage. I'm not saying you are favoring any group, and frankly I think you know not to. Again, if you're serious about freedom, freedom is not to be granted according to what group you belong to but should be a universal matter.


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't complicated, but since you didn't grasp it the first time, why would my saying it again help rather than your going back and reading it and comprehending it this time?  There is no way a rational person who speaks the English language and has reading comprehension could think I said what you thought I said.  I did not say electricity = Communism, in fact I said it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"
> 
> Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?
> 
> Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a poster child against government schools.  You even quoted the right lines and still don't understand what it means.  Amazing, simply amazing.  I would sue your parents and your school system, they have failed you.
Click to expand...

Were you homeschooled?
Did you learn about Closed questions?
Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich to pay for the TVA?
Ask Mommy if confused.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?*
> 
> "Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
> is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
> going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
> punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
> people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
> poverty.)"
> 
> http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
> $1 billion? $2 billion? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Corrections Corporation of America
> 
> 66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the countrys largest private prison company based on number of facilities
> 
> 91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia
> 
> $1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011
> 
> $17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"
> 
> "The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.s second largest private detention company
> 
> $1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
> 65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.
> 
> 65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.s domestic correctional facilities
> 
> $2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
> What capitalism does best.*
> 
> By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica
Click to expand...



You were talking about prisoners manufacturing goods.
Because if there is one thing we can't do without, it's low skilled manufacturing labor.
So let's try again.
How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?

*Socialize the cost and privatize the profit*

It's true, criminals socialize the cost of their crimes. Just look what they've done to many poor minority areas around the country.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
> $1 billion? $2 billion? LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> "Corrections Corporation of America
> 
> 66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the countrys largest private prison company based on number of facilities
> 
> 91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia
> 
> $1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011
> 
> $17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"
> 
> "The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.s second largest private detention company
> 
> $1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
> 65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.
> 
> 65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.s domestic correctional facilities
> 
> $2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
> What capitalism does best.*
> 
> By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were talking about prisoners manufacturing goods.
> Because if there is one thing we can't do without, it's low skilled manufacturing labor.
> So let's try again.
> How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profit*
> 
> It's true, criminals socialize the cost of their crimes. Just look what they've done to many poor minority areas around the country.
Click to expand...

I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual. 

It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion, was FDR doing the moral thing when he taxed the rich to fund the TVA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Point out the immorality in the following:*
> 
> "U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933.
> 
> "The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region.
> 
> "An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley.
> 
> "Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933.
> 
> "The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications."
> 
> CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - History
> 
> *Capitalists are always too busy getting rich to spend money on little things like malaria.*
Click to expand...

Actually that is a huge misstatement. At the time Capitalist were not capable of such investment, even if they could make a fortune off the electric power generated. Since then, many capitalists tried to mimic the TVA but the government controlled at the water ways and even if the capitalist paid for part of the construction, the government maintained control. Those ventures produced huge profits while the collateral effects were control of malaria and the enrichment of the general population because of the power generated. Capitalism almost always trumps government activity as a prosperity for all effort.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?*
> 
> "Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
> is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
> going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
> punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
> people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
> poverty.)"
> 
> http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
> $1 billion? $2 billion? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Corrections Corporation of America
> 
> 66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the countrys largest private prison company based on number of facilities
> 
> 91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia
> 
> $1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011
> 
> $17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"
> 
> "The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.s second largest private detention company
> 
> $1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
> 65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.
> 
> 65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.s domestic correctional facilities
> 
> $2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
> What capitalism does best.*
> 
> By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica
Click to expand...

What capitalism does best in the private detention system is to save government capital expenditures while making a reasonable profit in the process. Don't forget, the private prison systems are not the persons making the decisions as to who is incarcerated and for how long. That is the justice system.

Is there some corruption in the justice system? Yes, there is always some corruption in any government/socialist system; much more so than in most private capitalist systems.


----------



## dnsmith35

kaz said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, wealth redistribution "tends to end up benefiting all of the people."  What color is the sky in your world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Recognize first, all of their "redistributed" money is put back into the economy, which of course creates employment and prosperity for the whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of course the money poof, appears from no where!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Every penny the government spends, either on acquisitions, or welfare, comes out of the economy either by taxes or borrowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the money is taking from producers.  They pay people to work, and make a profit, and that grows the economy and "creates employment and prosperity for the whole."  Your scenario that taking it away from the one who earned the money and giving it to someone who didn't who spends it not having worked or created any economic value providing a boost to the economy is, let's go with, reality challenged...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never the less it is still put back into the economy. So yes, there is some redistribution from the haves to the don't haves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty not changing poverty rates and creating what is now multi-generational dependency belies that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with that. That is an entirely different issue. Spending on the relatively poor causes habituation of the gimme syndrome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNSmith said,  "By reducing the squalor found in most 3rd world countries which in turn breeds disease and vermin exposing the entire population."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm waiving my hand over my head right now and saying, "swoosh"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether you understand that issue or not is not my problem. Having lived in the 3rd world for over 5 years, I observed it on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNSmith said, "So Kaz, if we had the kind of third world conditions, even in an area away from your habitat, you would still be exposed to some of the negative conditions those conditions breed. I am sure there are more reasons that can be expressed, but really I don't feel the need to do that much research on the issue. I am satisfied to make the assertion and if you choose to accept it good. If you don't that is your choice."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiving my hand over my head right now and saying, "swoosh"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your lack of understanding is YOUR problem. Not mine. I stand by every word I asserted. Maybe you should visit the slums of Calcutta, India, or Dakka, Bangledesh and see for yourself. No one can explain to you what squalor really is, you have to experience it, and there is no example in the US which is equivalent, even in our worst slums.
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?*
> 
> "Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
> is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
> going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
> punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
> people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
> poverty.)"
> 
> http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poverty is not against the law.  However, stealing is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "A story is told about an incident that happened during the thirties in New York, on one of the coldest days of the year. The world was in the grip of the Great Depression, and all over the city, the poor were close to starvation.
> 
> It happened that the judge was sitting on the bench that day, hearing a complaint against a woman who was charged with stealing a loaf of bread. She pleaded that her daughter was sick, and her grandchildren were starving, because their father had abandoned the family.
> 
> "But the shopkeeper, whose loaf had been stolen, refused to drop the charge. He insisted that an example be made of the poor old woman, as a deterrent to others.
> 
> "The judge sighed. He was almost reluctant to pass judgment on the woman, yet he had no alternative. 'I'm sorry," he turned to her, "But I can't make any exceptions. The law is the law. I sentence you to a fine of ten dollars, and if you can't pay I must send you to jail for ten days.'
> 
> "The woman was heartbroken, but even as he was passing sentence, the judge was reaching into his pocket for the money to pay off the ten-dollar fine. He took off his hat, tossed the ten-dollar bill into it, and then addressed the crowd:
> 
> "'I am also going to impose a fine of fifty cents on every person here present in this courtroom, for living in a town where a person has to steal bread to save her grandchildren from starvation. Please collect the fines, Mr. Bailiff, in this hat, and pass them across to the defendant.'"
> 
> "And so the accused went home that day from the courtroom with forty-seven dollars and fifty cents  fifty cents of which has been paid by the shame-faced grocery store keeper who had brought the charge against her. And as she left the courtroom, the gathering of petty criminals and New York policemen gave the judge a standing ovation."
> 
> Spirituality & Practice: Spiritual Quotations: Justice, Forgiveness, Stealing, Poverty, Judgment by James N. McCutcheon
Click to expand...

Nice anecdote, I am sure their are millions of similar stories all over the world. But none of it is relevant today.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only devout chicken shits confuse running with courage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only a coward is against something; but wont have the courage of his convictions
> 
> according to you capitalism isnt "fixable" it is inherently bad and will always "gaurantee inequality"
> 
> but i bet you wont leave for the non-capitalist country of your liking
> 
> you arent even as credible as the people who advocate for a European-type of Socialist Democracy
> 
> you're simply an idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll type slower.
> There's a Big Fight coming to the US.
> The Rich v. the Rest.
> I've been waiting for it all my life.
> Maybe punks like you should run?
> Moron.
Click to expand...

In spite of all your assertions, there has never been and likely never will be, a system which creates as much prosperity which is then capable of funding the social programs we have. Socialism simply reduced the wealth of everyone but the commissars.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does freedom mean all persons should have the right to exist? If so, is water and food also human rights since without it we cannot live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't understand what you're looking for.  Do people have the "right" to have those things provided for them by other?  No.  Do they have the "right" to seek those things out without being artificially impeded by others?  Yes.  I don't get your implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get it, I just don't think you understand its implication.
> 
> The corporate world has enclosed and restricted access to much of the earths resources, granting them exclusive freedoms to extract resources at virtually no cost (subsidies and tax incentives reduce actual costs) and selling them to the people for unsightly amounts of gain--the fact that people survive or are satisfied is secondary to the profit motive. Now why is it ok for much of the earth to be restricted to being exploited for profit instead of the common good of all, the freedom of all?
> 
> If you are serious about freedom, you must fight for all people, as I'm sure you agree. Favoritism (giving wild freedoms) towards wealth is cowardice and shallow; defending the freedom of those trampled underfoot is virtue and courage. I'm not saying you are favoring any group, and frankly I think you know not to. Again, if you're serious about freedom, freedom is not to be granted according to what group you belong to but should be a universal matter.
Click to expand...

Your post is unadulterated left wing Bullshit. Most of us do fight for all of the people. Only I don't think you do, as you have stated helping the least of our people doesn't count unless he is a US citizen. As was said, "How so ever you treat the LEAST of my people, that you have done to me." Stated by the ultimate humanist of all times.


----------



## Chris

Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Corrections Corporation of America
> 
> 66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the country&#8217;s largest private prison company based on number of facilities
> 
> 91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia
> 
> $1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011
> 
> $17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"
> 
> "The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.&#8217;s second largest private detention company
> 
> $1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
> 65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.
> 
> 65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.&#8217;s domestic correctional facilities
> 
> $2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
> What capitalism does best.*
> 
> By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were talking about prisoners manufacturing goods.
> Because if there is one thing we can't do without, it's low skilled manufacturing labor.
> So let's try again.
> How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profit*
> 
> It's true, criminals socialize the cost of their crimes. Just look what they've done to many poor minority areas around the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.
Click to expand...

Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis. 





> It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.


Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/united_states.png


----------



## Chris

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were talking about prisoners manufacturing goods.
> Because if there is one thing we can't do without, it's low skilled manufacturing labor.
> So let's try again.
> How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profit*
> 
> It's true, criminals socialize the cost of their crimes. Just look what they've done to many poor minority areas around the country.
> 
> 
> 
> I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.
Click to expand...


Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

It was NOT the housing market.


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> 
> It was NOT the housing market.
Click to expand...

Until the housing market crash, there was no big problem in Wall Street. That the investment bankers tried to prevent loses to them was the effect, not the cause. Learn a little about economics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Corrections Corporation of America
> 
> 66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the countrys largest private prison company based on number of facilities
> 
> 91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia
> 
> $1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011
> 
> $17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"
> 
> "The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.s second largest private detention company
> 
> $1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
> 65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.
> 
> 65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.s domestic correctional facilities
> 
> $2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
> What capitalism does best.*
> 
> By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were talking about prisoners manufacturing goods.
> Because if there is one thing we can't do without, it's low skilled manufacturing labor.
> So let's try again.
> How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profit*
> 
> It's true, criminals socialize the cost of their crimes. Just look what they've done to many poor minority areas around the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.
> 
> It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAUFuTKdWAw]Baretta theme song w/ Sammy Davis Jr. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Chris said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> 
> It was NOT the housing market.
Click to expand...


*Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.*

How did derivatives do that? Perhaps you can explain their mystical powers?


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> Your post is unadulterated left wing Bullshit. Most of us do fight for all of the people. Only I don't think you do, as you have stated helping the least of our people doesn't count unless he is a US citizen. As was said, "How so ever you treat the LEAST of my people, that you have done to me." Stated by the ultimate humanist of all times.



You have amply established your approach to criticism: 1) ignore it; 2) shout your views louder; 3) repeat. Gee, I wonder where you learned such an ineffective strategy (uh, the "unbiased" media).

Let me use your strategy: "You post unbridled idiocy, too."

See how worthless such a comment is? It doesn't contribute to understanding one another; it is aimed precisely to keep our ideas from interacting: yours boxed and neatly wrapped in one corner while I have my pretty bow in the other and you continue to yell profane and insulting statements in my direction. It prevents the only reasonable thing between opposition: listening and aiming for compromises (which I noted as my goal in my first replies).

As for your quote on Christ, I'm glad you know it (after I quoted it pages ago to you) but if you take Jesus's teachings seriously, I don't think he would approve of you using his wisdom as a weapon to feel superior. I originally had nothing but respect for you. That respect has been entirely effaced for obvious reasons.


----------



## Chris

The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.


----------



## dnsmith35

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis. Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> 
> It was NOT the housing market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.*
> 
> How did derivatives do that? Perhaps you can explain their mystical powers?
Click to expand...

The point is, which he does not understand, Wall Street activities were collateral damage to the housing crash, which caused the recession, and the investment bankers tried to salvage THEIR profits at the expense of our financial interest and the people being eaten alive by the recession, which was caused by the housing crash which further caused many people to lose their jobs. Wall Street didn't cause it, but they sure didn't help it any. The idiots in the Occupy Wall Street picketed the wrong people. Now since our mental midget does not understand what happened, the housing crash was caused by numerous forces occurring at the same time, but the two most important factors was multi-administration. CRA, which is self description enough and government fiscal and monetary policy, which if one understands the graph I posted earlier, would also be self descriptive.






Look at the graph, note that the price curve starts to separate from the value curve in 1999. That inflation was fueled by easy credit used to include more Americans to buy homes. It also fueled a buying frenzy among speculators who tended to use ARMs which were cheaper than normal mortgages. As the prices went up further and the real estate market heated and sped up, and as ARM interest went up, when the prices started to peak the speculators could not flip their property, people had bought more than they could afford, then viola, BOOM WENT TO BUST. It was not a single faceted cause, but those were the two most deleterious issues. Then the banks tied bundles of bad mortgages and sold them as investments which blew up in the face of those who purchased them. Also, as the construction workers lost their jobs, people in the construction supply business lost their jobs, lumber companies lost jobs, and BOOM the economy went bust in what has been called the Great Recession. When people start with the blame game, they should first try to find the actual causes. Too many fruit cakes blamed Wall Street, others blamed Clinton and the CRA, still others blamed Bush, but in order of the most important culprits it was the low interest of both Clinton and Bush (government fiscal and monetary policy), then the CRA, then the exacerbation of the whole thing by the investment bankers, not Wall Street, but the big investment bankers who are part of Wall Street. That last issue caused  people in the highest Quintile of income, too lose millions more than the average guy on the street, but the guy on the street could not afford the loss, the bankers could. Then they were bailed out by the government. In my opinion that became the most dastardly deed of all. We should have let the banks fail, allow other solvent banks take over their assets and go from there


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is unadulterated left wing Bullshit. Most of us do fight for all of the people. Only I don't think you do, as you have stated helping the least of our people doesn't count unless he is a US citizen. As was said, "How so ever you treat the LEAST of my people, that you have done to me." Stated by the ultimate humanist of all times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have amply established your approach to criticism: 1) ignore it; 2) shout your views louder; 3) repeat. Gee, I wonder where you learned such an ineffective strategy (uh, the "unbiased" media).
Click to expand...

Not at all. I could care less about criticism if it is constructive and correct. But nothing you have posted is valid.





> Let me use your strategy: "You post unbridled idiocy, too."


I post basic correctness, and if you don't like it get educated.





> See how worthless such a comment is? It doesn't contribute to understanding one another;


I don't need to understand you beyond what you showed as your true stripes with the first post I read. It was obvious you were a left wing extremist with a narrow minded view of the world and blinded to the needs of the most poverty stricken people. Your elitist attitude suggesting that caring for our relative poor is more important than helping people who need it more. What a shameful way to view humanity.





> it is aimed precisely to keep our ideas from interacting: yours boxed and neatly wrapped in one corner while I have my pretty bow in the other and you continue to yell profane and insulting statements in my direction.


Profane? ROTFLMAO! Nothing is more profane than allowing a poor homeless man in India to starve to death to save some specific elitist unionist, or to give more to the relative poor in the use. Positively, nothing is more profane.





> It prevents the only reasonable thing between opposition: listening and aiming for compromises (which I noted as my goal in my first replies).


I have noted no effort on your part to compromise, and I certainly will not compromise my integrity and compassion for the likes of you.





> As for your quote on Christ, I'm glad you know it


I not only know it, I live by it. 





> (after I quoted it pages ago to you)


 You are trying to take too much credit





> .but if you take Jesus's teachings seriously, I don't think he would approve of you using his wisdom as a weapon to feel superior.


 I am superior to no one, I am just a human being who cares for those in need, THE MOST NEED. 





> I originally had nothing but respect for you. That respect has been entirely effaced for obvious reasons.


You can take your obvious reasons and stuff them. I could care less if you respect me, I respect myself because I know who "the least of his people" are. I don't think you do, and if you do know, you sure don't practice it. Speaking of feeling superior, it is obvious you have no basis to do that. In so far as debating this issue, what integrity you think you had flew out of the window the first time you showed yourself to be a "liberal with borders"; meaning you would rather save a union worker's job than keep needy human beings alive. You made your bed in this discussion and you can't weasel (black weasel with white stripes) out of sleeping in it. You are not taking the high road.

*BTW, I started believing you deserved respect when you displayed compassion for the poor, before I realized you had compassion only for a narrow band of poor. The 45 million least wealthy of the US have it good compared to the 500,000 000 destitute in India alone. Then when you started making noises like a Georgist, it became obvious you deserve no respect from anyone, to include self respect.*


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.



Do you understand the difference between wage tax rates and capital gain tax rates?
Do you understand why the difference between wage tax rates and capital gain tax rates exist?
Your comments suggest total ignorance of the what and the why. You need to educate your self. 
Do you know that the largest difference in inequality of income occurs between the .01% and the .9% of highest incomes in America? 
Do you really care? Or do you just prefer to whine and cry?
Do you know that that top 1% does not cause you or anyone else to have a lower income? Again, do you care to know?

I think the answer to every one of the questions is NO, you do not know or understand.


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.


 We don't have unregulated Capitalism. *As it is, even with the regulation, capitalism is the most efficient economic system the world has ever known; especially when compared to Socialism, Communism or Georgism*, all of which have failed miserably after creating many times more poverty than there was before they were initiated, and losing the only high achievers they had. Whine about capitalism if you wish, but your whines go better with stinky cheese, like limburger.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> *Point out the immorality in the following:*
> 
> "U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933.
> 
> "The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region.
> 
> "An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley.
> 
> "Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933.
> 
> "The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications."
> 
> CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - History
> 
> *Capitalists are always too busy getting rich to spend money on little things like malaria.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is a huge misstatement. At the time Capitalist were not capable of such investment, even if they could make a fortune off the electric power generated. Since then, many capitalists tried to mimic the TVA but the government controlled at the water ways and even if the capitalist paid for part of the construction, the government maintained control. Those ventures produced huge profits while the collateral effects were control of malaria and the enrichment of the general population because of the power generated. Capitalism almost always trumps government activity as a prosperity for all effort.
Click to expand...

Putting aside the fact that capitalism doesn't even exist without government, any "success" capitalists produce is directly proportional to the capitalists' ability to inflict all negative externalities upon government; it's the same socialize-the-risk-and-privatize-the-profits paradigm that parasites since Adam Smith's time have used to justify gross inequalities in income and wealth.


----------



## Fishlore

dnsmith35 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have unregulated Capitalism. *As it is, even with the regulation, capitalism is the most efficient economic system the world has ever known; especially when compared to Socialism, Communism or Georgism*, all of which have failed miserably after creating many times more poverty than there was before they were initiated, and losing the only high achievers they had. Whine about capitalism if you wish, but your whines go better with stinky cheese, like limburger.
Click to expand...


The idea that capitalism is the only economic system ever to have succeeded in reducing poverty is too absurd to bother to refute.

It isn't the alleged efficiency of capitalism that gives capitalism its awesome wealth creating power. Capitalism, with its inherent boom-and-bust cycles is considerably less efficient that feudalism, not to mention socialism.

But capitalism is a world beater at wealth creation, no doubt about that.  The core of capitalism's magic is fractional reserve banking, the system that lets a bank lend out ten or even thirty dollars for every dollar it has in the vault. All but one of those dollars are not real, they are a curious kind of counterfeit that exists only on the books. Gambling with counterfeit money can make you rich pretty quick, if you are lucky.

If you are not lucky, the bubble inflated by purely notional dollars lent at interest pops and the system crashes. Modern capitalism has invented a safety net of sorts in which the losses of the private sector are assumed by the government and loaded on the backs of future generations of taxpayers. Add to this cruel gimmick a sizable bankroll of extractable natural resources and capitalism can create a lot of wealth fast, at least when it is on a winning streak. The problem is the social effect of where all that new wealth goes and where it doesn't go.

The same chauvinists  who proclaim capitalism the only good economic system  tend to the view that the USA is the only good nation and that Christianity is the only true religion.  Wrong on all counts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Fishlore said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have unregulated Capitalism. *As it is, even with the regulation, capitalism is the most efficient economic system the world has ever known; especially when compared to Socialism, Communism or Georgism*, all of which have failed miserably after creating many times more poverty than there was before they were initiated, and losing the only high achievers they had. Whine about capitalism if you wish, but your whines go better with stinky cheese, like limburger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that capitalism is the only economic system ever to have succeeded in reducing poverty is too absurd to bother to refute.
> 
> It isn't the alleged efficiency of capitalism that gives capitalism its awesome wealth creating power. Capitalism, with its inherent boom-and-bust cycles is considerably less efficient that feudalism, not to mention socialism.
> 
> But capitalism is a world beater at wealth creation, no doubt about that.  The core of capitalism's magic is fractional reserve banking, the system that lets a bank lend out ten or even thirty dollars for every dollar it has in the vault. All but one of those dollars are not real, they are a curious kind of counterfeit that exists only on the books. Gambling with counterfeit money can make you rich pretty quick, if you are lucky.
> 
> If you are not lucky, the bubble inflated by purely notional dollars lent at interest pops and the system crashes. Modern capitalism has invented a safety net of sorts in which the losses of the private sector are assumed by the government and loaded on the backs of future generations of taxpayers. Add to this cruel gimmick a sizable bankroll of extractable natural resources and capitalism can create a lot of wealth fast, at least when it is on a winning streak. The problem is the social effect of where all that new wealth goes and where it doesn't go.
> 
> The same chauvinists  who proclaim capitalism the only good economic system  tend to the view that the USA is the only good nation and that Christianity is the only true religion.  Wrong on all counts.
Click to expand...


*The core of capitalism's magic is fractional reserve banking, the system that lets a bank lend out ten or even thirty dollars for every dollar it has in the vault.*

Can you expand on this claim?

Say a new bank opens and I make the only deposit of 100 $1 bills.
How much can the bank lend, assuming a 10% reserve requirement?


----------



## bripat9643

Fishlore said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have unregulated Capitalism. *As it is, even with the regulation, capitalism is the most efficient economic system the world has ever known; especially when compared to Socialism, Communism or Georgism*, all of which have failed miserably after creating many times more poverty than there was before they were initiated, and losing the only high achievers they had. Whine about capitalism if you wish, but your whines go better with stinky cheese, like limburger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that capitalism is the only economic system ever to have succeeded in reducing poverty is too absurd to bother to refute.
Click to expand...


That's funny, because you utterly failed to refute it.



Fishlore said:


> It isn't the alleged efficiency of capitalism that gives capitalism its awesome wealth creating power. Capitalism, with its inherent boom-and-bust cycles is considerably less efficient that feudalism, not to mention socialism.



ROFL! How is this supposed "efficiency" demonstrated?  The fact is that under both feudalism and socialism populations have experienced mass starvation.  No one has ever starved in a capitalist country because it was unable to produce a sufficient amount of food.  No one in the United States has ever starved unless it's do to a freak accident, like being trapped by snow in Donner pass.



Fishlore said:


> But capitalism is a world beater at wealth creation, no doubt about that.



If that's the case, then it's far more efficient than socialism or feudalism.  What else is an economic system supposed to other than produce wealth?



Fishlore said:


> The core of capitalism's magic is fractional reserve banking, the system that lets a bank lend out ten or even thirty dollars for every dollar it has in the vault. All but one of those dollars are not real, they are a curious kind of counterfeit that exists only on the books. Gambling with counterfeit money can make you rich pretty quick, if you are lucky.



I agree with you that our system of fiat money is no better than counterfeiting.  However, that doesn't explain how capitalism produces wealth.  How do worthless scraps of paper cause cell phones and automobiles to come into existence?



Fishlore said:


> If you are not lucky, the bubble inflated by purely notional dollars lent at interest pops and the system crashes.



What the hell are "notional dollars?"  I've never heard of any such thing.



Fishlore said:


> Modern capitalism has invented a safety net of sorts in which the losses of the private sector are assumed by the government and loaded on the backs of future generations of taxpayers.



That isn't capitalism.  That's the fascist welfare state that morons like you defend and support.  No one who supports in capitalism believes the government should bail out private corporations.  Only welfare state bootlickers endorse such a policy.



Fishlore said:


> Add to this cruel gimmick a sizable bankroll of extractable natural resources and capitalism can create a lot of wealth fast, at least when it is on a winning streak. The problem is the social effect of where all that new wealth goes and where it doesn't go.



The former Soviet Union had far more resources than the United States.  That didn't seem to produce much wealth for them.  On the other hand, Japan has almost no natural resources, and that country is wealthy.  Your theory that wealth is the result of owning natural resources is obviously flawed.



Fishlore said:


> The same chauvinists  who proclaim capitalism the only good economic system  tend to the view that the USA is the only good nation and that Christianity is the only true religion.  Wrong on all counts.



So far, everything you have posted is wrong.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
> $1 billion? $2 billion? LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> "Corrections Corporation of America
> 
> 66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the countrys largest private prison company based on number of facilities
> 
> 91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia
> 
> $1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011
> 
> $17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"
> 
> "The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.s second largest private detention company
> 
> $1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
> 65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.
> 
> 65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.s domestic correctional facilities
> 
> $2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
> What capitalism does best.*
> 
> By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What capitalism does best in the private detention system is to save government capital expenditures while making a reasonable profit in the process. Don't forget, the private prison systems are not the persons making the decisions as to who is incarcerated and for how long. That is the justice system.
> 
> Is there some corruption in the justice system? Yes, there is always some corruption in any government/socialist system; much more so than in most private capitalist systems.
Click to expand...

Why don't you supply some evidence that private capitalist systems produce less corruption than government? Start with Wall Street. Then remind yourself how the parasites in the private detention industry, who earn seven figures annually for their "labor", spend millions more lobbying those responsible for deciding who to incarcerate and for how long how much private profit margins will suffer if US incarceration rates return to where they were forty years ago. Socialize the cost and privatize the profit; it's not rocket science.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion, was FDR doing the moral thing when he taxed the rich to fund the TVA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Point out the immorality in the following:*
> 
> "U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933.
> 
> "The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region.
> 
> "An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley.
> 
> "Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933.
> 
> "The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications."
> 
> CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - History
> 
> *Capitalists are always too busy getting rich to spend money on little things like malaria.*
Click to expand...


The money to pay for all of that was expropriated from innocent people using guns.  Furthermore, the government expropriated private land where the reservoirs the TVA created were located.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Corrections Corporation of America
> 
> 66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the countrys largest private prison company based on number of facilities
> 
> 91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia
> 
> $1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011
> 
> $17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"
> 
> "The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.s second largest private detention company
> 
> $1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
> 65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.
> 
> 65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.s domestic correctional facilities
> 
> $2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
> What capitalism does best.*
> 
> By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica
> 
> 
> 
> What capitalism does best in the private detention system is to save government capital expenditures while making a reasonable profit in the process. Don't forget, the private prison systems are not the persons making the decisions as to who is incarcerated and for how long. That is the justice system.
> 
> Is there some corruption in the justice system? Yes, there is always some corruption in any government/socialist system; much more so than in most private capitalist systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you supply some evidence that private capitalist systems produce less corruption than government? Start with Wall Street. Then remind yourself how the parasites in the private detention industry, who earn seven figures annually for their "labor", spend millions more lobbying those responsible for deciding who to incarcerate and for how long how much private profit margins will suffer if US incarceration rates return to where they were forty years ago. Socialize the cost and privatize the profit; it's not rocket science.
Click to expand...


First you'll have to list what you call "corruption."  I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Point out the immorality in the following:*
> 
> "U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933.
> 
> "The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region.
> 
> "An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley.
> 
> "Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933.
> 
> "The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications."
> 
> CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - History
> 
> *Capitalists are always too busy getting rich to spend money on little things like malaria.*
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is a huge misstatement. At the time Capitalist were not capable of such investment, even if they could make a fortune off the electric power generated. Since then, many capitalists tried to mimic the TVA but the government controlled at the water ways and even if the capitalist paid for part of the construction, the government maintained control. Those ventures produced huge profits while the collateral effects were control of malaria and the enrichment of the general population because of the power generated. Capitalism almost always trumps government activity as a prosperity for all effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Putting aside the fact that capitalism doesn't even exist without government, any "success" capitalists produce is directly proportional to the capitalists' ability to inflict all negative externalities upon government;
Click to expand...


Wrong, on both counts.  Capitalism is not dependent on government for its existence.  Furthermore,  very few corporations impose any so-called "externalities" on government.  Such claims are all based on the bogus theory that private corporations are somehow obligated to pay some arbitrarily specified wage.



georgephillip said:


> it's the same socialize-the-risk-and-privatize-the-profits paradigm that parasites since Adam Smith's time have used to justify gross inequalities in income and wealth.



That's a feature only of the modern fascist welfare state that ignorant turds like you have been pushing on the public for the last 80 years.


----------



## bripat9643

Chris said:


> The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.



the income of the top 400 comes almost entirely from capital gains.  The only way to change that is to tax capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income.  Of course, in doing so you will reduce the revenue the government receives from taxing these gains.  You will also reduce economic growth and lower everyone's standard of living.  All to satisfy your craving to slake your envy of those having a better time in life than you.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poverty is not against the law.  However, stealing is.
> 
> 
> 
> "A story is told about an incident that happened during the thirties in New York, on one of the coldest days of the year. The world was in the grip of the Great Depression, and all over the city, the poor were close to starvation.
> 
> It happened that the judge was sitting on the bench that day, hearing a complaint against a woman who was charged with stealing a loaf of bread. She pleaded that her daughter was sick, and her grandchildren were starving, because their father had abandoned the family.
> 
> "But the shopkeeper, whose loaf had been stolen, refused to drop the charge. He insisted that an example be made of the poor old woman, as a deterrent to others.
> 
> "The judge sighed. He was almost reluctant to pass judgment on the woman, yet he had no alternative. 'I'm sorry," he turned to her, "But I can't make any exceptions. The law is the law. I sentence you to a fine of ten dollars, and if you can't pay I must send you to jail for ten days.'
> 
> "The woman was heartbroken, but even as he was passing sentence, the judge was reaching into his pocket for the money to pay off the ten-dollar fine. He took off his hat, tossed the ten-dollar bill into it, and then addressed the crowd:
> 
> "'I am also going to impose a fine of fifty cents on every person here present in this courtroom, for living in a town where a person has to steal bread to save her grandchildren from starvation. Please collect the fines, Mr. Bailiff, in this hat, and pass them across to the defendant.'"
> 
> "And so the accused went home that day from the courtroom with forty-seven dollars and fifty cents  fifty cents of which has been paid by the shame-faced grocery store keeper who had brought the charge against her. And as she left the courtroom, the gathering of petty criminals and New York policemen gave the judge a standing ovation."
> 
> Spirituality & Practice: Spiritual Quotations: Justice, Forgiveness, Stealing, Poverty, Judgment by James N. McCutcheon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice anecdote, I am sure their are millions of similar stories all over the world. But none of it is relevant today.
Click to expand...

*You should get our more:*

"It was a county formed 19 years before the Civil War.
But in the towns lying between borders in Owsley, in the coal fields of eastern Kentucky, a portrait of Americans shows a community that appears frozen in time, where many still live without water or electricity.

"According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the Appalachian county has the lowest median household income in the states - a staggering 41.5 per cent of residents falling below the poverty line.

Pictured: The modern day poverty of Kentucky where people live with no running water or electricity | Mail Online

*Rising rates of inequality coupled with austerity responses to the failures of the private sector guarantee the relevance of "anecdotes" from the last time capitalism nearly destroyed itself. *


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were talking about prisoners manufacturing goods.
> Because if there is one thing we can't do without, it's low skilled manufacturing labor.
> So let's try again.
> How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profit*
> 
> It's true, criminals socialize the cost of their crimes. Just look what they've done to many poor minority areas around the country.
> 
> 
> 
> I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/united_states.png
Click to expand...

*Your tale needs five years of backstory.
Start with everything you know about control accounting fraud in 2004*

"from Terry Frieden
CNN Washington Bureau
Friday, September 17, 2004 Posted: 5:44 PM EDT (2144 GMT) 

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday of an 'epidemic' of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become 'the next S&L crisis.'

"Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial ..."

CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004

*Have you ever noticed that ignorance and arrogance is deadly?*


----------



## gnarlylove

Capitalism is defined by the idea that everyone pursuing their own interests leads to the common good of all.

Society exists not merely for living but for living well in communities. Capitalism says it too aims for living well. But upon learning of the facts, not many Americans live well (let alone nations in which imperialist capitalist policy has destroyed the chance for decent survival). Nearly 60% of Americans will live on or below the poverty line for over a year. The average household debt is between 125%-150% of household income.



> Interest payments on past debt reduce the income that households have to spend and maintain a certain standard of living. An income shock (such as a bout of unemployment, the expenses of having a new baby, or a health problem) can lead families to resort to borrowing, which reduces household living standards in the future. Although future income may rise, the economic circumstances of the family will not improve if most of this extra income must pay interest in order to maintain past debt. This problem is ignored in
> standard measures of income equality, which take no account of the income lost in order to make interest payments on past consumption debt. They measure differences in personal or disposable income across a large population, but they do not measure differences in living standards, which is what inequality measures are supposed to do.
> 
> A contemporary example illustrates this problem. The cost of a college education has
> increased by more than any other household spending category over the past two decades
> (Newfield 2008). This increase is taken into account in government measures of inflation; so higher college costs lead to lower real household living standards in reported government data.



http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/589.pdf

For those arguing capitalism makes everyone better off, they must demonstrate this in relative and real terms. People are better off in many cases, but those are relative terms (compared to say 1600s). But in real terms, capitalism has ceased providing the good life for the average citizen. But if capitalism has ceased working for the average person, that means it isn't working because society cannot neglect it's most common constituent.

Indeed, American's have picked up on this and have reconfigured "The American Dream."



> The 2011 MetLife Study of the American Dream reflects an uncertain era where
> Americans no longer seek to become wealthy; rather, they want to achieve a sense of
> financial security that allows them to live a sustainable lifestyle.
> This has led to new thinking about what the American Dream means, and to a portrayal
> of Americans as resilient and adaptive. And while achieving the Dream remains
> important &#8212; particularly to younger Americans &#8212; how it is achieved has changed.
> 
> emerging trends that show Americans are less concerned with material issues, and that life&#8217;s traditional markers of success &#8212; getting married, buying a house, having a family, building wealth &#8212; do not matter as much today. Rather, achieving a sense of personal fulfillment is more important toward realizing the American Dream than accumulating material wealth.
> This is a significant shift, as it reflects that Americans value close relationships with
> family and friends as more important than money and that being content with what
> they have and balancing work/life issues are more important than &#8220;living large.&#8221;
> Today, material positions matter less and personal relationships matter more.
> And for younger generations, &#8220;personal achievement&#8221; is the new &#8220;opportunity for
> all.&#8221; Though they show a greater tendency toward this vision of the Dream than their
> older counterparts, across generations, less than half of Americans say they need any
> of the traditional Dream markers to achieve it.



https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/gbms/studies/metlife-2011-american-dream-report.pdf

Why have Americans ceased believing in the traditional values of success and wealth? Because it genuinely is not available and thus in order to remain sane, one adapts to personal achievement, including the choice to live out of your car because it's the only way you can attain personal dreams.

Living in Your Car: No Longer Just for Bums - Businessweek

Capitalism generates wealth. No one denies that. Who makes the decisions about that wealth are not those who create it, namely the workers. The workers create the surplus for the capitalists and the capitalists decide to give themselves astronomical pay. This is created an obvious division between Americans and is being played out. As the inequality widens, so does the stress on capitalism.

Capitalism is not the end of history and it will be abolished. The matter is when, not if. The common good has been left in the dust and the world is waking up to it. Those arguing for capitalism for not perceptive enough to see this.

Why capitalism is a failure (because it neglects the common good, the average person):


----------



## kaz

dnsmith35 said:


> Your lack of understanding is YOUR problem. Not mine. I stand by every word I asserted. Maybe you should visit the slums of Calcutta, India, or Dakka, Bangledesh and see for yourself. No one can explain to you what squalor really is, you have to experience it, and there is no example in the US which is equivalent, even in our worst slums.



I see your point, my political views should be driven my the thought that I could be living in a slum in Calcutta.  Check and mate, my friend.   Wow, you are good.


----------



## kaz

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't understand what you're looking for.  Do people have the "right" to have those things provided for them by other?  No.  Do they have the "right" to seek those things out without being artificially impeded by others?  Yes.  I don't get your implication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get it, I just don't think you understand its implication.
> 
> The corporate world has enclosed and restricted access to much of the earths resources, granting them exclusive freedoms to extract resources at virtually no cost (subsidies and tax incentives reduce actual costs) and selling them to the people for unsightly amounts of gain--the fact that people survive or are satisfied is secondary to the profit motive. Now why is it ok for much of the earth to be restricted to being exploited for profit instead of the common good of all, the freedom of all?
> 
> If you are serious about freedom, you must fight for all people, as I'm sure you agree. Favoritism (giving wild freedoms) towards wealth is cowardice and shallow; defending the freedom of those trampled underfoot is virtue and courage. I'm not saying you are favoring any group, and frankly I think you know not to. Again, if you're serious about freedom, freedom is not to be granted according to what group you belong to but should be a universal matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post is unadulterated left wing Bullshit. Most of us do fight for all of the people. Only I don't think you do, as you have stated helping the least of our people doesn't count unless he is a US citizen. As was said, "How so ever you treat the LEAST of my people, that you have done to me." Stated by the ultimate humanist of all times.
Click to expand...


He's an authoritarian leftist anarchist, no wonder he's so confused...


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis. Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> 
> It was NOT the housing market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until the housing market crash, there was no big problem in Wall Street. That the investment bankers tried to prevent loses to them was the effect, not the cause. Learn a little about economics.
Click to expand...

*Take your own advice; Bill Black can help:*

"To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud..."

"The first document everyone should read is by S&P, the largest of the rating agencies. 

"The context of the document is that a professional credit rater has told his superiors that he needs to examine the mortgage loan files to evaluate the risk of a complex financial derivative whose risk and market value depend on the credit quality of the nonprime mortgages 'underlying' the derivative. 

"A senior manager sends a blistering reply with this forceful punctuation:

"Any request for loan level tapes is TOTALLY UNREASONABLE!!! Most investors don't have it and can't provide it. [W]e MUST produce a credit estimate. It is your responsibility to provide those credit estimates and your responsibility to devise some method for doing so.

"Fraud is the principal credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending. 

"It is impossible to detect fraud without reviewing a sample of the loan files. 

"Paper loan files are bulky, so they are photographed and the images are stored on computer tapes. 

"Unfortunately, 'most investors' (the large commercial and investment banks that purchased nonprime loans and pooled them to create financial derivatives) did not review the loan files before purchasing nonprime loans and *did not even require the lender to provide loan tapes."*

William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

*Wall Street didn't care if the mortgages went bad or not.
They made their money from fees.
Clinton, Bush, Obama didn't/don't care either.
Socialize cost, privatize profit.
How capitalism conquered the world.*


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Point out the immorality in the following:*
> 
> "U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933.
> 
> "The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region.
> 
> "An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley.
> 
> "Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933.
> 
> "The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications."
> 
> CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - History
> 
> *Capitalists are always too busy getting rich to spend money on little things like malaria.*
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is a huge misstatement. At the time Capitalist were not capable of such investment, even if they could make a fortune off the electric power generated. Since then, many capitalists tried to mimic the TVA but the government controlled at the water ways and even if the capitalist paid for part of the construction, the government maintained control. Those ventures produced huge profits while the collateral effects were control of malaria and the enrichment of the general population because of the power generated. Capitalism almost always trumps government activity as a prosperity for all effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Putting aside the fact that capitalism doesn't even exist without government, any "success" capitalists produce is directly proportional to the capitalists' ability to inflict all negative externalities upon government; it's the same socialize-the-risk-and-privatize-the-profits paradigm that parasites since Adam Smith's time have used to justify gross inequalities in income and wealth.
Click to expand...

 You may put aside anything you wish, but of all the modern economic systems there are or have been, Capitalism is the ONLY ONE WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE GOVERNMENT TO EXIST. What our capitalism needs is regulation, not control; to be in any country which has property rights as a standard option. We have and I approve of the government regulating Capitalism for consumer protection. Your statement, "it's the same socialize-the-risk-and-privatize-the-profits paradigm that parasites since Adam Smith's time have used to justify gross inequalities in income and wealth," is totally warped and nothing but Bullshit. ONLY Capitalism generates sufficient prosperity to allow the government to give aid to the needy. Socialism and Communism do nothing but create more poverty. You have again inserted your head into your excremental orifice.

*You are totally incapable of giving us a single example of a successful socialist or communist system, and the only countries who use LVT successfully are the few who collect the LVT, and the occupier of the land has exclusive rights to occupy, and to bequeath his rights as he sees fit. Nothing like the Georgist system some ignorant people tout.*


----------



## dnsmith35

Fishlore said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unregulated capitalism is the Mafia.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have unregulated Capitalism. *As it is, even with the regulation, capitalism is the most efficient economic system the world has ever known; especially when compared to Socialism, Communism or Georgism*, all of which have failed miserably after creating many times more poverty than there was before they were initiated, and losing the only high achievers they had. Whine about capitalism if you wish, but your whines go better with stinky cheese, like limburger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that capitalism is the only economic system ever to have succeeded in reducing poverty is too absurd to bother to refute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't try to refute it, because you can't. And you can give no example in which any other system has done as much for the least of its citizens. There is no example of a successful socialist or communist system, and the only countries who use LVT successfully are the few who collect the LVT, and the occupier of the land has exclusive rights to occupy, and to bequeath his rights as he sees fit. Nothing like the Georgist system some ignorant people tout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't the alleged efficiency of capitalism that gives capitalism its awesome wealth creating power. Capitalism, with its inherent boom-and-bust cycles is considerably less efficient that feudalism, not to mention socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every economic system has boom and bust cycles. The difference? Socialism and Communism keep the majority of their citizens in the "bust" mode all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But capitalism is a world beater at wealth creation, no doubt about that.  The core of capitalism's magic is fractional reserve banking, the system that lets a bank lend out ten or even thirty dollars for every dollar it has in the vault. All but one of those dollars are not real, they are a curious kind of counterfeit that exists only on the books. Gambling with counterfeit money can make you rich pretty quick, if you are lucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes people rich is: Inventiveness, motivation, ambition, personal responsibility, and a strong work effort coupled with knowledge (usually associated with education or training.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are not lucky, the bubble inflated by purely notional dollars lent at interest pops and the system crashes. Modern capitalism has invented a safety net of sorts in which the losses of the private sector are assumed by the government and loaded on the backs of future generations of taxpayers. Add to this cruel gimmick a sizable bankroll of extractable natural resources and capitalism can create a lot of wealth fast, at least when it is on a winning streak. The problem is the social effect of where all that new wealth goes and where it doesn't go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the fault of Government which, as Obama and other left wing administrations chooses to bail out unsuccessful businesses under the guise of "government need."
> 
> The same chauvinists  who proclaim capitalism the only good economic system  tend to the view that the USA is the only good nation and that Christianity is the only true religion.  Wrong on all counts.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct when you say we are not the only good nation, or that Christianity is not the only true religion. Even Atheism is a religion, and many follow that premise. You really should not try to pigeon hole others when you have not got the slightest idea what they believe and what makes them tick.
> 
> I shall reiterate, you are free to give me an example which is a successful true socialist experiment. While doing so, remember what socialism really is (government ownership or control of production, price, and distribution). Most, if not all, countries referred to as "socialist" are not really socialist. They are basically capitalism with more social programs (which do not make socialism) than other capitalist countries. To last even a modicum of time, socialist/communist/Marxist systems MUST HAVE AN AUTHORATIVE/DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT, to keep the high achievers in check such that (at least for a short time) performing to ability to support the "to the needy according to their needs."
> 
> It is an absolute fact, based on the success and/or failure, that Capitalism is the only system which creates sufficient wealth and prosperity to up grade the condition of the have nots instead of lowering the condition OF ALL THEIR CITIZENS, leaving only the autocracy to gain wealth of any nature.
> 
> If you won't accept this, show me some proof any other system has lasted more than 2 or 3 generations.
> 
> Even Great Britain, which experimented with some (not full) Socialism, was unable to keep up their prosperity under that system.
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis. Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> 
> It was NOT the housing market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.*
> 
> How did derivatives do that? Perhaps you can explain their mystical powers?
Click to expand...

*Ask your pals at Forbes.*

"The worlds scariest story: trading in derivatives

"Bad as these scandals are and vast as the money involved in them is by any normal standard, they are mere blips on the screen, compared to the risk that is still staring us in the face: *the lack of transparency in derivative trading that now totals in notional amount more than $700 trillion*. 

"That is more than ten times the size of the entire world economy. 

"Yet incredibly, we have little information about it or its implications for the financial strength of any of the big banks."

Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes


----------



## 1776

Shitstain....do you fight with your losertarian boyfriends on this thread? 

Such a bi-polar life you live, but you get to make up lies about the US in every thread. 



georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> 
> It was NOT the housing market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.*
> 
> How did derivatives do that? Perhaps you can explain their mystical powers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ask your pals at Forbes.*
> 
> "The worlds scariest story: trading in derivatives
> 
> "Bad as these scandals are and vast as the money involved in them is by any normal standard, they are mere blips on the screen, compared to the risk that is still staring us in the face: *the lack of transparency in derivative trading that now totals in notional amount more than $700 trillion*.
> 
> "That is more than ten times the size of the entire world economy.
> 
> "Yet incredibly, we have little information about it or its implications for the financial strength of any of the big banks."
> 
> Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
Click to expand...


----------



## Bush92

Capitalism is the great equalizer and provides the greatest opportunity for individuals to rise-up and have a good life. "_Socialism works fine until you run out of other peoples money"-Iron Lady Maggie_


----------



## dnsmith35

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have unregulated Capitalism. *As it is, even with the regulation, capitalism is the most efficient economic system the world has ever known; especially when compared to Socialism, Communism or Georgism*, all of which have failed miserably after creating many times more poverty than there was before they were initiated, and losing the only high achievers they had. Whine about capitalism if you wish, but your whines go better with stinky cheese, like limburger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that capitalism is the only economic system ever to have succeeded in reducing poverty is too absurd to bother to refute.
> 
> It isn't the alleged efficiency of capitalism that gives capitalism its awesome wealth creating power. Capitalism, with its inherent boom-and-bust cycles is considerably less efficient that feudalism, not to mention socialism.
> 
> But capitalism is a world beater at wealth creation, no doubt about that.  The core of capitalism's magic is fractional reserve banking, the system that lets a bank lend out ten or even thirty dollars for every dollar it has in the vault. All but one of those dollars are not real, they are a curious kind of counterfeit that exists only on the books. Gambling with counterfeit money can make you rich pretty quick, if you are lucky.
> 
> If you are not lucky, the bubble inflated by purely notional dollars lent at interest pops and the system crashes. Modern capitalism has invented a safety net of sorts in which the losses of the private sector are assumed by the government and loaded on the backs of future generations of taxpayers. Add to this cruel gimmick a sizable bankroll of extractable natural resources and capitalism can create a lot of wealth fast, at least when it is on a winning streak. The problem is the social effect of where all that new wealth goes and where it doesn't go.
> 
> The same chauvinists  who proclaim capitalism the only good economic system  tend to the view that the USA is the only good nation and that Christianity is the only true religion.  Wrong on all counts.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The core of capitalism's magic is fractional reserve banking, the system that lets a bank lend out ten or even thirty dollars for every dollar it has in the vault.*
> 
> Can you expand on this claim?
> 
> Say a new bank opens and I make the only deposit of 100 $1 bills.
> How much can the bank lend, assuming a 10% reserve requirement?
Click to expand...

He can't, because it is not true.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> 
> It was NOT the housing market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.*
> 
> How did derivatives do that? Perhaps you can explain their mystical powers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ask your pals at Forbes.*
> 
> "The worlds scariest story: trading in derivatives
> 
> "Bad as these scandals are and vast as the money involved in them is by any normal standard, they are mere blips on the screen, compared to the risk that is still staring us in the face: *the lack of transparency in derivative trading that now totals in notional amount more than $700 trillion*.
> 
> "That is more than ten times the size of the entire world economy.
> 
> "Yet incredibly, we have little information about it or its implications for the financial strength of any of the big banks."
> 
> Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
Click to expand...


If Chris can't back up his claim, maybe you can help him?


----------



## dnsmith35

bripat9643 said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have unregulated Capitalism. *As it is, even with the regulation, capitalism is the most efficient economic system the world has ever known; especially when compared to Socialism, Communism or Georgism*, all of which have failed miserably after creating many times more poverty than there was before they were initiated, and losing the only high achievers they had. Whine about capitalism if you wish, but your whines go better with stinky cheese, like limburger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that capitalism is the only economic system ever to have succeeded in reducing poverty is too absurd to bother to refute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny, because you utterly failed to refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL! How is this supposed "efficiency" demonstrated?  The fact is that under both feudalism and socialism populations have experienced mass starvation.  No one has ever starved in a capitalist country because it was unable to produce a sufficient amount of food.  No one in the United States has ever starved unless it's do to a freak accident, like being trapped by snow in Donner pass.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case, then it's far more efficient than socialism or feudalism.  What else is an economic system supposed to other than produce wealth?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that our system of fiat money is no better than counterfeiting.  However, that doesn't explain how capitalism produces wealth.  How do worthless scraps of paper cause cell phones and automobiles to come into existence?
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are "notional dollars?"  I've never heard of any such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't capitalism.  That's the fascist welfare state that morons like you defend and support.  No one who supports in capitalism believes the government should bail out private corporations.  Only welfare state bootlickers endorse such a policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Add to this cruel gimmick a sizable bankroll of extractable natural resources and capitalism can create a lot of wealth fast, at least when it is on a winning streak. The problem is the social effect of where all that new wealth goes and where it doesn't go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The former Soviet Union had far more resources than the United States.  That didn't seem to produce much wealth for them.  On the other hand, Japan has almost no natural resources, and that country is wealthy.  Your theory that wealth is the result of owning natural resources is obviously flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same chauvinists  who proclaim capitalism the only good economic system  tend to the view that the USA is the only good nation and that Christianity is the only true religion.  Wrong on all counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far, everything you have posted is wrong.
Click to expand...

Your entire post is correct and reasonable, but don't expect the socialist clowns to agree, even though it is impossible for them to refute. They won't try to refute, because they can't. I have lived in two countries experimenting with socialism. One was totally dictatorial in a negative sort of way and people lost wealth almost immediately since the government nationalized all private property and only the commissars got any wealth. The other had a benevolent, and the majority of the population sank into poverty  over a longer period. Anecdotes are not proof, but they are personal observations.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Corrections Corporation of America
> 
> 66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the countrys largest private prison company based on number of facilities
> 
> 91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia
> 
> $1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011
> 
> $17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"
> 
> "The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.s second largest private detention company
> 
> $1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
> 65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.
> 
> 65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.s domestic correctional facilities
> 
> $2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
> $2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
> $5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"
> 
> *Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
> What capitalism does best.*
> 
> By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica
> 
> 
> 
> What capitalism does best in the private detention system is to save government capital expenditures while making a reasonable profit in the process. Don't forget, the private prison systems are not the persons making the decisions as to who is incarcerated and for how long. That is the justice system.
> 
> Is there some corruption in the justice system? Yes, there is always some corruption in any government/socialist system; much more so than in most private capitalist systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you supply some evidence that private capitalist systems produce less corruption than government? Start with Wall Street. Then remind yourself how the parasites in the private detention industry, who earn seven figures annually for their "labor", spend millions more lobbying those responsible for deciding who to incarcerate and for how long how much private profit margins will suffer if US incarceration rates return to where they were forty years ago. Socialize the cost and privatize the profit; it's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

There need not be a competition as to which is more corrupt. We can assume both are. But even with some corruption, capitalism gives more people wealth and prosperity, and gives the revenue to government to fund the social programs that upgrade our least citizens to relative poverty (meaning they have less wealth than those higher up on the money train.


----------



## Erand7899

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/united_states.png
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your tale needs five years of backstory.
> Start with everything you know about control accounting fraud in 2004*
> 
> "from Terry Frieden
> CNN Washington Bureau
> Friday, September 17, 2004 Posted: 5:44 PM EDT (2144 GMT)
> 
> "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday of an 'epidemic' of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become 'the next S&L crisis.'
> 
> "Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial ..."
> 
> CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004
> 
> *Have you ever noticed that ignorance and arrogance is deadly?*
Click to expand...


Couldn't be too damn deadly, you are still alive.  We have criminality and fraud in every area of government and finance, and have had it for over a hundred years.  It always gravitates towards where the easy money is.  However, we have laws to deal with criminality and fraud, an FBI to identify and collect evidence on criminality and fraud, and a criminal justice system to deal with criminality and fraud.

Like all bubbles, it collapsed of its own weight, no one brought it down, or caused it to burst.  Like a ponsi scheme, bubbles have to have new money constantly coming in to compensate the profit takers.  The American public ran out of money to buy houses with.  

Much like all liberal/socialists, you spend hours attempting to find some plausable reason for failure, that allows you not to have to examine your core beliefs in how the system ought to work.  The housing bubble was caused by the federal government attempting, once again, to reengineer our society.  It started with the Community Redevopment Act, and progressed through the use of blinders and rose colored glasses, and ended with the originators looking for someone else to blame.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is a huge misstatement. At the time Capitalist were not capable of such investment, even if they could make a fortune off the electric power generated. Since then, many capitalists tried to mimic the TVA but the government controlled at the water ways and even if the capitalist paid for part of the construction, the government maintained control. Those ventures produced huge profits while the collateral effects were control of malaria and the enrichment of the general population because of the power generated. Capitalism almost always trumps government activity as a prosperity for all effort.
> 
> 
> 
> Putting aside the fact that capitalism doesn't even exist without government, any "success" capitalists produce is directly proportional to the capitalists' ability to inflict all negative externalities upon government; it's the same socialize-the-risk-and-privatize-the-profits paradigm that parasites since Adam Smith's time have used to justify gross inequalities in income and wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may put aside anything you wish, but of all the modern economic systems there are or have been, Capitalism is the ONLY ONE WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE GOVERNMENT TO EXIST. What our capitalism needs is regulation, not control; to be in any country which has property rights as a standard option. We have and I approve of the government regulating Capitalism for consumer protection. Your statement, "it's the same socialize-the-risk-and-privatize-the-profits paradigm that parasites since Adam Smith's time have used to justify gross inequalities in income and wealth," is totally warped and nothing but Bullshit. ONLY Capitalism generates sufficient prosperity to allow the government to give aid to the needy. Socialism and Communism do nothing but create more poverty. You have again inserted your head into your excremental orifice.
> 
> *You are totally incapable of giving us a single example of a successful socialist or communist system, and the only countries who use LVT successfully are the few who collect the LVT, and the occupier of the land has exclusive rights to occupy, and to bequeath his rights as he sees fit. Nothing like the Georgist system some ignorant people tout.*
Click to expand...

Do you pay the slightest attention to the shit you post?
Capitalism is, at the same time, the only economic system which does not require government and capitalism needs regulation? Is that right, Sparky? What sort of democratic regulation exists outside of government, corporate courts? No one is denying capitalism generates huge quantities of wealth; what is being denied is capitalism's well proven, inherent tendency to distribute that wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation. (r>g)


----------



## dnsmith35

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What capitalism does best in the private detention system is to save government capital expenditures while making a reasonable profit in the process. Don't forget, the private prison systems are not the persons making the decisions as to who is incarcerated and for how long. That is the justice system.
> 
> Is there some corruption in the justice system? Yes, there is always some corruption in any government/socialist system; much more so than in most private capitalist systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you supply some evidence that private capitalist systems produce less corruption than government? Start with Wall Street. Then remind yourself how the parasites in the private detention industry, who earn seven figures annually for their "labor", spend millions more lobbying those responsible for deciding who to incarcerate and for how long how much private profit margins will suffer if US incarceration rates return to where they were forty years ago. Socialize the cost and privatize the profit; it's not rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you'll have to list what you call "corruption."  I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.
Click to expand...

People like George Phillips, and the occupy wall street movement et all presume Wall Street is corrupt because of the huge amount of money they make, even if it is completely legal and proper. They cannot imagine wealth with out corruption. More the pity!


----------



## bripat9643

dnsmith35 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you supply some evidence that private capitalist systems produce less corruption than government? Start with Wall Street. Then remind yourself how the parasites in the private detention industry, who earn seven figures annually for their "labor", spend millions more lobbying those responsible for deciding who to incarcerate and for how long how much private profit margins will suffer if US incarceration rates return to where they were forty years ago. Socialize the cost and privatize the profit; it's not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you'll have to list what you call "corruption."  I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People like George Phillips, and the occupy wall street movement et all presume Wall Street is corrupt because of the huge amount of money they make, even if it is completely legal and proper. They cannot imagine wealth with out corruption. More the pity!
Click to expand...


it's true in the case of government.  When people are handling other people's money, the temptation to siphon some off is irresistible, and the methods designed to prevent it are a lot less effective.


----------



## georgephillip

Erand7899 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis. Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/united_states.png
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your tale needs five years of backstory.
> Start with everything you know about control accounting fraud in 2004*
> 
> "from Terry Frieden
> CNN Washington Bureau
> Friday, September 17, 2004 Posted: 5:44 PM EDT (2144 GMT)
> 
> "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday of an 'epidemic' of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become 'the next S&L crisis.'
> 
> "Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial ..."
> 
> CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004
> 
> *Have you ever noticed that ignorance and arrogance is deadly?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't be too damn deadly, you are still alive.  We have criminality and fraud in every area of government and finance, and have had it for over a hundred years.  It always gravitates towards where the easy money is.  However, we have laws to deal with criminality and fraud, an FBI to identify and collect evidence on criminality and fraud, and a criminal justice system to deal with criminality and fraud.
> 
> Like all bubbles, it collapsed of its own weight, no one brought it down, or caused it to burst.  Like a ponsi scheme, bubbles have to have new money constantly coming in to compensate the profit takers.  The American public ran out of money to buy houses with.
> 
> Much like all liberal/socialists, you spend hours attempting to find some plausable reason for failure, that allows you not to have to examine your core beliefs in how the system ought to work.  The housing bubble was caused by the federal government attempting, once again, to reengineer our society.  It started with the Community Redevopment Act, and progressed through the use of blinders and rose colored glasses, and ended with the originators looking for someone else to blame.
Click to expand...

Five years before Americans ran out of money to buy houses, the FBI warned of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud", with 80% of it coming from lenders. Like all reactionaries you blame government for the crimes of those who buy and sell politicians like toilet paper. Take off your blinders.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A story is told about an incident that happened during the thirties in New York, on one of the coldest days of the year. The world was in the grip of the Great Depression, and all over the city, the poor were close to starvation.
> 
> It happened that the judge was sitting on the bench that day, hearing a complaint against a woman who was charged with stealing a loaf of bread. She pleaded that her daughter was sick, and her grandchildren were starving, because their father had abandoned the family.
> 
> "But the shopkeeper, whose loaf had been stolen, refused to drop the charge. He insisted that an example be made of the poor old woman, as a deterrent to others.
> 
> "The judge sighed. He was almost reluctant to pass judgment on the woman, yet he had no alternative. 'I'm sorry," he turned to her, "But I can't make any exceptions. The law is the law. I sentence you to a fine of ten dollars, and if you can't pay I must send you to jail for ten days.'
> 
> "The woman was heartbroken, but even as he was passing sentence, the judge was reaching into his pocket for the money to pay off the ten-dollar fine. He took off his hat, tossed the ten-dollar bill into it, and then addressed the crowd:
> 
> "'I am also going to impose a fine of fifty cents on every person here present in this courtroom, for living in a town where a person has to steal bread to save her grandchildren from starvation. Please collect the fines, Mr. Bailiff, in this hat, and pass them across to the defendant.'"
> 
> "And so the accused went home that day from the courtroom with forty-seven dollars and fifty cents  fifty cents of which has been paid by the shame-faced grocery store keeper who had brought the charge against her. And as she left the courtroom, the gathering of petty criminals and New York policemen gave the judge a standing ovation."
> 
> Spirituality & Practice: Spiritual Quotations: Justice, Forgiveness, Stealing, Poverty, Judgment by James N. McCutcheon
> 
> 
> 
> Nice anecdote, I am sure their are millions of similar stories all over the world. But none of it is relevant today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You should get our more:*
> 
> "It was a county formed 19 years before the Civil War.
> But in the towns lying between borders in Owsley, in the coal fields of eastern Kentucky, a portrait of Americans shows a community that appears frozen in time, where many still live without water or electricity.
> 
> "According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the Appalachian county has the lowest median household income in the states - a staggering 41.5 per cent of residents falling below the poverty line.
> 
> Pictured: The modern day poverty of Kentucky where people live with no running water or electricity | Mail Online
> 
> *Rising rates of inequality coupled with austerity responses to the failures of the private sector guarantee the relevance of "anecdotes" from the last time capitalism nearly destroyed itself. *
Click to expand...

Back up Phillips! I tend to agree with you about TVA and your suggesting I don't accept that Appalachia contains more poverty because of capitalism. The fact that capitalists have chosen not to invest in Appalachia only means that people have the right to invest money where they choose to invest it. I also accept that people below the poverty line (which is artificially higher than reasonable) should be assisted. But under no circumstances can you blame that on Capitalism.

All of your examples prove nothing more than some people achieve more than others. But you seem to over look the fact that there are myriad reasons for those failures, and capitalism is not near to the most serious cause.


----------



## Bush92

The "freeist" (sp?) form of government on earth is the one with the least oversight and interaction with the people. Rousseau was right on this. Locke was correct on his theory of the social contract. let the people and the free market blaze their own trail.  Big government = despotism.


----------



## dnsmith35

The real facts about the inequality of income mostly occur in the top .01% of our population with the major disparity occuring in about 400 citizens. Their income can be near 300 million a year, yet the top .01% income  averages out closer to 30K people. The average income of the top .01% of our people is grossly over stated for the average of the total, IE it is skewed by the top 400 incomes to make it appear that more people make $6 million a year than actually do. From all of the crying the left wing extremists do about inequality of income, it is apparent that they don't realize that a huge portion of our capital comes from this group. JFK recognized it and cut the top tax bracket by 21% of all over $200K such that the top bracket cut and the corporate tax cut would help to bring more people into the work force and our economy would expand. Here we have one of our more liberal presidents understanding the balance of economic capital needed for more jobs and prosperity across the board.

I am a liberal socially, but as a student of the economy (my major when I earned my MBA) I recogize that economics SHOULD NOT BE POLITICAL. Politicize our social programs, don't bite the hands which feed those social programs. On this thread we have been discussing the requirements to help our least brethren in the US (most don't want to even consider those who are vastly more poor). Yet I have not seen a single post which discusses how to better take care of our people below the poverty line (IE those who are relatively poor based on having less wealth than those who earn more.)

Recognize too, that there is as much difference between a liberal and a left winger as their is a difference between the top .01% wealthy citizens and the bottom quintile.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> *Point out the immorality in the following:*
> 
> "U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933.
> 
> "The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region.
> 
> "An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley.
> 
> "Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933.
> 
> "The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications."
> 
> CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - History
> 
> *Capitalists are always too busy getting rich to spend money on little things like malaria.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The money to pay for all of that was expropriated from innocent people using guns.  Furthermore, the government expropriated private land where the reservoirs the TVA created were located.
Click to expand...

"Defenders note that TVA is overwhelmingly popular in Tennessee among conservatives and liberals alike, as Barry Goldwater discovered in 1964, when he proposed selling the agency.[3]

"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled TVA to be constitutional in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936).[4] The Court noted that regulating commerce among the states includes regulation of streams and that controlling floods is required for keeping streams navigable. 

"The war powers also authorized the project. 

"The argument before the court was that electricity generation was a by-product of navigation and flood control and therefore could be considered constitutional."

Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Point out the immorality in the following:*
> 
> "U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933.
> 
> "The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region.
> 
> "An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley.
> 
> "Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933.
> 
> "The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications."
> 
> CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - History
> 
> *Capitalists are always too busy getting rich to spend money on little things like malaria.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The money to pay for all of that was expropriated from innocent people using guns.  Furthermore, the government expropriated private land where the reservoirs the TVA created were located.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Defenders note that TVA is overwhelmingly popular in Tennessee among conservatives and liberals alike, as Barry Goldwater discovered in 1964, when he proposed selling the agency.[3]
> 
> "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled TVA to be constitutional in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936).[4] The Court noted that regulating commerce among the states includes regulation of streams and that controlling floods is required for keeping streams navigable.
> 
> "The war powers also authorized the project.
> 
> "The argument before the court was that electricity generation was a by-product of navigation and flood control and therefore could be considered constitutional."
> 
> Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Lynching blacks was also very popular in Tennessee during the same time period.  Are you going to claim that it's moral to lynch black people?

Also, being constitutional and being moral are two different things.  I don't agree that it's constitutional.  I'm not going to get into that discussion.  But even if it was that still wouldn't make it moral.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> The fact that capitalists have chosen not to invest in Appalachia only means that people have the right to invest money where they choose to invest it. I also accept that people below the poverty line (which is artificially higher than reasonable) should be assisted. But* under no circumstances can you blame that on Capitalism.*
> 
> All of your examples prove nothing more than some people achieve more than others. But you seem to over look the fact that there are myriad reasons for those failures, and *capitalism is not near to the most serious cause*.



You believe capitalism plays a small role (at best) in creating the problems of society: namely how property, goods and services are distributed. For if we think about the problem, it is in that what is required to eek out a decent living is not being distributed to those who need it most.

What is capitalism and what role does it actually play in this problem?

Capitalism is often associated with markets. And markets distribute goods according to the highest payer.

We can also think of capitalism as an economic system where a tiny minority decide what to produce, how to produce and what to do with the profits. That extremely tiny sector is called CEO and Board of Directors and major Shareholders. 

So given the fact that a tiny minority is in control of a majority of what society produces and what to do with the profits. It should leave no wonder why those in that position decide to pay themselves  300+ times more than their average paid employee. They deserve it since they decide what society is like.

So how do these two ways of thinking about capitalism relate to our problem (identified above)?

It is easy to see why goods are not distributed to those who need it most. Because they don't have cash to pay the highest price. So poor people are automatically and fundamentally disadvantaged from the start due to the nature of markets.

So the question is why do the poor not have the cash to pay the highest price?

The evidence is clear: being born into a wealthy family affords you opportunities unmatched by those stupid enough to be born into a low income family. Those who escape low income are the exception, not the rule and do not represent the average scenario for a person born into a low income household.

But the question remains: do these families deserve being low income? In some cases one might argue yes. But in most cases? That's really impossible to make a legitimate judgment on that.

And do the uber-wealthy families deserve their wealth? If by deserve you mean paid themselves high salaries from the profit their employees produced, then yes, they deserve it. But what a person thinks they deserve is not the same as what that person actually deserves. No human is so talented as to legitimately earn 80 billion in a lifetime.

And this is precisely what capitalism is. So yes: Capitalism plays a major role in creating the economic reality across the globe whether you think people earned their lot in life or not. Capitalism is the system through which goods are distributed and the economic realities are created, including abject poverty and millions of deaths each year over pennies a day (malaria medicine, basic nets, anti-diarrheal medicine etc.)


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The money to pay for all of that was expropriated from innocent people using guns.  Furthermore, the government expropriated private land where the reservoirs the TVA created were located.
> 
> 
> 
> "Defenders note that TVA is overwhelmingly popular in Tennessee among conservatives and liberals alike, as Barry Goldwater discovered in 1964, when he proposed selling the agency.[3]
> 
> "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled TVA to be constitutional in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936).[4] The Court noted that regulating commerce among the states includes regulation of streams and that controlling floods is required for keeping streams navigable.
> 
> "The war powers also authorized the project.
> 
> "The argument before the court was that electricity generation was a by-product of navigation and flood control and therefore could be considered constitutional."
> 
> Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lynching blacks was also very popular in Tennessee during the same time period.  Are you going to claim that it's moral to lynch black people?
> 
> Also, being constitutional and being moral are two different things.  I don't agree that it's constitutional.  I'm not going to get into that discussion.  But even if it was that still wouldn't make it moral.
Click to expand...

Eliminating malaria and providing electricity to millions of consumers made it moral.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that capitalists have chosen not to invest in Appalachia only means that people have the right to invest money where they choose to invest it. I also accept that people below the poverty line (which is artificially higher than reasonable) should be assisted. But* under no circumstances can you blame that on Capitalism.*
> 
> All of your examples prove nothing more than some people achieve more than others. But you seem to over look the fact that there are myriad reasons for those failures, and *capitalism is not near to the most serious cause*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe capitalism plays a small role (at best) in creating the problems of society: namely how property, goods and services are distributed. For if we think about the problem, it is in that what is required to eek out a decent living is not being distributed to those who need it most.
> 
> What is capitalism and what role does it actually play in this problem?
> 
> Capitalism is often associated with markets. And markets distribute goods according to the highest payer.
> 
> We can also think of capitalism as an economic system where a tiny minority decide what to produce, how to produce and what to do with the profits. That extremely tiny sector is called CEO and Board of Directors and major Shareholders.
> 
> So given the fact that a tiny minority is in control of a majority of what society produces and what to do with the profits. It should leave no wonder why those in that position decide to pay themselves  300+ times more than their average paid employee. They deserve it since they decide what society is like.
> 
> So how do these two ways of thinking about capitalism relate to our problem (identified above)?
> 
> It is easy to see why goods are not distributed to those who need it most. Because they don't have cash to pay the highest price. So poor people are automatically and fundamentally disadvantaged from the start due to the nature of markets.
> 
> So the question is why do the poor not have the cash to pay the highest price?
> 
> The evidence is clear: being born into a wealthy family affords you opportunities unmatched by those stupid enough to be born into a low income family. Those who escape low income are the exception, not the rule and do not represent the average scenario for a person born into a low income household.
> 
> But the question remains: do these families deserve being low income? In some cases one might argue yes. But in most cases? That's really impossible to make a legitimate judgment on that.
> 
> And do the uber-wealthy families deserve their wealth? If by deserve you mean paid themselves high salaries from the profit their employees produced, then yes, they deserve it. But what a person thinks they deserve is not the same as what that person actually deserves. No human is so talented as to legitimately earn 80 billion in a lifetime.
> 
> And this is precisely what capitalism is. So yes: Capitalism plays a major role in creating the economic reality across the globe whether you think people deserve their lot in life or not. Capitalism is the system through which goods are distributed and the economic realities are created, including abject poverty and millions of deaths each year over pennies a day.
Click to expand...

*
We can also think of capitalism as an economic system where a tiny minority decide what to produce*

Which is why the Edsel has been the best selling car in the world, for over 50 years in a row.

*It is easy to see why goods are not distributed to those who need it most. Because they don't have cash to pay the highest price.*

If only someone would come up with a store where people could find a wide variety of products, at lower prices. They could call it WalMart.
I bet they'd make a bunch of money.
Of course, idiots would whine that they made money and that it's not fair.
And then other idiots, we call them liberal politicians, would fight to keep these stores out of poor minority areas because.....because those idiots don't understand markets or economics.

*But what a person thinks they deserve is not the same as what that person actually deserves.*

That's why losers whine about successful people. Because it's easier than building your own success.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that capitalists have chosen not to invest in Appalachia only means that people have the right to invest money where they choose to invest it. I also accept that people below the poverty line (which is artificially higher than reasonable) should be assisted. But* under no circumstances can you blame that on Capitalism.*
> 
> All of your examples prove nothing more than some people achieve more than others. But you seem to over look the fact that there are myriad reasons for those failures, and *capitalism is not near to the most serious cause*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe capitalism plays a small role (at best) in creating the problems of society: namely how property, goods and services are distributed. For if we think about the problem, it is in that what is required to eek out a decent living is not being distributed to those who need it most.
> 
> What is capitalism and what role does it actually play in this problem?
> 
> Capitalism is often associated with markets. And markets distribute goods according to the highest payer.
> 
> We can also think of capitalism as an economic system where a tiny minority decide what to produce, how to produce and what to do with the profits. That extremely tiny sector is called CEO and Board of Directors and major Shareholders.
> 
> So given the fact that a tiny minority is in control of a majority of what society produces and what to do with the profits. It should leave no wonder why those in that position decide to pay themselves  300+ times more than their average paid employee. They deserve it since they decide what society is like.
> 
> So how do these two ways of thinking about capitalism relate to our problem (identified above)?
> 
> It is easy to see why goods are not distributed to those who need it most. Because they don't have cash to pay the highest price. So poor people are automatically and fundamentally disadvantaged from the start due to the nature of markets.
> 
> So the question is why do the poor not have the cash to pay the highest price?
> 
> The evidence is clear: being born into a wealthy family affords you opportunities unmatched by those stupid enough to be born into a low income family. Those who escape low income are the exception, not the rule and do not represent the average scenario for a person born into a low income household.
> 
> But the question remains: do these families deserve being low income? In some cases one might argue yes. But in most cases? That's really impossible to make a legitimate judgment on that.
> 
> And do the uber-wealthy families deserve their wealth? If by deserve you mean paid themselves high salaries from the profit their employees produced, then yes, they deserve it. But what a person thinks they deserve is not the same as what that person actually deserves. No human is so talented as to legitimately earn 80 billion in a lifetime.
> 
> And this is precisely what capitalism is. So yes: Capitalism plays a major role in creating the economic reality across the globe whether you think people earned their lot in life or not. Capitalism is the system through which goods are distributed and the economic realities are created, including abject poverty and millions of deaths each year over pennies a day (malaria medicine, basic nets, anti-diarrheal medicine etc.)
Click to expand...


*Capitalism is the system through which goods are distributed *

And socialism is the system through which no goods are distributed.

Hey, did you hear the one about the socialist paradise (Venezuela) with the toilet paper shortage.
I'm glad they don't have mean capitalists down there making money by selling tp.
Because that would be bad.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What capitalism does best in the private detention system is to save government capital expenditures while making a reasonable profit in the process. Don't forget, the private prison systems are not the persons making the decisions as to who is incarcerated and for how long. That is the justice system.
> 
> Is there some corruption in the justice system? Yes, there is always some corruption in any government/socialist system; much more so than in most private capitalist systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you supply some evidence that private capitalist systems produce less corruption than government? Start with Wall Street. Then remind yourself how the parasites in the private detention industry, who earn seven figures annually for their "labor", spend millions more lobbying those responsible for deciding who to incarcerate and for how long how much private profit margins will suffer if US incarceration rates return to where they were forty years ago. Socialize the cost and privatize the profit; it's not rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you'll have to list what you call "corruption."  I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.
Click to expand...

"If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the financial system is corrupt. 

"It is generally assumed that just like most politicians, most big bankers are corrupt by nature.

"But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea just how corrupt the U.S. financial system has become.

11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Defenders note that TVA is overwhelmingly popular in Tennessee among conservatives and liberals alike, as Barry Goldwater discovered in 1964, when he proposed selling the agency.[3]
> 
> "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled TVA to be constitutional in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936).[4] The Court noted that regulating commerce among the states includes regulation of streams and that controlling floods is required for keeping streams navigable.
> 
> "The war powers also authorized the project.
> 
> "The argument before the court was that electricity generation was a by-product of navigation and flood control and therefore could be considered constitutional."
> 
> Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lynching blacks was also very popular in Tennessee during the same time period.  Are you going to claim that it's moral to lynch black people?
> 
> Also, being constitutional and being moral are two different things.  I don't agree that it's constitutional.  I'm not going to get into that discussion.  But even if it was that still wouldn't make it moral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminating malaria and providing electricity to millions of consumers made it moral.
Click to expand...


So if I murdered a million people and took all their money and then used it to build a damn to produce electricity, it would be moral?

Is that really what you're trying to say?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you supply some evidence that private capitalist systems produce less corruption than government? Start with Wall Street. Then remind yourself how the parasites in the private detention industry, who earn seven figures annually for their "labor", spend millions more lobbying those responsible for deciding who to incarcerate and for how long how much private profit margins will suffer if US incarceration rates return to where they were forty years ago. Socialize the cost and privatize the profit; it's not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you'll have to list what you call "corruption."  I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the financial system is corrupt.
Click to expand...


Opinions are like assholes:  everyone's got one, and they all stink.  

It doesn't matter what all the ignorant rubes on the street believe.  If there's corruption, it's a fact of reality that can be demonstrated, or it isn't.  If you don't have proof of this "corruption," then your claim is horseshit.



georgephillip said:


> "It is generally assumed that just like most politicians, most big bankers are corrupt by nature.
> 
> "But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea just how corrupt the U.S. financial system has become.
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider



Most things that are "generally assumed" are pure horseshit.  You obviously have no evidence of any "corruption."


----------



## dnsmith35

bripat9643 said:


> That isn't capitalism.  That's the fascist welfare state that morons like you defend and support.  No one who supports in capitalism believes the government should bail out private corporations.  Only welfare state bootlickers endorse such a policy.


Have you ever thought about the real difference between Fascism and Socialism? It isn't just the difference between government ownership and government control, which existed in Fascist states like Germany and Italy during the 30s and 40s. The real difference in the overt attempts to control other states by conquering them. Even the Soviets did not overtly go out of their sphere to conquer other countries. Both were socialist by the definition of socialism. 

Dictionary


so&#8226;cial&#8226;ism&#712;so&#650; &#643;&#601;&#716;l&#618;z &#601;m(n.)
1.
a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government.

2.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.​



Fishlore said:


> Add to this cruel gimmick a sizable bankroll of extractable natural resources and capitalism can create a lot of wealth fast, at least when it is on a winning streak. The problem is the social effect of where all that new wealth goes and where it doesn't go.


Capitalism is not a social program, but it does produce sufficient wealth and prosperity for the government to fund social programs for the needy, something neither socialism ror communism can do, and especially a state using LVT as its principle tax..  





> Britpal -
> 
> The former Soviet Union had far more resources than the United States.  That didn't seem to produce much wealth for them.  On the other hand, Japan has almost no natural resources, and that country is wealthy.  Your theory that wealth is the result of owning natural resources is obviously flawed.


Correct.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/united_states.png
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your tale needs five years of backstory.
> Start with everything you know about control accounting fraud in 2004*
> 
> "from Terry Frieden
> CNN Washington Bureau
> Friday, September 17, 2004 Posted: 5:44 PM EDT (2144 GMT)
> 
> "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday of an 'epidemic' of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become 'the next S&L crisis.'
> 
> "Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial ..."
> 
> CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004
> 
> *Have you ever noticed that ignorance and arrogance is deadly?*
Click to expand...

Have you noticed that in spite of the fraud, it was the rising price to value which killed the housing industry? Did the fraud help? I suspect it did, but not to the degree you suggest.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you'll have to list what you call "corruption."  I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.
> 
> 
> 
> "If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the financial system is corrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes:  everyone's got one, and they all stink.
> 
> It doesn't matter what all the ignorant rubes on the street believe.  If there's corruption, it's a fact of reality that can be demonstrated, or it isn't.  If you don't have proof of this "corruption," then your claim is horseshit.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It is generally assumed that just like most politicians, most big bankers are corrupt by nature.
> 
> "But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea just how corrupt the U.S. financial system has become.
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most things that are "generally assumed" are pure horseshit.  You obviously have no evidence of any "corruption."
Click to expand...

"Goldman Sachs is denying that it 'bet against its clients' when it changed its position in the housing market in 2007.  

"But the reality is that is exactly when they did and a lot of things that are even worse than that.  

"The corruption at Goldman Sachs is very deep and very entrenched, but they will never be fully investigated because they have such close ties to the U.S. government."

11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the financial system is corrupt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are like assholes:  everyone's got one, and they all stink.
> 
> It doesn't matter what all the ignorant rubes on the street believe.  If there's corruption, it's a fact of reality that can be demonstrated, or it isn't.  If you don't have proof of this "corruption," then your claim is horseshit.
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It is generally assumed that just like most politicians, most big bankers are corrupt by nature.
> 
> "But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea just how corrupt the U.S. financial system has become.
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most things that are "generally assumed" are pure horseshit.  You obviously have no evidence of any "corruption."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Goldman Sachs is denying that it 'bet against its clients' when it changed its position in the housing market in 2007.
> 
> "But the reality is that is exactly when they did and a lot of things that are even worse than that.
> 
> "The corruption at Goldman Sachs is very deep and very entrenched, but they will never be fully investigated because they have such close ties to the U.S. government."
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
Click to expand...


*"Goldman Sachs is denying that it 'bet against its clients' when it changed its position in the housing market in 2007. *

Is Goldman required to be on the same side of the market as their clients?

If that's the case, they can never sell any product to a customer.
They can never take a position or create a synthetic security to facilitate a customer trade.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you supply some evidence that private capitalist systems produce less corruption than government? Start with Wall Street. Then remind yourself how the parasites in the private detention industry, who earn seven figures annually for their "labor", spend millions more lobbying those responsible for deciding who to incarcerate and for how long how much private profit margins will suffer if US incarceration rates return to where they were forty years ago. Socialize the cost and privatize the profit; it's not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you'll have to list what you call "corruption."  I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the financial system is corrupt.
> 
> "It is generally assumed that just like most politicians, most big bankers are corrupt by nature.
> 
> "But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea just how corrupt the U.S. financial system has become.
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
Click to expand...


Thanks for the Michael Snyder link.

He's comedy gold. GOLD Jerry!


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> Capitalism is defined by the idea that everyone pursuing their own interests leads to the common good of all.
> 
> Society exists not merely for living but for living well in communities. Capitalism says it too aims for living well. But upon learning of the facts, not many Americans live well (let alone nations in which imperialist capitalist policy has destroyed the chance for decent survival). Nearly 60% of Americans will live on or below the poverty line for over a year. The average household debt is between 125%-150% of household income.


Yet a higher % of people live better in the US than in any other country with a type of economic system not capitalist. Don't forget too, that the government poverty line is arbitrary and takes people from poverty to relative poverty, and those people live better than 4 or 5 billion people in the 3rd world. Capitalism did that for us.



> Interest payments on past debt reduce the income that households have to spend and maintain a certain standard of living. An income shock (such as a bout of unemployment, the expenses of having a new baby, or a health problem) can lead families to resort to borrowing, which reduces household living standards in the future. Although future income may rise, the economic circumstances of the family will not improve if most of this extra income must pay interest in order to maintain past debt. This problem is ignored in standard measures of income equality, which take no account of the income lost in order to make interest payments on past consumption debt. They measure differences in personal or disposable income across a large population, but they do not measure differences in living standards, which is what inequality measures are supposed to do.
> 
> A contemporary example illustrates this problem. The cost of a college education has
> increased by more than any other household spending category over the past two decades
> (Newfield 2008). This increase is taken into account in government measures of inflation; so higher college costs lead to lower real household living standards in reported government data.


I have never known a person who has ignored such things, even I, when earning minimum wage 59 years ago, without health care insurance, did not ignore the issue. That is when I made it my business to improve my lot. Sure, I went into debt, such goes life. As to college costs, the relative poor has it all over the person in the middle class when it comes to getting student aid. A personal example: When I was just in the middle of my military career, we had 5 members of my family in college; my wife, 3 of my children, and I were all in college at the same time. The grants paid for everything. So don't go telling those of us who have experienced it how it works. None of that diatribe is relevant to capitalism, except that it was capitalism which funded the social programs which helped us and all other have nots in our country.





> For those arguing capitalism makes everyone better off, they must demonstrate this in relative and real terms. People are better off in many cases, but those are relative terms (compared to say 1600s). But in real terms, capitalism has ceased providing the good life for the average citizen. But if capitalism has ceased working for the average person, that means it isn't working because society cannot neglect it's most common constituent.


You miss the point. The only measurement we need to use is the absolute fact, that today, even many of the people under the poverty line, those relative poor, live better than the lower middle class did 60 years ago. That is the success of capitalism funding social programs. None of your links, nor your comments prove anything to the contrary.





> Indeed, American's have picked up on this and have reconfigured "The American Dream."
> 
> The 2011 MetLife Study of the American Dream reflects an uncertain era where
> Americans no longer seek to become wealthy; rather, they want to achieve a sense of
> financial security that allows them to live a sustainable lifestyle.
> 
> This has led to new thinking about what the American Dream means, and to a portrayal
> of Americans as resilient and adaptive. And while achieving the Dream remains
> important  particularly to younger Americans  how it is achieved has changed.


I don't ever remember anyone believing that the American Dream was to become wealthy, even if we would like to have done so. "to achieve a sense of
financial security that allows them to live a sustainable lifestyle." is my understanding of what has been the "American Dream" during my 78 years of life. But even then, the achieving that lifestyle required personal responsible, ambition, motivation, and hard work.





> emerging trends that show Americans are less concerned with material issues, and that lifes traditional markers of success  getting married, buying a house, having a family, building wealth  do not matter as much today. Rather, achieving a sense of personal fulfillment is more important toward realizing the American Dream than accumulating material wealth.
> This is a significant shift, as it reflects that Americans value close relationships with
> family and friends as more important than money and that being content with what
> they have and balancing work/life issues are more important than living large.
> Today, material positions matter less and personal relationships matter more.
> And for younger generations, personal achievement is the new opportunity for
> all. Though they show a greater tendency toward this vision of the Dream than their
> older counterparts, across generations, less than half of Americans say they need any
> of the traditional Dream markers to achieve it.


Agreed, and that is how it should be.





> https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/gbms/studies/metlife-2011-american-dream-report.pdf
> 
> Why have Americans ceased believing in the traditional values of success and wealth? Because it genuinely is not available and thus in order to remain sane, one adapts to personal achievement, including the choice to live out of your car because it's the only way you can attain personal dreams.
> 
> Living in Your Car: No Longer Just for Bums - Businessweek
> 
> Capitalism generates wealth. No one denies that. Who makes the decisions about that wealth are not those who create it, namely the workers. The workers create the surplus for the capitalists and the capitalists decide to give themselves astronomical pay. This is created an obvious division between Americans and is being played out. As the inequality widens, so does the stress on capitalism.
> 
> Capitalism is not the end of history and it will be abolished. The matter is when, not if. The common good has been left in the dust and the world is waking up to it. Those arguing for capitalism for not perceptive enough to see this.
> 
> Why capitalism is a failure (because it neglects the common good, the average person):


Ah, so we start to see your issues with this statement, "Capitalism generates wealth. No one denies that. Who makes the decisions about that wealth are not those who create it, namely the workers." What a pity fully out dated way to think. During the agrarian era, individuals did the production, and that part of his production which exceeded his needs was "capital." The day that production turned to money as capital, creating and building an industry with inventiveness, the old excess production no longer was "capital." When to better themselves, people went into the city to get JOBS, provided to them by CAPITAL, not only did they better their lifestyle, they then became wage earners, not capital builders. Labor is no longer capital any more than their production. The earn their wage, nothing more. Capitalism will continue to be the most common economic system in free countries. The likely hood of it ever be abolished is zero to none. The reason being, no other economic system creates the per capita wealth to equal capitalism. That is a socialist dream, which if allowed to fruition will cost everyone but the commissars to lose prosperity. I for one do not ever want to go back to an agrarian society, and I don't ever want to live in a socialist country again. I do not like the dictatorship socialism requires. You cannot give us a single example of a socialist experiment which lasted for half the length of our capitalist society.

*"From each to his ability and to each his needs" cannot excel in a free society.*


----------



## dnsmith35

As a liberal, I subscribe to the belief that we should, within our means, provide all our people good public education and/or job training. We should have universal medical care to prevent the potential of traumatic losses because of health. We need to provide for the least of our citizens the assistance they need to live in dignity. Having lived in poverty, below that which or arbitrary poverty line has selected, I know from personal experience that is not real poverty. As a liberal, I believe in helping the most needy first. I am not a liberal with borders, therefore if the most needy is living in the slums of India, I will try to assist them first. I recognize that the "American Dream" is but a potential, in which the ability with ambition, motivation, personal responsibility and hard work it is made possible. There has never been a time in our history where that was considered the path to wealth, even though such a thing was possible.

I abhor the left wing extremists who believe some union worker in Detroit deserves to maintain the high income they have, rather than to keep a person elsewhere from starving. I have nothing against high wages for those who earn it, but I see no reason to protect it at the expense of the truly poor, no matter where they may be.

As a liberal, and a humanist, I cannot imagine that any other thinking could be so right.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you supply some evidence that private capitalist systems produce less corruption than government? Start with Wall Street. Then remind yourself how the parasites in the private detention industry, who earn seven figures annually for their "labor", spend millions more lobbying those responsible for deciding who to incarcerate and for how long how much private profit margins will suffer if US incarceration rates return to where they were forty years ago. Socialize the cost and privatize the profit; it's not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you'll have to list what you call "corruption."  I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the financial system is corrupt.
> 
> "It is generally assumed that just like most politicians, most big bankers are corrupt by nature.
> 
> "But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea just how corrupt the U.S. financial system has become.
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
Click to expand...


People believing the banking system is corrupt, does not make it so. Opinions without data is nothing but junk.

What is actually corrupt is the link to BusinessInsider.com, which only republished an article from End Of The American Dream.com, a less than first, or second, or third quality source. So then, here are those 11 examples of recent corruption on Wall Street:

The following are 11 examples of just how insanely corrupt the U.S. financial system has become&#8230;.

People believing the banking system is corrupt, does not make it so. Opinions without data is nothing but junk.

What is actually corrupt is the link to BusinessInsider.com, which only republished an article from End Of The American Dream.com, a less than first, or second, or third quality source. So then, here are those 11 examples of recent corruption on Wall Street:

The following are 11 examples of just how insanely corrupt the U.S. financial system has become&#8230;.

#1) An industry insider &#8221;whistle blower&#8221; has come forward with &#8220;smoking gun&#8221; evidence that major financial institutions have been openly and blatantly manipulating the price of gold and silver.  But so far those who are supposed to be regulating these firms have been sitting back and doing nothing about it.[A problem, but not corruption.]

#2) It has also now come out that most &#8220;gold&#8221; that is traded on the markets is not backed by the actual metal itself.  For years, most people have assumed that the London Bullion Market Association, the world&#8217;s largest gold market, had actual gold to back up the massive &#8220;gold deposits&#8221; at the major LBMA banks.  But that is not the truth at all.  Industry insiders are now revealing that LBMA banks actually have approximately a hundred times more gold deposits than actual gold bullion.  When most people think they are buying gold what they are actually buying is pieces of paper that say that they own gold.  Meanwhile they are being charged huge storage fees to store the gold. [A problem, but not corruption.]

#3) The guy who helped bring down AIG is going to get off scott-free and will be able to keep the millions in profits that he made in the process.  It must be nice to be him. [A problem, but not corruption.]

#4) Goldman Sachs is denying that it &#8220;bet against its clients&#8221; when it changed its position in the housing market in 2007.  But the reality is that is exactly when they did and a lot of things that are even worse than that.  The corruption at Goldman Sachs is very deep and very entrenched, but they will never be fully investigated because they have such close ties to the U.S. government.[A problem, but not corruption.]

#5) It is being *alleged* that the biggest banks in the United States are ripping off American cities with the same predatory deals that brought down the financial system of Greece.  Of course the big banks will rip off just about anyone these days if they think they can get away with it.[An unsupported opinion, but not corruption.]

#6) Several major Wall Street banks are being*accused* of using accounting techniques similar to those utilized by Lehman Brothers in its final days to mask the size of their balance sheets at the end of reporting periods.  

#7) The Federal Reserve bought up the vast majority of U.S. government debt in 2009.  Many analysts claim that this is the same as &#8220;printing money out of thin air&#8221;, while others are openly calling it a Ponzi scheme.[More unsupported opinions, but not corruption.]

#8) It turns out that the Federal Reserve holds credit-default swaps on the debt of Florida schools, and on debt owed by the states of California and Nevada. So the Federal Reserve would profit if one of those states defaulted on its debt.  Talk about a conflict of interest.[A problem, but not corruption.]

#9) Executives at many of the firms that received large amounts of money during the Wall Street bailouts are being lavished with record bonuses as millions of other average Americans are suffering intensely.  Even the CEOs of bailed-out regional banks are getting big raises.[A problem, but not corruption.]

#10) We may not know much about what is going on inside some of these banks, but they sure do know a lot about us.  For example, it has been revealed that the data mining operations of the major credit card companies are becoming so sophisticated that they can actually predict how likely you are to get a divorce.[A POSSIBLE problem, but not corruption.]

#11) But the biggest financial fraud of all is being committed against the American people.  The exploding U.S. national debt threatens to destroy the financial future of literally generations of Americans.  It is obscenely immoral to saddle our children and our grandchildren with the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world.  If they get the chance, future generations of Americans will look back and curse this generation for what we have done to them. [AGREED, VERY BAD, BUT not corruption, just excessive spending.]​


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you'll have to list what you call "corruption."  I'm not aware of any corruption on Wall Street.
> 
> 
> 
> "If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the financial system is corrupt.
> 
> "It is generally assumed that just like most politicians, most big bankers are corrupt by nature.
> 
> "But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea just how corrupt the U.S. financial system has become.
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the Michael Snyder link.
> 
> He's comedy gold. GOLD Jerry!
Click to expand...

*Speaking of GOLD:*

"It has also now come out that most 'gold' that is traded on the markets is not backed by the actual metal itself.  For years, most people have assumed that the London Bullion Market Association, the world's largest gold market, had actual gold to back up the massive 'gold deposits' at the major LBMA banks.  But that is not the truth at all."  

11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider


----------



## gnarlylove

"We find that during the labor market downturn (measured from January 2008 to February 2010), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage and higher-wage industries. By contrast, during the recovery (measured from February 2010 to February 2014), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage industries. Specifically:

Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth.

Today, there are nearly two million fewer jobs in mid- and higher-wage industries than there were before the recession took hold, while there are 1.85 million more jobs in lower-wage industries."






National Employment Law Project | Low Wage Recovery

The fateful capitalist system is doing its personal best to redistribute wealth upwards more so by driving down wages. Success for the .1%. Failure and misery for 40% of the population.


----------



## bripat9643

dnsmith35 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't capitalism.  That's the fascist welfare state that morons like you defend and support.  No one who supports in capitalism believes the government should bail out private corporations.  Only welfare state bootlickers endorse such a policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever thought about the real difference between Fascism and Socialism? It isn't just the difference between government ownership and government control, which existed in Fascist states like Germany and Italy during the 30s and 40s. The real difference in the overt attempts to control other states by conquering them. Even the Soviets did not overtly go out of their sphere to conquer other countries.
Click to expand...


You mean the Soviets didn't try to invade Finland?  The Soviets didn't participate in carving up Poland?  Also, it's a little known fact that immediately after the revolution, the USSR tried to invade Poland.  They were soundly thrashed, which is the only reason Poland remained independent until 1939.

It appears to me that there's hardly any difference between the communists and the Nazis.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the financial system is corrupt.
> 
> "It is generally assumed that just like most politicians, most big bankers are corrupt by nature.
> 
> "But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea just how corrupt the U.S. financial system has become.
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the Michael Snyder link.
> 
> He's comedy gold. GOLD Jerry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Speaking of GOLD:*
> 
> "It has also now come out that most 'gold' that is traded on the markets is not backed by the actual metal itself.  For years, most people have assumed that the London Bullion Market Association, the world's largest gold market, had actual gold to back up the massive 'gold deposits' at the major LBMA banks.  But that is not the truth at all."
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
Click to expand...


That's called fraud.  Traders were led to believe they were purchasing actual gold.  If they were lied to, then someone should go to jail.

Also, the "London Bullion Market Assoc" isn't on Wall Street.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the financial system is corrupt.
> 
> "It is generally assumed that just like most politicians, most big bankers are corrupt by nature.
> 
> "But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea just how corrupt the U.S. financial system has become.
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the Michael Snyder link.
> 
> He's comedy gold. GOLD Jerry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Speaking of GOLD:*
> 
> "It has also now come out that most 'gold' that is traded on the markets is not backed by the actual metal itself.  For years, most people have assumed that the London Bullion Market Association, the world's largest gold market, had actual gold to back up the massive 'gold deposits' at the major LBMA banks.  But that is not the truth at all."
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
Click to expand...


*"It has also now come out that most 'gold' that is traded on the markets is not backed by the actual metal itself.*

Futures trades, of all kinds, have always dwarfed the actual amount of the underlying. 
So what?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the financial system is corrupt.
> 
> "It is generally assumed that just like most politicians, most big bankers are corrupt by nature.
> 
> "But the truth is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea just how corrupt the U.S. financial system has become.
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the Michael Snyder link.
> 
> He's comedy gold. GOLD Jerry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Speaking of GOLD:*
> 
> "It has also now come out that most 'gold' that is traded on the markets is not backed by the actual metal itself.  For years, most people have assumed that the London Bullion Market Association, the world's largest gold market, had actual gold to back up the massive 'gold deposits' at the major LBMA banks.  But that is not the truth at all."
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
Click to expand...

Yet you are still trying to fool us into believing that those 11 issues are actually corruption and that Michael Snyder managed to write it for Businessinsider.com. Time to come clean George.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> "We find that during the labor market downturn (measured from January 2008 to February 2010), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage and higher-wage industries. By contrast, during the recovery (measured from February 2010 to February 2014), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage industries. Specifically:
> 
> Lower-wage industries constituted 22 percent of recession losses, but 44 percent of recovery growth.
> Mid-wage industries constituted 37 percent of recession losses, but only 26 percent of recovery growth.
> Higher-wage industries constituted 41 percent of recession losses, and 30 percent of recovery growth.
> 
> Today, there are nearly two million fewer jobs in mid- and higher-wage industries than there were before the recession took hold, while there are 1.85 million more jobs in lower-wage industries."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> National Employment Law Project | Low Wage Recovery
> 
> The fateful capitalist system is doing its personal best to redistribute wealth upwards more so by driving down wages. Success for the .1%. Failure and misery for 40% of the population.


So, because of the housing crash recession, and people stopped buying from Union built goods, some of our elite union workers lost their jobs. I do feel sorry for them, but it is certainly not misery for 40% our population, many of which are still earning in the middle class and a few dropped to the 3rd quintile and high 2nd quintile. Misery can be defined as someone who does not have a decent place to live and food to eat. Losing pay does not mean misery.

But yes, not all industries have fully recovered, so this is true, "Today, there are nearly two million fewer jobs in mid- and higher-wage industries than there were before the recession took hold, while there are 1.85 million more jobs in lower-wage industries." However, recognizing that the 1.85 new jobs were lower wage jobs means that .529% of our citizens lost wages, not 40% of our citizens, and have not fully recovered. From your source "In fact, high-wage industries have only accounted for 30 percent of employment growth over the past four years. Middle-wage jobs are also declining&#8211; they accounted for 37 percent of losses but only 26 percent of gains." When you say 40% of our higher paying jobs, you are actually talking about the % of workers losing wage, not of our population; and 37% of those middle-wage jobs lost  but gaining 26% back means that only 11% of middle wage workers lost some wage. So let's break this down. *3,579,000 lost jobs from higher wage industries*, and only *2,603,000 got them back at the same wage industries *leaving *970,000 getting lower paying jobs*. *3,240,000 lost midwage jobs and only 2,282,000 got them back leaving 558,000 getting lower paying jobs*. *And slightly less than 2,000,000 got lower wage industry jobs. That means that1,528,000 million people got lower paying jobs, which is amounts to .00452% of our population have not recovered full wage jobs like they lost. Wow! I feel sorry for them, but that looks like a pretty good recovery to me, as it does to Obama, which he is touting full speed ahead.

They are still many times better off than over 5 billion of our world citizens. You really should at least TRY to stay honest.*


----------



## dnsmith35

bripat9643 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't capitalism.  That's the fascist welfare state that morons like you defend and support.  No one who supports in capitalism believes the government should bail out private corporations.  Only welfare state bootlickers endorse such a policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever thought about the real difference between Fascism and Socialism? It isn't just the difference between government ownership and government control, which existed in Fascist states like Germany and Italy during the 30s and 40s. The real difference in the overt attempts to control other states by conquering them. Even the Soviets did not overtly go out of their sphere to conquer other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the Soviets didn't try to invade Finland?  The Soviets didn't participate in carving up Poland?  Also, it's a little known fact that immediately after the revolution, the USSR tried to invade Poland.  They were soundly thrashed, which is the only reason Poland remained independent until 1939.
> 
> It appears to me that there's hardly any difference between the communists and the Nazis.
Click to expand...

You are taking liberties with what I said. The Eastern block was not conquered by war. It was occupied after WWII. Finland was won in war from Sweden by Russia in 1807, long before the Communists took over. I am sure the Swedes were unhappy about losing 1/3 of their country.

Now, back to my point, Fascism and Socialism/Communism are different mostly by the fact that Fascism caused war all over Europe. Most of Russia's acquisition came about by occupation. If you trace the history of the Russian invasion of Poland, you will note it occurred over 2 weeks after Germany invaded Poland, and the Russians were effectively taking over half of Poland as a pre-emptory defense of Russia by ceding half of Poland to the Germans. They believed it would stop Germany from attacking Russia.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> They are still many times better off than over 5 billion of our world citizens.



Next time I meet my friend, a low-income single mother, I'll be sure to put food on her table and terminate her debts by telling her how much better her life is given she doesn't live in Sierra Leone or Bangladesh. Yeah, that will really make her laugh.

Reality-check: no one has been or ever will be helped by relative comparisons. It does not matter one fucking bit how her life compares to the worst possible scenario. What fucking matters is her life, here and now! Each human being matters as much as she does. And in a nation with unprecedented wealth, enough to create a truly extraordinary society, capitalism distributes the wealth to the top with such reckless abandon that society wouldn't function if there was no massive re-distribution programs. Why not distribute it right the first time?


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> .......





dnsmith35 said:


> They are still many times better off than over 5 billion of our world citizens.





> Next time I meet my friend, a low-income single mother, I'll be sure to put food on her table and terminate her debts by telling her how much better her life is given she doesn't live in Sierra Leone or Bangladesh. Yeah, that will really make her laugh.


There are always specific people who are losers, but the facts are spread over the whole, and overall there has been a good recovery.





> Reality-check: no one has been or ever will be helped by relative comparisons. It does not matter one fucking bit how her life compares to the worst possible scenario. What fucking matters is her life, here and now! Each human being matters as much as she does. And in a nation with unprecedented wealth, enough to create a truly extraordinary society, capitalism distributes the wealth to the top with such reckless abandon that society wouldn't function if there was no massive re-distribution programs. Why not distribute it right the first time?


Some more of your left wing extremist bullshit. Some people will fail no matter what. It just so happens in the US WE DO HAVE MASSIVE REDISTRIBUTION social programs which is funded because we have a prosperity driving capitalist economic system. If that woman was in India she would be begging in the street or squatting on the side of the road breaking big rocks into small ones for barely enough to buy one meal. Do I feel sorry for that hypothetical single mother? Of course I do, but others have less and deserve to be helped first. But if she lived in a true socialist economy she would have been poor and to a more egregious degree.

Your biggest problem is you have no realistic priority sense. You can't get away from the fact that I agree with helping that theoretical single mother, with government safety net programs, and if she makes to much to get that help, she doesn't need it.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> but the facts are spread over the whole, and overall there has been a good recovery.



"Overall good recovery" is true if you include the top .1% in your analysis. However, considering the .1% skews the recovery to appear good. But for the majority, they lost (or their family member lost) good paying jobs and find themselves either unemployed or are employed in lower paying jobs or in part-time work that isn't meeting their needs. Moreover, the chances of an unemployed person becoming employed each month is 11%.






Are the Long-Term Unemployed on the Margins of the Labor Market?

The trends in your thinking fails to analyze the real picture but you are not to blame for this because you get your complete understanding from mainstream media. You incessantly use generalizations and relative comparisons to distract from the reality that the recovery is only at the top, and is not spread among the people, despite massive re-distribution. Doesn't that mean the re-distribution is not working so well?


It's evident you don't live or volunteer in capitalism's sacrifice zones, which are growing each and every day. It's also evident that you only listen to the mainstream media and have little to no clue about the real people who live in this "recovery." If you gave two shits about people, you wouldn't dismiss their existence as losers. Instead, if you really cared you would learn about their life before making such a nefarious generalization.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the Michael Snyder link.
> 
> He's comedy gold. GOLD Jerry!
> 
> 
> 
> *Speaking of GOLD:*
> 
> "It has also now come out that most 'gold' that is traded on the markets is not backed by the actual metal itself.  For years, most people have assumed that the London Bullion Market Association, the world's largest gold market, had actual gold to back up the massive 'gold deposits' at the major LBMA banks.  But that is not the truth at all."
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you are still trying to fool us into believing that those 11 issues are actually corruption and that Michael Snyder managed to write it for Businessinsider.com. Time to come clean George.
Click to expand...

Let's make sure we're talking about the same Michael Snyder.
Here's mine:

Michael Snyder - Business Insider


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Speaking of GOLD:*
> 
> "It has also now come out that most 'gold' that is traded on the markets is not backed by the actual metal itself.  For years, most people have assumed that the London Bullion Market Association, the world's largest gold market, had actual gold to back up the massive 'gold deposits' at the major LBMA banks.  But that is not the truth at all."
> 
> 11 Examples Of Recent Corruption On Wall Street - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you are still trying to fool us into believing that those 11 issues are actually corruption and that Michael Snyder managed to write it for Businessinsider.com. Time to come clean George.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's make sure we're talking about the same Michael Snyder.
> Here's mine:
> 
> Michael Snyder - Business Insider
Click to expand...

I used your link which showed that Business Insider actually wrote that article for another less prestigious publication. You lose!


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> ......





dnsmith35 said:


> but the facts are spread over the whole, and overall there has been a good recovery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Overall good recovery" is true if you include the top .1% in your analysis. However, considering the .1% skews the recovery to appear good. But for the majority, they lost (or their family member lost) good paying jobs and find themselves either unemployed or are employed in lower paying jobs or in part-time work that isn't meeting their needs. Moreover, the chances of an unemployed person becoming employed each month is 11%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Long-Term Unemployed on the Margins of the Labor Market?
> 
> The trends in your thinking fails to analyze the real picture but you are not to blame for this because you get your complete understanding from mainstream media.
> 
> 
> 
> Horse Puckey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You incessantly use generalizations and relative comparisons to distract from the reality that the recovery is only at the top, and is not spread among the people, despite massive re-distribution. Doesn't that mean the re-distribution is not working so well?
> 
> 
> It's evident you don't live or volunteer in capitalism's sacrifice zones, which are growing each and every day. It's also evident that you only listen to the mainstream media and have little to no clue about the real people who live in this "recovery." If you gave two shits about people, you wouldn't dismiss their existence as losers. Instead, if you really cared you would learn about their life before making such a nefarious generalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to people, individuals of all walks of life, I use more than the media of any kind. News is a different matter, I learn what is going on by reading an article and throwing out ALL OF THE COMENTARY. My experience with the media is, once you throw out the editorial commentary, they all say basically the same thing. I also read the studies, the manner in which it was conducted, look at the data and summarize it myself since even with data, most still skew it in the direction of the opinion they want to show. I shall outline below how I think about the issue. I even accept the Brookings Institute studies to show the correct data. From that and my personal experiences I formulate my own course of action. You seem to still fling your self at your pet groups.
> 
> Let me explain it to you with an anecdote since you obviously are not smart enough to understand the tables and graphs I have posted. In addition, I will keep it local instead of including the destitute people all over the world for which you have cleary told us you have no compassion.
> 
> Mister A makes over $400,000 a year. We both recognize he needs no help.
> 
> Mister B makes about $60,000 a year, about what a union auto worker earns in wage.
> 
> Mister C makes $30,000 a year, and based on dependencies is just under the poverty line.
> 
> Mister D has no job, cannot get government assistance because he has no address. He has mental health problems and does not understand the processes to even go the the Health and Human Services to even try.
> 
> Messrs A, B, and C all lose their jobs but over time find new ones, BUT, at lower wages. Each now earns only what is in the next tier down.
> 
> According to the studies I have read their new wages have dropped by 30% making their new income is for A: $280,000; B: $42,000; and C: $21,000. Then there is old D, who is still sleeping in an old furniture box back in the woods so the people can't see him and call the cops to throw him out.
> 
> Making the assumption that you have enough money to help any one of them, but only to a specific amount of money, say $1,000 a month. Which one would you help? Put your single mother lady friend in the circumstances above explained in A, B, or C. Then tell me again, which one will you help.
> 
> This is a straight forward comparison showing the well off, the middle-wage group, and the relative poor and bouncing their situation against the old mentally ill homeless guy.
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you are still trying to fool us into believing that those 11 issues are actually corruption and that Michael Snyder managed to write it for Businessinsider.com. Time to come clean George.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make sure we're talking about the same Michael Snyder.
> Here's mine:
> 
> Michael Snyder - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used your link which showed that Business Insider actually wrote that article for another less prestigious publication. You lose!
Click to expand...

*Not as much as the taxpayers lost on AIG.
Do you think Snyder's example of Joseph Cassano proves my contention of corruption on Wall Street regardless of where it's appeared?*

"During his career at AIGFP from 1987 until he was forced to retire in March 2008, Cassano received $315 million: $280 million in cash and an additional $34 million in bonuses.[9] 

"An initial $1 million-a-month consulting fee was later canceled.[10] 

"According to Matt Taibbi:

"In fact, Cassano remained on the payroll and kept collecting his monthly million through the end of September 2008, even after taxpayers had been forced to hand AIG $85 billion to patch up his mistakes. 

"When asked in October why the company still retained Cassano at his $1 million-a-month rate despite his role in the probable downfall of Western civilization, CEO Martin Sullivan told Congress with a straight face that AIG wanted to 'retain the 20-year knowledge that Mr. Cassano had.'" 

Joseph Cassano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he was, but not nearly to the extent you do on a regular basis. Not true! It was the crash of the housing industry, which started in 2009 when real estate prices started and continued to rise above the value of that real estate. That Wall street tried to mitigate their losses is understandable. That Clinton and Bush were inobservant at the upcoming problem from housing inflation is their fault. Get your stories straight.http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/united_states.png
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your tale needs five years of backstory.
> Start with everything you know about control accounting fraud in 2004*
> 
> "from Terry Frieden
> CNN Washington Bureau
> Friday, September 17, 2004 Posted: 5:44 PM EDT (2144 GMT)
> 
> "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday of an 'epidemic' of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become 'the next S&L crisis.'
> 
> "Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial ..."
> 
> CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004
> 
> *Have you ever noticed that ignorance and arrogance is deadly?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you noticed that in spite of the fraud, it was the rising price to value which killed the housing industry? Did the fraud help? I suspect it did, but not to the degree you suggest.
Click to expand...

Do you believe it was the mortgage fraud driving the rising prices by creating artificial demand?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make sure we're talking about the same Michael Snyder.
> Here's mine:
> 
> Michael Snyder - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> I used your link which showed that Business Insider actually wrote that article for another less prestigious publication. You lose!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not as much as the taxpayers lost on AIG.
> Do you think Snyder's example of Joseph Cassano proves my contention of corruption on Wall Street regardless of where it's appeared?*
> 
> "During his career at AIGFP from 1987 until he was forced to retire in March 2008, Cassano received $315 million: $280 million in cash and an additional $34 million in bonuses.[9]
> 
> "An initial $1 million-a-month consulting fee was later canceled.[10]
> 
> "According to Matt Taibbi:
> 
> "In fact, Cassano remained on the payroll and kept collecting his monthly million through the end of September 2008, even after taxpayers had been forced to hand AIG $85 billion to patch up his mistakes.
> 
> "When asked in October why the company still retained Cassano at his $1 million-a-month rate despite his role in the probable downfall of Western civilization, CEO Martin Sullivan told Congress with a straight face that AIG wanted to 'retain the 20-year knowledge that Mr. Cassano had.'"
> 
> Joseph Cassano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


*Not as much as the taxpayers lost on AIG.*

Taxpayers made billions on AIG.

*despite his role in the probable downfall of Western civilization*

What was his role? Be specific.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make sure we're talking about the same Michael Snyder.
> Here's mine:
> 
> Michael Snyder - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> I used your link which showed that Business Insider actually wrote that article for another less prestigious publication. You lose!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not as much as the taxpayers lost on AIG.
> Do you think Snyder's example of Joseph Cassano proves my contention of corruption on Wall Street regardless of where it's appeared?*
> 
> "During his career at AIGFP from 1987 until he was forced to retire in March 2008, Cassano received $315 million: $280 million in cash and an additional $34 million in bonuses.[9]
> 
> "An initial $1 million-a-month consulting fee was later canceled.[10]
> 
> "According to Matt Taibbi:
> 
> "In fact, Cassano remained on the payroll and kept collecting his monthly million through the end of September 2008, even after taxpayers had been forced to hand AIG $85 billion to patch up his mistakes.
> 
> "When asked in October why the company still retained Cassano at his $1 million-a-month rate despite his role in the probable downfall of Western civilization, CEO Martin Sullivan told Congress with a straight face that AIG wanted to 'retain the 20-year knowledge that Mr. Cassano had.'"
> 
> Joseph Cassano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Great story, certainly someone in the government made a mistake not putting more strings on the bailout money, *BUT IT STILL WAS NOT CORRUPTION, just bad judgment on the governments side.*
Did the tax payers get shafted? Of course we were, *BUT IT IS STILL NOT CORRUPTION*.

Michael Snyder is the editor of the economiccollapseblog.com. He is a typical alarmist and  left wing cry baby. Having looked at all of his pessimistic  blog comments, it is obvious he is totally devoid of economics knowledge. He dwells on the negative just to get gullible left wingers talking points. The problem is, he is not good at understanding what is going on.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your tale needs five years of backstory.
> Start with everything you know about control accounting fraud in 2004*
> 
> "from Terry Frieden
> CNN Washington Bureau
> Friday, September 17, 2004 Posted: 5:44 PM EDT (2144 GMT)
> 
> "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday of an 'epidemic' of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become 'the next S&L crisis.'
> 
> "Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the *booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values(Not value, but inflationary price.)*, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial ..."
> 
> CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004
> 
> *Have you ever noticed that ignorance and arrogance is deadly?*
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that in spite of the fraud, it was the rising price to value which killed the housing industry? Did the fraud help? I suspect it did, but not to the degree you suggest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe it was the mortgage fraud driving the rising prices by creating artificial demand?
Click to expand...


*Absolutely not! It was stupidity in the fiscal and monetary policy of Clinton and Bush *allowing interest levels to be so artificially low allowing buyers to buy when their credit was not good enough; and, allowing those low interest rates to allow people to buy more house than they could afford. It was also the fault of the government in allowing speculators to use ARMs with very low initial rates, hoping to flip their property before interest went up, then making their payment so high they could not pay it before the property could be sold.

BTW you did note that the FBI warning was about the financial loss of banking institutions rather than being aimed at the people buying and selling. You will also have to recognize that when the banks started PROTECTING themselves against loss by bundling many toxic loans they did so to prevent those losses to valuable lending institutions so needed by the government and the people to use to buy homes. (not low credit risks which were solicited by the government through CRA to "give more people the ability to own their home." You do realize that that solicitation brought people scrambling into a hot real estate market when they had no reasonable expectation to actually buy a house. 

I blame the left wing extremist administration idiots who thought poor non credit worthy people deserve to own their own home when they really could not pay for them, much more than the investment bankers trying to mitigate their losses.

If you are going to address these issues, you really should educate yourself as to what they are and the impact on the market. 

Look at the graph again, maybe you will understand it this time.


----------



## dnsmith35

For the benefit of all the bleeding  hearts, ie left wing extremists.

It is important before even thinking about the poor, to ensure that our economy remains strong enough to take care of those poor. What I see is a lot of bleeding heart issues not taking that into account.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used your link which showed that Business Insider actually wrote that article for another less prestigious publication. You lose!
> 
> 
> 
> *Not as much as the taxpayers lost on AIG.
> Do you think Snyder's example of Joseph Cassano proves my contention of corruption on Wall Street regardless of where it's appeared?*
> 
> "During his career at AIGFP from 1987 until he was forced to retire in March 2008, Cassano received $315 million: $280 million in cash and an additional $34 million in bonuses.[9]
> 
> "An initial $1 million-a-month consulting fee was later canceled.[10]
> 
> "According to Matt Taibbi:
> 
> "In fact, Cassano remained on the payroll and kept collecting his monthly million through the end of September 2008, even after taxpayers had been forced to hand AIG $85 billion to patch up his mistakes.
> 
> "When asked in October why the company still retained Cassano at his $1 million-a-month rate despite his role in the probable downfall of Western civilization, CEO Martin Sullivan told Congress with a straight face that AIG wanted to 'retain the 20-year knowledge that Mr. Cassano had.'"
> 
> Joseph Cassano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Not as much as the taxpayers lost on AIG.*
> 
> Taxpayers made billions on AIG.
> 
> *despite his role in the probable downfall of Western civilization*
> 
> What was his role? Be specific.
Click to expand...

How many billions did taxpayers make on AIG.
Show your work.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice anecdote, I am sure their are millions of similar stories all over the world. But none of it is relevant today.
> 
> 
> 
> *You should get our more:*
> 
> "It was a county formed 19 years before the Civil War.
> But in the towns lying between borders in Owsley, in the coal fields of eastern Kentucky, a portrait of Americans shows a community that appears frozen in time, where many still live without water or electricity.
> 
> "According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the Appalachian county has the lowest median household income in the states - a staggering 41.5 per cent of residents falling below the poverty line.
> 
> Pictured: The modern day poverty of Kentucky where people live with no running water or electricity | Mail Online
> 
> *Rising rates of inequality coupled with austerity responses to the failures of the private sector guarantee the relevance of "anecdotes" from the last time capitalism nearly destroyed itself. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back up Phillips! I tend to agree with you about TVA and your suggesting I don't accept that Appalachia contains more poverty because of capitalism. The fact that capitalists have chosen not to invest in Appalachia only means that people have the right to invest money where they choose to invest it. I also accept that people below the poverty line (which is artificially higher than reasonable) should be assisted. But under no circumstances can you blame that on Capitalism.
> 
> All of your examples prove nothing more than some people achieve more than others. But you seem to over look the fact that there are myriad reasons for those failures, and capitalism is not near to the most serious cause.
Click to expand...

*Capitalists are the most serious cause of mountain top removal, aren't they?*

"Peer-reviewed studies show that mountaintop mining has serious environmental impacts, including loss of biodiversity and toxification of watersheds, that mitigation practices cannot successfully address.[5] 

"There are also adverse human health impacts which result from contact with affected streams or exposure to airborne toxins and dust.[5] 

"According to 21 scientific studies there has been major effects on the population in Appalachia where MTM takes place including over 50% higher cancer rates, 42% higher birth defect rates, and *$75 billion a year in public health costs* from pollution."

*Socialize the cost.
Privatize the profits.
That's the problem.*

Mountaintop removal mining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that in spite of the fraud, it was the rising price to value which killed the housing industry? Did the fraud help? I suspect it did, but not to the degree you suggest.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe it was the mortgage fraud driving the rising prices by creating artificial demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Absolutely not! It was stupidity in the fiscal and monetary policy of Clinton and Bush *allowing interest levels to be so artificially low allowing buyers to buy when their credit was not good enough; and, allowing those low interest rates to allow people to buy more house than they could afford. It was also the fault of the government in allowing speculators to use ARMs with very low initial rates, hoping to flip their property before interest went up, then making their payment so high they could not pay it before the property could be sold.
> 
> BTW you did note that the FBI warning was about the financial loss of banking institutions rather than being aimed at the people buying and selling. You will also have to recognize that when the banks started PROTECTING themselves against loss by bundling many toxic loans they did so to prevent those losses to valuable lending institutions so needed by the government and the people to use to buy homes. (not low credit risks which were solicited by the government through CRA to "give more people the ability to own their home." You do realize that that solicitation brought people scrambling into a hot real estate market when they had no reasonable expectation to actually buy a house.
> 
> I blame the left wing extremist administration idiots who thought poor non credit worthy people deserve to own their own home when they really could not pay for them, much more than the investment bankers trying to mitigate their losses.
> 
> If you are going to address these issues, you really should educate yourself as to what they are and the impact on the market.
> 
> Look at the graph again, maybe you will understand it this time.
Click to expand...

*I couldn't help noticing your "educated" rant against government didn't mention the role of private ratings agencies.

Why is that?*

"Fraud is the principal credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending. 

"It is impossible to detect fraud without reviewing a sample of the loan files. 

"Paper loan files are bulky, so they are photographed and the images are stored on computer tapes. 

"Unfortunately, 'most investors' (the large commercial and investment banks that purchased nonprime loans and pooled them to create financial derivatives) did not review the loan files before purchasing nonprime loans and did not even require the lender to provide loan tapes.

"The rating agencies never reviewed samples of loan files before giving AAA ratings to nonprime mortgage financial derivatives. 

"The 'AAA' rating is supposed to indicate that there is virtually no credit risk -- the risk is equivalent to U.S. government bonds, which finance refers to as 'risk-free.' 

"We know that the rating agencies attained their lucrative profits because they gave AAA ratings to nonprime financial derivatives exposed to staggering default risk. 

"A graph of their profits in this era rises like a stairway to heaven [PDF]. 

"We also know that turning a blind eye to the mortgage fraud epidemic was the only way the rating agencies could hope to attain those profits. 

"If they had reviewed even small samples of nonprime loans they would have had only two choices: (1) rating them as toxic waste, which would have made it impossible to sell the nonprime financial derivatives or (2) documenting that they were committing, and aiding and abetting, accounting control fraud."

William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not as much as the taxpayers lost on AIG.
> Do you think Snyder's example of Joseph Cassano proves my contention of corruption on Wall Street regardless of where it's appeared?*
> 
> "During his career at AIGFP from 1987 until he was forced to retire in March 2008, Cassano received $315 million: $280 million in cash and an additional $34 million in bonuses.[9]
> 
> "An initial $1 million-a-month consulting fee was later canceled.[10]
> 
> "According to Matt Taibbi:
> 
> "In fact, Cassano remained on the payroll and kept collecting his monthly million through the end of September 2008, even after taxpayers had been forced to hand AIG $85 billion to patch up his mistakes.
> 
> "When asked in October why the company still retained Cassano at his $1 million-a-month rate despite his role in the probable downfall of Western civilization, CEO Martin Sullivan told Congress with a straight face that AIG wanted to 'retain the 20-year knowledge that Mr. Cassano had.'"
> 
> Joseph Cassano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not as much as the taxpayers lost on AIG.*
> 
> Taxpayers made billions on AIG.
> 
> *despite his role in the probable downfall of Western civilization*
> 
> What was his role? Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many billions did taxpayers make on AIG.
> Show your work.
Click to expand...


*On Dec. 11, 2012, the Treasury sold its last remaining portion of AIG stock, ultimately earning a profit of about $5 billion. The Federal Reserve ultimately realized a profit of about $17.7 billion from its role in AIG's bailout.*

Looks like over $22 billion.

AIG | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

Anything else you're confused about?
Glad to help.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You should get our more:*
> 
> "It was a county formed 19 years before the Civil War.
> But in the towns lying between borders in Owsley, in the coal fields of eastern Kentucky, a portrait of Americans shows a community that appears frozen in time, where many still live without water or electricity.
> 
> "According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the Appalachian county has the lowest median household income in the states - a staggering 41.5 per cent of residents falling below the poverty line.
> 
> Pictured: The modern day poverty of Kentucky where people live with no running water or electricity | Mail Online
> 
> *Rising rates of inequality coupled with austerity responses to the failures of the private sector guarantee the relevance of "anecdotes" from the last time capitalism nearly destroyed itself. *
> 
> 
> 
> Back up Phillips! I tend to agree with you about TVA and your suggesting I don't accept that Appalachia contains more poverty because of capitalism. The fact that capitalists have chosen not to invest in Appalachia only means that people have the right to invest money where they choose to invest it. I also accept that people below the poverty line (which is artificially higher than reasonable) should be assisted. But under no circumstances can you blame that on Capitalism.
> 
> All of your examples prove nothing more than some people achieve more than others. But you seem to over look the fact that there are myriad reasons for those failures, and capitalism is not near to the most serious cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Capitalists are the most serious cause of mountain top removal, aren't they?*
> 
> "Peer-reviewed studies show that mountaintop mining has serious environmental impacts, including loss of biodiversity and toxification of watersheds, that mitigation practices cannot successfully address.[5]
> 
> "There are also adverse human health impacts which result from contact with affected streams or exposure to airborne toxins and dust.[5]
> 
> "According to 21 scientific studies there has been major effects on the population in Appalachia where MTM takes place including over 50% higher cancer rates, 42% higher birth defect rates, and *$75 billion a year in public health costs* from pollution."
> 
> *Socialize the cost.
> Privatize the profits.
> That's the problem.*
> 
> Mountaintop removal mining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


So you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment?  Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.


Environmental disaster in eastern Europe - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition



> *Environmental disaster in eastern Europe*
> 
> In opting for economic development through all-out industrialisation and intensive agriculture, the Soviet Union and the countries of eastern Europe showed little concern for the natural environment. The Aral Sea basin was turned into a vast cotton plantation and nuclear activities were concentrated in the area of the Barents Sea, despite the vulnerability of the local ecosystems. While the economic recession of the 1990s has made it possible to cut down the emission of pollutants, the lack of administrative controls means there may yet be worse to come. Western aid is distributed case by case, without any overall plan, and is below promised levels and requirements. Yet industrial depollution and reconversion could be a major undertaking crucial for the future of the whole region.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> So you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment?  Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.



Bri, two wrongs don't make a right--it's a logical fallacy. Let's stipulate communist countries create 10x worse disasters. Does that mean the disasters created at home are any less meaningful to the people suffering them? Obviously not. And personally, living a stones throw away from mountaintop removal sites, I can tell you all the nearby communities are drastically effected, especially the kids who go to school just a half mile down the road from a coal refinery and sludge dam at Marsh Fork Elementary. A quarter of students are absent each day because of health issues. 

Second problem with your fallacious response is no communist country is actually communist in any real sense of the concept of communism. Now if by communism you mean a term of propaganda to distract from the real issues, then I'd agree with your definition. But the problem there is your point lacks substance in addition to being a fallacy.

I'd laugh to tears watching you define communism and demonstrate how it guides public policy in those alleged "communist" states. Let me save you the embarrassment:

Virtually all countries are guided by profit and a tiny sector of their population dictates what is produced and what is done with the profits. The people are not part of the decision. Calling it communist, capitalist or whatever does not change the structure in which it operates. Namely, the workers are not involved in any deliberation about what they produce and spend 1/3rd of their life doing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment?  Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bri, two wrongs don't make a right--it's a logical fallacy. Let's stipulate communist countries create 10x worse disasters. Does that mean the disasters created at home are any less meaningful to the people suffering them? Obviously not.
> 
> Second problem with your fallacious response is no communist country is actually communist in any real sense of the concept of communism. Now if by communism you mean a term of propaganda to distract from the real issues, then I'd agree with your definition. But the problem there is your point lacks substance in addition to being a fallacy.
> 
> I'd laugh to tears watching you define communism and demonstrate how it guides public policy in those alleged "communist" states. Let me save you the embarrassment:
> 
> Virtually all countries are guided by profit and a tiny sector of their population dictates what is produced and what is done with the profits. The people are not part of the decision. Calling it communist, capitalist or whatever does not change the structure in which it operates. Namely, the workers are not involved in any deliberation about what they produce and spend 1/3rd of their life doing.
Click to expand...


*a tiny sector of their population dictates what is produced and what is done with the profits. The people are not part of the decision. *

Exactly! That's why 80% of the cars on the road today are Edsels.

The people have no choice.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment?  Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bri, two wrongs don't make a right--it's a logical fallacy. Let's stipulate communist countries create 10x worse disasters. Does that mean the disasters created at home are any less meaningful to the people suffering them? Obviously not.
> 
> Second problem with your fallacious response is no communist country is actually communist in any real sense of the concept of communism. Now if by communism you mean a term of propaganda to distract from the real issues, then I'd agree with your definition. But the problem there is your point lacks substance in addition to being a fallacy.
> 
> I'd laugh to tears watching you define communism and demonstrate how it guides public policy in those alleged "communist" states. Let me save you the embarrassment:
> 
> Virtually all countries are guided by profit and a tiny sector of their population dictates what is produced and what is done with the profits. The people are not part of the decision. Calling it communist, capitalist or whatever does not change the structure in which it operates. Namely, the workers are not involved in any deliberation about what they produce and spend 1/3rd of their life doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *a tiny sector of their population dictates what is produced and what is done with the profits. The people are not part of the decision. *
> 
> Exactly! That's why 80% of the cars on the road today are Edsels.
> 
> The people have no choice.
Click to expand...


I have to have to explain this to you Todster, but they don't get the joke.  You have to spell things out for them.  They think it's perfect reasonable to believe that Ford forces consumers to buy certain car models.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe it was the mortgage fraud driving the rising prices by creating artificial demand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Absolutely not! It was stupidity in the fiscal and monetary policy of Clinton and Bush *allowing interest levels to be so artificially low allowing buyers to buy when their credit was not good enough; and, allowing those low interest rates to allow people to buy more house than they could afford. It was also the fault of the government in allowing speculators to use ARMs with very low initial rates, hoping to flip their property before interest went up, then making their payment so high they could not pay it before the property could be sold.
> 
> BTW you did note that the FBI warning was about the financial loss of banking institutions rather than being aimed at the people buying and selling. You will also have to recognize that when the banks started PROTECTING themselves against loss by bundling many toxic loans they did so to prevent those losses to valuable lending institutions so needed by the government and the people to use to buy homes. (not low credit risks which were solicited by the government through CRA to "give more people the ability to own their home." You do realize that that solicitation brought people scrambling into a hot real estate market when they had no reasonable expectation to actually buy a house.
> 
> I blame the left wing extremist administration idiots who thought poor non credit worthy people deserve to own their own home when they really could not pay for them, much more than the investment bankers trying to mitigate their losses.
> 
> If you are going to address these issues, you really should educate yourself as to what they are and the impact on the market.
> 
> Look at the graph again, maybe you will understand it this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I couldn't help noticing your "educated" rant against government didn't mention the role of private ratings agencies.
> 
> Why is that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I don't rant.
> 
> 2. I explained what genuine economists say about the housing crash.
> 
> "Fraud is the principal credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending.
> 
> "It is impossible to detect fraud without reviewing a sample of the loan files.
> 
> "Paper loan files are bulky, so they are photographed and the images are stored on computer tapes.
> 
> "Unfortunately, 'most investors' (the large commercial and investment banks that purchased nonprime loans and pooled them to create financial derivatives) did not review the loan files before purchasing nonprime loans and did not even require the lender to provide loan tapes.
> 
> "The rating agencies never reviewed samples of loan files before giving AAA ratings to nonprime mortgage financial derivatives.
> 
> "The 'AAA' rating is supposed to indicate that there is virtually no credit risk -- the risk is equivalent to U.S. government bonds, which finance refers to as 'risk-free.'
> 
> "We know that the rating agencies attained their lucrative profits because they gave AAA ratings to nonprime financial derivatives exposed to staggering default risk.
> 
> "A graph of their profits in this era rises like a stairway to heaven [PDF].
> 
> "We also know that turning a blind eye to the mortgage fraud epidemic was the only way the rating agencies could hope to attain those profits.
> 
> "If they had reviewed even small samples of nonprime loans they would have had only two choices: (1) rating them as toxic waste, which would have made it impossible to sell the nonprime financial derivatives or (2) documenting that they were committing, and aiding and abetting, accounting control fraud."
> 
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
Click to expand...

None of those issues *caused* the housing crash. How ever unprincipled you think the banks were, their actions were only to mitigate their loses. Why do you think our left wing administration didn't pursue fraud charges? Because as bad as it was, it was not criminal fraud. Wake up to reality. Your attempts to dig for dirt is bullshit. The real "CRIME' which of course is not actionable, was the low and enticing interest rates by the Clinton and Bush Administration. Based on our current interest rates, if the banks are loose with their credit checks we are heading down the same road again.


----------



## gnarlylove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *a tiny sector of their population dictates what is produced and what is done with the profits. The people are not part of the decision. *
> 
> Exactly! That's why 80% of the cars on the road today are Edsels.
> 
> The people have no choice.



Does the US have a choice of high speed rail, the most efficient form of transportation like in all other developed and capitalist nations? No, that would undercut the oil market. What a "choice!" Thank you markets for the bringing the only choice we can choose: the least efficient form of transportation where >1% fuel is actually used to power its passenger, 99% is wasted either by burning off before applying power or is simply used to propel the 2 ton+ killing machine the kills about 35,000 people each year injuring 100s of thousands. Yes, praise choice.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> Does the US have a choice of high speed rail, the most efficient form of transportation like in all other developed and capitalist nations?


 In and near large metropolitan ares yes. But obviously we are spread out to the point it is impractical. Even bus service is seriously impacted by the space the US occupies. 





> No, that would undercut the oil market. What a "choice!" Thank you markets for the bringing the only choice we can choose: the least efficient form of transportation where >1% fuel is actually used to power its passenger, 99% is wasted either by burning off before applying power or is simply used to propel the 2 ton+ killing machine the kills about 35,000 people each year injuring 100s of thousands. Yes, praise choice.


You really don't have a clue.

The total area of Germany is a little larger than Georgia. Even there, most of their suburban public transportation is by bus, not high speed train. Between Germany: 80 million, France: 65 million and Spain: 46 Million, for a population less than 2/3 that of the US. Germany 137,847 sq miles; France occupies 260,558 sq miles;  Spain occupies 195,365 sq miles.  That totals 593,770 sq miles. The US occupies 3,794,100 sq miles, or almost 6.5 times the area with 1.3 times the population. If you don't see a problem with that, you are not even as intelligent as I have previously given you credit....which was not very.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You should get our more:*
> 
> "It was a county formed 19 years before the Civil War.
> But in the towns lying between borders in Owsley, in the coal fields of eastern Kentucky, a portrait of Americans shows a community that appears frozen in time, where many still live without water or electricity.
> 
> "According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the Appalachian county has the lowest median household income in the states - a staggering 41.5 per cent of residents falling below the poverty line.
> 
> Pictured: The modern day poverty of Kentucky where people live with no running water or electricity | Mail Online
> 
> *Rising rates of inequality coupled with austerity responses to the failures of the private sector guarantee the relevance of "anecdotes" from the last time capitalism nearly destroyed itself. *
> 
> 
> 
> Back up Phillips! I tend to agree with you about TVA and your suggesting I don't accept that Appalachia contains more poverty because of capitalism. The fact that capitalists have chosen not to invest in Appalachia only means that people have the right to invest money where they choose to invest it. I also accept that people below the poverty line (which is artificially higher than reasonable) should be assisted. But under no circumstances can you blame that on Capitalism.
> 
> All of your examples prove nothing more than some people achieve more than others. But you seem to over look the fact that there are myriad reasons for those failures, and capitalism is not near to the most serious cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Capitalists are the most serious cause of mountain top removal, aren't they?*
> 
> "Peer-reviewed studies show that mountaintop mining has serious environmental impacts, including loss of biodiversity and toxification of watersheds, that mitigation practices cannot successfully address.[5]
> 
> "There are also adverse human health impacts which result from contact with affected streams or exposure to airborne toxins and dust.[5]
> 
> "According to 21 scientific studies there has been major effects on the population in Appalachia where MTM takes place including over 50% higher cancer rates, 42% higher birth defect rates, and *$75 billion a year in public health costs* from pollution."
> 
> *Socialize the cost.
> Privatize the profits.
> That's the problem.*
> 
> Mountaintop removal mining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Are you aware that stream pollution on the Property of the Gore family (Al Gore the green) is about the worst there is in Tennessee?


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment?  Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.
> 
> 
> 
> *BTW Gnarley, why haven't you responded to post* http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/336012-capitalism-guarantees-rising-inequality-185.html#post9149761?
> 
> You need to answer that simple question.
Click to expand...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *a tiny sector of their population dictates what is produced and what is done with the profits. The people are not part of the decision. *
> 
> Exactly! That's why 80% of the cars on the road today are Edsels.
> 
> The people have no choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the US have a choice of high speed rail, the most efficient form of transportation like in all other developed and capitalist nations? No, that would undercut the oil market. What a "choice!" Thank you markets for the bringing the only choice we can choose: the least efficient form of transportation where >1% fuel is actually used to power its passenger, 99% is wasted either by burning off before applying power or is simply used to propel the 2 ton+ killing machine the kills about 35,000 people each year injuring 100s of thousands. Yes, praise choice.
Click to expand...


*Does the US have a choice of high speed rail, the most efficient form of transportation like in all other developed and capitalist nations? *

High speed rail? Terrible idea. Big money loser.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the US have a choice of high speed rail, the most efficient form of transportation like in all other developed and capitalist nations?
> 
> 
> 
> In and near large metropolitan ares yes. But obviously we are spread out to the point it is impractical. Even bus service is seriously impacted by the space the US occupies.
Click to expand...


The most heavily trafficked corridors in the world are Boston to NYC and LA to SD and neither are "too spread out." In fact, a few years ago the US went to Spain poking around at the idea of hiring the Spanish to build the infrastructure instead of Americans who need jobs. Here was the plan:






"Too spread out" is such an uninformed statement I won't waste my time commenting on it.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment?  Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bri, two wrongs don't make a right--it's a logical fallacy. Let's stipulate communist countries create 10x worse disasters. Does that mean the disasters created at home are any less meaningful to the people suffering them? Obviously not. And personally, living a stones throw away from mountaintop removal sites, I can tell you all the nearby communities are drastically effected, especially the kids who go to school just a half mile down the road from a coal refinery and sludge dam at Marsh Fork Elementary. A quarter of students are absent each day because of health issues.
Click to expand...


The issue isn't whether it's right.  Georgie implied that environmental problems are purely the work of capitalism, that socialism doesn't do things like mountain top removal.  That is clearly bullshit.  Furthermore, it's not even clear that so-called "mountain top removal" is an environmental problem.  We're not really talking about mountains here.  They are really just large hills.



gnarlylove said:


> Second problem with your fallacious response is no communist country is actually communist in any real sense of the concept of communism. Now if by communism you mean a term of propaganda to distract from the real issues, then I'd agree with your definition. But the problem there is your point lacks substance in addition to being a fallacy.
> 
> I'd laugh to tears watching you define communism and demonstrate how it guides public policy in those alleged "communist" states. Let me save you the embarrassment:



I'm tired of hearing this argument that the communist countries weren't really communist.  Communism is something like a triangle with four sides.  YEah, it's impossible to draw, so you'll never see one.  But plenty of people thought communism was possible, and the places they attempted to implement it is what we call "communism."  We know they couldn't possibly have succeeded.  That's the reason they are such disasters.



gnarlylove said:


> Virtually all countries are guided by profit and a tiny sector of their population dictates what is produced and what is done with the profits. The people are not part of the decision. Calling it communist, capitalist or whatever does not change the structure in which it operates. Namely, the workers are not involved in any deliberation about what they produce and spend 1/3rd of their life doing.



It's utterly meaningless to claim a country is guided by profit.  Only private firms and corporations can earn a profit. You're attempt to label a country like Cuba as capitalist is absurd.  

If the workers did make all the business decisions, the results would be even more of a disaster.  The people who are most qualified to be making the decisions should be the ones who make them, not some fans of professional wrestling.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the US have a choice of high speed rail, the most efficient form of transportation like in all other developed and capitalist nations?
> 
> 
> 
> In and near large metropolitan ares yes. But obviously we are spread out to the point it is impractical. Even bus service is seriously impacted by the space the US occupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most heavily trafficked corridors in the world are Boston to NYC and LA to SD and neither are "too spread out." In fact, a few years ago the US went to Spain poking around at the idea of hiring the Spanish to build the infrastructure instead of Americans who need jobs. Here was the plan:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Too spread out" is such an uninformed statement I won't waste my time commenting on it.
Click to expand...


A system like that would probably cost about $20 trillion dollars.  

Hardly cost effective.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not as much as the taxpayers lost on AIG.*
> 
> Taxpayers made billions on AIG.
> 
> *despite his role in the probable downfall of Western civilization*
> 
> What was his role? Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> How many billions did taxpayers make on AIG.
> Show your work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *On Dec. 11, 2012, the Treasury sold its last remaining portion of AIG stock, ultimately earning a profit of about $5 billion. The Federal Reserve ultimately realized a profit of about $17.7 billion from its role in AIG's bailout.*
> 
> Looks like over $22 billion.
> 
> AIG | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
> 
> Anything else you're confused about?
> Glad to help.
Click to expand...

*Now that you mention it...*

"At ProPublica, we've provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP's launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments. 

"With all this data, we're able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains. 

"And the answer as of today is $123 billion.

Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP -- and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole."

*How deep is the hole taxpayers currently find themselves in
Thanks for the link.*


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many billions did taxpayers make on AIG.
> Show your work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On Dec. 11, 2012, the Treasury sold its last remaining portion of AIG stock, ultimately earning a profit of about $5 billion. The Federal Reserve ultimately realized a profit of about $17.7 billion from its role in AIG's bailout.*
> 
> Looks like over $22 billion.
> 
> AIG | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
> 
> Anything else you're confused about?
> Glad to help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that you mention it...*
> 
> "At ProPublica, we've provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP's launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments.
> 
> "With all this data, we're able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains.
> 
> "And the answer as of today is $123 billion.
> 
> Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP -- and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole."
> 
> *How deep is the hole taxpayers currently find themselves in
> Thanks for the link.*
Click to expand...


The "hole" exists mainly because TARP funds were used to bailout GM, Chrysler and the UAW.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back up Phillips! I tend to agree with you about TVA and your suggesting I don't accept that Appalachia contains more poverty because of capitalism. The fact that capitalists have chosen not to invest in Appalachia only means that people have the right to invest money where they choose to invest it. I also accept that people below the poverty line (which is artificially higher than reasonable) should be assisted. But under no circumstances can you blame that on Capitalism.
> 
> All of your examples prove nothing more than some people achieve more than others. But you seem to over look the fact that there are myriad reasons for those failures, and capitalism is not near to the most serious cause.
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalists are the most serious cause of mountain top removal, aren't they?*
> 
> "Peer-reviewed studies show that mountaintop mining has serious environmental impacts, including loss of biodiversity and toxification of watersheds, that mitigation practices cannot successfully address.[5]
> 
> "There are also adverse human health impacts which result from contact with affected streams or exposure to airborne toxins and dust.[5]
> 
> "According to 21 scientific studies there has been major effects on the population in Appalachia where MTM takes place including over 50% higher cancer rates, 42% higher birth defect rates, and *$75 billion a year in public health costs* from pollution."
> 
> *Socialize the cost.
> Privatize the profits.
> That's the problem.*
> 
> Mountaintop removal mining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment?  Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.
> 
> 
> Environmental disaster in eastern Europe - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Environmental disaster in eastern Europe*
> 
> In opting for economic development through all-out industrialisation and intensive agriculture, the Soviet Union and the countries of eastern Europe showed little concern for the natural environment. The Aral Sea basin was turned into a vast cotton plantation and nuclear activities were concentrated in the area of the Barents Sea, despite the vulnerability of the local ecosystems. While the economic recession of the 1990s has made it possible to cut down the emission of pollutants, the lack of administrative controls means there may yet be worse to come. Western aid is distributed case by case, without any overall plan, and is below promised levels and requirements. Yet industrial depollution and reconversion could be a major undertaking crucial for the future of the whole region.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many billions did taxpayers make on AIG.
> Show your work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On Dec. 11, 2012, the Treasury sold its last remaining portion of AIG stock, ultimately earning a profit of about $5 billion. The Federal Reserve ultimately realized a profit of about $17.7 billion from its role in AIG's bailout.*
> 
> Looks like over $22 billion.
> 
> AIG | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
> 
> Anything else you're confused about?
> Glad to help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Now that you mention it...*
> 
> "At ProPublica, we've provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP's launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments.
> 
> "With all this data, we're able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains.
> 
> "And the answer as of today is $123 billion.
> 
> Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP -- and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole."
> 
> *How deep is the hole taxpayers currently find themselves in
> Thanks for the link.*
Click to expand...


*"And the answer as of today is $123 billion.*

I know you're a liberal and therefore bad with numbers. But come on.

I'll give you a hint. ProPublica, *March 17, 2011, 9:27 a.m.*

You're welcome.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the US have a choice of high speed rail, the most efficient form of transportation like in all other developed and capitalist nations?
> 
> 
> 
> In and near large metropolitan ares yes. But obviously we are spread out to the point it is impractical. Even bus service is seriously impacted by the space the US occupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most heavily trafficked corridors in the world are Boston to NYC and LA to SD and neither are "too spread out." In fact, a few years ago the US went to Spain poking around at the idea of hiring the Spanish to build the infrastructure instead of Americans who need jobs. Here was the plan:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Too spread out" is such an uninformed statement I won't waste my time commenting on it.
Click to expand...

Did you not read my comment? In which I said, "In and near large metropolitan areas yes. But obviously we are spread out to the point it is impractical. Even bus service is seriously impacted by the space the US occupies." There is nothing misinformed about that. My "large metropolitan areas" equal to the heavily trafficked corridors. You just repeated my comment in different words. Aren't you smart. I stand by my comment. Once you get away from the Northeast Corridor or the Los Angeles/San Diego/San Francisco Metropolitan areas, or the Seattle/Tacoma metro areas, there will not be enough people to take the trains. It would be a really ineffective waste of money. Having taken the train from NO to Chicago, and Chicago to Denver in the US and the Frankfort to Bremerhaven in Germany and the Metro in both Madrid and Paris, and the high speed trains in Japan, I believe I have a really good grasp on the value and problems presented by each. Personal experience always trumps listening to propaganda from any political point of view.

Now, as to your accusation that I have been less than polite to you, how polite does this sound? *"Too spread out" is such an uninformed statement I won't waste my time commenting on it." *I take it then, it is ok if you mock or insult me, but it is wrong for me to respond in kind? ROTFLMAO! 

As to jobs for the Spanish, do you really believe they are going to import their laborers? Our engineers should go to what ever country has the safest, fastest, and most secure systems possible. Do you actually believe that the Chicago to San Francisco/Los Angeles, New Orleans to Chicago, Chicago to Seattle, or even the New Orleans to Washington, D. C. can be secured such that it would be safe from unexpected situations?

By the way, the southern route from N.O. to St. Petersburg has been eliminated for lack of  interest.

AND YOU HAVE STILL NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION IN POST #3699. Here it is again:

Let me explain it to you with an anecdote since you obviously are not smart enough to understand the tables and graphs I have posted. In addition, I will keep it local instead of including the destitute people all over the world for which you have cleary told us you have no compassion. 

Mister A makes over $400,000 a year. We both recognize he needs no help.

Mister B makes about $60,000 a year, about what a union auto worker earns in wage.

Mister C makes $30,000 a year, and based on dependencies is just under the poverty line.

Mister D has no job, cannot get government assistance because he has no address. He has mental health problems and does not understand the processes to even go the the Health and Human Services to even try.

Messrs A, B, and C all lose their jobs but over time find new ones, BUT, at lower wages. Each now earns only what is in the next tier down.

According to the studies I have read their new wages have dropped by 30% making their new income is for A: $280,000; B: $42,000; and C: $21,000. Then there is old D, who is still sleeping in an old furniture box back in the woods so the people can't see him and call the cops to throw him out.

*Making the assumption that you have enough money to help any one of them, but only to a specific amount of money, say $1,000 a month. Which one would you help? Put your single mother lady friend in the circumstances above explained in A, B, or C. Then tell me again, which one will you help?*

This is a straight forward comparison showing the well off, the middle-wage group, and the relative poor and bouncing their situation against the old mentally ill homeless guy.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Absolutely not! It was stupidity in the fiscal and monetary policy of Clinton and Bush *allowing interest levels to be so artificially low allowing buyers to buy when their credit was not good enough; and, allowing those low interest rates to allow people to buy more house than they could afford. It was also the fault of the government in allowing speculators to use ARMs with very low initial rates, hoping to flip their property before interest went up, then making their payment so high they could not pay it before the property could be sold.
> 
> BTW you did note that the FBI warning was about the financial loss of banking institutions rather than being aimed at the people buying and selling. You will also have to recognize that when the banks started PROTECTING themselves against loss by bundling many toxic loans they did so to prevent those losses to valuable lending institutions so needed by the government and the people to use to buy homes. (not low credit risks which were solicited by the government through CRA to "give more people the ability to own their home." You do realize that that solicitation brought people scrambling into a hot real estate market when they had no reasonable expectation to actually buy a house.
> 
> I blame the left wing extremist administration idiots who thought poor non credit worthy people deserve to own their own home when they really could not pay for them, much more than the investment bankers trying to mitigate their losses.
> 
> If you are going to address these issues, you really should educate yourself as to what they are and the impact on the market.
> 
> Look at the graph again, maybe you will understand it this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I couldn't help noticing your "educated" rant against government didn't mention the role of private ratings agencies.
> 
> Why is that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I don't rant.
> 
> 2. I explained what genuine economists say about the housing crash.
> 
> "Fraud is the principal credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending.
> 
> "It is impossible to detect fraud without reviewing a sample of the loan files.
> 
> "Paper loan files are bulky, so they are photographed and the images are stored on computer tapes.
> 
> "Unfortunately, 'most investors' (the large commercial and investment banks that purchased nonprime loans and pooled them to create financial derivatives) did not review the loan files before purchasing nonprime loans and did not even require the lender to provide loan tapes.
> 
> "The rating agencies never reviewed samples of loan files before giving AAA ratings to nonprime mortgage financial derivatives.
> 
> "The 'AAA' rating is supposed to indicate that there is virtually no credit risk -- the risk is equivalent to U.S. government bonds, which finance refers to as 'risk-free.'
> 
> "We know that the rating agencies attained their lucrative profits because they gave AAA ratings to nonprime financial derivatives exposed to staggering default risk.
> 
> "A graph of their profits in this era rises like a stairway to heaven [PDF].
> 
> "We also know that turning a blind eye to the mortgage fraud epidemic was the only way the rating agencies could hope to attain those profits.
> 
> "If they had reviewed even small samples of nonprime loans they would have had only two choices: (1) rating them as toxic waste, which would have made it impossible to sell the nonprime financial derivatives or (2) documenting that they were committing, and aiding and abetting, accounting control fraud."
> 
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of those issues *caused* the housing crash. How ever unprincipled you think the banks were, their actions were only to mitigate their loses. Why do you think our left wing administration didn't pursue fraud charges? Because as bad as it was, it was not criminal fraud. Wake up to reality. Your attempts to dig for dirt is bullshit. The real "CRIME' which of course is not actionable, was the low and enticing interest rates by the Clinton and Bush Administration. Based on our current interest rates, if the banks are loose with their credit checks we are heading down the same road again.
Click to expand...

Do you consider Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a cause of the housing crash?

If so do you blame the banks or government?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I don't rant.
> 
> 2. I explained what genuine economists say about the housing crash.
> 
> "Fraud is the principal credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending.
> 
> "It is impossible to detect fraud without reviewing a sample of the loan files.
> 
> "Paper loan files are bulky, so they are photographed and the images are stored on computer tapes.
> 
> "Unfortunately, 'most investors' (the large commercial and investment banks that purchased nonprime loans and pooled them to create financial derivatives) did not review the loan files before purchasing nonprime loans and did not even require the lender to provide loan tapes.
> 
> "The rating agencies never reviewed samples of loan files before giving AAA ratings to nonprime mortgage financial derivatives.
> 
> "The 'AAA' rating is supposed to indicate that there is virtually no credit risk -- the risk is equivalent to U.S. government bonds, which finance refers to as 'risk-free.'
> 
> "We know that the rating agencies attained their lucrative profits because they gave AAA ratings to nonprime financial derivatives exposed to staggering default risk.
> 
> "A graph of their profits in this era rises like a stairway to heaven [PDF].
> 
> "We also know that turning a blind eye to the mortgage fraud epidemic was the only way the rating agencies could hope to attain those profits.
> 
> "If they had reviewed even small samples of nonprime loans they would have had only two choices: (1) rating them as toxic waste, which would have made it impossible to sell the nonprime financial derivatives or (2) documenting that they were committing, and aiding and abetting, accounting control fraud."
> 
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
> 
> 
> 
> None of those issues *caused* the housing crash. How ever unprincipled you think the banks were, their actions were only to mitigate their loses. Why do you think our left wing administration didn't pursue fraud charges? Because as bad as it was, it was not criminal fraud. Wake up to reality. Your attempts to dig for dirt is bullshit. The real "CRIME' which of course is not actionable, was the low and enticing interest rates by the Clinton and Bush Administration. Based on our current interest rates, if the banks are loose with their credit checks we are heading down the same road again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you consider Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a cause of the housing crash?
> 
> If so do you blame the banks or government?
Click to expand...

The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. Gramm&#8211;Leach&#8211;Bliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.

The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the Gramm&#8211;Leach&#8211;Bliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *On Dec. 11, 2012, the Treasury sold its last remaining portion of AIG stock, ultimately earning a profit of about $5 billion. The Federal Reserve ultimately realized a profit of about $17.7 billion from its role in AIG's bailout.*
> 
> Looks like over $22 billion.
> 
> AIG | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica
> 
> Anything else you're confused about?
> Glad to help.
> 
> 
> 
> *Now that you mention it...*
> 
> "At ProPublica, we've provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP's launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments.
> 
> "With all this data, we're able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains.
> 
> "And the answer as of today is $123 billion.
> 
> Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP -- and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole."
> 
> *How deep is the hole taxpayers currently find themselves in
> Thanks for the link.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "hole" exists mainly because TARP funds were used to bailout GM, Chrysler and the UAW.
Click to expand...

US taxpayers handed over $11.2 billion to the board of directors and major shareholders of GM. Are you mad the majority of Americans got nothing in return?


----------



## Indeependent

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those issues *caused* the housing crash. How ever unprincipled you think the banks were, their actions were only to mitigate their loses. Why do you think our left wing administration didn't pursue fraud charges? Because as bad as it was, it was not criminal fraud. Wake up to reality. Your attempts to dig for dirt is bullshit. The real "CRIME' which of course is not actionable, was the low and enticing interest rates by the Clinton and Bush Administration. Based on our current interest rates, if the banks are loose with their credit checks we are heading down the same road again.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you consider Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a cause of the housing crash?
> 
> If so do you blame the banks or government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. GrammLeachBliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.
> 
> The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the GrammLeachBliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.
Click to expand...


The crash occurred in Sep 2008, about two years AFTER Lending Institutions started selling "Toxic" aka "Worthless" Loans.

The overwhelming number of Jumbo Mortgages occurred between 2006 and the crash, NOT back in 1999.
While it's true people making 30k/year were getting mortgages up to the 150K area, they were NOT being approved 600K mortgages until 2006.


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you consider Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a cause of the housing crash?
> 
> If so do you blame the banks or government?
> 
> 
> 
> The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. GrammLeachBliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.
> 
> The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the GrammLeachBliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The crash occurred in Sep 2008, about two years AFTER Lending Institutions started selling "Toxic" aka "Worthless" Loans.
> 
> The overwhelming number of Jumbo Mortgages occurred between 2006 and the crash, NOT back in 1999.
> While it's true people making 30k/year were getting mortgages up to the 150K area, they were NOT being approved 600K mortgages until 2006.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the banks did not know those loans were toxic "2 years before the crash?"

BTW, I did not say anything about Jumbo Mortgages. I said, "the inflation of housing prices over value STARTED IN 1999," then they PEAKED IN 2006.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those issues *caused* the housing crash. How ever unprincipled you think the banks were, their actions were only to mitigate their loses. Why do you think our left wing administration didn't pursue fraud charges? Because as bad as it was, it was not criminal fraud. Wake up to reality. Your attempts to dig for dirt is bullshit. The real "CRIME' which of course is not actionable, was the low and enticing interest rates by the Clinton and Bush Administration. Based on our current interest rates, if the banks are loose with their credit checks we are heading down the same road again.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you consider Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a cause of the housing crash?
> 
> If so do you blame the banks or government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. Gramm&#8211;Leach&#8211;Bliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.
> 
> The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the Gramm&#8211;Leach&#8211;Bliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.
Click to expand...

The current crisis is rooted in poor performing mortgage loans made between 2005-07. The CRA was passed decades ago and hadn't been changed substantively since 1995. Nothing in CRA legislation required banks to make loans to people incapable of repaying the loans. Independent nonbank lenders like Ameriquest and Countrywide originated a substantial share of subprime mortgages yet were not directly influenced by CRA obligations. The CRA was not the cause of the current crisis; an epidemic of mortgage fraud at the behest of Wall Street banks was.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136&


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you consider Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a cause of the housing crash?
> 
> If so do you blame the banks or government?
> 
> 
> 
> The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. GrammLeachBliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.
> 
> The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the GrammLeachBliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The current crisis is rooted in poor performing mortgage loans made between 2005-07. The CRA was passed decades ago and hadn't been changed substantively since 1995. Nothing in CRA legislation required banks to make loans to people incapable of repaying the loans. Independent nonbank lenders like Ameriquest and Countrywide originated a substantial share of subprime mortgages yet were not directly influenced by CRA obligations. The CRA was not the cause of the current crisis; an epidemic of mortgage fraud at the behest of Wall Street banks was.
> 
> Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? - Community Dividend - Publications & Papers | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Click to expand...

You are correct that the law has not been changed substantively. But, Clinton and Bush policies forced bank regulators to pressure mortgage lenders to push loans to less credit worthy people. The mortgage fraud follows bad fiscal/monetary policy and the misuse of the CRA a distant 3rd. We know that the CRA as it dealt with financing multi family dwellings in red lined areas was not a problem. It was the push for more single family homes in the lower wage families that did help heat up the market. It was not even those who lost their homes, but the sheer quantity of new buyers, and speculators taking advantage of cheap loans that caused the bubble. The bubble was not caused by mortgage fraud.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Now that you mention it...*
> 
> "At ProPublica, we've provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP's launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments.
> 
> "With all this data, we're able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains.
> 
> "And the answer as of today is $123 billion.
> 
> Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP -- and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole."
> 
> *How deep is the hole taxpayers currently find themselves in
> Thanks for the link.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "hole" exists mainly because TARP funds were used to bailout GM, Chrysler and the UAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US taxpayers handed over $11.2 billion to the board of directors and major shareholders of GM. Are you mad the majority of Americans got nothing in return?
Click to expand...


The handed over more than that when you consider the loss they took on the purchase of GM stock.

What did they get in return?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Now that you mention it...*
> 
> "At ProPublica, we've provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP's launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments.
> 
> "With all this data, we're able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains.
> 
> "And the answer as of today is $123 billion.
> 
> Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP -- and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole."
> 
> *How deep is the hole taxpayers currently find themselves in
> Thanks for the link.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "hole" exists mainly because TARP funds were used to bailout GM, Chrysler and the UAW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US taxpayers handed over $11.2 billion to the board of directors and major shareholders of GM. Are you mad the majority of Americans got nothing in return?
Click to expand...


GM shareholders got bailed out? Can you prove it?


----------



## Indeependent

dnsmith35 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. GrammLeachBliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.
> 
> The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the GrammLeachBliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crash occurred in Sep 2008, about two years AFTER Lending Institutions started selling "Toxic" aka "Worthless" Loans.
> 
> The overwhelming number of Jumbo Mortgages occurred between 2006 and the crash, NOT back in 1999.
> While it's true people making 30k/year were getting mortgages up to the 150K area, they were NOT being approved 600K mortgages until 2006.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting that the banks did not know those loans were toxic "2 years before the crash?"
> 
> BTW, I did not say anything about Jumbo Mortgages. I said, "the inflation of housing prices over value STARTED IN 1999," then they PEAKED IN 2006.
Click to expand...


Banks have historically bundled poorly valued loans but this time they did it to such an extent that they couldn't come up with any Accounting tricks to offset the damage.

The banks handed out Jumbo Mortgages like cans of Coke to Lenders who didn't qualify on the Vendor databases; that's why the great majority of Mortgages and Home Equity Loans had to be "Approved" on paper.
The Inflation was caused by Lenders knowing they most probably wouldn't be audited.

There's not ONE Legislative document in existence that would allow a person earning 30K/year to qualify for such a Loan.
I've been asking for one for over three years now and not one Free Market fanatic can produce such a document.


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The crash occurred in Sep 2008, about two years AFTER Lending Institutions started selling "Toxic" aka "Worthless" Loans.
> 
> The overwhelming number of Jumbo Mortgages occurred between 2006 and the crash, NOT back in 1999.
> While it's true people making 30k/year were getting mortgages up to the 150K area, they were NOT being approved 600K mortgages until 2006.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that the banks did not know those loans were toxic "2 years before the crash?"
> 
> BTW, I did not say anything about Jumbo Mortgages. I said, "the inflation of housing prices over value STARTED IN 1999," then they PEAKED IN 2006.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banks have historically bundled poorly valued loans but this time they did it to such an extent that they couldn't come up with any Accounting tricks to offset the damage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Relevance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The banks handed out Jumbo Mortgages like cans of Coke to Lenders who didn't qualify on the Vendor databases; that's why the great majority of Mortgages and Home Equity Loans had to be "Approved" on paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Relevance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Inflation was caused by Lenders knowing they most probably wouldn't be audited.
> 
> There's not ONE Legislative document in existence that would allow a person earning 30K/year to qualify for such a Loan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bought a house in 1965 with a $300 down payment with a salary of less than $250 a month. So tell me about it Einstein.
> 
> 965 Enlisted Basic Military Pay Chart
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1965 Enlisted Basic Military Pay Chart
> Pay Grade Years of Service
> Less than 2 Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
> E-7 261.00 312.90 324.30 335.70 347.10
> E-6 225.00 273.00 284.40 295.80 307.50
> E-5 194.10 239.10 250.50 261.60 278.70
> E-4 165.50 204.90 216.00* 233.10 *244.80
> E-3 117.90 164.70 176.40 187.80 187.80
> E-2 97.50 136.50 136.50 136.50 136.50
> E-1 93.90 125.10 125.10 125.10 125.10
> E-1 with less than 4 months of service 87.90
> 
> And I bought another house while keeping that one in 1968 with E-5 with just  $324.90 a month​
> 
> 
> 
> I've been asking for one for over three years now and not one Free Market fanatic can produce such a document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This liberal can tell you all about it. Remember, LIBERAL, not LEFT WING EXTREMIST!
> 
> At $30,000 income, without other debt, a person can buy a house with a $400 to $500 payment depending on the credit history. As a realtor during my grad school work I sold a number of them. You really should do some research about an issue before making nonsensical statements.
Click to expand...


----------



## Againsheila

dnsmith35 said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To add to my last response to gnarley: I believe that blacks are as capable of learning and are just as intelligent as anyone else. Their propensity to drop out of school is a personality trait of the individuals. There is no excuse for a person to opt out of education and then complain they are being discriminated against in the job world. That is so much horse puckey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The major reason that most kids drop out of school has to do with their inability to comprehend what is being taught because they were failed in the first six years of their public schooling.  That is a shared responsibility of their parents and the public schools.
> 
> When public schools are proud that 76% of their fourth grade students can read at grade level, and that 72% of their third grade students can compute math at their grade level, you know you have a problem.  They are failing at least one quarter of their charges, and are creating disfunctional adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do agree that parental emphasis is a great thing to assist school success. But I further blame the teachers who do not accept the fact that some parents either can't or won't help their kids. Therefore it is up to the school system to give them that assistance which the parents do not afford. To say, "it is the fault of lax parental assistance" is a cop out. Face it, not only do some parents not help, some can actually be hostile to the concept to education, and the schoOl system MUST DO WHAT IS NECESSARY.
Click to expand...


IMO, there are certain things the parents are responsible for and certain things the teachers are responsible for.  If the teachers actually taught reading, writing and arithmetic and the parents took care of behavior, social graces and morals, things would be great.  Instead, we have far too many teachers trying to teach our kids morals, or lack thereof, while ignoring their actual education.  

How about we forget how many mommies Heather has unless it's part of a story problem?


----------



## Indeependent

dnsmith35 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that the banks did not know those loans were toxic "2 years before the crash?"
> 
> BTW, I did not say anything about Jumbo Mortgages. I said, "the inflation of housing prices over value STARTED IN 1999," then they PEAKED IN 2006.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Relevance?Relevance? I bought a house in 1965 with a $300 down payment with a salary of less than $250 a month. So tell me about it Einstein.
> 
> 965 Enlisted Basic Military Pay Chart
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1965 Enlisted Basic Military Pay Chart
> Pay Grade Years of Service
> Less than 2 Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
> E-7 261.00 312.90 324.30 335.70 347.10
> E-6 225.00 273.00 284.40 295.80 307.50
> E-5 194.10 239.10 250.50 261.60 278.70
> E-4 165.50 204.90 216.00* 233.10 *244.80
> E-3 117.90 164.70 176.40 187.80 187.80
> E-2 97.50 136.50 136.50 136.50 136.50
> E-1 93.90 125.10 125.10 125.10 125.10
> E-1 with less than 4 months of service 87.90
> 
> And I bought another house while keeping that one in 1968 with E-5 with just  $324.90 a month​
> 
> 
> 
> I've been asking for one for over three years now and not one Free Market fanatic can produce such a document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This liberal can tell you all about it. Remember, LIBERAL, not LEFT WING EXTREMIST!
> 
> At $30,000 income, without other debt, a person can buy a house with a $400 to $500 payment depending on the credit history. As a realtor during my grad school work I sold a number of them. You really should do some research about an issue before making nonsensical statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's keep to 2006 to the crash and not veer off to 1950 or whatever.
> So a bus driver living in Nassau County earning 30K/year in 2006 could pay a 600K mortgage over 30 years?
> 
> You are also overtly revising history as you state that the Toxic Loans came AFTER the crash of Sep 2008, and that's complete nonsense.
> Your Target is Business Good, Government Bad and that requires revisionism.
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalists are the most serious cause of mountain top removal, aren't they?*
> 
> "Peer-reviewed studies show that mountaintop mining has serious environmental impacts, including loss of biodiversity and toxification of watersheds, that mitigation practices cannot successfully address.[5]
> 
> "There are also adverse human health impacts which result from contact with affected streams or exposure to airborne toxins and dust.[5]
> 
> "According to 21 scientific studies there has been major effects on the population in Appalachia where MTM takes place including over 50% higher cancer rates, 42% higher birth defect rates, and *$75 billion a year in public health costs* from pollution."
> 
> *Socialize the cost.
> Privatize the profits.
> That's the problem.*
> 
> Mountaintop removal mining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment?  Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.
> 
> 
> Environmental disaster in eastern Europe - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Environmental disaster in eastern Europe*
> 
> In opting for economic development through all-out industrialisation and intensive agriculture, the Soviet Union and the countries of eastern Europe showed little concern for the natural environment. The Aral Sea basin was turned into a vast cotton plantation and nuclear activities were concentrated in the area of the Barents Sea, despite the vulnerability of the local ecosystems. While the economic recession of the 1990s has made it possible to cut down the emission of pollutants, the lack of administrative controls means there may yet be worse to come. Western aid is distributed case by case, without any overall plan, and is below promised levels and requirements. Yet industrial depollution and reconversion could be a major undertaking crucial for the future of the whole region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


You don't know what a straw man is, Georgie.  The example of Eastern Europe is clearly relevant to your implied claim socialism is the solution to environmental problems.  Socialism is an environmental disaster.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> Georgie implied that environmental problems are purely the work of capitalism



He did not imply that. You are just so religiously devoted to capitalism that you have no other way of understanding the issue so you force implications that you created. Please, go ahead and prove your point by quoting me the part where george implied it.




bripat9643 said:


> If the workers did make all the business decisions, the results would be even more of a disaster.



You have no evidence for that. If you do, please demonstrate it with sound reasoning and evidence. Saying human beings can't govern their own affairs and make decisions about what they do 1/3rd of their life is as anti-freedom as it comes.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> A system like that would probably cost about $20 trillion dollars.
> 
> Hardly cost effective.




How much did you think about what you said? I guess you shat on your keyboard and that's what was typed. Hardly intelligible. Let me correct your turd's estimates.

1. The budget estimate is 500 billion by 2030. You were off by about 19.5 trillion, not much though. A non-educated guess. It will have speeds between 110-220 mph. That's not faster than traveling in a car. Oh wait. It is. US High Speed Rail Map

2. Second, the whole reason it's proposed is it's wildly cost effective.  Also it's revitalizing to an economy, creating millions of jobs, sharply reducing the inefficiency of car/truck based transport where less than 1% of the fuel used is actually propelling the passengers. Moreover, it will reduce pollution of inefficient vehicles.

I guess you never thought for one second to actually learn about what such systems bring to countries that already have them (decades ago) in order to make an informed post.

So I determine that you are incredibly thoughtless. I will pray for your mental infirmary to heal rapidly and for you to think more about how to actually make an informed post.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A system like that would probably cost about $20 trillion dollars.
> 
> Hardly cost effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much did you think about what you said? I guess you shat on your keyboard and that's what was typed. Hardly intelligible. Let me correct your turd's estimates.
> 
> 1. The budget estimate is 500 billion by 2030. You were off by about 19.5 trillion, not much. Speeds between 110-220 mph. US High Speed Rail Map
> 
> 2. Second, the whole reason it's proposed is it's wildly cost effective.  Also it's revitalizing to an economy, creating millions of jobs, sharply reducing the inefficiency of car/truck based transport where less than 1% of the fuel used is actually propelling the passengers. Moreover, it will reduce pollution of inefficient vehicles.
> 
> I guess you never thought for one second to actually learn about what such systems bring to countries that already have them (decades ago) in order to make an informed post.
> 
> So I determine that you are incredibly thoughtless. I will pray for your mental infirmary to heal rapidly and for you to think more about how to actually make an informed post.
Click to expand...


*Second, the whole reason it's proposed is it's wildly cost effective.*

Wow, that's hilarious!


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgie implied that environmental problems are purely the work of capitalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not imply that. You are just so religiously devoted to capitalism that you have no other way of understanding the issue so you force implications that you created. Please, go ahead and prove your point by quoting me the part where george implied it.
Click to expand...


He didn't just imply it, he state it outright.

_"Capitalists are the most serious cause of mountain top removal, aren't they?"_

  - Georgie -



gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the workers did make all the business decisions, the results would be even more of a disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no evidence for that. If you do, please demonstrate it with sound reasoning and evidence. Saying human beings can't govern their own affairs and make decisions about what they do 1/3rd of their life is as anti-freedom as it comes.
Click to expand...


The history of worker run industries is all the proof needed.  They were attempted in the USSR and Yugoslavia for a short time.  It didn't take long for the government to step in and to end the chaos.

Humans are capable of governing their own affairs.  What they aren't capable of doing is governing the affairs of others.  That's why democracy always fails.  Being ruled by the whims and biases of your fellow humans is not freedom.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> He didn't just imply it, he state it outright.
> 
> _"Capitalists are the most serious cause of mountain top removal, aren't they?"_
> 
> - Georgie -



Good point. He didn't imply it. I was right for the wrong reason.



bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no evidence for that. If you do, please demonstrate it with sound reasoning and evidence. Saying human beings can't govern their own affairs and make decisions about what they do 1/3rd of their life is as anti-freedom as it comes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The history of worker run industries is all the proof needed.  They were attempted in the USSR and Yugoslavia for a short time.  It didn't take long for the government to step in and to end the chaos.
Click to expand...


Very vague references that don't seem to mean anything. The state governed the affairs in USSR and Yugoslavia so that can't be an example of people governing what they do with their work.



bripat9643 said:


> Humans are capable of governing their own affairs.  What they aren't capable of doing is governing the affairs of others.  That's why democracy always fails.  Being ruled by the whims and biases of your fellow humans is not freedom.



How would people govern their own affairs, which is to say how do we enact true freedom, autonomy? A hint: education plays an important role.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalists are the most serious cause of mountain top removal, aren't they?*
> 
> "Peer-reviewed studies show that mountaintop mining has serious environmental impacts, including loss of biodiversity and toxification of watersheds, that mitigation practices cannot successfully address.[5]
> 
> "There are also adverse human health impacts which result from contact with affected streams or exposure to airborne toxins and dust.[5]
> 
> "According to 21 scientific studies there has been major effects on the population in Appalachia where MTM takes place including over 50% higher cancer rates, 42% higher birth defect rates, and *$75 billion a year in public health costs* from pollution."
> 
> *Socialize the cost.
> Privatize the profits.
> That's the problem.*
> 
> Mountaintop removal mining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment?  Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.
> 
> 
> Environmental disaster in eastern Europe - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Environmental disaster in eastern Europe*
> 
> In opting for economic development through all-out industrialisation and intensive agriculture, the Soviet Union and the countries of eastern Europe showed little concern for the natural environment. The Aral Sea basin was turned into a vast cotton plantation and nuclear activities were concentrated in the area of the Barents Sea, despite the vulnerability of the local ecosystems. While the economic recession of the 1990s has made it possible to cut down the emission of pollutants, the lack of administrative controls means there may yet be worse to come. Western aid is distributed case by case, without any overall plan, and is below promised levels and requirements. Yet industrial depollution and reconversion could be a major undertaking crucial for the future of the whole region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

The fact that SOME capitalists do bad things does not condemn capitalism, no more than the fact that SOME socialists, do bad things. The difference? Capitalism makes our country prosperous which allows for the funding of social programs for the needy, where as socialism just creates more needy.


----------



## dnsmith35

Againsheila said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The major reason that most kids drop out of school has to do with their inability to comprehend what is being taught because they were failed in the first six years of their public schooling.  That is a shared responsibility of their parents and the public schools.
> 
> When public schools are proud that 76% of their fourth grade students can read at grade level, and that 72% of their third grade students can compute math at their grade level, you know you have a problem.  They are failing at least one quarter of their charges, and are creating disfunctional adults.
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree that parental emphasis is a great thing to assist school success. But I further blame the teachers who do not accept the fact that some parents either can't or won't help their kids. Therefore it is up to the school system to give them that assistance which the parents do not afford. To say, "it is the fault of lax parental assistance" is a cop out. Face it, not only do some parents not help, some can actually be hostile to the concept to education, and the schoOl system MUST DO WHAT IS NECESSARY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMO, there are certain things the parents are responsible for and certain things the teachers are responsible for.  If the teachers actually taught reading, writing and arithmetic and the parents took care of behavior, social graces and morals, things would be great.  Instead, we have far too many teachers trying to teach our kids morals, or lack thereof, while ignoring their actual education.
> 
> How about we forget how many mommies Heather has unless it's part of a story problem?
Click to expand...

I agree with you, all the way up to the point, we cannot force parents to help their kids, nor can we do anything about those who are too uneducated to help their kids. It becomes the schools problem in those cases, but the schools just want more parental involvement. So who suffers? The kid who goes to school without his homework and is humiliated in from of the class or graded down for something beyond his control.

We do need to encourage parents to help, but we MUST TAKE CARE OF THE KIDS NEEDS parental assistance or not.

I was a Psychology professor for a few years, and it was amazing how incapable some of the students of reading and writing a paper. I refused to pass failures, and when the University tried to change my grading system I resigned.


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Relevance?Relevance? I bought a house in 1965 with a $300 down payment with a salary of less than $250 a month. So tell me about it Einstein.
> 
> 965 Enlisted Basic Military Pay Chart
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1965 Enlisted Basic Military Pay Chart
> Pay Grade Years of Service
> Less than 2 Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
> E-7 261.00 312.90 324.30 335.70 347.10
> E-6 225.00 273.00 284.40 295.80 307.50
> E-5 194.10 239.10 250.50 261.60 278.70
> E-4 165.50 204.90 216.00* 233.10 *244.80
> E-3 117.90 164.70 176.40 187.80 187.80
> E-2 97.50 136.50 136.50 136.50 136.50
> E-1 93.90 125.10 125.10 125.10 125.10
> E-1 with less than 4 months of service 87.90
> 
> And I bought another house while keeping that one in 1968 with E-5 with just  $324.90 a month​
> This liberal can tell you all about it. Remember, LIBERAL, not LEFT WING EXTREMIST!
> 
> At $30,000 income, without other debt, a person can buy a house with a $400 to $500 payment depending on the credit history. As a realtor during my grad school work I sold a number of them. You really should do some research about an issue before making nonsensical statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's keep to 2006 to the crash and not veer off to 1950 or whatever.[/quoteTI responded to this comment from you, "I've been asking for one for over three years now and not one Free Market fanatic can produce such a document." You brought up the subject, I only answered you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a bus driver living in Nassau County earning 30K/year in 2006 could pay a 600K mortgage over 30 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless the loan officer was nuts. What is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> You are also overtly revising history as you state that the Toxic Loans came AFTER the crash of Sep 2008, and that's complete nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not specify a date, that is your suggestion. What I said was the crash was the reason the real estate people recognized that they were going to be an overage of bad loans so they bundled them to protect their profits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Target is Business Good, Government Bad and that requires revisionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are reading things into what I have said. The MOST IMPORTANT CAUSE of the housing inflation in which prices soared over value was an over heated market and the cause of that were low interest rates and governmental agencies trying to get more less wealthy into homes....many of which they could not pay. That is a face, and either you are smart enough to understand it....or not, it will not change. That is not revision, that is fact, and any economist worth the powder to blow him to hell will verify that for you. Of course the left wing extremists will always look for a capitalist to blame, only IT WON'T STICK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment?  Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.
> 
> 
> Environmental disaster in eastern Europe - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know what a straw man is, Georgie.  The example of Eastern Europe is clearly relevant to your implied claim socialism is the solution to environmental problems.  Socialism is an environmental disaster.
Click to expand...

YES, YES, YES, and socialism destroys prosperity instead of lifting people out of poverty it makes more people poor.


----------



## Indeependent

dnsmith35 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's keep to 2006 to the crash and not veer off to 1950 or whatever.[/quoteTI responded to this comment from you, "I've been asking for one for over three years now and not one Free Market fanatic can produce such a document." You brought up the subject, I only answered you.Not unless the loan officer was nuts. What is your point?
> I did not specify a date, that is your suggestion. What I said was the crash was the reason the real estate people recognized that they were going to be an overage of bad loans so they bundled them to protect their profits.You are reading things into what I have said. The MOST IMPORTANT CAUSE of the housing inflation in which prices soared over value was an over heated market and the cause of that were low interest rates and governmental agencies trying to get more less wealthy into homes....many of which they could not pay. That is a face, and either you are smart enough to understand it....or not, it will not change. That is not revision, that is fact, and any economist worth the powder to blow him to hell will verify that for you. Of course the left wing extremists will always look for a capitalist to blame, only IT WON'T STICK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just LOVE that "Overheated Market" phrase.
> How about?...
> People being called left and right by Mortgage Bankers and Brokers offering The Sky at Basement Rates?
> Please stop using vague language and simply admit that GW's overtly stated desire for a nation of home owners resulted in Lenders bypassing Vendor software and reaping the associated Fees and Commissions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgie implied that environmental problems are purely the work of capitalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not imply that. You are just so religiously devoted to capitalism that you have no other way of understanding the issue so you force implications that you created. Please, go ahead and prove your point by quoting me the part where george implied it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the workers did make all the business decisions, the results would be even more of a disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no evidence for that. If you do, please demonstrate it with sound reasoning and evidence. Saying human beings can't govern their own affairs and make decisions about what they do 1/3rd of their life is as anti-freedom as it comes.
Click to expand...

You are so full of crap you are incapable of understanding the implications of what you say. Socialism is far less desirable than capitalism. I know that from study, but more important, I know it from personal experience. All Marxism which has ever been experimented with on this earth has been an evil and drastic. There is no such thing as the idyllic socialism you seem to want, they all turn into dictatorships to keep the productive in line. I am sure you are aware that even the Scandinavian countries are not socialist, they are capitalists with more social programs than we have and many are questioning if they went too far. Sweden just recently looked into lowering corporate tax to attract MORE FREE ENTERPRISE, just like JFK did in his proposals and which LBJ followed up with after his assasination.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A system like that would probably cost about $20 trillion dollars.
> 
> Hardly cost effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much did you think about what you said? I guess you shat on your keyboard and that's what was typed. Hardly intelligible. Let me correct your turd's estimates.
> 
> 1. The budget estimate is 500 billion by 2030. You were off by about 19.5 trillion, not much though. A non-educated guess. It will have speeds between 110-220 mph. That's not faster than traveling in a car. Oh wait. It is. US High Speed Rail Map
> 
> 2. Second, the whole reason it's proposed is it's wildly cost effective.  Also it's revitalizing to an economy, creating millions of jobs, sharply reducing the inefficiency of car/truck based transport where less than 1% of the fuel used is actually propelling the passengers. Moreover, it will reduce pollution of inefficient vehicles.
> 
> I guess you never thought for one second to actually learn about what such systems bring to countries that already have them (decades ago) in order to make an informed post.
> 
> So I determine that you are incredibly thoughtless. I will pray for your mental infirmary to heal rapidly and for you to think more about how to actually make an informed post.
Click to expand...

It will be "wildly cost effective" if, and only if, it is used in the close together large metropolitan areas; certainly not as a "cross country" system.


----------



## dnsmith35

bripat9643 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgie implied that environmental problems are purely the work of capitalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not imply that. You are just so religiously devoted to capitalism that you have no other way of understanding the issue so you force implications that you created. Please, go ahead and prove your point by quoting me the part where george implied it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't just imply it, he state it outright.
> 
> _"Capitalists are the most serious cause of mountain top removal, aren't they?"_
> 
> - Georgie -
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the workers did make all the business decisions, the results would be even more of a disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no evidence for that. If you do, please demonstrate it with sound reasoning and evidence. Saying human beings can't govern their own affairs and make decisions about what they do 1/3rd of their life is as anti-freedom as it comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The history of worker run industries is all the proof needed.  They were attempted in the USSR and Yugoslavia for a short time.  It didn't take long for the government to step in and to end the chaos.
> 
> Humans are capable of governing their own affairs.  What they aren't capable of doing is governing the affairs of others.  That's why democracy always fails.  Being ruled by the whims and biases of your fellow humans is not freedom.
Click to expand...

Very true! There has never been a large long term socialist system that was successful, PERIOD.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't just imply it, he state it outright.
> 
> _"Capitalists are the most serious cause of mountain top removal, aren't they?"_
> 
> - Georgie -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point. He didn't imply it. I was right for the wrong reason.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The history of worker run industries is all the proof needed.  They were attempted in the USSR and Yugoslavia for a short time.  It didn't take long for the government to step in and to end the chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very vague references that don't seem to mean anything. The state governed the affairs in USSR and Yugoslavia so that can't be an example of people governing what they do with their work.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans are capable of governing their own affairs.  What they aren't capable of doing is governing the affairs of others.  That's why democracy always fails.  Being ruled by the whims and biases of your fellow humans is not freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would people govern their own affairs, which is to say how do we enact true freedom, autonomy? A hint: education plays an important role.
Click to expand...

I agree, education is a big part, but an even better hint: go back to all politics being local. Let us elect our districts representatives, and our state legislators, and maybe our state's governor. But nothing beyond that can be fully appreciated by individuals on a national scale. We DID HAVE a great system, state legislators selecting our Senate and our college of electors.


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just LOVE that "Overheated Market" phrase.
> How about?...
> People being called left and right by Mortgage Bankers and Brokers offering The Sky at Basement Rates?
> Please stop using vague language and simply admit that GW's overtly stated desire for a nation of home owners resulted in Lenders bypassing Vendor software and reaping the associated Fees and Commissions.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, every economist of note has called the inflation fueled by an overheated market, driven by low interest and the desire to make even many less wealthy people homeowners (not an evil in itself) all of which caused the crash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

Good night! Have fun!


----------



## hipeter924

Just waiting the next great depression around the corner, might be this decade or the next. 

If people think any sort of regulation or stabilizer has been put in place to stop it happening again with derivatives and bad debt, they are in for a rude awakening. None of the underlying causes of the current recession have been fixed, and the bailouts are just delaying the inevitable collapse.

The future isn't bright for the neo liberal brand of capitalism, as you can't have your cake and eat it too, without major long term consequences.


----------



## jasonnfree

dnsmith35 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what a straw man is, Georgie.  The example of Eastern Europe is clearly relevant to your implied claim socialism is the solution to environmental problems.  Socialism is an environmental disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, YES, YES, and socialism destroys prosperity instead of lifting people out of poverty it makes more people poor.
Click to expand...


But there are countries with some socialist policies that are doing quite well.  Sweden, Norway, Switzerland to name a few.   They have national health care (which ACA isn't) strong unions, some socialist countries like Norway use their nation's resources to fund education instead of our corporate democrats and republicans letting corporations export our resources to other countries.  Actually, a mix of socialism and capitalism is best I think.    Social security.  What would die hard, free market republicans and libertarians do if it were stopped tomorrow?  Have the old folks live with them?  Sure.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> "Too spread out" is such an uninformed statement I won't waste my time commenting on it." [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]I take it then, it is ok if you mock or insult me, but it is wrong for me to respond in kind?



You made the assertion the distance in America is too great for rail. I said your assertion was uninformed. So uninformed that I figured the map spoke for itself and I didn't need to comment.

If you consider this a personal attack, then you are delusional.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A system like that would probably cost about $20 trillion dollars.
> 
> Hardly cost effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much did you think about what you said? I guess you shat on your keyboard and that's what was typed. Hardly intelligible. Let me correct your turd's estimates.
> 
> 1. The budget estimate is 500 billion by 2030. You were off by about 19.5 trillion, not much though. A non-educated guess. It will have speeds between 110-220 mph. That's not faster than traveling in a car. Oh wait. It is. US High Speed Rail Map
> 
> 2. Second, the whole reason it's proposed is it's wildly cost effective.  Also it's revitalizing to an economy, creating millions of jobs, sharply reducing the inefficiency of car/truck based transport where less than 1% of the fuel used is actually propelling the passengers. Moreover, it will reduce pollution of inefficient vehicles.
> 
> I guess you never thought for one second to actually learn about what such systems bring to countries that already have them (decades ago) in order to make an informed post.
> 
> So I determine that you are incredibly thoughtless. I will pray for your mental infirmary to heal rapidly and for you to think more about how to actually make an informed post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will be "wildly cost effective" if, and only if, it is used in the close together large metropolitan areas; certainly not as a "cross country" system.
Click to expand...


I agree you need to consider where the most traffic flows. But you are unaware of the traffic and its dispersement in this country. Tens of thousands per day travel across great lengths from say Denver to Chicago and countless other destinations along heavily trafficked roads like I-70 and other long interstates. The efficiency of use will become more and more cost effective as time goes on.


----------



## hipeter924

> Social security. What would die hard, free market republicans and libertarians do if it were stopped tomorrow? Have the old folks live with them? Sure.


'Free Market' Capitalism is basically a cycle of boom and bust. It gives the appearance of rising living standards and prosperity. If a society fails to save and prepare for a bust, just like not preparing for a storm, it ends up worse off. Social welfare is the safety net of capitalism, remove enough, and it results in revolution or a dictatorship by a military junta.


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> I just LOVE that "Overheated Market" phrase.
> How about?...
> People being called left and right by Mortgage Bankers and Brokers offering The Sky at Basement Rates?
> Please stop using vague language and simply admit that GW's overtly stated desire for a nation of home owners resulted in Lenders bypassing Vendor software and reaping the associated Fees and Commissions.



No one is denying that GWB supporting more home ownership.  In fact, every president including the current one, has supported more home ownership, all the way back to Carter.

In the 1970s, Americans lost their minds, and bought into the idea of 'free love' and the sexual revolution.

As one would expect, divorce rates shot up to the sky.

Divorce drastically lowered the home ownership rate very quickly, because you take one family, with two people living in one home they own, and split them into two separate families, each renting.

Carter passed the Community Reinvestment act, believing that the problem with dropping home ownership rates, was caused by lack of investment into homes, rather than a problem societal family break down.  It's much easier to regulate the banks, than to convince people to stay true to their wedding vows.

In 1977, the CRA was signed into law, promoting investment into home ownership, encouraging lending.







Now you tell me....  Does that look like home prices after World War 2, were 'fairly' stable and consistent.... until when?   1977.   Look at the chart.  In 1977, prices started climbing, until they crashed.

Because of this... the CRA was virtually ignored for a decade.   Community groups were complaining that the CRA was not enforced.  (and it wasn't... for good reason).

In 1990s, Clinton came along, and vowed to fix things.  He instructed his government to start pushing banks.... which they did.

[ame=http://youtu.be/gpj4gcdm_JQ]HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]

In 1998, the Clinton government sued in court, banks to give out $2.1 Billion in unqualified loans.    Andrew Cuomo, at 3 minutes in, directly states they will be a higher risk, and higher default rate.

First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --

But it doesn't end there....   In 1997, Freddie Mac agrees to Securitize Sub-prime loans, for the first time in American history.



> First Union Capital Markets Corp.
> and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
> securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> 
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
> and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE:   FTU).



People asked "how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating?   This is how.  Freddie Mac, gave it to them.

Between the government directly suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and Freddie Mac securing them, what do you think that did to sub-prime lending?






and what do you think all those previously unqualified buyers flooding the market did to home prices?

From the prior picture.....






Notice the exact year that prices started spiking up?   1997.

Bottom line.... yes Bush did support more home ownership.   That's true, and no one I know, denies it.

The problem is.... the price bubble, and sub-prime bubble, started in 1997.  The facts clearly show this.  It's not ambiguous in any way.

And by the way.... Obama himself, was involved in the lawsuits against banks, to force them to engage in sub-prime lending.   We have court documents, with his name on them.

So Obama, was directly involved back in the late 90s, in what caused the crash in 2008.

It's just a fact.


----------



## Andylusion

hipeter924 said:


> Just waiting the next great depression around the corner, might be this decade or the next.
> 
> If people think any sort of regulation or stabilizer has been put in place to stop it happening again with derivatives and bad debt, they are in for a rude awakening. None of the underlying causes of the current recession have been fixed, and the bailouts are just delaying the inevitable collapse.
> 
> The future isn't bright for the neo liberal brand of capitalism, as you can't have your cake and eat it too, without major long term consequences.



Well first off, the idea that regulation can prevent or stabilize anything, is a joke.

Regulation is the cause of instability and crashes, not the solution to it.

A lot of people don't understand this, but our banking system is the most highly regulated system in the world.   Europe doesn't have the regulations that we do. 

In fact, Canada is one of the least regulated banking systems in the world, and has been for almost a century.    Canada didn't have a massive bank failure back in the 1930s, when our highly regulated banks crashed.   Canada didn't have a bank failure in 2009 when our highly regulated banks were crashing left and right.

Deregulation is the best way to prevent a future catastrophe.  Regulation to try and 'prevent a crash' is the best way to end up with a crash.

Moreover, there is nothing wrong with derivatives.  There are millions of derivatives throughout the world.   The derivatives based on sound investments, have worked well, are working well, and will continue to work well.

Only the derivatives based on bad sub-prime loans directly pushed for by our government, didn't work well... not because they were derivatives, but because sub-prime loans were bad.   Stop making banks give out bad loans, and derivatives are not a problem.

Lastly, the best way to get banks to stop giving out bad loans, is to stop suing them, and demanding that they do it.

The best way to stop customers from taking out bad loans, is to make absolutely sure they pay every penny they borrow, back.

One of the reason Canada had almost no massive housing bubble, and no sub-prime crash, and no bank failures because of it..... is simply because in Canada they have full recourse mortgages by law.  There is no 'foreclosure' and walk away from the debt.

In Canada, if you sign a mortgage for $100,000... you pay back the entire note down to the penny.

As a result, this shockingly causes citizens to be more prudent on what mortgages they sign up for.

The phrase "Strategic Default" doesn't exist in Canada.   We'd be wise to follow their example.


----------



## Andylusion

hipeter924 said:


> Social security. What would die hard, free market republicans and libertarians do if it were stopped tomorrow? Have the old folks live with them? Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Free Market' Capitalism is basically a cycle of boom and bust. It gives the appearance of rising living standards and prosperity. If a society fails to save and prepare for a bust, just like not preparing for a storm, it ends up worse off. Social welfare is the safety net of capitalism, remove enough, and it results in revolution or a dictatorship by a military junta.
Click to expand...


You show me what economic system doesn't have a cycle of boom and bust?    What country, and what economy, doesn't have boom periods and bust periods?

Boom and bust is natural to all economies throughout all history.

As for the "appearance" of rising living standards.....   Yeah I should say so...   Have you been to Europe?  I have.   Have you seen how people live there?   I have.

It would most certainly 'appear' that those living in Capitalist economies have a higher living standard, when they actually own cars, and the vest majority of the world doesn't have electricity and indoor plumbing.

When a mere $31,000 puts you in the top 1% of wage earners world wide.... yeah it 'appears' that capitalism has increased our living standards.

Social welfare is the cause of revolution or a dictatorship.   When people think they are owed something, by other people who are working... eventually that system fails when the people working, refuse to pay for those who are not, and the result is revolution or dictatorship.

That's EXACTLY what happened to the Roman republic.  The people started demanding government give them stuff, and eventually those working, got tired of paying for everyone who wasn't.   When the system fell apart, the mobs in the streets engaged in violence to get what they wanted, and eventually a tyranny under the ceasars was born.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. GrammLeachBliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.
> 
> The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the GrammLeachBliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.
> 
> 
> 
> The current crisis is rooted in poor performing mortgage loans made between 2005-07. The CRA was passed decades ago and hadn't been changed substantively since 1995. Nothing in CRA legislation required banks to make loans to people incapable of repaying the loans. Independent nonbank lenders like Ameriquest and Countrywide originated a substantial share of subprime mortgages yet were not directly influenced by CRA obligations. The CRA was not the cause of the current crisis; an epidemic of mortgage fraud at the behest of Wall Street banks was.
> 
> Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? - Community Dividend - Publications & Papers | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct that the law has not been changed substantively. But, Clinton and Bush policies forced bank regulators to pressure mortgage lenders to push loans to less credit worthy people. The mortgage fraud follows bad fiscal/monetary policy and the misuse of the CRA a distant 3rd. We know that the CRA as it dealt with financing multi family dwellings in red lined areas was not a problem. It was the push for more single family homes in the lower wage families that did help heat up the market. It was not even those who lost their homes, but the sheer quantity of new buyers, and speculators taking advantage of cheap loans that caused the bubble. The bubble was not caused by mortgage fraud.
Click to expand...

What caused parallel bubble-bust cycles occurring outside residential housing markets (commercial real estate and consumer credit) as well as similar financial crises in other countries which did not have analogous affordable housing policies?

Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "hole" exists mainly because TARP funds were used to bailout GM, Chrysler and the UAW.
> 
> 
> 
> US taxpayers handed over $11.2 billion to the board of directors and major shareholders of GM. Are you mad the majority of Americans got nothing in return?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The handed over more than that when you consider the loss they took on the purchase of GM stock.
> 
> What did they get in return?
Click to expand...

Detroit bankruptcy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Indeependent

dnsmith35 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, every economist of note has called the inflation fueled by an overheated market, driven by low interest and the desire to make even many less wealthy people homeowners (not an evil in itself) all of which caused the crash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Economists use what every profession use...nomenclature.
> Sometimes referred to as reverse engineering what actually occurred.
> 
> Economists also have a concern called "being published"...tell the dirty truth and stop getting calls to write articles and speaking engagement.
> 
> Sorry, I lived through the era and know hundreds of people who got the "cold" call to receive their "gift".
> 
> The polite explanation doesn't pass muster because it completely fails to explain why the software rejected the majority of the applications and the Loan had to be "Approved" on paper.
> Please attempt to explain the plethora of manual Rubber Stamp Approvals that are to this day being examined by Auditors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Indeependent

Androw said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just LOVE that "Overheated Market" phrase.
> How about?...
> People being called left and right by Mortgage Bankers and Brokers offering The Sky at Basement Rates?
> Please stop using vague language and simply admit that GW's overtly stated desire for a nation of home owners resulted in Lenders bypassing Vendor software and reaping the associated Fees and Commissions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying that GWB supporting more home ownership.  In fact, every president including the current one, has supported more home ownership, all the way back to Carter.
> 
> In the 1970s, Americans lost their minds, and bought into the idea of 'free love' and the sexual revolution.
> 
> As one would expect, divorce rates shot up to the sky.
> 
> Divorce drastically lowered the home ownership rate very quickly, because you take one family, with two people living in one home they own, and split them into two separate families, each renting.
> 
> Carter passed the Community Reinvestment act, believing that the problem with dropping home ownership rates, was caused by lack of investment into homes, rather than a problem societal family break down.  It's much easier to regulate the banks, than to convince people to stay true to their wedding vows.
> 
> In 1977, the CRA was signed into law, promoting investment into home ownership, encouraging lending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you tell me....  Does that look like home prices after World War 2, were 'fairly' stable and consistent.... until when?   1977.   Look at the chart.  In 1977, prices started climbing, until they crashed.
> 
> Because of this... the CRA was virtually ignored for a decade.   Community groups were complaining that the CRA was not enforced.  (and it wasn't... for good reason).
> 
> In 1990s, Clinton came along, and vowed to fix things.  He instructed his government to start pushing banks.... which they did.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/gpj4gcdm_JQ]HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> In 1998, the Clinton government sued in court, banks to give out $2.1 Billion in unqualified loans.    Andrew Cuomo, at 3 minutes in, directly states they will be a higher risk, and higher default rate.
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --
> 
> But it doesn't end there....   In 1997, Freddie Mac agrees to Securitize Sub-prime loans, for the first time in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp.
> and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
> securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> 
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
> and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE:   FTU).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People asked "how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating?   This is how.  Freddie Mac, gave it to them.
> 
> Between the government directly suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and Freddie Mac securing them, what do you think that did to sub-prime lending?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what do you think all those previously unqualified buyers flooding the market did to home prices?
> 
> From the prior picture.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the exact year that prices started spiking up?   1997.
> 
> Bottom line.... yes Bush did support more home ownership.   That's true, and no one I know, denies it.
> 
> The problem is.... the price bubble, and sub-prime bubble, started in 1997.  The facts clearly show this.  It's not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> And by the way.... Obama himself, was involved in the lawsuits against banks, to force them to engage in sub-prime lending.   We have court documents, with his name on them.
> 
> So Obama, was directly involved back in the late 90s, in what caused the crash in 2008.
> 
> It's just a fact.
Click to expand...


I'd like an answer to ONE simple question...
When did the first Blue Collar working making 30K/year or less get approved for a 500K/30 year mortgage?
I know the answer and it blows the 1997 answer out of the water.


----------



## hipeter924

Androw said:


> Well first off, the idea that regulation can prevent or stabilize anything, is a joke.


GlassSteagall was no joke, we wouldn't have had a severe recession as we did with it in place.



Androw said:


> Regulation is the cause of instability and crashes, not the solution to it.


 Hardly, the biggest time of economic growth was during the 1940s to 1960s period. This took place under Dirigisme (or state-directed economics) in Europe and the New Deal policies in America. China to some extent still follows Dirigisme. 



Androw said:


> A lot of people don't understand this, but our banking system is the most highly regulated system in the world.   Europe doesn't have the regulations that we do.


 But not in the right areas. A banking system doesn't have to have heavy regulation to manage the banking system - but it does need the right kind of regulations to keep it under control. Though both the US and European banking system both struggled and had to be bailed out to keep them afloat, an expense that tax payers couldn't really afford. That doesn't suggest that deregulation is the answer, rather it just proves that had the right sort of regulations been in place, that were relevant (and not out of date) with financial activities, the recession would have been a lot less severe.



Androw said:


> In fact, Canada is one of the least regulated banking systems in the world, and has been for almost a century.    Canada didn't have a massive bank failure back in the 1930s, when our highly regulated banks crashed.   Canada didn't have a bank failure in 2009 when our highly regulated banks were crashing left and right.


 Not true, during the financial crisis Canadian banks were shored up by $114 billion in liquidity; it just implies better planning. But China, Australia, and New Zealand didn't have substantial banking collapses either, because again they had the right regulations in place.



Androw said:


> Deregulation is the best way to prevent a future catastrophe.  Regulation to try and 'prevent a crash' is the best way to end up with a crash.


 Yet, deregulation policies ironically got rid the best parts of regulation, notability Glass-Steagall, and corporations lobbied for regulation to suit their interests. We don't have a 'free market', rather a state-capitalist economy, so the 'deregulation fits all' strategy doesn't work - the trick is balancing the right amount of regulation with right amount of deregulation. 



Androw said:


> Moreover, there is nothing wrong with derivatives.  There are millions of derivatives throughout the world.   The derivatives based on sound investments, have worked well, are working well, and will continue to work well.


 Would beg to differ, as even sound investments are indirectly tied into bad ones, as was proven when even reputable and conservative banks were hit.



Androw said:


> Only the derivatives based on bad sub-prime loans directly pushed for by our government, didn't work well... not because they were derivatives, but because sub-prime loans were bad.   Stop making banks give out bad loans, and derivatives are not a problem.


 Yet, none of that trading on bad-sub primes and so forth has stopped, would counter that it has probably increased, but at a much lesser rate as it did during the 2000s. You can't stop bad loans, as property values and the like can dive without warning. 



Androw said:


> The best way to stop customers from taking out bad loans, is to make absolutely sure they pay every penny they borrow, back.


 If they lose their jobs or fall into bankruptcy they can't, and if the value of their property dives, a previously easily repayable debt becomes impossible to pay. The banks got greedy, and actually went out of their way to encourage loans to people that could't afford them, but at the same time a lot of houses went under that were owned by people that re-mortgaged their house knowing they were in good financial state at the time. There is no way for a bank to truly prepare, it can only limit the fallout. 



Androw said:


> One of the reason Canada had almost no massive housing bubble, and no sub-prime crash, and no bank failures because of it..... is simply because in Canada they have full recourse mortgages by law.  There is no 'foreclosure' and walk away from the debt.


 No, the reason it didn't have issues. was a massive $114 billion dollar shore up of liquidity in 2008, some of which by the US Federal Reserve. There were bank failures, and issues with Canadian banks, but they were bailed out before they reached a state of technical collapse.



Androw said:


> In Canada, if you sign a mortgage for $100,000... you pay back the entire note down to the penny.


  So do most other countries, but even under non-bust conditions, if a house goes from $400,000 to $380,000 in value, it makes borrowing for that house more expensive. There is always going to be bankruptcy and the like, and the reality is that there will always be bad loans.


----------



## hipeter924

Androw said:


> You show me what economic system doesn't have a cycle of boom and bust?    What country, and what economy, doesn't have boom periods and bust periods?


 Saying there is a boom and bust cycle is a neutral statement, a better question would be (if you are going to make that argument): What country has had a constant increase in economic growth and a stable unemployment and poverty rate? None.



Androw said:


> Boom and bust is natural to all economies throughout all history.


 Trying to make my statement out like a bone of contention doesn't really work, as this thread is about capitalism, if it was about communism, I would have said it has a boom and bust cycle. So basically I don't agree or disagree with that statement. 



Androw said:


> As for the "appearance" of rising living standards.....   Yeah I should say so...   Have you been to Europe?  I have.   Have you seen how people live there?   I have.


 I have been to Europe, and have friends who live in Europe. I have seen how people live, before the recession Greek garbage workers were striking over wages. Poverty and inequality is still as bad (if not worse) than the so-called regulatory dark ages of the 1950s-1960s, and continues to increase.



Androw said:


> It would most certainly 'appear' that those living in Capitalist economies have a higher living standard, when they actually own cars, and the vest majority of the world doesn't have electricity and indoor plumbing.


 I stated 'free market' capitalism, not 'capitalism' as a general term - meaning that there is no evidence that state directed capitalism is no better or worse than the pseudo 'free market'. This is not an argument over capitalism vs communism, but 'free market' capitalism vs state directed capitalism. Most of those advances took place during state-directed capitalism, and without the technological advances we have today - excluding China of course, that continues to have a form of state-directed capitalism. 



Androw said:


> When a mere $31,000 puts you in the top 1% of wage earners world wide.... yeah it 'appears' that capitalism has increased our living standards.


 Well, actually there has been a lot of currency inflation over the years, and in increase in living costs. $31,000 today gets you a lot less than it did 50 years ago, which is why it is necessary for wage and salary growth to keep pace with living costs and inflation, but it hasn't so we have a substantial rise in GDP, without the benefits filtering through. So in reality, while population and GDP may increase, most of that GDP growth comes from property, the finance industry and corporations, rather than private individuals (who could even have declining GDP growth). 



Androw said:


> Social welfare is the cause of revolution or a dictatorship.   When people think they are owed something, by other people who are working... eventually that system fails when the people working, refuse to pay for those who are not, and the result is revolution or dictatorship.


 Hardly. The French revolted because they couldn't even afford a loaf of bread (hyperinflation), high debt, and high unemployment. Not because the French King gave them welfare, in fact the reverse - as war veterans were denied social welfare. The Russian Revolution was a lot more complex, as social democrats, communists, and the anti-war movement, had varying motivations for revolt. There has never been a state that has fallen because people had been given 'too much welfare', instead because their economy had major flaws due to other external and internal factors i.e. like massive debt, wars, hyperinflation,etc. 



Androw said:


> That's EXACTLY what happened to the Roman republic.  The people started demanding government give them stuff, and eventually those working, got tired of paying for everyone who wasn't.   When the system fell apart, the mobs in the streets engaged in violence to get what they wanted, and eventually a tyranny under the ceasars was born.


 The Roman Republic welfare system, largely consisted of free grain in the city of Rome, and was very limited by modern standards. The Roman Republic economy had crises, but never actually collapsed. And at the time riots and mobs were commonplace, much like they are in modern cities. 

But on the question of Julius Caesar, he wasn't technically a tyrant, as he was appointed by a democratic vote of the Senate, and he had a high approval rating by the common people. Before Caesar rose to power the Roman Republic existed under a series of squabbling aristocrats, to most Caesar was a stabilizing influence on the republic. Julius Caesar had no desire to destroy the republic, even if he was a power hungry politician. It was Augustus that weakened the powers of the Senate, and later emperors that turned it into nothing more than a rubber stamp body. 

That aside, you couldn't really do a fair comparison between the economy of the Roman republic and the modern day US economy. The Roman republic was driven by slavery and lacked the technological advances we have today, not to mention that it wasn't as benevolent a system - as the Roman Republic was a lot more politically fickle and unstable.


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> I just LOVE that "Overheated Market" phrase.


I am glad you love it because it was how economists and real estate professionals refer to it. Overheated Real Estate Markets Are Due for a 2006 Slowdown. - National Mortgage News | HighBeam Research


> How about?...
> People being called left and right by Mortgage Bankers and Brokers offering The Sky at Basement Rates?


Bankers and brokers offer low interest rates based on the Federal Reserve, which offered basement rates.





> Please stop using vague language and simply admit that GW's overtly stated desire for a nation of home owners resulted in Lenders bypassing Vendor software and reaping the associated Fees and Commissions.


Why admit something that is not true? LOW INTEREST RATES DETERMINED BY FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY WAS THE DIRECT CAUSE OF THE *OVER HEATED REAL ESTATE INFLATION.*

Businesses will try to get business, it is their purpose, but they still have to follow government guide lines.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "hole" exists mainly because TARP funds were used to bailout GM, Chrysler and the UAW.
> 
> 
> 
> US taxpayers handed over $11.2 billion to the board of directors and major shareholders of GM. Are you mad the majority of Americans got nothing in return?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GM shareholders got bailed out? Can you prove it?
Click to expand...

Start here:

Economic Update: Corporations, Wages and Jail | Professor Richard D. Wolff


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment?  Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.
> 
> 
> Environmental disaster in eastern Europe - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know what a straw man is, Georgie.  The example of Eastern Europe is clearly relevant to your implied claim socialism is the solution to environmental problems.  Socialism is an environmental disaster.
Click to expand...

I made no such implication.
Your bias has blinded you to any criticism of capitalism.
Get help.


----------



## dnsmith35

jasonnfree said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what a straw man is, Georgie.  The example of Eastern Europe is clearly relevant to your implied claim socialism is the solution to environmental problems.  Socialism is an environmental disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> YES, YES, YES, and socialism destroys prosperity instead of lifting people out of poverty it makes more people poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there are countries with some socialist policies that are doing quite well.  Sweden, Norway, Switzerland to name a few.   They have national health care (which ACA isn't) strong unions, some socialist countries like Norway use their nation's resources to fund education instead of our corporate democrats and republicans letting corporations export our resources to other countries.  Actually, a mix of socialism and capitalism is best I think.    Social security.  What would die hard, free market republicans and libertarians do if it were stopped tomorrow?  Have the old folks live with them?  Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one of the countries you listed (or any other of consequence) are socialist. They are not a MIX of capitalism and socialism. They are capitalist countries with more social programs than we have, and social programs do not socialism make. The most important factor you look for when judging a country's economic system is, "does the government OWN production and DISTRIBUTION and PRICE of goods; or, at the very least, totally control those situation. None of the countries listed fit that bill.
> 
> Socialism Defined by Merriam Webster
> 1
> 
> :  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> 
> 2
> 
> a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> 
> b :  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> 3
> 
> :  a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done​
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> .....





dnsmith35 said:


> "Too spread out" is such an uninformed statement I won't waste my time commenting on it." [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]I take it then, it is ok if you mock or insult me, but it is wrong for me to respond in kind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made the assertion the distance in America is too great for rail. I said your assertion was uninformed. So uninformed that I figured the map spoke for itself and I didn't need to comment.
> 
> 
> 
> You were rude, and my assertion that the distance by which the US is spread out is not conducive to rapid train system, and they would only be practical in the large metropolitan areas, and between them if they are close together.
> 
> If you consider this a personal attack, then you are delusional.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe, "]"Too spread out" is such an uninformed statement I* won't waste my time commenting on it." * is rude, you are much more stupid than I already thought you were.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much did you think about what you said? I guess you shat on your keyboard and that's what was typed. Hardly intelligible. Let me correct your turd's estimates.
> 
> 
> 
> You are quoting me, and I did not put a price tag on it. Get your stories straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The budget estimate is 500 billion by 2030. You were off by about 19.5 trillion, not much though. A non-educated guess. It will have speeds between 110-220 mph. That's not faster than traveling in a car. Oh wait. It is. US High Speed Rail Map
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my comment!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of what you said is true, and where practical, for short distances between nearby metropolitan areas, it would be good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Second, the whole reason it's proposed is it's wildly cost effective.  Also it's revitalizing to an economy, creating millions of jobs, sharply reducing the inefficiency of car/truck based transport where less than 1% of the fuel used is actually propelling the passengers. Moreover, it will reduce pollution of inefficient vehicles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you never thought for one second to actually learn about what such systems bring to countries that already have them (decades ago) in order to make an informed post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It works in small areas, that is true. And it will also work when it connects a chain of small communities where few people own personal transportation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I determine that you are incredibly thoughtless. I will pray for your mental infirmary to heal rapidly and for you to think more about how to actually make an informed post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you are either quoting someone else's post or you are being your typical rude self with me. It will be "wildly cost effective" if, and only if, it is used in the close together large metropolitan areas; certainly not as a "cross country" system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree you need to consider where the most traffic flows. But you are unaware of the traffic and its dispersement in this country. Tens of thousands per day travel across great lengths from say Denver to Chicago and countless other destinations along heavily trafficked roads like I-70 and other long interstates. The efficiency of use will become more and more cost effective as time goes on.
Click to expand...

You will have to produce a link to prove the practicality of the Chicago/Denver link. I have  travelled Amtrak on that route, and it will only justify 1 train load a day, which will make Rapid/high speed train service too expensive to be practical on that run. As it is, during the summer, trains have to slow down to 30MPH because the heat warps the tracks; and yes, I know new and much more  improved tracks must be installed for high speed. Another issues is, the current rail system is private enterprise, and if a freight train is coming the Amtrak passenger train must pull off onto a side track while it passes. It would be a great way to travel, far better than current train travel or air travel, but it will have to pay for itself or the American people won't stand for it.


----------



## dnsmith35

hipeter924 said:


> Social security. What would die hard, free market republicans and libertarians do if it were stopped tomorrow? Have the old folks live with them? Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Free Market' Capitalism is basically a cycle of boom and bust. It gives the appearance of rising living standards and prosperity. If a society fails to save and prepare for a bust, just like not preparing for a storm, it ends up worse off. Social welfare is the safety net of capitalism, remove enough, and it results in revolution or a dictatorship by a military junta.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "free market capitalism." In our world all capitalism is heavily regulated. I agree it should be. But your suggestion that the boom and bust cycle only occurs in "free market capitalism" is wrong. The difference between capitalism and Marxist, is even "free market capitalism" would have boom cycles. In Marxism all of the cycles are down and their is no boom, while only the commissars have any prosperity.


----------



## dnsmith35

Androw said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just LOVE that "Overheated Market" phrase.
> How about?...
> People being called left and right by Mortgage Bankers and Brokers offering The Sky at Basement Rates?
> Please stop using vague language and simply admit that GW's overtly stated desire for a nation of home owners resulted in Lenders bypassing Vendor software and reaping the associated Fees and Commissions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying that GWB supporting more home ownership.  In fact, every president including the current one, has supported more home ownership, all the way back to Carter.
> 
> In the 1970s, Americans lost their minds, and bought into the idea of 'free love' and the sexual revolution.
> 
> As one would expect, divorce rates shot up to the sky.
> 
> Divorce drastically lowered the home ownership rate very quickly, because you take one family, with two people living in one home they own, and split them into two separate families, each renting.
> 
> Carter passed the Community Reinvestment act, believing that the problem with dropping home ownership rates, was caused by lack of investment into homes, rather than a problem societal family break down.  It's much easier to regulate the banks, than to convince people to stay true to their wedding vows.
> 
> In 1977, the CRA was signed into law, promoting investment into home ownership, encouraging lending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you tell me....  Does that look like home prices after World War 2, were 'fairly' stable and consistent.... until when?   1977.   Look at the chart.  In 1977, prices started climbing, until they crashed.
> 
> Because of this... the CRA was virtually ignored for a decade.   Community groups were complaining that the CRA was not enforced.  (and it wasn't... for good reason).
> 
> In 1990s, Clinton came along, and vowed to fix things.  He instructed his government to start pushing banks.... which they did.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/gpj4gcdm_JQ]HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> In 1998, the Clinton government sued in court, banks to give out $2.1 Billion in unqualified loans.    Andrew Cuomo, at 3 minutes in, directly states they will be a higher risk, and higher default rate.
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --
> 
> But it doesn't end there....   In 1997, Freddie Mac agrees to Securitize Sub-prime loans, for the first time in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp.
> and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
> securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> 
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
> and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE:   FTU).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People asked "how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating?   This is how.  Freddie Mac, gave it to them.
> 
> Between the government directly suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and Freddie Mac securing them, what do you think that did to sub-prime lending?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what do you think all those previously unqualified buyers flooding the market did to home prices?
> 
> From the prior picture.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the exact year that prices started spiking up?   1997.
> 
> Bottom line.... yes Bush did support more home ownership.   That's true, and no one I know, denies it.
> 
> The problem is.... the price bubble, and sub-prime bubble, started in 1997.  The facts clearly show this.  It's not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> And by the way.... Obama himself, was involved in the lawsuits against banks, to force them to engage in sub-prime lending.   We have court documents, with his name on them.
> 
> So Obama, was directly involved back in the late 90s, in what caused the crash in 2008.
> 
> It's just a fact.
Click to expand...

This was a great post. However, if you believe the left wing extremists will accept the FACTS you posted, I have a bridge over the Atchafalaya Swamp to sell


----------



## dnsmith35

Androw said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just waiting the next great depression around the corner, might be this decade or the next.
> 
> If people think any sort of regulation or stabilizer has been put in place to stop it happening again with derivatives and bad debt, they are in for a rude awakening. None of the underlying causes of the current recession have been fixed, and the bailouts are just delaying the inevitable collapse.
> 
> The future isn't bright for the neo liberal brand of capitalism, as you can't have your cake and eat it too, without major long term consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first off, the idea that regulation can prevent or stabilize anything, is a joke.
> 
> Regulation is the cause of instability and crashes, not the solution to it.
> 
> A lot of people don't understand this, but our banking system is the most highly regulated system in the world.   Europe doesn't have the regulations that we do.
> 
> In fact, Canada is one of the least regulated banking systems in the world, and has been for almost a century.    Canada didn't have a massive bank failure back in the 1930s, when our highly regulated banks crashed.   Canada didn't have a bank failure in 2009 when our highly regulated banks were crashing left and right.
> 
> Deregulation is the best way to prevent a future catastrophe.  Regulation to try and 'prevent a crash' is the best way to end up with a crash.
> 
> Moreover, there is nothing wrong with derivatives.  There are millions of derivatives throughout the world.   The derivatives based on sound investments, have worked well, are working well, and will continue to work well.
> 
> Only the derivatives based on bad sub-prime loans directly pushed for by our government, didn't work well... not because they were derivatives, but because sub-prime loans were bad.   Stop making banks give out bad loans, and derivatives are not a problem.
> 
> Lastly, the best way to get banks to stop giving out bad loans, is to stop suing them, and demanding that they do it.
> 
> The best way to stop customers from taking out bad loans, is to make absolutely sure they pay every penny they borrow, back.
> 
> One of the reason Canada had almost no massive housing bubble, and no sub-prime crash, and no bank failures because of it..... is simply because in Canada they have full recourse mortgages by law.  There is no 'foreclosure' and walk away from the debt.
> 
> In Canada, if you sign a mortgage for $100,000... you pay back the entire note down to the penny.
> 
> As a result, this shockingly causes citizens to be more prudent on what mortgages they sign up for.
> 
> The phrase "Strategic Default" doesn't exist in Canada.   We'd be wise to follow their example.
Click to expand...

Another great post!


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current crisis is rooted in poor performing mortgage loans made between 2005-07. The CRA was passed decades ago and hadn't been changed substantively since 1995. Nothing in CRA legislation required banks to make loans to people incapable of repaying the loans. Independent nonbank lenders like Ameriquest and Countrywide originated a substantial share of subprime mortgages yet were not directly influenced by CRA obligations. The CRA was not the cause of the current crisis; an epidemic of mortgage fraud at the behest of Wall Street banks was.
> 
> Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? - Community Dividend - Publications & Papers | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that the law has not been changed substantively. But, Clinton and Bush policies forced bank regulators to pressure mortgage lenders to push loans to less credit worthy people. The mortgage fraud follows bad fiscal/monetary policy and the misuse of the CRA a distant 3rd. We know that the CRA as it dealt with financing multi family dwellings in red lined areas was not a problem. It was the push for more single family homes in the lower wage families that did help heat up the market. It was not even those who lost their homes, but the sheer quantity of new buyers, and speculators taking advantage of cheap loans that caused the bubble. The bubble was not caused by mortgage fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What caused parallel bubble-bust cycles occurring outside residential housing markets (commercial real estate and consumer credit) as well as similar financial crises in other countries which did not have analogous affordable housing policies?
> 
> Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

"What caused parallel bubble-bust cycles outside of the housing markets?" You should ask me something difficult, this question is simpleton in nature. The housing crash occurred and a huge number of construction workers lost their jobs. It became a chain reaction causing building material vendors and suppliers to go bust as well. Taking that many employed people out of jobs then caused a chain reaction in all of the industries depending on the demand from those people. I would have thought that a person like who has posted so many assertions about economics would understand such a simple situation.

BTW, I like your link. 

the housing crisis was "created by reckless government policies.&#8221;[20][21] Republican appointee to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Peter J. Wallison and coauthor Edward Pinto believed that the housing bubble and crash was due to federal mandates to promote affordable housing. These were applied through the Community Reinvestment Act and "government sponsored entities" (GSE's) "Fannie Mae" (Federal National Mortgage Association) and "Freddie Mac" (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation).[22] Journalist Daniel Indiviglio argues the two GSE's played a major role, while not denying the importance of Wall Street and others in the private sector in creating the collapse.[4]

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie&#8217;s and Freddie&#8217;s loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. In 1995 HUD mandated that 40 percent of Fannie and Freddie&#8217;s loan purchases would have to support affordable housing. In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Under the Bush Administration HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase affordable housing purchases &#8211; to as high as 56 percent by the year 2008.[22] To satisfy these mandates, Fannie and Freddie eventually announced low-income and minority loan commitments totaling $5 trillion.[23] Critics argue that, to meet these commitments, Fannie and Freddie promoted a loosening of lending standards - industry-wide.[24]

Regarding the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charged the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[25] American Enterprise Institute Scholar Edward Pinto noted that, in 2008, Bank of America reported that its CRA portfolio, which constituted only 7 percent of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses.[26] A Cleveland Plain Dealer investigation found that "The City of Cleveland has aggravated its vexing foreclosure problems and has lost millions in tax dollars by helping people buy homes they could not afford." The newspaper added that these problem mortgages "typically came from local banks fulfilling federal requirements to lend money in poorer neighborhoods."​


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> Economists use what every profession use...nomenclature.
> Sometimes referred to as reverse engineering what actually occurred.
> 
> Economists also have a concern called "being published"...tell the dirty truth and stop getting calls to write articles and speaking engagement.
> 
> Sorry, I lived through the era and know hundreds of people who got the "cold" call to receive their "gift".
> 
> The polite explanation doesn't pass muster because it completely fails to explain why the software rejected the majority of the applications and the Loan had to be "Approved" on paper.
> Please attempt to explain the plethora of manual Rubber Stamp Approvals that are to this day being examined by Auditors.


However you choose to understand or not, is not relevant to the issues.

Yep, I lived through the end of the great depression, and through every boom and bust cycle and recession since. I also have an MBA with a major in Economics: as well as an Ed.S in Psychology, because understanding human behavior is imperative in understanding economics. What I have posted about the housing crash, the great recession, and its "recovery".



Androw said:


> ......


  carefully explained and produced citations which caused many of those "rubber stamp" issues very well.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current crisis is rooted in poor performing mortgage loans made between 2005-07. The CRA was passed decades ago and hadn't been changed substantively since 1995. Nothing in CRA legislation required banks to make loans to people incapable of repaying the loans. Independent nonbank lenders like Ameriquest and Countrywide originated a substantial share of subprime mortgages yet were not directly influenced by CRA obligations. The CRA was not the cause of the current crisis; an epidemic of mortgage fraud at the behest of Wall Street banks was.
> 
> Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? - Community Dividend - Publications & Papers | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that the law has not been changed substantively. But, Clinton and Bush policies forced bank regulators to pressure mortgage lenders to push loans to less credit worthy people. The mortgage fraud follows bad fiscal/monetary policy and the misuse of the CRA a distant 3rd. We know that the CRA as it dealt with financing multi family dwellings in red lined areas was not a problem. It was the push for more single family homes in the lower wage families that did help heat up the market. It was not even those who lost their homes, but the sheer quantity of new buyers, and speculators taking advantage of cheap loans that caused the bubble. The bubble was not caused by mortgage fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What caused parallel bubble-bust cycles occurring outside residential housing markets (commercial real estate and consumer credit) as well as similar financial crises in other countries which did not have analogous affordable housing policies?
> 
> Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


*Why did the price bubble effect commercial property?    Isn't that really obvious?
*
Commercial real estate, and residential real estate both require the same underlining commodity.... real estate.  Land.    If the cost of a plot of ground drastically goes up because of a boom in residential property, it obviously costs a commercial property developer more money to buy a plot of land.

Additionally, plots of land are rezoned constantly.  If there is a massive demand for residential property, builders will be incentivized to rezone for residential, thus reducing the supply of commercial property.    Supply and Demand again.  Supply goes down, demand remains the same, price goes up.

So why commercial and apartment properties increased in price right along with residential, should be obvious.

*There was no real bubble in consumer credit.*

People claim there was, because when the economic down turn hits, people couldn't pay their debts.    But that would be true in any economic down turn.  People take out loan in accordance with their current fiscal situation.   (which is bad practice, but there it is).

When the their fiscal situation changes, due to bad policy, or just an economic down turn, the result is that consumer debt that was practical during the boom, is considered irresponsible in the down turn.

People are looking at bad consumer loans, that were given in a prior economic situation, with a current day back drop.    But neither the loaner, nor the loanee, could know in the future, the loan would be bad.

This is why you should teach your kids, to not borrow money.   A litmus test of whether or not you can afford something you want to buy, is whether or not you have to borrow to buy it.  If you must borrow, then you are not able to afford it.   Move on.  Save up.  Buy stuff when you have the money.

*So why were their bubbles in other countries?*

First off, I disagree with the implication of the question.   The implication is that If Country B, does not have the same Policy X as Country A, and both countries have a similar crash, then Policy X could not be the cause.

This is a false illogical claim.    You would instinctively understand this when applied to any other situation.

Person A smokes.  Person B does not.  Both Person A and Person B get lung cancer and die.   Obviously smoking can not possibly be the cause of lung cancer, because Person B did not smoke, and still got lung cancer.

Clearly that line of logic is false.  So is the idea that just because some other country had a price bubble and didn't have the same exact bad policies we did, means those policies were not a cause.

There are several reasons why other countries could have price bubbles.    One possibility is that other countries had different policies that still had negative consequences.

For example Spain had government officials on the boards of banks.  Those officials pushing the line that building infrastructure automatically results in economic growth, pushed for the white elephant projects that were built all across Spain.  The worst of these was a multi-million dollar airport project, built in an isolated town in the middle of Spain, that was open for only about 2 years, and never received one single commercial flight during it's entire operating life.

The white elephant projects were the result of Spanish political policy.    Completely different policy than the US, but it had the exact same effect.   A growing real estate investment bubble, that crashed.

Now I have not investigated each and every single country with a real estate bubble, to determine the exact cause of each countries price bubble.     But as I said before, I don't think it matters.   Just because another country had a different cause, doesn't mean that our Policy X here in the US, isn't the cause of the problem here.    That is not a dependable claim.


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just LOVE that "Overheated Market" phrase.
> How about?...
> People being called left and right by Mortgage Bankers and Brokers offering The Sky at Basement Rates?
> Please stop using vague language and simply admit that GW's overtly stated desire for a nation of home owners resulted in Lenders bypassing Vendor software and reaping the associated Fees and Commissions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying that GWB supporting more home ownership.  In fact, every president including the current one, has supported more home ownership, all the way back to Carter.
> 
> In the 1970s, Americans lost their minds, and bought into the idea of 'free love' and the sexual revolution.
> 
> As one would expect, divorce rates shot up to the sky.
> 
> Divorce drastically lowered the home ownership rate very quickly, because you take one family, with two people living in one home they own, and split them into two separate families, each renting.
> 
> Carter passed the Community Reinvestment act, believing that the problem with dropping home ownership rates, was caused by lack of investment into homes, rather than a problem societal family break down.  It's much easier to regulate the banks, than to convince people to stay true to their wedding vows.
> 
> In 1977, the CRA was signed into law, promoting investment into home ownership, encouraging lending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you tell me....  Does that look like home prices after World War 2, were 'fairly' stable and consistent.... until when?   1977.   Look at the chart.  In 1977, prices started climbing, until they crashed.
> 
> Because of this... the CRA was virtually ignored for a decade.   Community groups were complaining that the CRA was not enforced.  (and it wasn't... for good reason).
> 
> In 1990s, Clinton came along, and vowed to fix things.  He instructed his government to start pushing banks.... which they did.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/gpj4gcdm_JQ]HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> In 1998, the Clinton government sued in court, banks to give out $2.1 Billion in unqualified loans.    Andrew Cuomo, at 3 minutes in, directly states they will be a higher risk, and higher default rate.
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --
> 
> But it doesn't end there....   In 1997, Freddie Mac agrees to Securitize Sub-prime loans, for the first time in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp.
> and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
> securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> 
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
> and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE:   FTU).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People asked "how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating?   This is how.  Freddie Mac, gave it to them.
> 
> Between the government directly suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and Freddie Mac securing them, what do you think that did to sub-prime lending?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what do you think all those previously unqualified buyers flooding the market did to home prices?
> 
> From the prior picture.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the exact year that prices started spiking up?   1997.
> 
> Bottom line.... yes Bush did support more home ownership.   That's true, and no one I know, denies it.
> 
> The problem is.... the price bubble, and sub-prime bubble, started in 1997.  The facts clearly show this.  It's not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> And by the way.... Obama himself, was involved in the lawsuits against banks, to force them to engage in sub-prime lending.   We have court documents, with his name on them.
> 
> So Obama, was directly involved back in the late 90s, in what caused the crash in 2008.
> 
> It's just a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like an answer to ONE simple question...
> When did the first Blue Collar working making 30K/year or less get approved for a 500K/30 year mortgage?
> I know the answer and it blows the 1997 answer out of the water.
Click to expand...


What part of my post, does one single Blue Collar worker earning $30K, getting a huge loan, disprove?   What part does it contradict?   I suggest nothing.

But go ahead.  Make your claim and prove it.   I am curious to the answer.


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just LOVE that "Overheated Market" phrase.
> How about?...
> People being called left and right by Mortgage Bankers and Brokers offering The Sky at Basement Rates?
> Please stop using vague language and simply admit that GW's overtly stated desire for a nation of home owners resulted in Lenders bypassing Vendor software and reaping the associated Fees and Commissions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying that GWB supporting more home ownership.  In fact, every president including the current one, has supported more home ownership, all the way back to Carter.
> 
> In the 1970s, Americans lost their minds, and bought into the idea of 'free love' and the sexual revolution.
> 
> As one would expect, divorce rates shot up to the sky.
> 
> Divorce drastically lowered the home ownership rate very quickly, because you take one family, with two people living in one home they own, and split them into two separate families, each renting.
> 
> Carter passed the Community Reinvestment act, believing that the problem with dropping home ownership rates, was caused by lack of investment into homes, rather than a problem societal family break down.  It's much easier to regulate the banks, than to convince people to stay true to their wedding vows.
> 
> In 1977, the CRA was signed into law, promoting investment into home ownership, encouraging lending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you tell me....  Does that look like home prices after World War 2, were 'fairly' stable and consistent.... until when?   1977.   Look at the chart.  In 1977, prices started climbing, until they crashed.
> 
> Because of this... the CRA was virtually ignored for a decade.   Community groups were complaining that the CRA was not enforced.  (and it wasn't... for good reason).
> 
> In 1990s, Clinton came along, and vowed to fix things.  He instructed his government to start pushing banks.... which they did.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/gpj4gcdm_JQ]HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> In 1998, the Clinton government sued in court, banks to give out $2.1 Billion in unqualified loans.    Andrew Cuomo, at 3 minutes in, directly states they will be a higher risk, and higher default rate.
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --
> 
> But it doesn't end there....   In 1997, Freddie Mac agrees to Securitize Sub-prime loans, for the first time in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp.
> and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
> securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> 
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
> and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE:   FTU).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People asked "how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating?   This is how.  Freddie Mac, gave it to them.
> 
> Between the government directly suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and Freddie Mac securing them, what do you think that did to sub-prime lending?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what do you think all those previously unqualified buyers flooding the market did to home prices?
> 
> From the prior picture.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the exact year that prices started spiking up?   1997.
> 
> Bottom line.... yes Bush did support more home ownership.   That's true, and no one I know, denies it.
> 
> The problem is.... the price bubble, and sub-prime bubble, started in 1997.  The facts clearly show this.  It's not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> And by the way.... Obama himself, was involved in the lawsuits against banks, to force them to engage in sub-prime lending.   We have court documents, with his name on them.
> 
> So Obama, was directly involved back in the late 90s, in what caused the crash in 2008.
> 
> It's just a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like an answer to ONE simple question...
> When did the first Blue Collar working making 30K/year or less get approved for a 500K/30 year mortgage?
> I know the answer and it blows the 1997 answer out of the water.
Click to expand...

Actually, your question is irrelevant to the discussion. Many people making $30K a year were approved for smaller loans, and were unable to afford them as they were lulled into buying too much house at the low initial interest. Then the ARM went up at the first interest adjustment period.


----------



## dnsmith35

hipeter924 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first off, the idea that regulation can prevent or stabilize anything, is a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> GlassSteagall was no joke, we wouldn't have had a severe recession as we did with it in place.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regulation is the cause of instability and crashes, not the solution to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly, the biggest time of economic growth was during the 1940s to 1960s period. This took place under Dirigisme (or state-directed economics) in Europe and the New Deal policies in America. China to some extent still follows Dirigisme.
> 
> But not in the right areas. A banking system doesn't have to have heavy regulation to manage the banking system - but it does need the right kind of regulations to keep it under control. Though both the US and European banking system both struggled and had to be bailed out to keep them afloat, an expense that tax payers couldn't really afford. That doesn't suggest that deregulation is the answer, rather it just proves that had the right sort of regulations been in place, that were relevant (and not out of date) with financial activities, the recession would have been a lot less severe.
> 
> Not true, during the financial crisis Canadian banks were shored up by $114 billion in liquidity; it just implies better planning. But China, Australia, and New Zealand didn't have substantial banking collapses either, because again they had the right regulations in place.
> 
> Yet, deregulation policies ironically got rid the best parts of regulation, notability Glass-Steagall, and corporations lobbied for regulation to suit their interests. We don't have a 'free market', rather a state-capitalist economy, so the 'deregulation fits all' strategy doesn't work - the trick is balancing the right amount of regulation with right amount of deregulation.
> 
> Would beg to differ, as even sound investments are indirectly tied into bad ones, as was proven when even reputable and conservative banks were hit.
> 
> Yet, none of that trading on bad-sub primes and so forth has stopped, would counter that it has probably increased, but at a much lesser rate as it did during the 2000s. You can't stop bad loans, as property values and the like can dive without warning.
> 
> If they lose their jobs or fall into bankruptcy they can't, and if the value of their property dives, a previously easily repayable debt becomes impossible to pay. The banks got greedy, and actually went out of their way to encourage loans to people that could't afford them, but at the same time a lot of houses went under that were owned by people that re-mortgaged their house knowing they were in good financial state at the time. There is no way for a bank to truly prepare, it can only limit the fallout.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reason Canada had almost no massive housing bubble, and no sub-prime crash, and no bank failures because of it..... is simply because in Canada they have full recourse mortgages by law.  There is no 'foreclosure' and walk away from the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the reason it didn't have issues. was a massive $114 billion dollar shore up of liquidity in 2008, some of which by the US Federal Reserve. There were bank failures, and issues with Canadian banks, but they were bailed out before they reached a state of technical collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Canada, if you sign a mortgage for $100,000... you pay back the entire note down to the penny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do most other countries, but even under non-bust conditions, if a house goes from $400,000 to $380,000 in value, it makes borrowing for that house more expensive. There is always going to be bankruptcy and the like, and the reality is that there will always be bad loans.
Click to expand...


Your post reflects a total misunderstanding of economics. You name things, but have no idea if it was the correct point or how it occurred. At least try to learn something before embarrassing yourself. If you would have submitted a paper like that to me when I was a university professor, you would have gotten an F-.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hipeter924 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first off, the idea that regulation can prevent or stabilize anything, is a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> GlassSteagall was no joke, we wouldn't have had a severe recession as we did with it in place.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regulation is the cause of instability and crashes, not the solution to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly, the biggest time of economic growth was during the 1940s to 1960s period. This took place under Dirigisme (or state-directed economics) in Europe and the New Deal policies in America. China to some extent still follows Dirigisme.
> 
> But not in the right areas. A banking system doesn't have to have heavy regulation to manage the banking system - but it does need the right kind of regulations to keep it under control. Though both the US and European banking system both struggled and had to be bailed out to keep them afloat, an expense that tax payers couldn't really afford. That doesn't suggest that deregulation is the answer, rather it just proves that had the right sort of regulations been in place, that were relevant (and not out of date) with financial activities, the recession would have been a lot less severe.
> 
> Not true, during the financial crisis Canadian banks were shored up by $114 billion in liquidity; it just implies better planning. But China, Australia, and New Zealand didn't have substantial banking collapses either, because again they had the right regulations in place.
> 
> Yet, deregulation policies ironically got rid the best parts of regulation, notability Glass-Steagall, and corporations lobbied for regulation to suit their interests. We don't have a 'free market', rather a state-capitalist economy, so the 'deregulation fits all' strategy doesn't work - the trick is balancing the right amount of regulation with right amount of deregulation.
> 
> Would beg to differ, as even sound investments are indirectly tied into bad ones, as was proven when even reputable and conservative banks were hit.
> 
> Yet, none of that trading on bad-sub primes and so forth has stopped, would counter that it has probably increased, but at a much lesser rate as it did during the 2000s. You can't stop bad loans, as property values and the like can dive without warning.
> 
> If they lose their jobs or fall into bankruptcy they can't, and if the value of their property dives, a previously easily repayable debt becomes impossible to pay. The banks got greedy, and actually went out of their way to encourage loans to people that could't afford them, but at the same time a lot of houses went under that were owned by people that re-mortgaged their house knowing they were in good financial state at the time. There is no way for a bank to truly prepare, it can only limit the fallout.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reason Canada had almost no massive housing bubble, and no sub-prime crash, and no bank failures because of it..... is simply because in Canada they have full recourse mortgages by law.  There is no 'foreclosure' and walk away from the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the reason it didn't have issues. was a massive $114 billion dollar shore up of liquidity in 2008, some of which by the US Federal Reserve. There were bank failures, and issues with Canadian banks, but they were bailed out before they reached a state of technical collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Canada, if you sign a mortgage for $100,000... you pay back the entire note down to the penny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do most other countries, but even under non-bust conditions, if a house goes from $400,000 to $380,000 in value, it makes borrowing for that house more expensive. There is always going to be bankruptcy and the like, and the reality is that there will always be bad loans.
Click to expand...


*GlassSteagall was no joke, we wouldn't have had a severe recession as we did with it in place.*

Really? Why is that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> US taxpayers handed over $11.2 billion to the board of directors and major shareholders of GM. Are you mad the majority of Americans got nothing in return?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GM shareholders got bailed out? Can you prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start here:
> 
> Economic Update: Corporations, Wages and Jail | Professor Richard D. Wolff
Click to expand...


No proof of your claim there.

Try again?


----------



## Andylusion

hipeter924 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first off, the idea that regulation can prevent or stabilize anything, is a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> GlassSteagall was no joke, we wouldn't have had a severe recession as we did with it in place.
Click to expand...


Mr Hipeter, I am not trying to insult you in any way, but in truth, you don't appear to know what you are talking about.

For historical accuracy, there is no Glass-Steagal Act.  In reality, it's the 1933 Banking Act.  People call it the "Glass Steagal Act" because the sponsors of the 1933 Banking Act were Carter Glass, and Henry B. Steagall.

Ironically, the 1933 Banking Act contained several key provisions for FDIC and Federal Deposit Insurance, which people claim to be part of the New Deal.

The provision of the 1933 Banking Act, that people call the Glass-Steagal Act, is the provision for separation of Retail banks, Commercial bank, Investment Banks, and Insurance Companies.   Investment, Retail, Commercial and Insurance, were prohibited from operating together.

The claim that these prohibitions would have prevented the melt down are just simply not true.

First, the rest of the world does not have these prohibitions, and most never did.   Canada didn't, and never has.   They have not had a problem.

Second, the vast majority of the banks that failed in the recent crash, would not have been covered under the Glass-Steagal prohibitions.  Countrywide Financial would not.   Bear Stearns would not.  Indymac would not.   The vast majority of the bank failures, had Glass Steagall been enforced, would have not been affected in any way.

Third, the majority of the 'fixes' that government pushed, were only allowed with Glass-Steagal repealed.   Bank of America buying out Countrywide, would have been illegal under GSA.     JP Morgan Chase buying Bear Stearns, would have been illegal under GSA.

So this idea that "repealing Glass Steagal Act caused everything"  in just flat out bogus.   If anything, getting rid of that regulation helped solve the crisis.



> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regulation is the cause of instability and crashes, not the solution to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly, the biggest time of economic growth was during the 1940s to 1960s period. This took place under Dirigisme (or state-directed economics) in Europe and the New Deal policies in America. China to some extent still follows Dirigisme.
Click to expand...


By any objective measure, the New Deal policies are what dragged out the recession, into the great depression.

How does paying people to destroy food, during a hunger crisis, result in great economic growth?    If you look at the standard of living under the New Deal, and World War 2, the standard declined at best.   There was no great economic growth.



> Not true, during the financial crisis Canadian banks were shored up by $114 billion in liquidity; it just implies better planning. But China, Australia, and New Zealand didn't have substantial banking collapses either, because again they had the right regulations in place.



Ah, I don't buy it.   Most of the Canadian government programs existed before the crisis in the US every happened.   Further, there was no sub-prime melt down in Canada, which would have caused the need for a bailout.   No one can even point to a bank that was at risk of bankruptcy.

The basic argument I've read thus far, is that 'banks had taken advantage of money the government gave out..... thus they were bailed out'.   Sorry, that's not true.    If you provide a program today, to hand out money to people like me, I'm going to ask for your address and come get some cash.   Doesn't mean you bailed me out... just means I was more than happy to take your money.



> Would beg to differ, as even sound investments are indirectly tied into bad ones, as was proven when even reputable and conservative banks were hit.



That doesn't change the point.   Yes, if you tie bad investments to good investments, that doesn't make the bad investments good.   If the Carpathia had reached the Titanic before she sank, and tied itself to the hull, that would not have kept the Titanic afloat, it would have just sank the Carpathia too.

Again, the problem wasn't derivatives.  The problem was the sub-prime loans.   If the sub-prime loans had not been sold to begin with, or had not been bundled into the derivatives, there would never have been a problem with derivatives.

And again.... it was government that pushed sub-prime loans, and it was government that pushed them to be bundled into derivatives.  If you watched the video, Obama himself says the whole point of bundling those loans, was to get more investment.    The government pushed this whole thing.



> Yet, none of that trading on bad-sub primes and so forth has stopped, would counter that it has probably increased, but at a much lesser rate as it did during the 2000s. You can't stop bad loans, as property values and the like can dive without warning.



Yes, property values could dive without warning, even without sub-prime lending.    But in this case, it was directly because of sub-prime loans that values went up, and it was directly because of sub-prime melt down, that they went down.

Just because X can happen without Y, doesn't mean X did happened without Y. 



> If they lose their jobs or fall into bankruptcy they can't, and if the value of their property dives, a previously easily repayable debt becomes impossible to pay. The banks got greedy, and actually went out of their way to encourage loans to people that could't afford them, but at the same time a lot of houses went under that were owned by people that re-mortgaged their house knowing they were in good financial state at the time. There is no way for a bank to truly prepare, it can only limit the fallout.



Yes, AFTER the bubble got started, banks found they could make risky loans, and if the buyer defaulted, they could get the house back, which had a higher value than when it was purchased.   Thus the risky loan was considered very safe, because if the buyer paid back the loan, they win.  If the buyer defaults, and they get back a house worth more than the original loan, they win.

It was a win-win for the banks.

But here's the problem....  that situation was only true AFTER the bubble got started.

What started the bubble?   Answer?   Government through Freddie Mac, encourage banks to make sub-prime loans that Freddie Mac would guarantee.

This was a win-win for the banks, because of government.  If the buyer paid back, the bank wins.  If the buyer defaults, Freddie Mac pays back, and the bank wins.  Win-win for the bank  BEFORE the bubble started.

Government started the bubble.  Yes, the banks continued the bubble.   But Government created the bubble to begin with.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> You will have to produce a link to prove the practicality of the Chicago/Denver link. I have  travelled Amtrak on that route, and it will only justify 1 train load a day, which will make Rapid/high speed train service too expensive to be practical on that run. As it is, during the summer, trains have to slow down to 30MPH because the heat warps the tracks; and yes, I know new and much more  improved tracks must be installed for high speed. Another issues is, the current rail system is private enterprise, and if a freight train is coming the Amtrak passenger train must pull off onto a side track while it passes. It would be a great way to travel, far better than current train travel or air travel, but it will have to pay for itself or the American people won't stand for it.



The current rail system for passenger travel is publicly owned by the US treasury, called Amtrak.

You accurately account for one trip per day via rail. But many who fly and drive would certainly be happier to utilize speedy, efficient and cheap transport (not to mention far less pollutants). Thus making it's swift travel useful for a wide array of people. I believe Americans can recognize this as a great benefit in connectivity etc. to society as well as job creation if guidelines are followed. Paying for itself is a good point and I'd have to do more analysis but generally speaking current economics does not account for costs to the environment like what it costs to create and use cars for everyone, planes etc yet those costs are huge. Lite rail would reduce these unaccounted expenditures significantly through the sheer amount of people it can transport each day. 

I base this off years of traveling back and forth from California to Ohio and various places in between using ride shares--which were a-plenty. The roads are always in use, most commonly by single passenger vehicles. If you have been on an interstate, you know cars are always moving.


----------



## dnsmith35

Toddsterpatriot said:


> .....


He, Hipeter, hasn't got the least idea about that or any other economic issue. He is still crying about a 2008 shore up of some financial institutions, which was an after effect need, and not a cause of anything. The culprit in the housing crash was mostly caused by the inflation of price over value in an over heated real estate market, which over heated because of low interest rates and insufficient leadership in credit justification, mostly by government and quasi government institutions. When the real estate bubble crashed it caused the recession, which was mostly over by 2009. 

Most analysts find former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan at fault, though for a variety of reasons. Conservative economists&#8212;ever worried about inflation&#8212;tend to fault Greenspan for keeping interest rates too low between 2003 and 2005 as the real estate and credit bubbles inflated. This is the view, for instance, of Stanford economist and former Reagan adviser John Taylor, who argues that the Fed's easy money policies spurred a frenzy of irresponsible borrowing on the part of banks and consumers alike.​
There were obviously other minor reasons the market crashed, but the government monetary and fiscal policy was at the head of it all while other issues fell into place.

The Great Recession

The Great Recession&#8212;which officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009&#8212;*began with the bursting of an 8 trillion dollar housing bubble*.  The resulting loss of wealth led to sharp cutbacks in consumer spending.  This loss of consumption, combined with the financial market chaos triggered by the bursting of the bubble, also led to a collapse in business investment.  As consumer spending and business investment dried up, massive job loss followed.  In 2008 and 2009, the U.S. labor market lost 8.4 million jobs, or 6.1% of all payroll employment.  This was the most dramatic employment contraction (by far) of any recession since the Great Depression. By comparison, in the deep recession that began in 1981, job loss was 3.1%, or only about half as severe.
- See more at: http://stateofworkingamerica.org/great-recession/#sthash.GBFUz529.dpuf​


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> quote=dnsmith35You will have to produce a link to prove the practicality of the Chicago/Denver link. I have  travelled Amtrak on that route, and it will only justify 1 train load a day, which will make Rapid/high speed train service too expensive to be practical on that run. As it is, during the summer, trains have to slow down to 30MPH because the heat warps the tracks; and yes, I know new and much more  improved tracks must be installed for high speed. Another issues is, the current rail system is private enterprise, and if a freight train is coming the Amtrak passenger train must pull off onto a side track while it passes. It would be a great way to travel, far better than current train travel or air travel, but it will have to pay for itself or the American people won't stand for it.





> The current rail system for passenger travel is publicly owned by the US treasury, called Amtrak.


The government owns Amtrak. It does not own the rail system on which the Amtrak trains travel.





> You accurately account for one trip per day via rail. But many who fly and drive would certainly be happier to utilize speedy, efficient and cheap transport (not to mention far less pollutants). Thus making it's swift travel useful for a wide array of people. I believe Americans can recognize this as a great benefit in connectivity etc. to society as well as job creation if guidelines are followed.


I am sure it would work on shorter and larger metropolitan areas, but not cross country.    





> Paying for itself is a good point and I'd have to do more analysis but generally speaking current economics does not account for costs to the environment like what it costs to create and use cars for everyone, planes etc yet those costs are huge. Lite rail would reduce these unaccounted expenditures significantly through the sheer amount of people it can transport each day.


I am not willing to put our economy in jeopardy to try this, at least not until the systems exist in the more densely populated areas and show a marked increase in use.

I base this off years of traveling back and forth from California to Ohio and various places in between using ride shares--which were a-plenty. The roads are always in use, most commonly by single passenger vehicles. If you have been on an interstate, you know cars are always moving.[/QUOTE]Yes, albeit very slowly in congested areas.

BTW, when we discussed unions, I did not make it clear to you I have nothing against union members. I detest union leaders, and because the 12% of our labor force is all that is now unionized, it is obvious that they are the elitist labor force in our country. I darn sure will help anyone who is destitute before I help those elitist wage earners who tend to build products which others sometimes can't afford. The answer is not to unionize all of labor. We must recognize the right of our labor force to choose, and not be forced at the expense of their freedom and rights. As it is, one of the reasons unions are not as popular as earlier in our history is because the government has taken over most, if not all, of the labor  issues once the province of unions.

As I told you before, I will send what money I can to take care of little old ladies pounding big rocks into little ones, or destitute children in India before I throw money at the higher paid groups in America simply because I live here. (The least of his people)


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that the law has not been changed substantively. But, Clinton and Bush policies forced bank regulators to pressure mortgage lenders to push loans to less credit worthy people. The mortgage fraud follows bad fiscal/monetary policy and the misuse of the CRA a distant 3rd. We know that the CRA as it dealt with financing multi family dwellings in red lined areas was not a problem. It was the push for more single family homes in the lower wage families that did help heat up the market. It was not even those who lost their homes, but the sheer quantity of new buyers, and speculators taking advantage of cheap loans that caused the bubble. The bubble was not caused by mortgage fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> What caused parallel bubble-bust cycles occurring outside residential housing markets (commercial real estate and consumer credit) as well as similar financial crises in other countries which did not have analogous affordable housing policies?
> 
> Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "What caused parallel bubble-bust cycles outside of the housing markets?" You should ask me something difficult, this question is simpleton in nature. The housing crash occurred and a huge number of construction workers lost their jobs. It became a chain reaction causing building material vendors and suppliers to go bust as well. Taking that many employed people out of jobs then caused a chain reaction in all of the industries depending on the demand from those people. I would have thought that a person like who has posted so many assertions about economics would understand such a simple situation.
> 
> BTW, I like your link.
> 
> the housing crisis was "created by reckless government policies.[20][21] Republican appointee to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Peter J. Wallison and coauthor Edward Pinto believed that the housing bubble and crash was due to federal mandates to promote affordable housing. These were applied through the Community Reinvestment Act and "government sponsored entities" (GSE's) "Fannie Mae" (Federal National Mortgage Association) and "Freddie Mac" (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation).[22] Journalist Daniel Indiviglio argues the two GSE's played a major role, while not denying the importance of Wall Street and others in the private sector in creating the collapse.[4]
> 
> The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannies and Freddies loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. In 1995 HUD mandated that 40 percent of Fannie and Freddies loan purchases would have to support affordable housing. In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Under the Bush Administration HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase affordable housing purchases  to as high as 56 percent by the year 2008.[22] To satisfy these mandates, Fannie and Freddie eventually announced low-income and minority loan commitments totaling $5 trillion.[23] Critics argue that, to meet these commitments, Fannie and Freddie promoted a loosening of lending standards - industry-wide.[24]
> 
> Regarding the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charged the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[25] American Enterprise Institute Scholar Edward Pinto noted that, in 2008, Bank of America reported that its CRA portfolio, which constituted only 7 percent of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses.[26] A Cleveland Plain Dealer investigation found that "The City of Cleveland has aggravated its vexing foreclosure problems and has lost millions in tax dollars by helping people buy homes they could not afford." The newspaper added that these problem mortgages "typically came from local banks fulfilling federal requirements to lend money in poorer neighborhoods."​
Click to expand...

*Glad you like the link:*

"Excessive consumer housing debt was in turn caused by the mortgage-backed security, credit default swap, and collateralized debt obligation sub-sectors of the finance industry, which were offering irrationally low interest rates and irrationally high levels of approval to subprime mortgage consumers because they were calculating aggregate risk using gaussian copula formulas that strictly assumed the independence of individual component mortgages, when in fact the credit-worthiness almost every new subprime mortgage was highly correlated with that of any other because of linkages through consumer spending levels which fell sharply when property values began to fall during the initial wave of mortgage defaults.[133][134] 

"Debt consumers were acting in their rational self-interest, because they were unable to audit the finance industry's opaque faulty risk pricing methodology.[135]

"Low interest rates, high home prices, and flipping (or reselling homes to make a profit), effectively created an almost risk-free environment for lenders because risky or defaulted loans could be paid back by flipping homes.

"Private lenders pushed subprime mortgages to capitalize on this, aided by greater market power for mortgage originators and less market power for mortgage securitizers.[18] 

"Subprime mortgages amounted to $35 billion (5% of total originations) in 1994,[136] 9% in 1996,[137] $160 billion (13%) in 1999,[136] and $600 billion (20%) in 2006.[137][138][139].

"The recent use of subprime mortgages, adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only mortgages, and stated income loans (a subset of 'Alt-A' loans, where the borrower did not have to provide documentation to substantiate the income stated on the application; these loans were also called 'no doc' (no documentation) loans and, somewhat pejoratively, as 'liar loans') to finance home purchases described above have raised concerns about the quality of these loans should interest rates rise again or the borrower is unable to pay the mortgage.[71][140][141][142]

"In many areas, particularly in those with most appreciation, non-standard loans went from almost unheard of to prevalent. 

"For example, 80% of all mortgages initiated in San Diego region in 2004 were adjustable-rate, and 47% were interest only."

Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Feel free to provide examples of government mandates that required liars loans or any other fraudulent activities in pursuit of private profits.*


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> GM shareholders got bailed out? Can you prove it?
> 
> 
> 
> Start here:
> 
> Economic Update: Corporations, Wages and Jail | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No proof of your claim there.
> 
> Try again?
Click to expand...

You missed it.
Try harder.
Economic Update: Corporations, Wages and Jail | Professor Richard D. Wolff


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start here:
> 
> Economic Update: Corporations, Wages and Jail | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No proof of your claim there.
> 
> Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed it.
> Try harder.
> Economic Update: Corporations, Wages and Jail | Professor Richard D. Wolff
Click to expand...


No, still no proof the GM shareholders were bailed out.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> As I told you before, I will send what money I can to take care of little old ladies pounding big rocks into little ones, or destitute children in India before I throw money at the higher paid groups in America simply because I live here. (The least of his people)



I read your Mister A-D example and I know the point you have been driving at. If one can help only through sending money, then I suppose your principle holds and thus I agree.

However, if one can assist a human being face to face whether having made them food/buying it and distributing it (soup kitchens, on the street encounters) or simply offering a smile, hello, perhaps some dignity goes a longer way than impersonal bills that afford the recipient the choice to spend it to harm themselves. But if you don't find yourself doing these things, ask yourself why not? If the answer is it is difficult for you to do so, then I suppose assisting the poorest in India is justifiably a top priority over those who live beyond your neighborhood therefore may have a shot at some other person helping them more than those in India.

But it should be duly noted that humanitarian aide can go to monsters. Examples include some who run refugee camps siphoning funds to support their excesses, to support military aide under the guise of humanitarian causes/stopping genocide etc., and can simply be mismanaged without malicious intent. It is a risk that is preventable through action in your community; but barring that opportunity, it may be worth the risk.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start here:
> 
> Economic Update: Corporations, Wages and Jail | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No proof of your claim there.
> 
> Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed it.
> Try harder.
> Economic Update: Corporations, Wages and Jail | Professor Richard D. Wolff
Click to expand...


Then we're both missing it, because I'm not seeing anything on that link, that supports your claim either.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Paying for itself is a good point and I'd have to do more analysis but generally speaking current economics does not account for costs to the environment like what it costs to create and use cars for everyone, planes etc yet those costs are huge. Lite rail would reduce these unaccounted expenditures significantly through the sheer amount of people it can transport each day.



Most of the 'cost to the environment', is made up.  It's fabricated numbers, based on estimates, based on fictional assessments of eco-nutz with a bias.

Assigning a dollar number, to something that you can't quantify, and can't empirically test, is just another way of saying "I used a sophisticated method, to make up a number".

It's the same as those "cutting trees causes flooding".   When?  Where? Who?    Then you find out, it's a flood plain the floods nearly every year.  "But it was worse this time!"    So?   How do you know it didn't rain more this time?   How do you know it wasn't because of that dike breaking?   How do you know they didn't have more snow during the winter, which in melting contributed?

"Well that wouldn't help our fabricated 'cost to the environment' number, so we didn't look."

You post your link to the mythical "cost to environment" number, and I'll tear it apart.

Further, paying for itself matters.

When a company engages in commerce, or any business conducts business.... how do you know that society is more wealthy, or less wealthy because of that action?

All business consumes some amount of wealth.  If for nothing else, the value of building which the business occupies.  Or the value of the electricity used to turn on the lights.

How do you know that more wealth is created, than was consumed?

Answer?  It's profitable.    Profit is how we know wealth was created.   Profit is how we know society is better off, instead of worse off, because of the business.

Say you open a business taking wood and making it until a widget, and then you sell the widget on Ebay, and you find that no one is willing to pay more than $20 for it, and then you realize it costs you $25 in wood to make the widget....   what is happening?

You are taking wood of $25 worth of value, and making it into something of $20 of value.   The entire country was more wealthy by $5, before you made the widget.

Now, of course businesses don't consider these ramifications, which is why the Free-market Capitalist system is such a wonderful thing.   The system inherently incentivizes companies to do what is best for the entire country.

You are either going to find a way to make the widget more valuable or reduce the value of materials used, so that you are now created a something worth more to the public than the cost of the materials to make it, thus a profit, and generating wealth for the country.  You either do one of those two things, or you end up going out of business.   Regardless of the outcome, in the end a Free-market Capitalist system is self correcting, and the destruction of wealth under that system will end.

The same is true of services.   If the service is worth less to the public, than the cost of the materials used to provide the service... then society is less wealthy.   The country would be more wealthy, if the service had never existed.

Light Rail, consumes vastly more wealth, than is created in the service.  This is why they are never profitable.   This is why they don't exist without government support.   Government subverts the natural system, that prevents destruction of wealth.

You take money from the public, and spend it on services and products that consume wealth, to keep them going.  Thus the destruction of wealth continues.

If Light Rail produced more wealth than it consumed then it would not need government.    In fact, it would have never gone away to begin with.   Remember, it used to be that everyone traveled everywhere, by rail.     The reason rail disappeared, is because the cost of the wealth used to provide that service, was greater than the value of the service to the public.

Further, the "sheer amount of people" the train can carry, is nifty, but largely irrelevant.

First off, most of the people who talk about the efficiency of Light Rail, are miserably poor at looking at the whole cost.

If you look at just the power used to run the trains... oh sure.... yeah a full train of people, verses the power used is a great trade off.

Ok, so what about all the lighting throughout all the tunnels, and all the stations?  What about all those escalators running?  What about all those high powered fans keeping fresh air in the subway?  Ticket machines, turn styles, automatic voice systems?   What about all the signal systems, track switches, all the monitoring equipment, and the control systems, plus the Control Center?






Look at all that electricity and computer systems.   Did the massive efficiency of the Light Rail include that 24-hour powered control center?

In fact.....  did all that efficiency, include power bleed from the tracks?  

You think no power is lost pumping 110 miles of track, with 1,200 amps of power 24 hours a day?

And all of that ignores the fact, that trains are rarely operating at an efficient speed.  The BART system boasts a top speed of 80 MPH.   Want to know what the average is?  33 MPH.

And how often do you see a train going past, with a single person, or no people at all?    Every single day.    And I didn't even mention the loss of the land, all confiscated, and displaced people, which could have been used for homes, businesses, or anything else of value to society.

It's not efficient, and never was.   You want to be efficient, get yourself a small car, and drive to work, no faster than the speed limit.  That uses the least amount of resources, and will save you the most money.


----------



## gnarlylove

I specifically stated "reducing" the demands on energy. The plans are to power them via electricity, which is mostly fossil fuels at present.

And assuming you are right about concerns of the environment being largely made up, then you are right. But how accurate is your assessment? It could be true, partially so or false. What does the Bible, I mean Jesus, I mean scientists say?

There's about 2% of people who study this issue with a alleged scientific lens and agree with you; there's another segment that says it will matter increasingly (usually identified as 97-8%); but there's another group among scientists that assert the cost to the environment and hence to humanity is much more disastrous a situation then any of the mainstream reports like IPCC. Notably an MIT group of scientists among many others: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Just based on intelligent guesses we can determine your accusation that climate concern is largely made up is itself made up--for what creature besides man actually thinks he can survive without utmost concern for his habitat? Only people bent towards personal excess and greed can ignore the most fundamental truth about humans: that we are of this earth and depend on its providence alone. But when all your peers agree with you and ignores this truth, it makes you feel like you have a valid point. Don't let groupthink deceive you into invalid views. Do your own homework and think about it.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What caused parallel bubble-bust cycles occurring outside residential housing markets (commercial real estate and consumer credit) as well as similar financial crises in other countries which did not have analogous affordable housing policies?
> 
> 
> 
> As was posted earlier, just because two similar things happen does not mean they were all caused by the same issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "What caused parallel bubble-bust cycles outside of the housing markets?" You should ask me something difficult, this question is simpleton in nature. The housing crash occurred and a huge number of construction workers lost their jobs. It became a chain reaction causing building material vendors and suppliers to go bust as well. Taking that many employed people out of jobs then caused a chain reaction in all of the industries depending on the demand from those people. I would have thought that a person like who has posted so many assertions about economics would understand such a simple situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I like your link.
> 
> the housing crisis was "created by reckless government policies.[20][21] Republican appointee to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Peter J. Wallison and coauthor Edward Pinto believed that the housing bubble and crash was due to federal mandates to promote affordable housing. These were applied through the Community Reinvestment Act and "government sponsored entities" (GSE's) "Fannie Mae" (Federal National Mortgage Association) and "Freddie Mac" (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation).[22] Journalist Daniel Indiviglio argues the two GSE's played a major role, while not denying the importance of Wall Street and others in the private sector in creating the collapse.[4]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep! I like it too. Low interest and pushing for more housing in the poor sectors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannies and Freddies loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. In 1995 HUD mandated that 40 percent of Fannie and Freddies loan purchases would have to support affordable housing. In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Under the Bush Administration HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase affordable housing purchases  to as high as 56 percent by the year 2008.[22] To satisfy these mandates, Fannie and Freddie eventually announced low-income and minority loan commitments totaling $5 trillion.[23] Critics argue that, to meet these commitments, Fannie and Freddie promoted a loosening of lending standards - industry-wide.[24]
> 
> Regarding the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charged the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[25] American Enterprise Institute Scholar Edward Pinto noted that, in 2008, Bank of America reported that its CRA portfolio, which constituted only 7 percent of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses.[26] A Cleveland Plain Dealer investigation found that "The City of Cleveland has aggravated its vexing foreclosure problems and has lost millions in tax dollars by helping people buy homes they could not afford." The newspaper added that these problem mortgages "typically came from local banks fulfilling federal requirements to lend money in poorer neighborhoods."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Glad you like the link:*
> 
> "Excessive consumer housing debt was in turn caused by the mortgage-backed security, credit default swap, and collateralized debt obligation sub-sectors of the finance industry, which were offering *irrationally low interest rates *and irrationally high levels of approval to subprime mortgage consumers because they were calculating aggregate risk using gaussian copula formulas that strictly assumed the independence of individual component mortgages, when in fact the credit-worthiness almost every new subprime mortgage was highly correlated with that of any other because of linkages through consumer spending levels which fell sharply when property values began to fall during the initial wave of mortgage defaults.[133][134]
> 
> "Debt consumers were acting in their rational self-interest, because they were unable to audit the finance industry's opaque faulty risk pricing methodology.[135]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It didn't really matter what the industry's risk pricing methodology to the consumer. The consumer could either buy or not buy what they wanted at low interest rates and with a lack of acceptable credit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Low interest rates, high home prices, and flipping (or reselling homes to make a profit), effectively created an almost risk-free environment for lenders because risky or defaulted loans could be paid back by flipping homes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep! If you look back I have stated all of that, yet the biggest culprit was low interest which heated up the market forcing HIGH HOME PRICES inflated about value.  Thanks for proving my point (which one of you called a rant.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Private lenders pushed subprime mortgages to capitalize on this, aided by greater market power for mortgage originators and less market power for mortgage securitizers.[18]
> 
> "Subprime mortgages amounted to $35 billion (5% of total originations) in 1994,[136] 9% in 1996,[137] $160 billion (13%) in 1999,[136] and $600 billion (20%) in 2006.[137][138][139].
> 
> "The recent use of subprime mortgages, adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only mortgages, and stated income loans (a subset of 'Alt-A' loans, where the borrower did not have to provide documentation to substantiate the income stated on the application; these loans were also called 'no doc' (no documentation) loans and, somewhat pejoratively, as 'liar loans') to finance home purchases described above have raised concerns about the quality of these loans should interest rates rise again or the borrower is unable to pay the mortgage.[71][140][141][142]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, all part of the government's push to get more relatively poor people to buy their own homes. Sounds like you have chosen to paraphrase my past assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In many areas, particularly in those with most appreciation, non-standard loans went from almost unheard of to prevalent.
> 
> "For example, 80% of all mortgages initiated in San Diego region in 2004 were adjustable-rate, and 47% were interest only."
> 
> Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Feel free to provide examples of government mandates that required liars loans or any other fraudulent activities in pursuit of private profits.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has already been posted in spades by Androw.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just LOVE that "Overheated Market" phrase.
> How about?...
> People being called left and right by Mortgage Bankers and Brokers offering The Sky at Basement Rates?
> Please stop using vague language and simply admit that GW's overtly stated desire for a nation of home owners resulted in Lenders bypassing Vendor software and reaping the associated Fees and Commissions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is denying that GWB supporting more home ownership.  In fact, every president including the current one, has supported more home ownership, all the way back to Carter.
> 
> In the 1970s, Americans lost their minds, and bought into the idea of 'free love' and the sexual revolution.
> 
> As one would expect, divorce rates shot up to the sky.
> 
> Divorce drastically lowered the home ownership rate very quickly, because you take one family, with two people living in one home they own, and split them into two separate families, each renting.
> 
> Carter passed the Community Reinvestment act, believing that the problem with dropping home ownership rates, was caused by lack of investment into homes, rather than a problem societal family break down.  It's much easier to regulate the banks, than to convince people to stay true to their wedding vows.
> 
> In 1977, the CRA was signed into law, promoting investment into home ownership, encouraging lending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you tell me....  Does that look like home prices after World War 2, were 'fairly' stable and consistent.... until when?   1977.   Look at the chart.  In 1977, prices started climbing, until they crashed.
> 
> Because of this... the CRA was virtually ignored for a decade.   Community groups were complaining that the CRA was not enforced.  (and it wasn't... for good reason).
> 
> In 1990s, Clinton came along, and vowed to fix things.  He instructed his government to start pushing banks.... which they did.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/gpj4gcdm_JQ]HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> In 1998, the Clinton government sued in court, banks to give out $2.1 Billion in unqualified loans.    Andrew Cuomo, at 3 minutes in, directly states they will be a higher risk, and higher default rate.
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --
> 
> But it doesn't end there....   In 1997, Freddie Mac agrees to Securitize Sub-prime loans, for the first time in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp.
> and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
> securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> 
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
> and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE:   FTU).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People asked "how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating?   This is how.  Freddie Mac, gave it to them.
> 
> Between the government directly suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and Freddie Mac securing them, what do you think that did to sub-prime lending?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what do you think all those previously unqualified buyers flooding the market did to home prices?
> 
> From the prior picture.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the exact year that prices started spiking up?   1997.
> 
> Bottom line.... yes Bush did support more home ownership.   That's true, and no one I know, denies it.
> 
> The problem is.... the price bubble, and sub-prime bubble, started in 1997.  The facts clearly show this.  It's not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> And by the way.... Obama himself, was involved in the lawsuits against banks, to force them to engage in sub-prime lending.   We have court documents, with his name on them.
> 
> So Obama, was directly involved back in the late 90s, in what caused the crash in 2008.
> 
> It's just a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was a great post. However, if you believe the left wing extremists will accept the FACTS you posted, I have a bridge over the Atchafalaya Swamp to sell
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I told you before, I will send what money I can to take care of little old ladies pounding big rocks into little ones, or destitute children in India before I throw money at the higher paid groups in America simply because I live here. (The least of his people)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read your Mister A-D example and I know the point you have been driving at. If one can help only through sending money, then I suppose your principle holds and thus I agree.
> 
> However, if one can assist a human being face to face whether having made them food/buying it and distributing it (soup kitchens, on the street encounters) or simply offering a smile, hello, perhaps some dignity goes a longer way than impersonal bills that afford the recipient the choice to spend it to harm themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with that, and as I said once before, I live my life in that manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if you don't find yourself doing these things, ask yourself why not? If the answer is it is difficult for you to do so, then I suppose assisting the poorest in India is justifiably a top priority over those who live beyond your neighborhood therefore may have a shot at some other person helping them more than those in India.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said above, I do that and live my life in that manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it should be duly noted that humanitarian aide can go to monsters. Examples include some who run refugee camps siphoning funds to support their excesses, to support military aide under the guise of humanitarian causes/stopping genocide etc., and can simply be mismanaged without malicious intent. It is a risk that is preventable through action in your community; but barring that opportunity, it may be worth the risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I presume if you don't check out your charity, or if you have never seen it up close, that possibility could exist. I have visited the children's home (some orphans or who have parents who can't feed them). I have met the Catholic Priest who is the chief cook and bottle washer, and the Nun who helps school the kids with Padre, and the Amah who cares for the kids personal needs. I made this selection over 28 years ago and use the Catholic Near East organization to channel my funds directly to the people who do the work. Over the years, starting with $50 a month and now sending over $1,000 a month as I acquired more income from being a university professor then a business consultant helping business learn how to keep their employees happy financially and with reasonable benefits, I was able to significantly increase that particular donation. I really don't see the need to explain this over and over, as I have once before. Even now, I am sending them out of my excess, not out of my substance, and I so support other charities in the US. Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, local food banks and the Wiregrass Emergency Pregnant service. I suggest you drop this subject as it gets old when you consistently accuse me of being misled as to whom I should help.
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

Androw said:


> By any objective measure, the New Deal policies are what dragged out the recession, into the great depression.
> 
> How does paying people to destroy food, during a hunger crisis, result in great economic growth?    If you look at the standard of living under the New Deal, and World War 2, the standard declined at best.   There was no great economic growth.


He will probably never admit that the new deal did little to end the Depression. That was ended by the Mobilization of our Armed forces, creating huge industrial out put building ships, tanks, weapons, and other military requirements. 16 million men were in uniform, many having to save (the Army pushed pay deductions for savings, mostly bonds, but others as well), hiring millions of women for factory work making soldier family two earner families, many for the first time, but at a higher wage than ever before. Rationing of food items, gasoline, and other goods needed for the war effort curtailed consumer demand and created huge savings never seen before. That is what ended the depression. My dissertation for my MBA/Economics degree was based on the end of the recession, and I read history and economics books about the era until my head hurt.

Left wingers don't like to hear their "boy" being shot down, but facts are facts. I do agree with social security FDR started, I just don't agree with how it is funded. In my opinion the cap on personal income from which FICA/MC is collected should be removed, and the program will meet actuarial conditions very well.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> I specifically stated "reducing" the demands on energy. The plans are to power them via electricity, which is mostly fossil fuels at present.
> 
> And assuming you are right about concerns of the environment being largely made up, then you are right. But how accurate is your assessment? It could be true, partially so or false. What does the Bible, I mean Jesus, I mean scientists say?
> 
> There's about 2% of people who study this issue with a alleged scientific lens and agree with you; there's another segment that says it will matter increasingly (usually identified as 97-8%); but there's another group among scientists that assert the cost to the environment and hence to humanity is much more disastrous a situation then any of the mainstream reports like IPCC. Notably an MIT group of scientists among many others: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
> 
> Just based on intelligent guesses we can determine your accusation that climate concern is largely made up is itself made up--for what creature besides man actually thinks he can survive without utmost concern for his habitat? Only people bent towards personal excess and greed can ignore the most fundamental truth about humans: that we are of this earth and depend on its providence alone. But when all your peers agree with you and ignores this truth, it makes you feel like you have a valid point. *Don't let groupthink deceive you into invalid views. Do your own homework and think about it*.


I think that goes both ways Gnarley. I think it reasonable to assume that burning fossil fuels enhances the pollution problem. Is it the main cause of global warming? Maybe, but maybe not. The earth has gone through much more warming than we are sensing now, then turned colder into a Glacial age. The important point is to determine how much or little we are helping mother nature along. I have read articles which say global warming is being driven to a great extent by use of fossil fuels, and those same reports say that many things will be affected: sea levels rising, moving the prime growing areas to the north et al. Then it went on to say the Gulf Stream will likely be altered such that the stream will no loner keep northern Europe as warm as it is now. So we heat up, and northern Europe gets cooler. It went on to say that all of this will precipitate a reversal after a point of heating takes place and the climate will reverse itself. Of course we are dealing with hundreds or thousands of years, and it stipulated that eventually we will end up in another glacial age. Some speculation!

So given all the predictions, mostly opinions by so called experts bolstered by some real scientist, let us presume they are right. The next question is, can we alter the progress?  And if we can, how will we produce the energy we need to live? More nuclear energy? Or hopefully ambient temperature fusion power. Or maybe wave power. I don't know, and it does disturb me, but I hope our scientific world can figure it all out and do something. 

The issue with some of the predictions are, the experiments did not all pan out. They can test ancient sediment, but that doesn't always predict the outcome.

This link is to a very interesting article I have recently read.    No, Its Not Global Warming


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> I specifically stated "reducing" the demands on energy. The plans are to power them via electricity, which is mostly fossil fuels at present.
> 
> And assuming you are right about concerns of the environment being largely made up, then you are right. But how accurate is your assessment? It could be true, partially so or false. What does the Bible, I mean Jesus, I mean scientists say?
> 
> There's about 2% of people who study this issue with a alleged scientific lens and agree with you; there's another segment that says it will matter increasingly (usually identified as 97-8%); but there's another group among scientists that assert the cost to the environment and hence to humanity is much more disastrous a situation then any of the mainstream reports like IPCC. Notably an MIT group of scientists among many others: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
> 
> Just based on intelligent guesses we can determine your accusation that climate concern is largely made up is itself made up--for what creature besides man actually thinks he can survive without utmost concern for his habitat? Only people bent towards personal excess and greed can ignore the most fundamental truth about humans: that we are of this earth and depend on its providence alone. But when all your peers agree with you and ignores this truth, it makes you feel like you have a valid point. Don't let groupthink deceive you into invalid views. Do your own homework and think about it.



*What does the Bible, I mean Jesus, I mean scientists say?*


----------



## crisismangement

We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.


----------



## Zmrzlina

Godboy said:


> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.



Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.


----------



## dnsmith35

Another tidbit about commercial loan issues:

Other analysis calls into question the validity of comparing the residential loan crisis to the commercial loan crisis. After researching the default of commercial loans during the financial crisis, *Xudong An and Anthony B. Sanders *reported (in December 2010): "We find limited evidence that substantial deterioration in CMBS [commercial mortgage-backed securities] loan underwriting occurred prior to the crisis."  Other analysts support the contention that the crisis in commercial real estate and related lending took place after the crisis in residential real estate. Business journalist *Kimberly Amadeo *reports: "The first signs of decline in residential real estate occurred in 2006. Three years later, commercial real estate started feeling the effects. *Denice A. Gierach*, a real estate attorney and CPA, wrote:


...most of the commercial real estate loans were good loans destroyed by a really bad economy. In other words, the borrowers did not cause the loans to go bad, it was the economy.​


----------



## dnsmith35

Zmrzlina said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.
Click to expand...

We have been discussing Capitalism in the US and on some occasions the rest of the industrialize world. 

What happens in the 3rd world is important, but not relevant to our discussion of capitalism, which does give us the prosperity to help the needy the world over but more important to the subject you brought up, elevated the standards of living for the poor in the US such that our relative poor live better than most laborers in the third world. About 5 billion people in the world live in abject destitution. That is why I choose to give my charity to some of them rather than to the relatively poor in the US.


----------



## bedowin62

Zmrzlina said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.
Click to expand...



the moronic Left refuses to acknowelge people are responsible for their actions. capitalism didnt make people kill that family

 libs are absolute morons


----------



## Zmrzlina

dnsmith35 said:


> What happens in the 3rd world is important, but not relevant to our discussion of capitalism, which does give us the prosperity to help the needy the world over but more important to the subject you brought up, elevated the standards of living for the poor in the US such that our relative poor live better than most laborers in the third world. About 5 billion people in the world live in abject destitution. That is why I choose to give my charity to some of them rather than to the relatively poor in the US.



Sorry to break it to you but we live in a globalized economy and economic activities (and their consequences) are not contained within the borders of a single nation.


----------



## bedowin62

Zmrzlina said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens in the 3rd world is important, but not relevant to our discussion of capitalism, which does give us the prosperity to help the needy the world over but more important to the subject you brought up, elevated the standards of living for the poor in the US such that our relative poor live better than most laborers in the third world. About 5 billion people in the world live in abject destitution. That is why I choose to give my charity to some of them rather than to the relatively poor in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to break it to you but we live in a globalized economy and economic activities are not contained within the borders of a single nation.
Click to expand...



sorry to break it to you but killers will kill.
 moron leftist


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> I think that goes both ways Gnarley.


Absolutely it does! And it takes insight to recognize it and courage to take measures to prevent such a natural tendency! 



dnsmith35 said:


> So given all the predictions, mostly opinions by so called experts bolstered by some real scientist, let us presume they are right. The next question is, can we alter the progress?  And if we can, how will we produce the energy we need to live? More nuclear energy? Or hopefully ambient temperature fusion power. Or maybe wave power. I don't know, and it does disturb me, but I hope our scientific world can figure it all out and do something.



The technology exists now. IT existed decades ago. However, it is far too profitable to continue using fossil fuels for extremely powerful corporations to simply let countries do the sensible thing for our children and grand children.



dnsmith35 said:


> This link is to a very interesting article I have recently read.    No, It&#8217;s Not &#8216;Global Warming&#8217;



Appreciate the link but do take note of the date it was published. Not saying it's false, just that it has not accounted for the last 15 years. The main reason climate change confusion exists is because addressing human agency in climate change overturns centuries of industry and profit that won't take it without a fight. We know what it takes to curb and secure our future as a species but we are not capable of doing so because such decisions are made by those whose interests lie with maintaining precisely the same way of life we have--which happens to line their pockets with gold AND wreck the planet, literally.

The way to mitigate the natural human inclination of caring for earth is to outsource the pollution and this was done in the 70s onward in America. So we had no idea what our part was in piling up garbage, buying products x, y and z made in other countries at massive costs to foreign territory and populations. Next, once science got too pushy for business in the last 8 years, the result was massive campaigns to confuse the public: stifling popular dissent through false claims over "the science." After 2-3 yrs of such funding by Heartland Institute and others, popular opinion had reversed to becoming climate deniers. The science is not confusing about the fundamental facts (that fossil fuels contribute massively to pollution and environmental degradation, human health hazards and the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/the-sixth-extinction-unnatural-history/dp/0805092994"]6th extinction[/ame] happening RIGHT NOW as a result of HUMANS).

But dollars matter more now than life does in the future because money has a voice today while the humans and trillions of other creatures in the future are absolutely ignored and without a voice.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zmrzlina said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens in the 3rd world is important, but not relevant to our discussion of capitalism, which does give us the prosperity to help the needy the world over but more important to the subject you brought up, elevated the standards of living for the poor in the US such that our relative poor live better than most laborers in the third world. About 5 billion people in the world live in abject destitution. That is why I choose to give my charity to some of them rather than to the relatively poor in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to break it to you but we live in a globalized economy and economic activities (and their consequences) are not contained within the borders of a single nation.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have not read much of this thread and your response was based on ignorance. The global economy you speak of is basically the combined industrialized nations in the world. Economic activities in the 3rd world will gradually improve ONLY when the industrialized world stops hoarding their jobs and global natural resources. We see this happening now, as over the last 30 years we can see an emerging middle class involving more people than the US's entire population. As they (and other third world nations) begin to have their economic evolutions, they will become a huge market for our goods and services. So tell me, who are the people crying the most about a few labor intensive jobs being offshored? The left tards, some of whom are on this thread. So tell me, how do you see some of our jobs going to 3rd world countries? Are you willing to allow the natural flow of labor as a prospective of improving the lot of the 5 billion? Or do you selfishly believe we should give those jobs to Americans, most of whom do not want to do that kind of work, or their wages are too high (even our minimum wage) to compete on a world market?


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> ..





dnsmith35 said:


> I think that goes both ways Gnarley.





> Absolutely it does! And it takes insight to recognize it and courage to take measures to prevent such a natural tendency!





dnsmith35 said:


> So given all the predictions, mostly opinions by so called experts bolstered by some real scientist, let us presume they are right. The next question is, can we alter the progress?  And if we can, how will we produce the energy we need to live? More nuclear energy? Or hopefully ambient temperature fusion power. Or maybe wave power. I don't know, and it does disturb me, but I hope our scientific world can figure it all out and do something.





> The technology exists now. IT existed decades ago. However, it is far too profitable to continue using fossil fuels for extremely powerful corporations to simply let countries do the sensible thing for our children and grand children.


The only technology which would give us that power in sufficient quantities, about which we have known, is Nuclear Power, something many of our left wing extremist brethren do not want to consider. Solar energy of which I am a big proponent (I built a house with 16 flat plate collectors in 1979/80) and was very pleased with the results. The issue is, solar energy and wind energy are not sufficient to run our country's grid.





> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This link is to a very interesting article I have recently read.    No, It&#8217;s Not &#8216;Global Warming&#8217;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appreciate the link but do take note of the date it was published. Not saying it's false, just that it has not accounted for the last 15 years. The main reason climate change confusion exists is because addressing human agency in climate change overturns centuries of industry and profit that won't take it without a fight. We know what it takes to curb and secure our future as a species but we are not capable of doing so because such decisions are made by those whose interests lie with maintaining precisely the same way of life we have--which happens to line their pockets with gold AND wreck the planet, literally.
Click to expand...

If you read the entire article, you would know that most of it agrees with global warming trekkies, and does criticize our over use of fossil fuel.





> The way to mitigate the natural human inclination of caring for earth is to outsource the pollution and this was done in the 70s onward in America. So we had no idea what our part was in piling up garbage, buying products x, y and z made in other countries at massive costs to foreign territory and populations. Next, once science got too pushy for business in the last 8 years, the result was massive campaigns to confuse the public: stifling popular dissent through false claims over "the science." After 2-3 yrs of such funding by Heartland Institute and others, popular opinion had reversed to becoming climate deniers. The science is not confusing about the fundamental facts (that fossil fuels contribute massively to pollution and environmental degradation, human health hazards and the 6th extinction happening RIGHT NOW as a result of HUMANS).


One thing I have learned over my 78 years, is POPULAR OPINION seldom follows reasonable science.





> But dollars matter more now than life does in the future because money has a voice today while the humans and trillions of other creatures in the future are absolutely ignored and without a voice.


Another observation is, money is not the whole story, or even the most important story. Governments, ours and others across the globe tend to go the route with the least resistance, IE THE PATH which improves the prosperity of the individual countries.

I do not believe we have the technology today to furnish the world non-polluting power, and I don't believe private enterprise has the where with all to fund the research which can provide us with that power. When will our government (left or right) choose to do the right thing? I believe ONLY WHEN the fossil fuel is virtually used up. 

When I retired from my first career, I came back to the US and researched water power, solar power (both flat plate heat collectors and photo electric cells) and wind power. We do not have sufficient wind in our part of the country to work. Photo electric cells are so expensive (even the more recent silicon strip cells). As I said earlier, I did build a house with flat plate dry heat collectors which did most of the warming of the house in winter, but nothing to help cool the house in summer. I also had a commercial device which was actually a closed loop hot water loop which got its heat from a special built in water heat exchanger on the external coils of my air conditioning unit preheating the water in a separate 100 gallon tank before that water got into my standard water heater.

Unfortunately it was a 2 story house, in which my wife fell on the stairs, and we were put into the position of selling that house and buying one all on a single floor. The we went to the extreme of increasing insulation over the entire house to reduce heat loss.

I researched a closed loop UNDERGROUND PLENUM system until it was obvious that was a very difficult and costly endeavor for an already built house. If you want information about any of those systems I will be happy to provide it to you.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first off, the idea that regulation can prevent or stabilize anything, is a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> GlassSteagall was no joke, we wouldn't have had a severe recession as we did with it in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr Hipeter, I am not trying to insult you in any way, but in truth, you don't appear to know what you are talking about.
> 
> For historical accuracy, there is no Glass-Steagal Act.  In reality, it's the 1933 Banking Act.  People call it the "Glass Steagal Act" because the sponsors of the 1933 Banking Act were Carter Glass, and Henry B. Steagall.
> 
> Ironically, the 1933 Banking Act contained several key provisions for FDIC and Federal Deposit Insurance, which people claim to be part of the New Deal.
> 
> The provision of the 1933 Banking Act, that people call the Glass-Steagal Act, is the provision for separation of Retail banks, Commercial bank, Investment Banks, and Insurance Companies.   Investment, Retail, Commercial and Insurance, were prohibited from operating together.
> 
> The claim that these prohibitions would have prevented the melt down are just simply not true.
> 
> First, the rest of the world does not have these prohibitions, and most never did.   Canada didn't, and never has.   They have not had a problem.
> 
> Second, the vast majority of the banks that failed in the recent crash, would not have been covered under the Glass-Steagal prohibitions.  Countrywide Financial would not.   Bear Stearns would not.  Indymac would not.   The vast majority of the bank failures, had Glass Steagall been enforced, would have not been affected in any way.
> 
> Third, the majority of the 'fixes' that government pushed, were only allowed with Glass-Steagal repealed.   Bank of America buying out Countrywide, would have been illegal under GSA.     JP Morgan Chase buying Bear Stearns, would have been illegal under GSA.
> 
> So this idea that "repealing Glass Steagal Act caused everything"  in just flat out bogus.   If anything, getting rid of that regulation helped solve the crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> By any objective measure, the New Deal policies are what dragged out the recession, into the great depression.
> 
> How does paying people to destroy food, during a hunger crisis, result in great economic growth?    If you look at the standard of living under the New Deal, and World War 2, the standard declined at best.   There was no great economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I don't buy it.   Most of the Canadian government programs existed before the crisis in the US every happened.   Further, there was no sub-prime melt down in Canada, which would have caused the need for a bailout.   No one can even point to a bank that was at risk of bankruptcy.
> 
> The basic argument I've read thus far, is that 'banks had taken advantage of money the government gave out..... thus they were bailed out'.   Sorry, that's not true.    If you provide a program today, to hand out money to people like me, I'm going to ask for your address and come get some cash.   Doesn't mean you bailed me out... just means I was more than happy to take your money.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the point.   Yes, if you tie bad investments to good investments, that doesn't make the bad investments good.   If the Carpathia had reached the Titanic before she sank, and tied itself to the hull, that would not have kept the Titanic afloat, it would have just sank the Carpathia too.
> 
> Again, the problem wasn't derivatives.  The problem was the sub-prime loans.   If the sub-prime loans had not been sold to begin with, or had not been bundled into the derivatives, there would never have been a problem with derivatives.
> 
> And again.... it was government that pushed sub-prime loans, and it was government that pushed them to be bundled into derivatives.  If you watched the video, Obama himself says the whole point of bundling those loans, was to get more investment.    The government pushed this whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, none of that trading on bad-sub primes and so forth has stopped, would counter that it has probably increased, but at a much lesser rate as it did during the 2000s. You can't stop bad loans, as property values and the like can dive without warning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, property values could dive without warning, even without sub-prime lending.    But in this case, it was directly because of sub-prime loans that values went up, and it was directly because of sub-prime melt down, that they went down.
> 
> Just because X can happen without Y, doesn't mean X did happened without Y.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they lose their jobs or fall into bankruptcy they can't, and if the value of their property dives, a previously easily repayable debt becomes impossible to pay. The banks got greedy, and actually went out of their way to encourage loans to people that could't afford them, but at the same time a lot of houses went under that were owned by people that re-mortgaged their house knowing they were in good financial state at the time. There is no way for a bank to truly prepare, it can only limit the fallout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, AFTER the bubble got started, banks found they could make risky loans, and if the buyer defaulted, they could get the house back, which had a higher value than when it was purchased.   Thus the risky loan was considered very safe, because if the buyer paid back the loan, they win.  If the buyer defaults, and they get back a house worth more than the original loan, they win.
> 
> It was a win-win for the banks.
> 
> But here's the problem....  that situation was only true AFTER the bubble got started.
> 
> What started the bubble?   Answer?   Government through Freddie Mac, encourage banks to make sub-prime loans that Freddie Mac would guarantee.
> 
> This was a win-win for the banks, because of government.  If the buyer paid back, the bank wins.  If the buyer defaults, Freddie Mac pays back, and the bank wins.  Win-win for the bank  BEFORE the bubble started.
> 
> Government started the bubble.  Yes, the banks continued the bubble.   But Government created the bubble to begin with.
Click to expand...

*When did government first require private lenders to solicit appraisal fraud?
Thanks.*

"Only lenders and their agents can cause a substantial amount of appraisal fraud;
They did so through extorting appraisers to inflate appraisals by blacklisting the most ethical appraisals;

"No honest lender would induce appraisal fraud;
Lenders engaged in accounting control fraud find widespread appraisal fraud an optimal strategy;

"Fraudulent mortgage lenders engage in appraisal fraud because it aids their overall strategy of making fraudulent loans;

"No honest lender would permit widespread appraisal fraud;
Honest lenders can prevent widespread appraisal fraud in the loans they make;
No honest secondary market purchaser would knowingly purchase loans with inflated appraisals;

"Competent secondary market purchasers could have avoided purchasing large numbers of loans with inflated appraisals;The appraisers warned the Nation publicly of the widespread appraisal fraud and that it occurred through extortion and blacklisting by the lenders and their agents;

"The appraisers took special efforts to warn the mortgage lending industry and U.S. government beginning in 2000, and continued those efforts through 2007, about these facts and warned that it would cause a crisis;

"Eventually, over 11,000 appraisers signed the professions petition warning about the epidemic of appraisal fraud driven by the lenders and their agents."

Global Economic Intersection


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As was posted earlier, just because two similar things happen does not mean they were all caused by the same issue."What caused parallel bubble-bust cycles outside of the housing markets?" You should ask me something difficult, this question is simpleton in nature. The housing crash occurred and a huge number of construction workers lost their jobs. It became a chain reaction causing building material vendors and suppliers to go bust as well. Taking that many employed people out of jobs then caused a chain reaction in all of the industries depending on the demand from those people. I would have thought that a person like who has posted so many assertions about economics would understand such a simple situation.Yep! I like it too. Low interest and pushing for more housing in the poor sectors.
> *Glad you like the link:*
> 
> "Excessive consumer housing debt was in turn caused by the mortgage-backed security, credit default swap, and collateralized debt obligation sub-sectors of the finance industry, which were offering *irrationally low interest rates *and irrationally high levels of approval to subprime mortgage consumers because they were calculating aggregate risk using gaussian copula formulas that strictly assumed the independence of individual component mortgages, when in fact the credit-worthiness almost every new subprime mortgage was highly correlated with that of any other because of linkages through consumer spending levels which fell sharply when property values began to fall during the initial wave of mortgage defaults.[133][134]
> 
> "Debt consumers were acting in their rational self-interest, because they were unable to audit the finance industry's opaque faulty risk pricing methodology.[135]
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't really matter what the industry's risk pricing methodology to the consumer. The consumer could either buy or not buy what they wanted at low interest rates and with a lack of acceptable credit.Yep! If you look back I have stated all of that, yet the biggest culprit was low interest which heated up the market forcing HIGH HOME PRICES inflated about value.  Thanks for proving my point (which one of you called a rant.)Yep, all part of the government's push to get more relatively poor people to buy their own homes. Sounds like you have chosen to paraphrase my past assertions.It has already been posted in spades by Androw.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying that GWB supporting more home ownership.  In fact, every president including the current one, has supported more home ownership, all the way back to Carter.
> 
> In the 1970s, Americans lost their minds, and bought into the idea of 'free love' and the sexual revolution.
> 
> As one would expect, divorce rates shot up to the sky.
> 
> Divorce drastically lowered the home ownership rate very quickly, because you take one family, with two people living in one home they own, and split them into two separate families, each renting.
> 
> Carter passed the Community Reinvestment act, believing that the problem with dropping home ownership rates, was caused by lack of investment into homes, rather than a problem societal family break down.  It's much easier to regulate the banks, than to convince people to stay true to their wedding vows.
> 
> In 1977, the CRA was signed into law, promoting investment into home ownership, encouraging lending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you tell me....  Does that look like home prices after World War 2, were 'fairly' stable and consistent.... until when?   1977.   Look at the chart.  In 1977, prices started climbing, until they crashed.
> 
> Because of this... the CRA was virtually ignored for a decade.   Community groups were complaining that the CRA was not enforced.  (and it wasn't... for good reason).
> 
> In 1990s, Clinton came along, and vowed to fix things.  He instructed his government to start pushing banks.... which they did.
> 
> HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube
> 
> In 1998, the Clinton government sued in court, banks to give out $2.1 Billion in unqualified loans.    Andrew Cuomo, at 3 minutes in, directly states they will be a higher risk, and higher default rate.
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --
> 
> But it doesn't end there....   In 1997, Freddie Mac agrees to Securitize Sub-prime loans, for the first time in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> People asked "how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating?   This is how.  Freddie Mac, gave it to them.
> 
> Between the government directly suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and Freddie Mac securing them, what do you think that did to sub-prime lending?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what do you think all those previously unqualified buyers flooding the market did to home prices?
> 
> From the prior picture.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the exact year that prices started spiking up?   1997.
> 
> Bottom line.... yes Bush did support more home ownership.   That's true, and no one I know, denies it.
> 
> The problem is.... the price bubble, and sub-prime bubble, started in 1997.  The facts clearly show this.  It's not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> And by the way.... Obama himself, was involved in the lawsuits against banks, to force them to engage in sub-prime lending.   We have court documents, with his name on them.
> 
> So Obama, was directly involved back in the late 90s, in what caused the crash in 2008.
> 
> It's just a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was a great post. However, if you believe the left wing extremists will accept the FACTS you posted, I have a bridge over the Atchafalaya Swamp to sell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *According to Androw:*
> 
> "People asked 'how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating?   This is how.  Freddie Mac, gave it to them.'"
> 
> *When did Freddie Mac give any "junk sub-prime mortages" a AAA rating?*
Click to expand...


----------



## Indeependent

crisismangement said:


> We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.



Please explain why, starting in 2004, people who were not seeking out Mortgages or Home Equity Loans were being deluged by calls from Mortgage Brokers and Lenders who were approving, ON PAPER, and not via the Software, Loans to anybody who could breath.

Starting somewhere in 2006, when GW KNEW he was going to leave a legacy of an economy in the doldrums, Jumbo Mortgages became the norm, NOT because people were seeking out Loans, but because people were being AGGRESSIVLY pursued to accept Loans for which they were ABSILUTELY unqualified.

Now I have read DNSMITH using the catchy phrase, "The Market Heated Up" and I'd like a CLINICAL (you know, STEP BY STEP) explanation of how "The Market Heated Up".

I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.

Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.


----------



## Zmrzlina

bedowin62 said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the moronic Left refuses to acknowelge people are responsible for their actions. capitalism didnt make people kill that family
> 
> libs are absolute morons
Click to expand...


That's the difference between the left and the right.  The left doesn't try to extract all context from events and recognize indirect factors.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zmrzlina said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the moronic Left refuses to acknowelge people are responsible for their actions. capitalism didnt make people kill that family
> 
> libs are absolute morons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the difference between the left and the right.  The left doesn't try to extract all context from events and recognize indirect factors.
Click to expand...

Much more correctly, the far left listens to extremist propaganda and believes crap.


----------



## georgephillip

crisismangement said:


> We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.


"A pair of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco added another piece of evidence to the case that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasnt the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.

"In a paper focused on California that was presented at a Fed conference on housing and mortgages in Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid say the data 'should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low and moderate-income lenders.' 

"Fed governor Randall Kroszner made a similar case earlier this week.

"Among the specific findings in 'Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown':

"Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.

"Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were 'significantly less likely to be in foreclosure' than those originated by independent mortgage companies that werent covered by CRA.

"Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were 'half as likely to go into foreclosure' as those made by the independent mortgage companies.

"28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.

Don?t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Real Time Economics - WSJ

*If you're actually foolish enough to believe government doesn't work the way Wall Street wants, maybe you're too stupid to be here?*


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> Another tidbit about commercial loan issues:
> 
> Other analysis calls into question the validity of comparing the residential loan crisis to the commercial loan crisis. After researching the default of commercial loans during the financial crisis, *Xudong An and Anthony B. Sanders *reported (in December 2010): "We find limited evidence that substantial deterioration in CMBS [commercial mortgage-backed securities] loan underwriting occurred prior to the crisis."  Other analysts support the contention that the crisis in commercial real estate and related lending took place after the crisis in residential real estate. Business journalist *Kimberly Amadeo *reports: "The first signs of decline in residential real estate occurred in 2006. Three years later, commercial real estate started feeling the effects. *Denice A. Gierach*, a real estate attorney and CPA, wrote:
> 
> 
> ...most of the commercial real estate loans were good loans destroyed by a really bad economy. In other words, the borrowers did not cause the loans to go bad, it was the economy.​


*So what wrecked the economy, Stupid?*

"It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. 

"That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. 

"And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. 

"*Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did*.'"

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another tidbit about commercial loan issues:
> 
> Other analysis calls into question the validity of comparing the residential loan crisis to the commercial loan crisis. After researching the default of commercial loans during the financial crisis, *Xudong An and Anthony B. Sanders *reported (in December 2010): "We find limited evidence that substantial deterioration in CMBS [commercial mortgage-backed securities] loan underwriting occurred prior to the crisis."  Other analysts support the contention that the crisis in commercial real estate and related lending took place after the crisis in residential real estate. Business journalist *Kimberly Amadeo *reports: "The first signs of decline in residential real estate occurred in 2006. Three years later, commercial real estate started feeling the effects. *Denice A. Gierach*, a real estate attorney and CPA, wrote:
> 
> 
> ...most of the commercial real estate loans were good loans destroyed by a really bad economy. In other words, the borrowers did not cause the loans to go bad, it was the economy.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So what wrecked the economy, Stupid?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The housing crash which was primarily caused by bad government  policy; especially the low interest rates. Then the CRA did have some affect on liquidity of many sub prime loans as pushed by Clinton and Bush, all of which created the major difference between prices and value of real estate. There have been posted in the last two days by at least 2 members with citations which show how it all came about. Are you so mentally dull you can't transpose what facts have been posted and what you think is the case? Are you that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA.
> 
> "That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong! Your propaganda source is lying to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, proof has been posted but you are too stupid to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did*.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You listen to left wing propaganda too much, and you believe government entities too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been many pieces of evidence which categorically proves the CRA WAS a cause of the crash, and that Fanny and Fredie Mac both pushed bad credit loans from poorpeople as part of their regulation of CRA. When you stop reading left wing propaganda and read what the real estate experts and the economists say, you might learn something. Obviously you have learned nothing about our great recession which was totally caused by the housing crash which was caused by bad government policies. Sure, mortgage lenders were more than happy to accommodate those policies in the hopes of making big bucks. That was a natural and reasonable response to bad government policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have been discussing Capitalism in the US and on some occasions the rest of the industrialize world.
> 
> What happens in the 3rd world is important, but not relevant to our discussion of capitalism, which does give us the prosperity to help the needy the world over but more important to the subject you brought up, elevated the standards of living for the poor in the US such that our relative poor live better than most laborers in the third world. About 5 billion people in the world live in abject destitution. That is why I choose to give my charity to some of them rather than to the relatively poor in the US.
Click to expand...

*The subject of this thread, Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality", is entirely relevant to imperialism in Africa and elsewhere.

How else would good capitalists expand their markets and exploit the natural resources of others?*

"In 'King Leopold's Ghost,' journalist Adam Hochschild chronicles the depredations of Belgian rule of the Congo (today's Zaire) between the 1880s and 1909, when Leopold, the king of Belgium, died. 

"During this period, 5 million to 10 million people were killed, or died of starvation, disease and being worked to death. 

"All of this for rubber, harvested from the thick vines that contained that precious gelatinous sap. 

"Hochschild understandably wanted to know why so few of us have ever heard about the atrocities of Leopold's rule."

History of Capitalism in the Congo


----------



## bripat9643

Zmrzlina said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the moronic Left refuses to acknowelge people are responsible for their actions. capitalism didnt make people kill that family
> 
> libs are absolute morons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the difference between the left and the right.  The left doesn't try to extract all context from events and recognize indirect factors.
Click to expand...


Translation:  The right expects claims to be rational and supported by the facts rather than some lame-assed theory from Cloud Cuckoo land.


----------



## georgephillip

crisismangement said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another tidbit about commercial loan issues:
> 
> Other analysis calls into question the validity of comparing the residential loan crisis to the commercial loan crisis. After researching the default of commercial loans during the financial crisis, *Xudong An and Anthony B. Sanders *reported (in December 2010): "We find limited evidence that substantial deterioration in CMBS [commercial mortgage-backed securities] loan underwriting occurred prior to the crisis."  Other analysts support the contention that the crisis in commercial real estate and related lending took place after the crisis in residential real estate. Business journalist *Kimberly Amadeo *reports: "The first signs of decline in residential real estate occurred in 2006. Three years later, commercial real estate started feeling the effects. *Denice A. Gierach*, a real estate attorney and CPA, wrote:
> 
> 
> ...most of the commercial real estate loans were good loans destroyed by a really bad economy. In other words, the borrowers did not cause the loans to go bad, it was the economy.​
> 
> 
> 
> The housing crash which was primarily caused by bad government  policy; especially the low interest rates. Then the CRA did have some affect on liquidity of many sub prime loans as pushed by Clinton and Bush, all of which created the major difference between prices and value of real estate. There have been posted in the last two days by at least 2 members with citations which show how it all came about. Are you so mentally dull you can't transpose what facts have been posted and what you think is the case? Are you that stupid. Wrong! Your propaganda source is lying to you.
> Wrong, proof has been posted but you are too stupid to understand.You listen to left wing propaganda too much, and you believe government entities too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been many pieces of evidence which categorically proves the CRA WAS a cause of the crash, and that Fanny and Fredie Mac both pushed bad credit loans from poorpeople as part of their regulation of CRA. When you stop reading left wing propaganda and read what the real estate experts and the economists say, you might learn something. Obviously you have learned nothing about our great recession which was totally caused by the housing crash which was caused by bad government policies. Sure, mortgage lenders were more than happy to accommodate those policies in the hopes of making big bucks. That was a natural and reasonable response to bad government policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Are you still here, Stupid?
> It all came about because of an epidemic of mortgage fraud, 80% by lenders, the FBI warned about in 2004.
> 
> Maybe this will help:*
> 
> More CRA Idiocy | The Big Picture
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain why, starting in 2004, people who were not seeking out Mortgages or Home Equity Loans were being deluged by calls from Mortgage Brokers and Lenders who were approving, ON PAPER, and not via the Software, Loans to anybody who could breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has been explained several times on this thread. Low interest rates made too many people try to buy too much real estate causing a rush to buy while interest was low. That is called by professionals (economists) an over heated demand driving inflation of price over value, then the market crashed. It was almost totally government policy which caused it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starting somewhere in 2006, when GW KNEW he was going to leave a legacy of an economy in the doldrums, Jumbo Mortgages became the norm, NOT because people were seeking out Loans, but because people were being AGGRESSIVLY pursued to accept Loans for which they were ABSILUTELY unqualified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Businesses were all to happy to sell loans when pushed by the Fanny and Freddie Macs. The Macs promised to insure or buy every loan regardless of quality. Market Heating up is a standard term for more demand than supply and the demand is over chasing that supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Signs the housing market is heating up - USA Today
> 
> www.usatoday.com/story/.../11/ozy-housing-market.../7590243   Cached
> Signs the housing market is heating up. The private mortgage industry is bouncing back, which is good news for first time home buyers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Housing Market Heats Up, Mortgage Rates Fall - 24/7 Wall St.
> 
> 247wallst.com/housing/2014/05/22/housing-market-heats-up...   Cached
> Recent Posts. GameStop Gets Some of Its Mojo Back; HP Turnaround Debacle &#8211; Thousands of More Layoffs; Housing Market Heats Up, Mortgage Rates Fall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southern California housing market slowly heating up
> 
> www.dailynews.com/business/20140513/southern-california...   Cached
> Southern California&#8217;s housing market improved a bit in April, with sales rising more than usual from March while slipping below the 2013 level by the smallest ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Housing market heating up | Peninsula Clarion
> 
> peninsulaclarion.com/.../housing-market-heating-up   Cached
> In his 20 years in real estate, Redoubt Realty owner Dale Bagley has never seen a more active winter. Bagley, the President of the Kenai Peninsula ...​
> 
> 
> 
> Now I have read DNSMITH using the catchy phrase, "The Market Heated Up" and I'd like a CLINICAL (you know, STEP BY STEP) explanation of how "The Market Heated Up".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not a catchy phrase. Only ignorant people are unaware of what it means.
Click to expand...



I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.

Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.[/QUOTE]It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.

The order in which this occurred:

During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along. 

At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.

In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime. 

All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The housing crash which was primarily caused by bad government  policy; especially the low interest rates. Then the CRA did have some affect on liquidity of many sub prime loans as pushed by Clinton and Bush, all of which created the major difference between prices and value of real estate. There have been posted in the last two days by at least 2 members with citations which show how it all came about. Are you so mentally dull you can't transpose what facts have been posted and what you think is the case? Are you that stupid. Wrong! Your propaganda source is lying to you.
> Wrong, proof has been posted but you are too stupid to understand.You listen to left wing propaganda too much, and you believe government entities too much.
> *Are you still here, Stupid?*
> 
> 
> 
> I am here stupid!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It all came about because of an epidemic of mortgage fraud, 80% by lenders, the FBI warned about in 2004.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one denies that the FBI warned about fraud, but that fraud is not what caused the housing market to heat up to the extent it did, and most of what they called fraud was not really fraud or they would have been charged with a crime. Most of what the FBI called fraud was lack of transparency and some possibly shady activity, mostly on the part of the Macs, both quasi government instruments charged with using their power to insure, buy or deny loans. They failed to deny $trillions of subprime loans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this will help:[/B]
> 
> More CRA Idiocy | The Big Picture
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No help at all. Your link simply agrees with my continuous assertions that the most important failure was government fiscal/monetary policy, mostly excessively low interest rates which called loudly to everyone and his brother they needed to buy. In addition ARMS sucked house flippers into the game with low initial interest and when the interest went up at the first review period they could not sell the homes fast enough and they too were foreclosed upon.
> 
> It is obvious that you have failed to read the last few days of posts with citations and links which disprove the left wing extremists propaganda. You have learned nothing. You have suggested that much of this came from RWers.
> Well, I am a liberal, I just educated in economics and want the same thing for the least of our  people (the world over) that we provide for in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While bubbles may be identifiable in progress, bubbles can be definitively measured only in hindsight after a market correction,[28] which in the U.S. housing market began in 2005&#8211;2006.[29][30][31][32][33][34] Former U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said "We had a bubble in housing",[35][36] and also said in the wake of the subprime mortgage and credit crisis in 2007, "I really didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006."[37]

The mortgage and credit crisis was caused by the inability of a large number of home owners to pay their mortgages as their *low introductory-rate mortgages reverted to regular interest rates*. Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron concluded, "We had a bubble",[38] and concurred with Yale economist Robert Shiller's warning that home prices appear overvalued and that the correction could last years, with trillions of dollars of home value being lost.[38] Greenspan warned of "large double digit declines" in home values "larger than most people expect."[36]


Many contested any suggestion that there could be a housing bubble, particularly at its peak from 2004 to 2006,[49] with some rejecting the "house bubble" label in 2008.[50]* Claims that there was no warning of the crisis were further repudiated in an August 2008 article in The New York Times, which reported that in mid-2004 Richard F. Syron, the CEO of Freddie Mac, received a memo from David Andrukonis, the company's former chief risk officer, warning him that Freddie Mac was financing risk-laden loans that threatened Freddie Mac's financial stability.*
(Significantly caused by pushing CRA subprime loans.)Observers and analysts have attributed the reasons for the 2001-2006 housing bubble and its 2007-10 collapse in the United States to "everyone from home buyers to Wall Street, mortgage brokers to Alan Greenspan".[3] Other factors that are named include "Mortgage underwriters, investment banks, rating agencies, and investors",[4] *"low mortgage interest rates, low short-term interest rates, relaxed standards for mortgage loans, and irrational exuberance"[*5] Politicians in both the Democratic and Republican political parties have been cited for "pushing to keep derivatives unregulated" and "with rare exceptions" giving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "unwavering support".[6]

The government did not want to admit that when talking about the sub-prime mortgages that they were encouraged by the CRA. That does not change the facts of the issue.


----------



## Indeependent

dnsmith35 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.
> 
> 
> 
> That has been explained several times on this thread. Low interest rates made too many people try to buy too much real estate causing a rush to buy while interest was low. That is called by professionals (economists) an over heated demand driving inflation of price over value, then the market crashed. It was almost totally government policy which caused it.Businesses were all to happy to sell loans when pushed by the Fanny and Freddie Macs. The Macs promised to insure or buy every loan regardless of quality. Market Heating up is a standard term for more demand than supply and the demand is over chasing that supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Signs the housing market is heating up - USA Today
> 
> www.usatoday.com/story/.../11/ozy-housing-market.../7590243   Cached
> Signs the housing market is heating up. The private mortgage industry is bouncing back, which is good news for first time home buyers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Housing Market Heats Up, Mortgage Rates Fall - 24/7 Wall St.
> 
> 247wallst.com/housing/2014/05/22/housing-market-heats-up...   Cached
> Recent Posts. GameStop Gets Some of Its Mojo Back; HP Turnaround Debacle  Thousands of More Layoffs; Housing Market Heats Up, Mortgage Rates Fall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southern California housing market slowly heating up
> 
> www.dailynews.com/business/20140513/southern-california...   Cached
> Southern Californias housing market improved a bit in April, with sales rising more than usual from March while slipping below the 2013 level by the smallest ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Housing market heating up | Peninsula Clarion
> 
> peninsulaclarion.com/.../housing-market-heating-up   Cached
> In his 20 years in real estate, Redoubt Realty owner Dale Bagley has never seen a more active winter. Bagley, the President of the Kenai Peninsula ...​
> 
> 
> 
> Now I have read DNSMITH using the catchy phrase, "The Market Heated Up" and I'd like a CLINICAL (you know, STEP BY STEP) explanation of how "The Market Heated Up".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not a catchy phrase. Only ignorant people are unaware of what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.
> 
> Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.
Click to expand...

It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.

The order in which this occurred:

During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along. 

At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.

In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime. 

All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.[/QUOTE]

Wow!
You REALLY like typing generalizations and avoiding the 2004-2008 Bubble/Crash, don't cha?
Enough with your intellectual bullshit...
Loans were NOT being granted prior to 2004 to every human that breathed.
AND NOBODY driving a bus EVER got a Jumbo Loan prior to 2006.

But go ahead and revise history if it pleases your dementia.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.
> 
> 
> 
> We have been discussing Capitalism in the US and on some occasions the rest of the industrialize world.
> 
> What happens in the 3rd world is important, but not relevant to our discussion of capitalism, which does give us the prosperity to help the needy the world over but more important to the subject you brought up, elevated the standards of living for the poor in the US such that our relative poor live better than most laborers in the third world. About 5 billion people in the world live in abject destitution. That is why I choose to give my charity to some of them rather than to the relatively poor in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The subject of this thread, Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality", is entirely relevant to imperialism in Africa and elsewhere.
> 
> How else would good capitalists expand their markets and exploit the natural resources of others?*
> 
> "In 'King Leopold's Ghost,' journalist Adam Hochschild chronicles the depredations of Belgian rule of the Congo (today's Zaire) between the 1880s and 1909, when Leopold, the king of Belgium, died.
> 
> "During this period, 5 million to 10 million people were killed, or died of starvation, disease and being worked to death.
> 
> "All of this for rubber, harvested from the thick vines that contained that precious gelatinous sap.
> 
> "Hochschild understandably wanted to know why so few of us have ever heard about the atrocities of Leopold's rule."
> 
> History of Capitalism in the Congo
Click to expand...

The relevance of 3rd world conditions are entirely different today than they were between the 1880s and 1909 and even 40 or 50 years later. The big relevance today is mostly the cries and whines by some people who don't want the relative labor intensive jobs to be off shored. It is that type of job which has helped India to achieve a new middle class greater than the population of the US. The relevance to the 3rd world swirls around the industrialized world to allow some of their jobs escape to the third world. 

You can back off your childish rants based on left wing propaganda.


----------



## Chris

The 2008 crash was caused by Wall Street's derivatives based Ponzi scheme, not the housing crisis.


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has been explained several times on this thread. Low interest rates made too many people try to buy too much real estate causing a rush to buy while interest was low. That is called by professionals (economists) an over heated demand driving inflation of price over value, then the market crashed. It was almost totally government policy which caused it.Businesses were all to happy to sell loans when pushed by the Fanny and Freddie Macs. The Macs promised to insure or buy every loan regardless of quality. Market Heating up is a standard term for more demand than supply and the demand is over chasing that supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Signs the housing market is heating up - USA Today
> 
> www.usatoday.com/story/.../11/ozy-housing-market.../7590243   Cached
> Signs the housing market is heating up. The private mortgage industry is bouncing back, which is good news for first time home buyers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Housing Market Heats Up, Mortgage Rates Fall - 24/7 Wall St.
> 
> 247wallst.com/housing/2014/05/22/housing-market-heats-up...   Cached
> Recent Posts. GameStop Gets Some of Its Mojo Back; HP Turnaround Debacle  Thousands of More Layoffs; Housing Market Heats Up, Mortgage Rates Fall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southern California housing market slowly heating up
> 
> www.dailynews.com/business/20140513/southern-california...   Cached
> Southern Californias housing market improved a bit in April, with sales rising more than usual from March while slipping below the 2013 level by the smallest ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Housing market heating up | Peninsula Clarion
> 
> peninsulaclarion.com/.../housing-market-heating-up   Cached
> In his 20 years in real estate, Redoubt Realty owner Dale Bagley has never seen a more active winter. Bagley, the President of the Kenai Peninsula ...​
> That is not a catchy phrase. Only ignorant people are unaware of what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.
> 
> Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.
> 
> The order in which this occurred:
> 
> During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along.
> 
> At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.
> 
> In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime.
> 
> All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.
Click to expand...




> Wow!
> You REALLY like typing generalizations and avoiding the 2004-2008 Bubble/Crash, don't cha?
> Enough with your intellectual bullshit...
> Loans were NOT being granted prior to 2004 to every human that breathed.
> AND NOBODY driving a bus EVER got a Jumbo Loan prior to 2006.
> 
> But go ahead and revise history if it pleases your dementia.


None of your assertion is relevant to our discussion. I have not typed generalizations, and I have not avoided any time period. The bubble started in 1999 and burst when the inflation of price over value peaked and started its rapid fall. Getting a jumbo loan has little or no relevance to the bubble or the crash. It was government fiscal and monetary which was the major culprit.


----------



## Chris

dnsmith35 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.
> 
> Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.
> 
> The order in which this occurred:
> 
> During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along.
> 
> At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.
> 
> In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime.
> 
> All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!
> You REALLY like typing generalizations and avoiding the 2004-2008 Bubble/Crash, don't cha?
> Enough with your intellectual bullshit...
> Loans were NOT being granted prior to 2004 to every human that breathed.
> AND NOBODY driving a bus EVER got a Jumbo Loan prior to 2006.
> 
> But go ahead and revise history if it pleases your dementia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of your assertion is relevant to our discussion. I have not typed generalizations, and I have not avoided any time period. The bubble started in 1999 and burst when the inflation of price over value peaked and started its rapid fall. Getting a jumbo loan has little or no relevance to the bubble or the crash. It was government fiscal and monetary which was the major culprit.
Click to expand...


No, it wasn't.
It was Wall Street's derivatives based Ponzi scheme.


----------



## Indeependent

dnsmith35 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.
> 
> Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.
> 
> The order in which this occurred:
> 
> During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along.
> 
> At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.
> 
> In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime.
> 
> All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!
> You REALLY like typing generalizations and avoiding the 2004-2008 Bubble/Crash, don't cha?
> Enough with your intellectual bullshit...
> Loans were NOT being granted prior to 2004 to every human that breathed.
> AND NOBODY driving a bus EVER got a Jumbo Loan prior to 2006.
> 
> But go ahead and revise history if it pleases your dementia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of your assertion is relevant to our discussion. I have not typed generalizations, and I have not avoided any time period. The bubble started in 1999 and burst when the inflation of price over value peaked and started its rapid fall. Getting a jumbo loan has little or no relevance to the bubble or the crash. It was government fiscal and monetary which was the major culprit.
Click to expand...


Other than the fact that Chris is correct, how can a Bubble occur in 1999 when we had a crash in 3rd Quarter 2000?
Dementia is NOT pretty.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> .....


  The housing crash which was primarily caused by bad government  policy; especially the low interest rates. Then the CRA did have some affect on liquidity of many sub prime loans as pushed by Clinton and Bush, all of which created the major difference between prices and value of real estate. There have been posted in the last two days by at least 2 members with citations which show how it all came about. Are you so mentally dull you can't transpose what facts have been posted and what you think is the case? Are you that stupid. Wrong! Your propaganda source is lying to you.





> *Are you still here, Stupid?*
> It all came about because of an epidemic of mortgage fraud, 80% by lenders, the FBI warned about in 2004.


  Proof has been posted but you are too stupid to understand. You listen to left wing propaganda too much, and you believe government entities too much.





> Maybe this will help:[/B]
> 
> More CRA Idiocy | The Big Picture


That blog is BS of the worst kind.


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.
> 
> The order in which this occurred:
> 
> During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along.
> 
> At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.
> 
> In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime.
> 
> All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!
> You REALLY like typing generalizations and avoiding the 2004-2008 Bubble/Crash, don't cha?
> Enough with your intellectual bullshit...
> Loans were NOT being granted prior to 2004 to every human that breathed.
> AND NOBODY driving a bus EVER got a Jumbo Loan prior to 2006.
> 
> But go ahead and revise history if it pleases your dementia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of your assertion is relevant to our discussion. I have not typed generalizations, and I have not avoided any time period. The bubble started in 1999 and burst when the inflation of price over value peaked and started its rapid fall. Getting a jumbo loan has little or no relevance to the bubble or the crash. It was government fiscal and monetary which was the major culprit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that Chris is correct, how can a Bubble occur in 1999 when we had a crash in 3rd Quarter 2000?
> Dementia is NOT pretty.
Click to expand...

It didn't. The inflation bubble STARTED IN 1999 but did not burst until 2006. But we all note your dementia, and you are right, it is not pretty.

Here is the graph explaining what you obviously do not understand.






If you look at the big red line, you will se that it starts to separate from the straight red line in 1999, and continues going up until it peaks in 2006 then falls rapidly. The fall in price IS THE BUBBLE BURSTING from an over heated housing market. It has been explained to you in many ways. If you go into the graph a little more deeply, you will see that the  people who lost equity in their homes were those who bought while the market was inflated. The red curve represented inflation adjusted dollars and the blue curve represents the nominal dollars. Only an absolute idiot could not understand what happened. You must be that idiot.


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> .....





dnsmith35 said:


> It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.
> 
> The order in which this occurred:
> 
> During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along.
> 
> At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.
> 
> In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime.
> 
> All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.





> Wow!
> You REALLY like typing generalizations and avoiding the 2004-2008 Bubble/Crash, don't cha?
> Enough with your intellectual bullshit...
> Loans were NOT being granted prior to 2004 to every human that breathed.
> AND NOBODY driving a bus EVER got a Jumbo Loan prior to 2006.
> 
> But go ahead and revise history if it pleases your dementia.


None of your assertion is relevant to our discussion. I have not typed generalizations, and I have not avoided any time period. The bubble started in 1999 and burst when the inflation of price over value peaked and started its rapid fall in 2006. Getting a jumbo loan has little or no relevance to the bubble or the crash. It was government fiscal and monetary which was the major culprit.





> No, it wasn't.


You know nothing but what you read on left wing propaganda sites.





> It was Wall Street's derivatives based Ponzi scheme.


It is obvious that you are ate up with the dumbass stick and know nothing about economics or real estate financing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Zmrzlina said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.
Click to expand...


Lawless thugocracy *&#8800;* capitalism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that goes both ways Gnarley.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely it does! And it takes insight to recognize it and courage to take measures to prevent such a natural tendency!
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So given all the predictions, mostly opinions by so called experts bolstered by some real scientist, let us presume they are right. The next question is, can we alter the progress?  And if we can, how will we produce the energy we need to live? More nuclear energy? Or hopefully ambient temperature fusion power. Or maybe wave power. I don't know, and it does disturb me, but I hope our scientific world can figure it all out and do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The technology exists now. IT existed decades ago. However, it is far too profitable to continue using fossil fuels for extremely powerful corporations to simply let countries do the sensible thing for our children and grand children.
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This link is to a very interesting article I have recently read.    No, Its Not Global Warming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appreciate the link but do take note of the date it was published. Not saying it's false, just that it has not accounted for the last 15 years. The main reason climate change confusion exists is because addressing human agency in climate change overturns centuries of industry and profit that won't take it without a fight. We know what it takes to curb and secure our future as a species but we are not capable of doing so because such decisions are made by those whose interests lie with maintaining precisely the same way of life we have--which happens to line their pockets with gold AND wreck the planet, literally.
> 
> The way to mitigate the natural human inclination of caring for earth is to outsource the pollution and this was done in the 70s onward in America. So we had no idea what our part was in piling up garbage, buying products x, y and z made in other countries at massive costs to foreign territory and populations. Next, once science got too pushy for business in the last 8 years, the result was massive campaigns to confuse the public: stifling popular dissent through false claims over "the science." After 2-3 yrs of such funding by Heartland Institute and others, popular opinion had reversed to becoming climate deniers. The science is not confusing about the fundamental facts (that fossil fuels contribute massively to pollution and environmental degradation, human health hazards and the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/the-sixth-extinction-unnatural-history/dp/0805092994"]6th extinction[/ame] happening RIGHT NOW as a result of HUMANS).
> 
> But dollars matter more now than life does in the future because money has a voice today while the humans and trillions of other creatures in the future are absolutely ignored and without a voice.
Click to expand...


*However, it is far too profitable to continue using fossil fuels for extremely powerful corporations *

Not to mention more affordable for people to heat their homes, instead of freezing to death to please environmorons.
*
But dollars matter more now than life does in the future *

Environmoron wants you to die now, instead of in the future. You owe it to Gaia.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that goes both ways Gnarley.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely it does! And it takes insight to recognize it and courage to take measures to prevent such a natural tendency!
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So given all the predictions, mostly opinions by so called experts bolstered by some real scientist, let us presume they are right. The next question is, can we alter the progress?  And if we can, how will we produce the energy we need to live? More nuclear energy? Or hopefully ambient temperature fusion power. Or maybe wave power. I don't know, and it does disturb me, but I hope our scientific world can figure it all out and do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The technology exists now. IT existed decades ago. However, it is far too profitable to continue using fossil fuels for extremely powerful corporations to simply let countries do the sensible thing for our children and grand children.
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This link is to a very interesting article I have recently read.    No, Its Not Global Warming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appreciate the link but do take note of the date it was published. Not saying it's false, just that it has not accounted for the last 15 years. The main reason climate change confusion exists is because addressing human agency in climate change overturns centuries of industry and profit that won't take it without a fight. We know what it takes to curb and secure our future as a species but we are not capable of doing so because such decisions are made by those whose interests lie with maintaining precisely the same way of life we have--which happens to line their pockets with gold AND wreck the planet, literally.
> 
> The way to mitigate the natural human inclination of caring for earth is to outsource the pollution and this was done in the 70s onward in America. So we had no idea what our part was in piling up garbage, buying products x, y and z made in other countries at massive costs to foreign territory and populations. Next, once science got too pushy for business in the last 8 years, the result was massive campaigns to confuse the public: stifling popular dissent through false claims over "the science." After 2-3 yrs of such funding by Heartland Institute and others, popular opinion had reversed to becoming climate deniers. The science is not confusing about the fundamental facts (that fossil fuels contribute massively to pollution and environmental degradation, human health hazards and the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/the-sixth-extinction-unnatural-history/dp/0805092994"]6th extinction[/ame] happening RIGHT NOW as a result of HUMANS).
> 
> But dollars matter more now than life does in the future because money has a voice today while the humans and trillions of other creatures in the future are absolutely ignored and without a voice.
Click to expand...


*the result was massive campaigns to confuse the public: stifling popular dissent through false claims over "the science." *

Don't knock those false claims, spreading them made Al Gore hundreds of millions of dollars.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.
> 
> 
> 
> "A pair of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco added another piece of evidence to the case that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasnt the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.
> 
> "In a paper focused on California that was presented at a Fed conference on housing and mortgages in Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid say the data 'should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low and moderate-income lenders.'
> 
> "Fed governor Randall Kroszner made a similar case earlier this week.
> 
> "Among the specific findings in 'Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown':
> 
> "Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.
> 
> "Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were 'significantly less likely to be in foreclosure' than those originated by independent mortgage companies that werent covered by CRA.
> 
> "Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were 'half as likely to go into foreclosure' as those made by the independent mortgage companies.
> 
> "28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.
> 
> Don?t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Real Time Economics - WSJ
> 
> *If you're actually foolish enough to believe government doesn't work the way Wall Street wants, maybe you're too stupid to be here?*
Click to expand...


Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have been discussing Capitalism in the US and on some occasions the rest of the industrialize world.
> 
> What happens in the 3rd world is important, but not relevant to our discussion of capitalism, which does give us the prosperity to help the needy the world over but more important to the subject you brought up, elevated the standards of living for the poor in the US such that our relative poor live better than most laborers in the third world. About 5 billion people in the world live in abject destitution. That is why I choose to give my charity to some of them rather than to the relatively poor in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> *The subject of this thread, Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality", is entirely relevant to imperialism in Africa and elsewhere.
> 
> How else would good capitalists expand their markets and exploit the natural resources of others?*
> 
> "In 'King Leopold's Ghost,' journalist Adam Hochschild chronicles the depredations of Belgian rule of the Congo (today's Zaire) between the 1880s and 1909, when Leopold, the king of Belgium, died.
> 
> "During this period, 5 million to 10 million people were killed, or died of starvation, disease and being worked to death.
> 
> "All of this for rubber, harvested from the thick vines that contained that precious gelatinous sap.
> 
> "Hochschild understandably wanted to know why so few of us have ever heard about the atrocities of Leopold's rule."
> 
> History of Capitalism in the Congo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The relevance of 3rd world conditions are entirely different today than they were between the 1880s and 1909 and even 40 or 50 years later. The big relevance today is mostly the cries and whines by some people who don't want the relative labor intensive jobs to be off shored. It is that type of job which has helped India to achieve a new middle class greater than the population of the US. The relevance to the 3rd world swirls around the industrialized world to allow some of their jobs escape to the third world.
> 
> You can back off your childish rants based on left wing propaganda.
Click to expand...

*Tell it to the Tutsi:*

"This genocide resulted from the deliberate choice of a modern elite to foster hatred and fear to keep itself in power. 

"This small, privileged group first set the majority against the minority to counter a growing political opposition within Rwanda. 

"Then, faced with RPF success on the battlefield and at the negotiating table, these few powerholders transformed the strategy of ethnic division into genocide. 

"They believed that the extermination campaign would restore the solidarity of the Hutu under their leadership and help them win the war, or at least improve their chances of negotiating a favorable peace.

"They seized control of the state and used its machinery and its authority to carry out the slaughter."

*And  they did so on behalf of western capitalists exactly like Leopold*

Rwanda ? Global Issues


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.
> 
> 
> 
> "A pair of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco added another piece of evidence to the case that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasnt the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.
> 
> "In a paper focused on California that was presented at a Fed conference on housing and mortgages in Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid say the data 'should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low and moderate-income lenders.'
> 
> "Fed governor Randall Kroszner made a similar case earlier this week.
> 
> "Among the specific findings in 'Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown':
> 
> "Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.
> 
> "Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were 'significantly less likely to be in foreclosure' than those originated by independent mortgage companies that werent covered by CRA.
> 
> "Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were 'half as likely to go into foreclosure' as those made by the independent mortgage companies.
> 
> "28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.
> 
> Don?t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Real Time Economics - WSJ
> 
> *If you're actually foolish enough to believe government doesn't work the way Wall Street wants, maybe you're too stupid to be here?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter how many times you post it, they will continue to claim it was "unregulated capitalism" that cause the recession.  That's called "the big lie" technique.  Libturds aren't interested in knowing the truth.  They just mindlessly regurgitate whatever propaganda advances their agenda.   They will never reconsider their premises.


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The subject of this thread, Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality", is entirely relevant to imperialism in Africa and elsewhere.
> 
> How else would good capitalists expand their markets and exploit the natural resources of others?*
> 
> "In 'King Leopold's Ghost,' journalist Adam Hochschild chronicles the depredations of Belgian rule of the Congo (today's Zaire) between the 1880s and 1909, when Leopold, the king of Belgium, died.
> 
> "During this period, 5 million to 10 million people were killed, or died of starvation, disease and being worked to death.
> 
> "All of this for rubber, harvested from the thick vines that contained that precious gelatinous sap.
> 
> "Hochschild understandably wanted to know why so few of us have ever heard about the atrocities of Leopold's rule."
> 
> History of Capitalism in the Congo
> 
> 
> 
> The relevance of 3rd world conditions are entirely different today than they were between the 1880s and 1909 and even 40 or 50 years later. The big relevance today is mostly the cries and whines by some people who don't want the relative labor intensive jobs to be off shored. It is that type of job which has helped India to achieve a new middle class greater than the population of the US. The relevance to the 3rd world swirls around the industrialized world to allow some of their jobs escape to the third world.
> 
> You can back off your childish rants based on left wing propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Tell it to the Tutsi:*
> 
> "This genocide resulted from the deliberate choice of a modern elite to foster hatred and fear to keep itself in power.
> 
> "This small, privileged group first set the majority against the minority to counter a growing political opposition within Rwanda.
> 
> "Then, faced with RPF success on the battlefield and at the negotiating table, these few powerholders transformed the strategy of ethnic division into genocide.
> 
> "They believed that the extermination campaign would restore the solidarity of the Hutu under their leadership and help them win the war, or at least improve their chances of negotiating a favorable peace.
> 
> "They seized control of the state and used its machinery and its authority to carry out the slaughter."
> 
> *And  they did so on behalf of western capitalists exactly like Leopold*
> 
> Rwanda ? Global Issues
Click to expand...

Capitalism did not cause the genocide in Rwanda. I can tell that to the Tutsi. It was a tribal issue. One need not try to "rationalize" an economics answer. The left tards propaganda tries to blame capitalism for ever glitch and belch which appears to go against their propaganda. Most issues, good or bad, have simple reasons or causes, but the left tards try very hard to complicate everything they don't understand. Looking for the simple solution solves the great majority of all issues.


----------



## georgephillip

crisismangement said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The relevance of 3rd world conditions are entirely different today than they were between the 1880s and 1909 and even 40 or 50 years later. The big relevance today is mostly the cries and whines by some people who don't want the relative labor intensive jobs to be off shored. It is that type of job which has helped India to achieve a new middle class greater than the population of the US. The relevance to the 3rd world swirls around the industrialized world to allow some of their jobs escape to the third world.
> 
> You can back off your childish rants based on left wing propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> *Tell it to the Tutsi:*
> 
> "This genocide resulted from the deliberate choice of a modern elite to foster hatred and fear to keep itself in power.
> 
> "This small, privileged group first set the majority against the minority to counter a growing political opposition within Rwanda.
> 
> "Then, faced with RPF success on the battlefield and at the negotiating table, these few powerholders transformed the strategy of ethnic division into genocide.
> 
> "They believed that the extermination campaign would restore the solidarity of the Hutu under their leadership and help them win the war, or at least improve their chances of negotiating a favorable peace.
> 
> "They seized control of the state and used its machinery and its authority to carry out the slaughter."
> 
> *And  they did so on behalf of western capitalists exactly like Leopold*
> 
> Rwanda ? Global Issues
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism did not cause the genocide in Rwanda. I can tell that to the Tutsi. It was a tribal issue. One need not try to "rationalize" an economics answer. The left tards propaganda tries to blame capitalism for ever glitch and belch which appears to go against their propaganda. Most issues, good or bad, have simple reasons or causes, but the left tards try very hard to complicate everything they don't understand. Looking for the simple solution solves the great majority of all issues.
Click to expand...

*What do you know about Rwanda that Human Rights Watch doesn't?*

Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda (Human Rights Watch Report, March 1999)


----------



## bedowin62

Human Rights Watch hypocrites?

surely you jest leftard?


----------



## georgephillip

bedowin62 said:


> Human Rights Watch hypocrites?
> 
> surely you jest leftard?


"Policymakers in France, Belgium, and the United States and at the United Nations all knew of the preparations for massive slaughter and failed to take the steps needed to prevent it. 

"Aware from the start that Tutsi were being targeted for elimination, the leading foreign actors refused to acknowledge the genocide. 

"To have stopped the leaders and the zealots would have required military force; in the early stages, a relatively small force. Not only did international leaders reject this course, but they also declined for weeks to use their political and moral authority to challenge the legitimacy of the genocidal government. 

"They refused to declare that a government guilty of exterminating its citizens would never receive international assistance. 

"They did nothing to silence the radio that broadcast calls for slaughter. 

"Such simple measures would have sapped the strength of the authorities bent on mass murder and encouraged Rwandan opposition to the extermination campaign."

Introduction (HRW Report - Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, March 1999)


----------



## bedowin62

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human Rights Watch hypocrites?
> 
> surely you jest leftard?
> 
> 
> 
> "Policymakers in France, Belgium, and the United States and at the United Nations all knew of the preparations for massive slaughter and failed to take the steps needed to prevent it.
> 
> "Aware from the start that Tutsi were being targeted for elimination, the leading foreign actors refused to acknowledge the genocide.
> 
> "To have stopped the leaders and the zealots would have required military force; in the early stages, a relatively small force. Not only did international leaders reject this course, but they also declined for weeks to use their political and moral authority to challenge the legitimacy of the genocidal government.
> 
> "They refused to declare that a government guilty of exterminating its citizens would never receive international assistance.
> 
> "They did nothing to silence the radio that broadcast calls for slaughter.
> 
> "Such simple measures would have sapped the strength of the authorities bent on mass murder and encouraged Rwandan opposition to the extermination campaign."
> 
> Introduction (HRW Report - Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, March 1999)
Click to expand...


"policymakers'
 you mean politicians leftard

 but you're here trying to defend the idiot leftnut that says corporations are to blame arent you?


fool


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tell it to the Tutsi:*
> 
> "This genocide resulted from the deliberate choice of a modern elite to foster hatred and fear to keep itself in power.
> 
> "This small, privileged group first set the majority against the minority to counter a growing political opposition within Rwanda.
> 
> "Then, faced with RPF success on the battlefield and at the negotiating table, these few powerholders transformed the strategy of ethnic division into genocide.
> 
> "They believed that the extermination campaign would restore the solidarity of the Hutu under their leadership and help them win the war, or at least improve their chances of negotiating a favorable peace.
> 
> "They seized control of the state and used its machinery and its authority to carry out the slaughter."
> 
> *And  they did so on behalf of western capitalists exactly like Leopold*
> 
> Rwanda ? Global Issues
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism did not cause the genocide in Rwanda. I can tell that to the Tutsi. It was a tribal issue. One need not try to "rationalize" an economics answer. The left tards propaganda tries to blame capitalism for ever glitch and belch which appears to go against their propaganda. Most issues, good or bad, have simple reasons or causes, but the left tards try very hard to complicate everything they don't understand. Looking for the simple solution solves the great majority of all issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What do you know about Rwanda that Human Rights Watch doesn't?*
> 
> Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda (Human Rights Watch Report, March 1999)
Click to expand...

There are some left wing sites, Human Rights Watch is one of them, whose propaganda tend to try to make capitalism the culprit. The point is, what they say MAY have a smattering of truth, but their conclusions tend to be propaganda. Organizations like that look for even the smallest points against capitalism and then come on big time trying to prove (unsuccessfully) that capitalism is the entire cause, or major cause. In Rwanda tribal hatred was the primary issue. If some capitalist somewhere in the world tried to take advantage of this the likely hood it would have either started the slaughter or stopped in are slim to known. I have observed things like that to the point I automatically throw out conclusions made by those organizations. Reading their assertions proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


----------



## Redfish

I cannot believe that this stupid thread is still alive-------MODS,  close it


----------



## dnsmith35

Talk about truisms!

"You cannot reason a left winger out of a position he did not reach through reason."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human Rights Watch hypocrites?
> 
> surely you jest leftard?
> 
> 
> 
> "Policymakers in France, Belgium, and the United States and at the United Nations all knew of the preparations for massive slaughter and failed to take the steps needed to prevent it.
> 
> "Aware from the start that Tutsi were being targeted for elimination, the leading foreign actors refused to acknowledge the genocide.
> 
> "To have stopped the leaders and the zealots would have required military force; in the early stages, a relatively small force. Not only did international leaders reject this course, but they also declined for weeks to use their political and moral authority to challenge the legitimacy of the genocidal government.
> 
> "They refused to declare that a government guilty of exterminating its citizens would never receive international assistance.
> 
> "They did nothing to silence the radio that broadcast calls for slaughter.
> 
> "Such simple measures would have sapped the strength of the authorities bent on mass murder and encouraged Rwandan opposition to the extermination campaign."
> 
> Introduction (HRW Report - Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, March 1999)
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link.
Which doesn't mention capitalism or corporation.

Neg Rep.


----------



## dnsmith35

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human Rights Watch hypocrites?
> 
> surely you jest leftard?
> 
> 
> 
> "Policymakers in France, Belgium, and the United States and at the United Nations all knew of the preparations for massive slaughter and failed to take the steps needed to prevent it.
> 
> "Aware from the start that Tutsi were being targeted for elimination, the leading foreign actors refused to acknowledge the genocide.
> 
> "To have stopped the leaders and the zealots would have required military force; in the early stages, a relatively small force. Not only did international leaders reject this course, but they also declined for weeks to use their political and moral authority to challenge the legitimacy of the genocidal government.
> 
> "They refused to declare that a government guilty of exterminating its citizens would never receive international assistance.
> 
> "They did nothing to silence the radio that broadcast calls for slaughter.
> 
> "Such simple measures would have sapped the strength of the authorities bent on mass murder and encouraged Rwandan opposition to the extermination campaign."
> 
> Introduction (HRW Report - Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, March 1999)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> Which doesn't mention capitalism or corporation.
> 
> Neg Rep.
Click to expand...

That is a typical extremist ploy, post a link which MAY sound a little like the point in the hopes people believe them. I seldom believe links unless there is no editorialism and the story shows a study with empirical proof. Most of the links the extremists use are vague opinion pieces/blogs/editorials.

Case on point: Diamond and Saez did a "study" using empirical data in the hopes to establish that the marginal utility of money ALWAYS diminishes which to them was justification for more progressive tax on the rich. Keep in mind, I agree with a more progressive tax on the rich, but it galls me when economist of a specific political bent skews a study to get the results they want. The first thing I saw in their study was an error in one of their assumptions, that the marginal unit always remains the same even as one gains wealth. That is categorically wrong because as wealth increases it takes ever larger marginal units to satisfy their unlimited desire for wealth. That is a basic axiom of economic thought  based on human behavior; and choosing to veer from it will always skew the study and cause incorrect conclusions.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism did not cause the genocide in Rwanda. I can tell that to the Tutsi. It was a tribal issue. One need not try to "rationalize" an economics answer. The left tards propaganda tries to blame capitalism for ever glitch and belch which appears to go against their propaganda. Most issues, good or bad, have simple reasons or causes, but the left tards try very hard to complicate everything they don't understand. Looking for the simple solution solves the great majority of all issues.
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you know about Rwanda that Human Rights Watch doesn't?*
> 
> Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda (Human Rights Watch Report, March 1999)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are some left wing sites, Human Rights Watch is one of them, whose propaganda tend to try to make capitalism the culprit. The point is, what they say MAY have a smattering of truth, but their conclusions tend to be propaganda. Organizations like that look for even the smallest points against capitalism and then come on big time trying to prove (unsuccessfully) that capitalism is the entire cause, or major cause. In Rwanda tribal hatred was the primary issue. If some capitalist somewhere in the world tried to take advantage of this the likely hood it would have either started the slaughter or stopped in are slim to known. I have observed things like that to the point I automatically throw out conclusions made by those organizations. Reading their assertions proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Click to expand...

They prove you've managed to stick your head so far up your ass you'll need another 78 years to remove it.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you know about Rwanda that Human Rights Watch doesn't?*
> 
> Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda (Human Rights Watch Report, March 1999)
> 
> 
> 
> There are some left wing sites, Human Rights Watch is one of them, whose propaganda tend to try to make capitalism the culprit. The point is, what they say MAY have a smattering of truth, but their conclusions tend to be propaganda. Organizations like that look for even the smallest points against capitalism and then come on big time trying to prove (unsuccessfully) that capitalism is the entire cause, or major cause. In Rwanda tribal hatred was the primary issue. If some capitalist somewhere in the world tried to take advantage of this the likely hood it would have either started the slaughter or stopped in are slim to known. I have observed things like that to the point I automatically throw out conclusions made by those organizations. Reading their assertions proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They prove you've managed to stick your head so far up your ass you'll need another 78 years to remove it.
Click to expand...

Typical response from someone so totally defeated in debate he can't stand it. I am a liberal, not a left wing fanatic like George Phillips. The difference between us is massive. I don't accept the extremes of either end of the spectrum.


----------



## dnsmith35

Where to left wing extremists get their economic news?


----------



## Contumacious

dnsmith35 said:


> . I am a liberal, not a left wing fanatic like George Phillips. The difference between us is massive. I don't accept the extremes of either end of the spectrum.



Of course there is. He believes in Tyranny 100% of the time and yourself only 99.9% of the time.

.


----------



## dnsmith35

contumacious said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . I am a liberal, not a left wing fanatic like george phillips. The difference between us is massive. I don't accept the extremes of either end of the spectrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course there is. He believes in tyranny 100% of the time and yourself only 99.9% of the time.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

rotflmao!


----------



## dnsmith35

Cynicism linked to greater dementia risk - CNN.com


----------



## crisismangement

Contumacious said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . I am a liberal, not a left wing fanatic like George Phillips. The difference between us is massive. I don't accept the extremes of either end of the spectrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is. He believes in Tyranny 100% of the time and yourself only 99.9% of the time.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Of all the people on this board you could believe in tyranny, you missed by a mile.


----------



## gnarlylove

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you know about Rwanda that Human Rights Watch doesn't?*
> 
> Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda (Human Rights Watch Report, March 1999)
> 
> 
> 
> There are some left wing sites, Human Rights Watch is one of them, whose propaganda tend to try to make capitalism the culprit. .
Click to expand...


They (whoever give you information) did their job (meaning they deceived you thoroughly). HRW receives funding from corporate sponsors and listens to the concerns of their donors. Correspondingly, while it has produced many vital reports that I use, it has issued reports (or more accurately failed to report) on information so as to fit narratives of the US and their allies, indeed, of the western/global capitalist system in general. This flies in the face of your "anti-capitalist propaganda" analysis of HRW.

I know it's your nature to disagree because you obviously don't like asking "is what I believe true?" so here's a report on the bias of HRW, and we aren't talking about the bias of your favorite slander term "left wing extremists."

Far Beyond the Curve: HRW?s Bias and Lack of Credibility in 2012


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are some left wing sites, Human Rights Watch is one of them, whose propaganda tend to try to make capitalism the culprit. The point is, what they say MAY have a smattering of truth, but their conclusions tend to be propaganda. Organizations like that look for even the smallest points against capitalism and then come on big time trying to prove (unsuccessfully) that capitalism is the entire cause, or major cause. In Rwanda tribal hatred was the primary issue. If some capitalist somewhere in the world tried to take advantage of this the likely hood it would have either started the slaughter or stopped in are slim to known. I have observed things like that to the point I automatically throw out conclusions made by those organizations. Reading their assertions proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> They prove you've managed to stick your head so far up your ass you'll need another 78 years to remove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical response from someone so totally defeated in debate he can't stand it. I am a liberal, not a left wing fanatic like George Phillips. The difference between us is massive. I don't accept the extremes of either end of the spectrum.
Click to expand...


Truly your self-righteousness knows no limits. Even if you are right about everything in the world, I would expect such omniscience to be humble but instead you are a firecracker constantly taking the modest road while proclaiming it as loudly and as slanderously as you know how. You must sleep well at night in your smug sense of absolute rationality.

Just so you don't feel the need to throw mud at me for merely observing your behavior let me just state I know I am utterly incapable of rationality so spare me your decrees of righteousness and conversely of the idiocy of the person who dares challenge your absolute and eternal truths.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.
> 
> 
> 
> "A pair of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco added another piece of evidence to the case that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasnt the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.
> 
> "In a paper focused on California that was presented at a Fed conference on housing and mortgages in Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid say the data 'should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low and moderate-income lenders.'
> 
> "Fed governor Randall Kroszner made a similar case earlier this week.
> 
> "Among the specific findings in 'Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown':
> 
> "Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.
> 
> "Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were 'significantly less likely to be in foreclosure' than those originated by independent mortgage companies that werent covered by CRA.
> 
> "Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were 'half as likely to go into foreclosure' as those made by the independent mortgage companies.
> 
> "28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.
> 
> Don?t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Real Time Economics - WSJ
> 
> *If you're actually foolish enough to believe government doesn't work the way Wall Street wants, maybe you're too stupid to be here?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
Click to expand...

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"


----------



## bedowin62

THERE ARE MORE people in Poverty than there were when Republicans ran things


16 MILLION more on food stamps

 i'd say PROGRESSIVES gaurantee inequality; it's getting worse on their watch


idiots and hypocrites


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A pair of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco added another piece of evidence to the case that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasnt the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.
> 
> "In a paper focused on California that was presented at a Fed conference on housing and mortgages in Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid say the data 'should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low and moderate-income lenders.'
> 
> "Fed governor Randall Kroszner made a similar case earlier this week.
> 
> "Among the specific findings in 'Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown':
> 
> "Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.
> 
> "Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were 'significantly less likely to be in foreclosure' than those originated by independent mortgage companies that werent covered by CRA.
> 
> "Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were 'half as likely to go into foreclosure' as those made by the independent mortgage companies.
> 
> "28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.
> 
> Don?t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Real Time Economics - WSJ
> 
> *If you're actually foolish enough to believe government doesn't work the way Wall Street wants, maybe you're too stupid to be here?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link.

Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.


----------



## georgephillip

bedowin62 said:


> THERE ARE MORE people in Poverty than there were when Republicans ran things
> 
> 
> 16 MILLION more on food stamps
> 
> i'd say PROGRESSIVES gaurantee inequality; it's getting worse on their watch
> 
> 
> idiots and hypocrites


"Choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for your congress-critters guarantees rising inequality.


----------



## bedowin62

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE ARE MORE people in Poverty than there were when Republicans ran things
> 
> 
> 16 MILLION more on food stamps
> 
> i'd say PROGRESSIVES gaurantee inequality; it's getting worse on their watch
> 
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> 
> 
> "Choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for your congress-critters guarantees rising inequality.
Click to expand...


sorry leftard; see if you can run raul castro to run; or FARC in colombia


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.
Click to expand...

"'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending.  The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.' 

"And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.' 

"The facts are simple, Bair said. 

"The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"


----------



## bedowin62

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending.  The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'
> 
> "And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'
> 
> "The facts are simple, Bair said.
> 
> "The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
Click to expand...


====================

the would not have been possible if the government didnt "encourage" them.
and it wasnt encouragement leftard; it was the LAW.
 by the mid-2000s more than half of government-backed mortgages were required to be made in the name of "fairness" at sub-prime rates to people that couldnt afford to repay them


----------



## georgephillip

bedowin62 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE ARE MORE people in Poverty than there were when Republicans ran things
> 
> 
> 16 MILLION more on food stamps
> 
> i'd say PROGRESSIVES gaurantee inequality; it's getting worse on their watch
> 
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> 
> 
> "Choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for your congress-critters guarantees rising inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry leftard; see if you can run raul castro to run; or FARC in colombia
Click to expand...

*You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post*

"Largest (voter registration over 75,000)[edit]
Libertarian Party - Libertarianism, laissez-faire, pro-civil rights, anti-war
Green Party of the United States - Green politics, eco-socialism, progressivism
Constitution Party - Social conservatism, religious right, paleoconservatism
Smaller parties by ideology[edit]
Right-wing[edit]
This section includes any party that advocates positions associated with American conservatism, including both Old Right and New Right tendencies.
America First Party
Christian Liberty Party
America's Party
Independent American Party"

Third party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bedowin62

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for your congress-critters guarantees rising inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry leftard; see if you can run raul castro to run; or FARC in colombia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post*
> 
> "Largest (voter registration over 75,000)[edit]
> Libertarian Party - Libertarianism, laissez-faire, pro-civil rights, anti-war
> Green Party of the United States - Green politics, eco-socialism, progressivism
> Constitution Party - Social conservatism, religious right, paleoconservatism
> Smaller parties by ideology[edit]
> Right-wing[edit]
> This section includes any party that advocates positions associated with American conservatism, including both Old Right and New Right tendencies.
> America First Party
> Christian Liberty Party
> America's Party
> Independent American Party"
> 
> Third party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


you're right leftard; i need only one to prove my ignorance; like you?


----------



## gnarlylove

The US ranks equal with Qatar and Kenya on labor rights and laws in place regarding unions. Their score was a 4 out of 5, 5 being the lowest ranking.

"Unions in countries with a rating of 4 have reported systematic violations against workers. The government and/or companies are engaged in a serious effort to crush the collective voice of workers putting fundamental rights under continuous threat."

New ITUC Global Rights Index - The world?s worst countries for workers - International Trade Union Confederation


----------



## georgephillip

bedowin62 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.
> 
> 
> 
> "'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending.  The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'
> 
> "And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'
> 
> "The facts are simple, Bair said.
> 
> "The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ====================
> 
> the would not have been possible if the government didnt "encourage" them.
> and it wasnt encouragement leftard; it was the LAW.
> by the mid-2000s more than half of government-backed mortgages were required to be made in the name of "fairness" at sub-prime rates to people that couldnt afford to repay them
Click to expand...

*Point out the passage in the CRA that authorizes fraudulent lending practices or STFU, Bitch.*

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday (2004) of an 'epidemic' of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become 'the next S&L crisis.'

"Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial institutions.

"'It has the potential to be an epidemic,' said Swecker, who heads the Criminal Division at FBI headquarters in Washington. 'We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,' he said."

CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004


----------



## bedowin62

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending.  The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'
> 
> "And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'
> 
> "The facts are simple, Bair said.
> 
> "The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ====================
> 
> the would not have been possible if the government didnt "encourage" them.
> and it wasnt encouragement leftard; it was the LAW.
> by the mid-2000s more than half of government-backed mortgages were required to be made in the name of "fairness" at sub-prime rates to people that couldnt afford to repay them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Point out the passage in the CRA that authorizes fraudulent lending practices or STFU, Bitch.*
> 
> "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday (2004) of an 'epidemic' of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become 'the next S&L crisis.'
> 
> "Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial institutions.
> 
> "'It has the potential to be an epidemic,' said Swecker, who heads the Criminal Division at FBI headquarters in Washington. 'We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,' he said."
> 
> CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004
Click to expand...


lol what an angry loser you are!!

there is no passage authorizing fraud

 that said it's STRAW MAN.........................BITCH


----------



## bedowin62

THE ONLY thing capitalism seems to gaurantee is legions of angry, whining progressive losers butt-hurt over their failed agenda; and the record welfare and food stamps it has produced, crying like the bitches they are that corporations are making MORE MONEY ON PROGRESSIVE'S WATCH than they did under those mean ol Republicans!

lol why dont you go hang yourself idiot?


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> The US ranks equal with Qatar and Kenya on labor rights and laws in place regarding unions. Their score was a 4 out of 5, 5 being the lowest ranking.
> 
> "Unions in countries with a rating of 4 have reported systematic violations against workers. The government and/or companies are engaged in a serious effort to crush the collective voice of workers putting fundamental rights under continuous threat."
> 
> New ITUC Global Rights Index - The world?s worst countries for workers - International Trade Union Confederation


*The US also saw much higher levels of violence, often state violence, used against labor organizers:*

"Anti-union violence may be used as a means to intimidate others, as in the hanging of union organizer Frank Little from a railroad trestle in Butte, Montana. 

"A note was pinned to his body which said, 'Others Take Notice! First And Last Warning!' 

"The initial of the last names of seven well-known union activists in the Butte area were on the note, with the "L" for Frank Little circled.[26][27]

"Anti-union violence may be abrupt and unanticipated. 

"Three years after Frank Little was lynched, a strike by Butte miners was suppressed with gunfire when deputized mine guards suddenly fired upon unarmed picketers in the Anaconda Road Massacre. 

"Seventeen were shot in the back as they tried to flee, and one man died.[28]"

Anti-union violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you know about Rwanda that Human Rights Watch doesn't?*
> 
> Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda (Human Rights Watch Report, March 1999)
> 
> 
> 
> There are some left wing sites, Human Rights Watch is one of them, whose propaganda tend to try to make capitalism the culprit. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They (whoever give you information) did their job (meaning they deceived you thoroughly). HRW receives funding from corporate sponsors and listens to the concerns of their donors. Correspondingly, while it has produced many vital reports that I use, it has issued reports (or more accurately failed to report) on information so as to fit narratives of the US and their allies, indeed, of the western/global capitalist system in general. This flies in the face of your "anti-capitalist propaganda" analysis of HRW.
> 
> I know it's your nature to disagree because you obviously don't like asking "is what I believe true?" so here's a report on the bias of HRW, and we aren't talking about the bias of your favorite slander term "left wing extremists."
> 
> Far Beyond the Curve: HRW?s Bias and Lack of Credibility in 2012
Click to expand...

I disagree with those things that I believe to be in error. But  in no way did HRW influence my decision as to what is and what is not correct. Left wing extremists, who prefer to some extent socialism, have for decades tried to beat capitalism down. They have failed because there is no better economic system which builds prosperity for the greatest number of people. Since I am a liberal/humanist I do believe in the welfare for the "least of his people."

Left wing extremists are what they are. Either you fall into that category or you don't. Obviously you don't fall into the simple "liberal" mode as your views are far to the left of that. It is my experience with left wingers that their solutions are all far to the left of simple liberalism or humanism. If you are not a left wing extremist, it is a mistake of what and how you post which makes you look that way. Either accept what you are, or get off your high horse about simple liberalism.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> They prove you've managed to stick your head so far up your ass you'll need another 78 years to remove it.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical response from someone so totally defeated in debate he can't stand it. I am a liberal, not a left wing fanatic like George Phillips. The difference between us is massive. I don't accept the extremes of either end of the spectrum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gnarley-
> 
> Truly your self-righteousness knows no limits. Even if you are right about everything in the world, I would expect such omniscience to be humble but instead you are a firecracker constantly taking the modest road while proclaiming it as loudly and as slanderously as you know how. You must sleep well at night in your smug sense of absolute rationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you can't stand the opportunity to have a discussion without nastiness. For a number of posts there was no nastiness at ll. I follow the example of those to whom I respond. When you were not insulting I answered in kind. Now that you have resorted to nastiness I have no alternative to answer in kind. YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP. I am what I am, a simple liberal trying to do good for all his people. You on the other hand in your typical left wing extremist manner have again chosen to attack me. If there is any self righteousness on this thread, it is coming from you and your compadres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you don't feel the need to throw mud at me for merely observing your behavior let me just state I know I am utterly incapable of rationality so spare me your decrees of righteousness and conversely of the idiocy of the person who dares challenge your absolute and eternal truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people challenge my opinions, and there is no negative give and take. I stand by my behavior as one of the good guys in the face of a bunch of extremist idiots trying to unfairly and inaccurately make capitalism the cause of all their failures. You are right, you are not rational. You look at propaganda and take it for fact, yet you are shown facts and you discard them because you don't like the truth.
> 
> I don't just make these things up. My opinions were supported by good factual concepts and studies. I eliminate the propaganda from both extremes by eliminating the editorialism in the article. As I did with the study by Diamond and Saez, I read the study, look at the data, recognize a fault in the study if one is obvious, and come to my own conclusions rather than accept the conclusions of the ones doing the study. If you do that, instead of accepting the conclusions premade for you, you might, just might learn how to throw out the fluff and propaganda and think for yourself.
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A pair of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco added another piece of evidence to the case that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasn&#8217;t the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.
> 
> "In a paper focused on California that was presented at a Fed conference on housing and mortgages in Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid say the data 'should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low and moderate-income lenders.'
> 
> "Fed governor Randall Kroszner made a similar case earlier this week.
> 
> "Among the specific findings in 'Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown':
> 
> "Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.
> 
> "Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were 'significantly less likely to be in foreclosure' than those originated by independent mortgage companies that weren&#8217;t covered by CRA.
> 
> "Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were 'half as likely to go into foreclosure' as those made by the independent mortgage companies.
> 
> "28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.
> 
> Don?t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Real Time Economics - WSJ
> 
> *If you're actually foolish enough to believe government doesn't work the way Wall Street wants, maybe you're too stupid to be here?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
Click to expand...

All that really needs to be said here is, *"Do you really believe a government agency is going to admit to any part of the problems they cause?"*



> Androw -   Carter passed the Community Reinvestment act, believing that the problem with dropping home ownership rates, was caused by lack of investment into homes, rather than a problem societal family break down.  It's much easier to regulate the banks, than to convince people to stay true to their wedding vows.
> 
> In 1977, the CRA was signed into law, promoting investment into home ownership, encouraging lending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you tell me....  Does that look like home prices after World War 2, were 'fairly' stable and consistent.... until when?   1977.   Look at the chart.  In 1977, prices started climbing, until they crashed.
> 
> Because of this... the CRA was virtually ignored for a decade.   Community groups were complaining that the CRA was not enforced.  (and it wasn't... for good reason).
> 
> In 1990s, Clinton came along, and vowed to fix things.  He instructed his government to start pushing banks.... which they did.
> 
> HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube
> 
> In 1998, the Clinton government sued in court, banks to give out $2.1 Billion in unqualified loans.    Andrew Cuomo, at 3 minutes in, directly states they will be a higher risk, and higher default rate.
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --
> 
> But it doesn't end there....   In 1997, Freddie Mac agrees to Securitize Sub-prime loans, for the first time in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp.
> and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
> securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> 
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
> and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE:   FTU).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People asked "how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating?   This is how.  Freddie Mac, gave it to them.
> 
> Between the government directly suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and Freddie Mac securing them, what do you think that did to sub-prime lending?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what do you think all those previously unqualified buyers flooding the market did to home prices?
> 
> From the prior picture.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the exact year that prices started spiking up?   1997.
> 
> Bottom line.... yes Bush did support more home ownership.   That's true, and no one I know, denies it.
> 
> The problem is.... the price bubble, and sub-prime bubble, started in 1997.  The facts clearly show this.  It's not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> And by the way.... Obama himself, was involved in the lawsuits against banks, to force them to engage in sub-prime lending.   We have court documents, with his name on them.
> 
> So Obama, was directly involved back in the late 90s, in what caused the crash in 2008.
> 
> It's just a fact.
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending.  The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'
> 
> "And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'
> 
> "The facts are simple, Bair said.
> 
> "The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
Click to expand...

Whether you want to believe it or not, even those banks which were not covered by CRA started to follow CRA guidelines because of regulators pushing those standards and sub prime loans, even if not considered covered by CRA, were the over all reason BECAUSE OF SUPER LOW INTEREST RATES, prompted the inflationary housing prices because they over heated the market, along with other bad government policies, until the crash occurs. Instead of listening to the government defend its policies, why not do the research and figure it out for yourself? Are you than incapable of thinking?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for your congress-critters guarantees rising inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry leftard; see if you can run raul castro to run; or FARC in colombia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post*
> 
> "Largest (voter registration over 75,000)[edit]
> Libertarian Party - Libertarianism, laissez-faire, pro-civil rights, anti-war
> Green Party of the United States - Green politics, eco-socialism, progressivism
> Constitution Party - Social conservatism, religious right, paleoconservatism
> Smaller parties by ideology[edit]
> Right-wing[edit]
> This section includes any party that advocates positions associated with American conservatism, including both Old Right and New Right tendencies.
> America First Party
> Christian Liberty Party
> America's Party
> Independent American Party"
> 
> Third party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

This comment should be pointed squarely at you.  

*You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post*


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending.  The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'
> 
> "And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'
> 
> "The facts are simple, Bair said.
> 
> "The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ====================
> 
> the would not have been possible if the government didnt "encourage" them.
> and it wasnt encouragement leftard; it was the LAW.
> by the mid-2000s more than half of government-backed mortgages were required to be made in the name of "fairness" at sub-prime rates to people that couldnt afford to repay them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Point out the passage in the CRA that authorizes fraudulent lending practices or STFU, Bitch.*
Click to expand...

It was not the actual verbiage in the law which caused the problem, it was the way leftist extremists understood  the spirit of the law, and the way administrations of Clinton and Bush wanted it to work. The bottom line is, regulators were told to push sub primes and government entities not only pushed them, they chose to securitize sub prime loans as a means to follow the spirit of CRA.

Take you blinders off and come into the real world.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending.  The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'
> 
> "And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'
> 
> "The facts are simple, Bair said.
> 
> "The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
Click to expand...


Did she say that the CRA didn't lower lending standards?
Do you think it didn't lower lending standards?


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> I specifically stated "reducing" the demands on energy. The plans are to power them via electricity, which is mostly fossil fuels at present.



But it's not a reduction.   It's not.   Light rail uses more energy than a car.   By far.



> And assuming you are right about concerns of the environment being largely made up, then you are right. But how accurate is your assessment? It could be true, partially so or false. What does the Bible, I mean Jesus, I mean scientists say?



I have specifically looked at those environmental concerns.   I have read the paperwork, I have read the reports.   When you boil down those numbers, they are in fact estimates, based on the opinions of eco-nutz.   That's simply what they are.  If you want to deny that, by all means post your citations for those numbers, I'll be more than happy to read your link, and post right here all the made up estimates your link contains.

Now if you want to claim that those estimates based on opinion, are right... that's a fair argument.  But that too, would be just an opinion of an estimate based on opinion.

You can't directly show me 'this person died from road construction pollution last year'.   You can't show me the river that can no longer sustain life, specifically because of auto pollution.    

It's all 'we think cars put out x amount of pollution, and we estimate that this is causing y effect, and our calculations show that could do Z amount of long term harm to the environment'. 

Again, you can claim those are accurate..... but they are still just accurate calculations, based on estimates, based on opinion.



> There's about 2% of people who study this issue with a alleged scientific lens and agree with you; there's another segment that says it will matter increasingly (usually identified as 97-8%); but there's another group among scientists that assert the cost to the environment and hence to humanity is much more disastrous a situation then any of the mainstream reports like IPCC. Notably an MIT group of scientists among many others: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
> 
> Just based on intelligent guesses we can determine your accusation that climate concern is largely made up is itself made up--for what creature besides man actually thinks he can survive without utmost concern for his habitat? Only people bent towards personal excess and greed can ignore the most fundamental truth about humans: that we are of this earth and depend on its providence alone. But when all your peers agree with you and ignores this truth, it makes you feel like you have a valid point. Don't let groupthink deceive you into invalid views. Do your own homework and think about it.



If I round up 98 people on this forum, and claim that you do not actually have a brain, and only 2 people say you do.....   does that mean the 98 are right?   What if they had Ph.Ds in philosophy?  Would that make them all correct?

You accused me of "groupthink", and yet at the very start your argument was *about 2% of people who study this issue with a alleged scientific lens and agree with you; there's another segment that says it will matter increasingly (usually identified as 97-8%);*  What is that?

That's groupthink... you just accused me of what you yourself just did.  Saying my group is larger, than the other group which is tiny, that's groupthink.   That's not science.  Science is never "we all voted this is true".   In fact, real Science often bucks the conventional wisdom of the ages.

What's even more ironic is that you list the IPCC report.   Did you know that many of the names listed on the IPCC report, were not scientists at all?   Did you also know that many scientists who did work on the IPCC report, disagreed with the conclusions given?     Did you know that some of the scientists actually had to sue the IPCC in court, to have their names removed from the report which they considered fraudulent and misleading?   Did you know the infamous hockey stick graph used in the report used doctored data, and two separate contradicting data sources, in order to create the graph?

Now is that just make making up stuff?  Is that just my opinion?   No, all of what I just said is absolute fact, and I can prove each and every point..... unlike the myth of dooms day pollution which you can't prove.   All those dooms day myths, are based on computer models.   The problem is you can make a computer model say anything.  Tweak one number here, tweak a multiplier there, and you can get that model to say anything you want.   Estimates, based on opinion.


----------



## Andylusion

Zmrzlina said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.
Click to expand...


What has that got to do with Capitalism?    Where in the Capitalist system do you see "Also Capitalism requires civil war, slaughtering of others, and stealing their stuff"?

When you think of the people who are considered the fathers of modern capitalism, which one said that?

See, I can actually point to people in Socialism, that advocated struggle and class warfare, as being required in the institution of Socialism.

You are apply two completely unrelated topics.   What revolution militia doesn't attempt to grab whatever they can to make money to fund the revolution?   All of them do this.  Socialist and Communist militias did the same thing.

I don't see you suggesting that their slaughtering of people was for the advancement of socialism.    Or the Lenin slaughtering the business owners in Russia was for the benefit of Socialism.

But when you talk about Capitalism, suddenly every militia group trying to overthrow their government, are all evil capitalists?

Grow up.


----------



## Andylusion

Zmrzlina said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens in the 3rd world is important, but not relevant to our discussion of capitalism, which does give us the prosperity to help the needy the world over but more important to the subject you brought up, elevated the standards of living for the poor in the US such that our relative poor live better than most laborers in the third world. About 5 billion people in the world live in abject destitution. That is why I choose to give my charity to some of them rather than to the relatively poor in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to break it to you but we live in a globalized economy and economic activities (and their consequences) are not contained within the borders of a single nation.
Click to expand...


Still irrelevant.  Capitalism didn't cause that.    There is nothing in capitalism that requires adherence to go kill people.

Capitalism isn't built on class warfare, and trying to kill each other over resources that must be confiscated by the masses and dolled out by authority equally in some socialist hell on earth.

Capitalism is built on everyone working for their own self interest, and that self interest builds the economy.  I know how to fix cars.  You have a car that needs fixed.  We both work together in a transaction for mutual benefit.   I fix the car, and you pay me.  You are better off because your car is fix.  I'm better off because I was paid for my service.

You do the same thing with what you do, that provides for your customers.  And those customers do what they do for their customers.  And the capitalist system benefits everyone.

Nowhere in that system do you see "kill everyone and take their stuff".   It's not there.

In fact, Capitalism is against that, because dead people don't provide goods and services that improve society.   That's why typically in a war torn disaster area, the economy is normally ruined until the population recovers somewhat.


----------



## dblack

I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> GlassSteagall was no joke, we wouldn't have had a severe recession as we did with it in place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Hipeter, I am not trying to insult you in any way, but in truth, you don't appear to know what you are talking about.
> 
> For historical accuracy, there is no Glass-Steagal Act.  In reality, it's the 1933 Banking Act.  People call it the "Glass Steagal Act" because the sponsors of the 1933 Banking Act were Carter Glass, and Henry B. Steagall.
> 
> Ironically, the 1933 Banking Act contained several key provisions for FDIC and Federal Deposit Insurance, which people claim to be part of the New Deal.
> 
> The provision of the 1933 Banking Act, that people call the Glass-Steagal Act, is the provision for separation of Retail banks, Commercial bank, Investment Banks, and Insurance Companies.   Investment, Retail, Commercial and Insurance, were prohibited from operating together.
> 
> The claim that these prohibitions would have prevented the melt down are just simply not true.
> 
> First, the rest of the world does not have these prohibitions, and most never did.   Canada didn't, and never has.   They have not had a problem.
> 
> Second, the vast majority of the banks that failed in the recent crash, would not have been covered under the Glass-Steagal prohibitions.  Countrywide Financial would not.   Bear Stearns would not.  Indymac would not.   The vast majority of the bank failures, had Glass Steagall been enforced, would have not been affected in any way.
> 
> Third, the majority of the 'fixes' that government pushed, were only allowed with Glass-Steagal repealed.   Bank of America buying out Countrywide, would have been illegal under GSA.     JP Morgan Chase buying Bear Stearns, would have been illegal under GSA.
> 
> So this idea that "repealing Glass Steagal Act caused everything"  in just flat out bogus.   If anything, getting rid of that regulation helped solve the crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> By any objective measure, the New Deal policies are what dragged out the recession, into the great depression.
> 
> How does paying people to destroy food, during a hunger crisis, result in great economic growth?    If you look at the standard of living under the New Deal, and World War 2, the standard declined at best.   There was no great economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I don't buy it.   Most of the Canadian government programs existed before the crisis in the US every happened.   Further, there was no sub-prime melt down in Canada, which would have caused the need for a bailout.   No one can even point to a bank that was at risk of bankruptcy.
> 
> The basic argument I've read thus far, is that 'banks had taken advantage of money the government gave out..... thus they were bailed out'.   Sorry, that's not true.    If you provide a program today, to hand out money to people like me, I'm going to ask for your address and come get some cash.   Doesn't mean you bailed me out... just means I was more than happy to take your money.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the point.   Yes, if you tie bad investments to good investments, that doesn't make the bad investments good.   If the Carpathia had reached the Titanic before she sank, and tied itself to the hull, that would not have kept the Titanic afloat, it would have just sank the Carpathia too.
> 
> Again, the problem wasn't derivatives.  The problem was the sub-prime loans.   If the sub-prime loans had not been sold to begin with, or had not been bundled into the derivatives, there would never have been a problem with derivatives.
> 
> And again.... it was government that pushed sub-prime loans, and it was government that pushed them to be bundled into derivatives.  If you watched the video, Obama himself says the whole point of bundling those loans, was to get more investment.    The government pushed this whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, property values could dive without warning, even without sub-prime lending.    But in this case, it was directly because of sub-prime loans that values went up, and it was directly because of sub-prime melt down, that they went down.
> 
> Just because X can happen without Y, doesn't mean X did happened without Y.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they lose their jobs or fall into bankruptcy they can't, and if the value of their property dives, a previously easily repayable debt becomes impossible to pay. The banks got greedy, and actually went out of their way to encourage loans to people that could't afford them, but at the same time a lot of houses went under that were owned by people that re-mortgaged their house knowing they were in good financial state at the time. There is no way for a bank to truly prepare, it can only limit the fallout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, AFTER the bubble got started, banks found they could make risky loans, and if the buyer defaulted, they could get the house back, which had a higher value than when it was purchased.   Thus the risky loan was considered very safe, because if the buyer paid back the loan, they win.  If the buyer defaults, and they get back a house worth more than the original loan, they win.
> 
> It was a win-win for the banks.
> 
> But here's the problem....  that situation was only true AFTER the bubble got started.
> 
> What started the bubble?   Answer?   Government through Freddie Mac, encourage banks to make sub-prime loans that Freddie Mac would guarantee.
> 
> This was a win-win for the banks, because of government.  If the buyer paid back, the bank wins.  If the buyer defaults, Freddie Mac pays back, and the bank wins.  Win-win for the bank  BEFORE the bubble started.
> 
> Government started the bubble.  Yes, the banks continued the bubble.   But Government created the bubble to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When did government first require private lenders to solicit appraisal fraud?
> Thanks.*
> 
> "Only lenders and their agents can cause a substantial amount of appraisal fraud;
> They did so through extorting appraisers to inflate appraisals by blacklisting the most ethical appraisals;
> 
> "No honest lender would induce appraisal fraud;
> Lenders engaged in accounting control fraud find widespread appraisal fraud an optimal strategy;
> 
> "Fraudulent mortgage lenders engage in appraisal fraud because it aids their overall strategy of making fraudulent loans;
> 
> "No honest lender would permit widespread appraisal fraud;
> Honest lenders can prevent widespread appraisal fraud in the loans they make;
> No honest secondary market purchaser would knowingly purchase loans with inflated appraisals;
> 
> "Competent secondary market purchasers could have avoided purchasing large numbers of loans with inflated appraisals;The appraisers warned the Nation publicly of the widespread appraisal fraud and that it occurred through extortion and blacklisting by the lenders and their agents;
> 
> "The appraisers took special efforts to warn the mortgage lending industry and U.S. government beginning in 2000, and continued those efforts through 2007, about these facts and warned that it would cause a crisis;
> 
> "Eventually, over 11,000 appraisers signed the professions petition warning about the epidemic of appraisal fraud driven by the lenders and their agents."
> 
> Global Economic Intersection
Click to expand...


Nice topic change.  Fail much?

Look, you people on the left are grasping at straws.

How much is a property worth?   Do you know answer to that?

The answer is, the same as anything else is worth..... it's worth how much someone is willing to pay for it.

But but the appraisers said!!!    DOES NOT MATTER.   I know people right now that had an appraisal, and got an offer for $10K over the appraisal.   I know people that got an appraisal, and the highest bid they got was $50K under.

Yes, appraisal fraud is a problem.   I agree.   But it's not a CAUSE.   It is an EFFECT.

You can't blame a price bubble starting in 97 retroactively on appraisal fraud that started in the 2000s.

First off, the fraud would be nearly impossible to even attempt, in a stable housing price market.   No one would have bought the idea that this house suddenly jumped 20% in price in the last three years, if home prices were stable.

Further, the whole reason the lenders wanted the prices up, is because housing prices were increasing so fast to begin with, they wanted the appraisal price reflecting what they believed the home would be worth in the future.

Stop grasping at straws, trying to find one of the effects of the problem, so you can just deny the cause of the problem.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was a great post. However, if you believe the left wing extremists will accept the FACTS you posted, I have a bridge over the Atchafalaya Swamp to sell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *According to Androw:*
> 
> "People asked 'how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating?   This is how.  Freddie Mac, gave it to them.'"
> 
> *When did Freddie Mac give any "junk sub-prime mortages" a AAA rating?*
Click to expand...


For those who can read:



> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are *guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating*.



First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --

They made it very clear why they had a AAA rating on sub-prime loans.


----------



## georgephillip

bedowin62 said:


> THE ONLY thing capitalism seems to gaurantee is legions of angry, whining progressive losers butt-hurt over their failed agenda; and the record welfare and food stamps it has produced, crying like the bitches they are that corporations are making MORE MONEY ON PROGRESSIVE'S WATCH than they did under those mean ol Republicans!
> 
> lol why dont you go hang yourself idiot?


*Here's the next guarantee capitalism has in mind for humanity
Don't forget to $wallow (if you can afford market price)*

"The third wave of imperialist wars is currently being fought over natures most valuable commodity: water. 

"Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, CIA analysts reported on a prediction of a new theater of war: hydrological warfare, '*in which rivers, lakes and aquifers become national security assets to be fought over, or controlled'*. 

"These predictions became realized in quick succession, beginning with the recent wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria. 

"It is now clear that the age of hydro-imperialism is upon us."

US Water Wars in the Middle East » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was a great post. However, if you believe the left wing extremists will accept the FACTS you posted, I have a bridge over the Atchafalaya Swamp to sell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *According to Androw:*
> 
> "People asked 'how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating?   This is how.  Freddie Mac, gave it to them.'"
> 
> *When did Freddie Mac give any "junk sub-prime mortages" a AAA rating?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For those who can read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are *guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --
> 
> They made it very clear why they had a AAA rating on sub-prime loans.
Click to expand...

*Words have meaning.*

"im·pliedim·ply·ing

Full Definition of IMPLY

transitive verb
1
obsolete :  enfold, entwine
2
:  to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
3
:  to contain potentially
4
:  to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>"

Imply - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain why, starting in 2004, people who were not seeking out Mortgages or Home Equity Loans were being deluged by calls from Mortgage Brokers and Lenders who were approving, ON PAPER, and not via the Software, Loans to anybody who could breath.
> 
> Starting somewhere in 2006, when GW KNEW he was going to leave a legacy of an economy in the doldrums, Jumbo Mortgages became the norm, NOT because people were seeking out Loans, but because people were being AGGRESSIVLY pursued to accept Loans for which they were ABSILUTELY unqualified.
> 
> Now I have read DNSMITH using the catchy phrase, "The Market Heated Up" and I'd like a CLINICAL (you know, STEP BY STEP) explanation of how "The Market Heated Up".
> 
> I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.
> 
> Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.
Click to expand...


Yeah... people are mindless lemmings who can't choose anything for themselves, and thus are at the complete mercy of anyone on a phone saying "we have a mortgage for you!".   Really?

Reminds me of this idiot that came to my high school way back when, and played a bunch of beer commercials, and explained that men were simply too stupid to not drink a beer when a commercial came on with girls on it.

To date, I have never had a beer.   Apparently I am Super-Human Androw, the one and only human being able to say the magic complete sentence "no".

Similarly, back in 2006 to 2008, I paid off all my debts, cut up my credit cards, and to this day, am completely 100% debt free, owing no one anywhere anything.

Apparently my Super-Human ability protected me from the mind control of the mortgage lenders too.

Do you realize just how incompetent this post makes you look?

Really.... you and those like you, are so unbelievable stupid, so incredibly incompetent, that some doofus on a phone said you needed a sub-prime mortgage, and you idiotically just "dur dur ok! I need a mortgage!" and you and those like you crashed the entire economy???

Personally I don't think you are that stupid.  I think you are just full of crap, making up whatever you can to try and cast blame.

But if what you say is actually true, and you mindless lemmings are so completely irresponsible that some doofus on a phone can convince you to crash the entire world economy, than I have a friendly helpful suggestion.......   If you, and those like you, are such an absolute disaster to society, then for the social well being of all of humanity, you and those like you should gather together, and commit mass suicide.

If you people are so truly incompetent, then do one last good deed for the world.  Take yourselves out of it.

*And for the last time.....   No one has ever yet suggested that Bush was not in favor of more home ownership.    Bush continued the policies that Clinton continued, that Bush Sr continued, that Reagan continued, that Carter started, and that Obama is continuing TO THIS DAY.

*Obama is pushing for more home ownership even as we speak.

Housing risk rising as FHA not compensating for high DTI loans | 2014-05-26 | HousingWire

Read it!



> This month&#8217;s NMRI update shows about 22% of all purchase loans have a debt-to-income ratio greater than the QM limit of 43%.
> 
> It states that the Federal Housing Administration is not compensating for riskiness of high DTI loans; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are compensating only to a limited extent.
> 
> It also shows that the percentage of low-risk loans accounted for 41.8% of April activity, down from 46.5% in August 2013.
> 
> The FHA leads with 45% of purchase loans exceeding the 43% DTI limit.
> 
> Indices for Fannie/Freddie and FHA/RHS both hit new highs in April.
> 
> Fully 35% of FHA&#8217;s home purchase loans have a FICO score below 660 (the demarcation line for subprime credit); these have an average NMRI of 35%.



What's your excuse now?   Is Bush the cause of FHA, Fannie and Freddie increasing sub-prime loans TODAY?!?

I want to hear it.   What's your explanation?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *According to Androw:*
> 
> "People asked 'how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating?   This is how.  Freddie Mac, gave it to them.'"
> 
> *When did Freddie Mac give any "junk sub-prime mortages" a AAA rating?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those who can read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are *guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --
> 
> They made it very clear why they had a AAA rating on sub-prime loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Words have meaning.*
> 
> "im·pliedim·ply·ing
> 
> Full Definition of IMPLY
> 
> transitive verb
> 1
> obsolete :  enfold, entwine
> 2
> :  to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
> 3
> :  to contain potentially
> 4
> :  to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>"
> 
> Imply - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...


Yes.   When the government implies that you have to pay taxes, without sending you a note, or having the IRS call you....  you kind do it.   Because you are not stupid.    Right?

When the government says to the lending agencies "these have an implied AAA".... when government TELLS you it does?    What you do?   You give it a AAA rate.

We're not talking about your broke brother-in-law saying this investment is a great plan.   We're talking about the Federal Government, whose regulators can shut your little business down in a matter of months.

When they say "This has an implied (wink wink) AAA rating", you do what you are in effect, told to do.

Again, you people on the left are a joke.   You specifically create Fannie and Freddie to influence the mortgage market, and then magically want to deny they have any effect on the mortgage market.  "Oh they only implied it... that doesn't mean anything".   What idiot says that?


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.
> 
> 
> 
> "'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending.  The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'
> 
> "And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'
> 
> "The facts are simple, Bair said.
> 
> "The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether you want to believe it or not, even those banks which were not covered by CRA started to follow CRA guidelines because of regulators pushing those standards and sub prime loans, even if not considered covered by CRA, were the over all reason BECAUSE OF SUPER LOW INTEREST RATES, prompted the inflationary housing prices because they over heated the market, along with other bad government policies, until the crash occurs. Instead of listening to the government defend its policies, why not do the research and figure it out for yourself? Are you than incapable of thinking?
Click to expand...

You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.

Why is that?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending.  The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'
> 
> "And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'
> 
> "The facts are simple, Bair said.
> 
> "The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you want to believe it or not, even those banks which were not covered by CRA started to follow CRA guidelines because of regulators pushing those standards and sub prime loans, even if not considered covered by CRA, were the over all reason BECAUSE OF SUPER LOW INTEREST RATES, prompted the inflationary housing prices because they over heated the market, along with other bad government policies, until the crash occurs. Instead of listening to the government defend its policies, why not do the research and figure it out for yourself? Are you than incapable of thinking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.
> 
> Why is that?
Click to expand...


Stawman?   Never said there was a law, and that fact is irrelevant.   You're obviously incapable of understand that there's no law that any mortgage lender must follow Freddie or Fannie guideline for conforming loans.   Yet they do.   Why?  Because Fannie and Freddie dominate the mortgage market, and that is also why they can say "this has an implied AAA rate" and people follow.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry leftard; see if you can run raul castro to run; or FARC in colombia
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post*
> 
> "Largest (voter registration over 75,000)[edit]
> Libertarian Party - Libertarianism, laissez-faire, pro-civil rights, anti-war
> Green Party of the United States - Green politics, eco-socialism, progressivism
> Constitution Party - Social conservatism, religious right, paleoconservatism
> Smaller parties by ideology[edit]
> Right-wing[edit]
> This section includes any party that advocates positions associated with American conservatism, including both Old Right and New Right tendencies.
> America First Party
> Christian Liberty Party
> America's Party
> Independent American Party"
> 
> Third party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This comment should be pointed squarely at you.
> 
> *You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post*
Click to expand...

The only point you've proven so far is that you're a legend in your own mind.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you want to believe it or not, even those banks which were not covered by CRA started to follow CRA guidelines because of regulators pushing those standards and sub prime loans, even if not considered covered by CRA, were the over all reason BECAUSE OF SUPER LOW INTEREST RATES, prompted the inflationary housing prices because they over heated the market, along with other bad government policies, until the crash occurs. Instead of listening to the government defend its policies, why not do the research and figure it out for yourself? Are you than incapable of thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stawman?   Never said there was a law, and that fact is irrelevant.   You're obviously incapable of understand that there's no law that any mortgage lender must follow Freddie or Fannie guideline for conforming loans.   Yet they do.   Why?  Because Fannie and Freddie dominate the mortgage market, and that is also why they can say "this has an implied AAA rate" and people follow.
Click to expand...

Do you agree private lenders bribed private ratings agencies in order to secure those AAA ratings?


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ====================
> 
> the would not have been possible if the government didnt "encourage" them.
> and it wasnt encouragement leftard; it was the LAW.
> by the mid-2000s more than half of government-backed mortgages were required to be made in the name of "fairness" at sub-prime rates to people that couldnt afford to repay them
> 
> 
> 
> *Point out the passage in the CRA that authorizes fraudulent lending practices or STFU, Bitch.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not the actual verbiage in the law which caused the problem, it was the way leftist extremists understood  the spirit of the law, and the way administrations of Clinton and Bush wanted it to work. The bottom line is, regulators were told to push sub primes and government entities not only pushed them, they chose to securitize sub prime loans as a means to follow the spirit of CRA.
> 
> Take you blinders off and come into the real world.
Click to expand...

Right after you name a few of those "leftist extremists" in the Clinton and Bush Administrations.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically stated "reducing" the demands on energy. The plans are to power them via electricity, which is mostly fossil fuels at present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a reduction.   It's not.   Light rail uses more energy than a car.   By far.
Click to expand...


You make innumerable claims that are generally suspect. So just for shits and giggles, why don't you offer some evidence for this "by far" statement. I'm willing to believe lite rail uses more energy to travel the same distance as one car but one car doesn't transport 800 people either.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?



You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.

So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.

In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."

Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
> 
> 
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.
Click to expand...

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?

Thanks for nothing.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> You are veritably fanatical about freedom.



Guilty as charged.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.
> 
> So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.
> 
> In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."
> 
> Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?
Click to expand...


You have a certifiably fucked up and contradictory conception of freedom, gnarly. If I'm not hurting anyone government has no business bullying me. And if you think government should bully others for your benefit or convenience, then I think you should go fuck yourself.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.
> 
> So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.
> 
> In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."
> 
> Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a certifiably fucked up and contradictory conception of freedom, gnarly. If I'm not hurting anyone government has no business bullying me. And if you think government should bully others for your benefit or convenience, then I think you should go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...


1. I asked about your concept of freedom that leads you to unite freedom with free trade. I don't believe throwing mud at me is a satisfactory defense of your position. Hell, I'm not even asking for a defense, I'm just asking you to define the link you see between freedom and free trade so that they are one in the same. Or do you not believe this? 

2. Can you describe my fucked up conception of freedom? I don't believe I've stated it but you apparently recall me doing so and have thusly concluded it is shit. So if you will please define my position so I know what you are talking about.

3. You remember comments about what I've said on freedom, apparently, and yet you are a dingbat when it comes to remembering I too am anti-state. But that doesn't fit your bashing so you go ahead and say it without caring it's factually incorrect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?
> 
> Thanks for nothing.
Click to expand...


*Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.*

CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?


----------



## Indeependent

Androw said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain why, starting in 2004, people who were not seeking out Mortgages or Home Equity Loans were being deluged by calls from Mortgage Brokers and Lenders who were approving, ON PAPER, and not via the Software, Loans to anybody who could breath.
> 
> Starting somewhere in 2006, when GW KNEW he was going to leave a legacy of an economy in the doldrums, Jumbo Mortgages became the norm, NOT because people were seeking out Loans, but because people were being AGGRESSIVLY pursued to accept Loans for which they were ABSILUTELY unqualified.
> 
> Now I have read DNSMITH using the catchy phrase, "The Market Heated Up" and I'd like a CLINICAL (you know, STEP BY STEP) explanation of how "The Market Heated Up".
> 
> I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.
> 
> Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... people are mindless lemmings who can't choose anything for themselves, and thus are at the complete mercy of anyone on a phone saying "we have a mortgage for you!".   Really?
> 
> Reminds me of this idiot that came to my high school way back when, and played a bunch of beer commercials, and explained that men were simply too stupid to not drink a beer when a commercial came on with girls on it.
> 
> To date, I have never had a beer.   Apparently I am Super-Human Androw, the one and only human being able to say the magic complete sentence "no".
> 
> Similarly, back in 2006 to 2008, I paid off all my debts, cut up my credit cards, and to this day, am completely 100% debt free, owing no one anywhere anything.
> 
> Apparently my Super-Human ability protected me from the mind control of the mortgage lenders too.
> 
> Do you realize just how incompetent this post makes you look?
> 
> Really.... you and those like you, are so unbelievable stupid, so incredibly incompetent, that some doofus on a phone said you needed a sub-prime mortgage, and you idiotically just "dur dur ok! I need a mortgage!" and you and those like you crashed the entire economy???
> 
> Personally I don't think you are that stupid.  I think you are just full of crap, making up whatever you can to try and cast blame.
> 
> But if what you say is actually true, and you mindless lemmings are so completely irresponsible that some doofus on a phone can convince you to crash the entire world economy, than I have a friendly helpful suggestion.......   If you, and those like you, are such an absolute disaster to society, then for the social well being of all of humanity, you and those like you should gather together, and commit mass suicide.
> 
> If you people are so truly incompetent, then do one last good deed for the world.  Take yourselves out of it.
> 
> *And for the last time.....   No one has ever yet suggested that Bush was not in favor of more home ownership.    Bush continued the policies that Clinton continued, that Bush Sr continued, that Reagan continued, that Carter started, and that Obama is continuing TO THIS DAY.
> 
> *Obama is pushing for more home ownership even as we speak.
> 
> Housing risk rising as FHA not compensating for high DTI loans | 2014-05-26 | HousingWire
> 
> Read it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This months NMRI update shows about 22% of all purchase loans have a debt-to-income ratio greater than the QM limit of 43%.
> 
> It states that the Federal Housing Administration is not compensating for riskiness of high DTI loans; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are compensating only to a limited extent.
> 
> It also shows that the percentage of low-risk loans accounted for 41.8% of April activity, down from 46.5% in August 2013.
> 
> The FHA leads with 45% of purchase loans exceeding the 43% DTI limit.
> 
> Indices for Fannie/Freddie and FHA/RHS both hit new highs in April.
> 
> Fully 35% of FHAs home purchase loans have a FICO score below 660 (the demarcation line for subprime credit); these have an average NMRI of 35%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your excuse now?   Is Bush the cause of FHA, Fannie and Freddie increasing sub-prime loans TODAY?!?
> 
> I want to hear it.   What's your explanation?
Click to expand...


I'M SO IMPRESSED that you weren't one of the MILLIONS who took the bait because until ONE DAY BEFORE THE CRASH the S&P stated that the "Sky was the limit!".
Actually, I really am impressed...By your frugality, not by your dismissing recent historical facts.

Paper approvals ruled the day and you're quoting me numbers from a document that has NOTHING to do with reality?
You think by insulting the MILLIONS who took out Jumbo Loans with Paper Approval, you are automatically whisking them into non-existence?
How desperate are you?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stawman?   Never said there was a law, and that fact is irrelevant.   You're obviously incapable of understand that there's no law that any mortgage lender must follow Freddie or Fannie guideline for conforming loans.   Yet they do.   Why?  Because Fannie and Freddie dominate the mortgage market, and that is also why they can say "this has an implied AAA rate" and people follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you agree private lenders bribed private ratings agencies in order to secure those AAA ratings?
Click to expand...


If that was true, then why did it start in 1997?   Why not at any time between 1970 to 1996?  Why not later?   Why not between 1998 to 2008?

In fact, do you realize that it was because of government regulations, that lenders starting being forced to pay for ratings, instead of buyers?  Before government created a system where the big three rating agencies were preferred, there were dozens of rating agencies, and buyers of derivatives paid to have them rated.    But then because government created preferred rating agencies, forced the sellers of derivatives to pay for the ratings themselves.  In fact, according to John A. Allison who was working BB&T at the time, the proponents of the change were Unions that didn't want to pay for rating of their investments.

See, if there was no other explanation, then you could make a stronger case.   But the fact that NOT ONE SINGLE sub-prime loan was given a AAA rating until Freddie Mac, arm of the govenrnment, gave them a AAA rating....  says there's a causal link there.

Combine that with the fact Government was literally suing banks to force them to make sub-prime loans, indicates motive on the part of government to give these loans a positive rating.

Can you actually provide proof that they were bribed?  Or is correlation causation in your world?


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically stated "reducing" the demands on energy. The plans are to power them via electricity, which is mostly fossil fuels at present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a reduction.   It's not.   Light rail uses more energy than a car.   By far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make innumerable claims that are generally suspect. So just for shits and giggles, why don't you offer some evidence for this "by far" statement. I'm willing to believe lite rail uses more energy to travel the same distance as one car but one car doesn't transport 800 people either.
Click to expand...


Again.....   if you can prove that every rail, or even the majority, or even a significant fraction, are fully loaded.... you might have a point.

But they are not.   And those numbers you are using to show that energy usage, do not include all of the hundreds of millions of megawatts of power used in support of those light rails.   All the lights, all the ticket systems, turn styles, the fresh air systems, the track systems, switches, signals, and the monitoring system, the control units, the Control center with hundreds of computers and system running 24-hours a day.

Again, there is even energy bleed just from powering the hundreds of miles of tracks with 1,200 amps worth of electricity.   Power is used (lost) even if not a single train is moving.

Now if you want to believe blindly that all those nearly empty trains running all day long, is still energy efficient over a car, fine.  Believe whatever myths you want.   But you are the one making the claim they are.  The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.  So you show me an efficiency report, that includes all those costs I just listed, and compares it to the average Sedan.


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain why, starting in 2004, people who were not seeking out Mortgages or Home Equity Loans were being deluged by calls from Mortgage Brokers and Lenders who were approving, ON PAPER, and not via the Software, Loans to anybody who could breath.
> 
> Starting somewhere in 2006, when GW KNEW he was going to leave a legacy of an economy in the doldrums, Jumbo Mortgages became the norm, NOT because people were seeking out Loans, but because people were being AGGRESSIVLY pursued to accept Loans for which they were ABSILUTELY unqualified.
> 
> Now I have read DNSMITH using the catchy phrase, "The Market Heated Up" and I'd like a CLINICAL (you know, STEP BY STEP) explanation of how "The Market Heated Up".
> 
> I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.
> 
> Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... people are mindless lemmings who can't choose anything for themselves, and thus are at the complete mercy of anyone on a phone saying "we have a mortgage for you!".   Really?
> 
> Reminds me of this idiot that came to my high school way back when, and played a bunch of beer commercials, and explained that men were simply too stupid to not drink a beer when a commercial came on with girls on it.
> 
> To date, I have never had a beer.   Apparently I am Super-Human Androw, the one and only human being able to say the magic complete sentence "no".
> 
> Similarly, back in 2006 to 2008, I paid off all my debts, cut up my credit cards, and to this day, am completely 100% debt free, owing no one anywhere anything.
> 
> Apparently my Super-Human ability protected me from the mind control of the mortgage lenders too.
> 
> Do you realize just how incompetent this post makes you look?
> 
> Really.... you and those like you, are so unbelievable stupid, so incredibly incompetent, that some doofus on a phone said you needed a sub-prime mortgage, and you idiotically just "dur dur ok! I need a mortgage!" and you and those like you crashed the entire economy???
> 
> Personally I don't think you are that stupid.  I think you are just full of crap, making up whatever you can to try and cast blame.
> 
> But if what you say is actually true, and you mindless lemmings are so completely irresponsible that some doofus on a phone can convince you to crash the entire world economy, than I have a friendly helpful suggestion.......   If you, and those like you, are such an absolute disaster to society, then for the social well being of all of humanity, you and those like you should gather together, and commit mass suicide.
> 
> If you people are so truly incompetent, then do one last good deed for the world.  Take yourselves out of it.
> 
> *And for the last time.....   No one has ever yet suggested that Bush was not in favor of more home ownership.    Bush continued the policies that Clinton continued, that Bush Sr continued, that Reagan continued, that Carter started, and that Obama is continuing TO THIS DAY.
> 
> *Obama is pushing for more home ownership even as we speak.
> 
> Housing risk rising as FHA not compensating for high DTI loans | 2014-05-26 | HousingWire
> 
> Read it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This month&#8217;s NMRI update shows about 22% of all purchase loans have a debt-to-income ratio greater than the QM limit of 43%.
> 
> It states that the Federal Housing Administration is not compensating for riskiness of high DTI loans; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are compensating only to a limited extent.
> 
> It also shows that the percentage of low-risk loans accounted for 41.8% of April activity, down from 46.5% in August 2013.
> 
> The FHA leads with 45% of purchase loans exceeding the 43% DTI limit.
> 
> Indices for Fannie/Freddie and FHA/RHS both hit new highs in April.
> 
> Fully 35% of FHA&#8217;s home purchase loans have a FICO score below 660 (the demarcation line for subprime credit); these have an average NMRI of 35%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your excuse now?   Is Bush the cause of FHA, Fannie and Freddie increasing sub-prime loans TODAY?!?
> 
> I want to hear it.   What's your explanation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'M SO IMPRESSED that you weren't one of the MILLIONS who took the bait because until ONE DAY BEFORE THE CRASH the S&P stated that the "Sky was the limit!".
> Actually, I really am impressed...By your frugality, not by your dismissing recent historical facts.
> 
> Paper approvals ruled the day and you're quoting me numbers from a document that has NOTHING to do with reality?
> You think by insulting the MILLIONS who took out Jumbo Loans with Paper Approval, you are automatically whisking them into non-existence?
> How desperate are you?
Click to expand...


I just posted an article that quotes the International Center on Housing Risk, showing that current day policies by our Federal Government are encouraging the exact sub-prime lending that caused the crash of 2008, and some moron on the internet says it has nothing to do with reality.

If you want to prove it doesn't reflect reality, do so.   If you are just going to ignore anything that does fit with your ideological stupidity, then you have just now proven yourself too stupid for me to bother talking to.

Please let me know which it is right now, because I'm not going to debate anything else with you, if you are in fact too stupid to talk to.   Just saying... no point in debating quantum physics with Forest Gump.  He's just too dumb to get it.   

If that's you on this topic.... I'll move on.  So let me know which it is, and I'll respond accordingly.


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?
> 
> Thanks for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.*
> 
> CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?
Click to expand...


Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?
> 
> Thanks for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.*
> 
> CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
> If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.
Click to expand...


Let's begin:
How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?

The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.

What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.



Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider


----------



## gnarlylove

Indeependent said:


> I'M SO IMPRESSED that you weren't one of the MILLIONS who took the bait because until ONE DAY BEFORE THE CRASH the S&P stated that the "Sky was the limit!".
> Actually, I really am impressed...By your frugality, not by your dismissing recent historical facts.
> 
> Paper approvals ruled the day and you're quoting me numbers from a document that has NOTHING to do with reality?
> You think by insulting the MILLIONS who took out Jumbo Loans with Paper Approval, you are automatically whisking them into non-existence?
> How desperate are you?



So I'm not the only one who thinks he seems desperate in defending very uncritical positions. Good to know. Nevertheless, you gotta admit, he's consistent and sincere, albeit way in left field.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a reduction.   It's not.   Light rail uses more energy than a car.   By far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make innumerable claims that are generally suspect. So just for shits and giggles, why don't you offer some evidence for this "by far" statement. I'm willing to believe lite rail uses more energy to travel the same distance as one car but one car doesn't transport 800 people either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.....   if you can prove that every rail, or even the majority, or even a significant fraction, are fully loaded.... you might have a point.
> 
> But they are not.   And those numbers you are using to show that energy usage, do not include all of the hundreds of millions of megawatts of power used in support of those light rails.   All the lights, all the ticket systems, turn styles, the fresh air systems, the track systems, switches, signals, and the monitoring system, the control units, the Control center with hundreds of computers and system running 24-hours a day.
> 
> Again, there is even energy bleed just from powering the hundreds of miles of tracks with 1,200 amps worth of electricity.   Power is used (lost) even if not a single train is moving.
> 
> Now if you want to believe blindly that all those nearly empty trains running all day long, is still energy efficient over a car, fine.  Believe whatever myths you want.   But you are the one making the claim they are.  The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.  So you show me an efficiency report, that includes all those costs I just listed, and compares it to the average Sedan.
Click to expand...


If you want to see how this works, just look how it functions in all the other developed nations around the world. 

Saying they run all day without passengers shows you are not being careful. I am not talking about metro elevated trains like Chicago, DC, Denver, SLC, BART etc. I'm talking real fast travel across the US. That is what lite rail means. But as far as things go, I think we agree on some basic points here and I don't want to detract from that.

BTW, thanks for the InfoLinks signature.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.
> 
> So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.
> 
> In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."
> 
> Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?
Click to expand...


Is English your second language?

Maybe you can't read?

*can [we] really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit? *

He didn't say that was the entirety of freedom. 
He said, if we can't earn and trade freely, we're not free.

There are many other parts of freedom, he didn't deny that.

You verbose twit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make innumerable claims that are generally suspect. So just for shits and giggles, why don't you offer some evidence for this "by far" statement. I'm willing to believe lite rail uses more energy to travel the same distance as one car but one car doesn't transport 800 people either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.....   if you can prove that every rail, or even the majority, or even a significant fraction, are fully loaded.... you might have a point.
> 
> But they are not.   And those numbers you are using to show that energy usage, do not include all of the hundreds of millions of megawatts of power used in support of those light rails.   All the lights, all the ticket systems, turn styles, the fresh air systems, the track systems, switches, signals, and the monitoring system, the control units, the Control center with hundreds of computers and system running 24-hours a day.
> 
> Again, there is even energy bleed just from powering the hundreds of miles of tracks with 1,200 amps worth of electricity.   Power is used (lost) even if not a single train is moving.
> 
> Now if you want to believe blindly that all those nearly empty trains running all day long, is still energy efficient over a car, fine.  Believe whatever myths you want.   But you are the one making the claim they are.  The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.  So you show me an efficiency report, that includes all those costs I just listed, and compares it to the average Sedan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to see how this works, just look how it functions in all the other developed nations around the world.
> 
> Saying they run all day without passengers shows you are not being careful. I am not talking about metro elevated trains like Chicago, DC, Denver, SLC, BART etc. I'm talking real fast travel across the US. That is what lite rail means. But as far as things go, I think we agree on some basic points here and I don't want to detract from that.
> 
> BTW, thanks for the InfoLinks signature.
Click to expand...


*If you want to see how this works, just look how it functions in all the other developed nations around the world. *

Excellent idea, show how it works in a nation as large as the US.


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.*
> 
> CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
> If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's begin:
> How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?
> 
> The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.
> 
> What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?
> 
> Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
Click to expand...


The Housing Bubble was not only a free for all for the poor black communities experiencing Red Lining, it was a free for ALL.
I'd say "Nice try", but your postings are getting lamer by the minute.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
> If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin:
> How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?
> 
> The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.
> 
> What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?
> 
> Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Housing Bubble was not only a free for all for the poor black communities experiencing Red Lining, it was a free for ALL.
> I'd say "Nice try", but your postings are getting lamer by the minute.
Click to expand...


*The Housing Bubble was not only a free for all for the poor black communities experiencing Red Lining*

You'll have to show me where I claimed that.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Point out the passage in the CRA that authorizes fraudulent lending practices or STFU, Bitch.*
> 
> 
> 
> It was not the actual verbiage in the law which caused the problem, it was the way leftist extremists understood  the spirit of the law, and the way administrations of Clinton and Bush wanted it to work. The bottom line is, regulators were told to push sub primes and government entities not only pushed them, they chose to securitize sub prime loans as a means to follow the spirit of CRA.
> 
> Take you blinders off and come into the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right after you name a few of those "leftist extremists" in the Clinton and Bush Administrations.
Click to expand...

You really can't read. I did not specifically say they were in the Clinton or Bush administrations. But it was leftist extremists who wanted the sub prime loans, like Obama as a lawyer sued for them. Clinton was not an extremist, but some of his puppeteers were. The very idea to push for loans for people who can't pay them back just so that less wealthy people can own homes, for which they can not pay is left wing extremism.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.
> 
> So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.
> 
> In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."
> 
> Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?
Click to expand...

When I address left wing extremism, I am talking about fanaticism. People who believe capitalism is worse for the people than socialism or communism are fanatics. Especially in the face of the economic facts that capitalism makes more people prosperous than any other system.


----------



## Chris

Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

It wasn't the housing bubble.


----------



## Chris

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.
> 
> So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.
> 
> In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."
> 
> Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I address left wing extremism, I am talking about fanaticism. People who believe capitalism is worse for the people than socialism or communism are fanatics. Especially in the face of the economic facts that capitalism makes more people prosperous than any other system.
Click to expand...


The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).

Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain why, starting in 2004, people who were not seeking out Mortgages or Home Equity Loans were being deluged by calls from Mortgage Brokers and Lenders who were approving, ON PAPER, and not via the Software, Loans to anybody who could breath.
> 
> Starting somewhere in 2006, when GW KNEW he was going to leave a legacy of an economy in the doldrums, Jumbo Mortgages became the norm, NOT because people were seeking out Loans, but because people were being AGGRESSIVLY pursued to accept Loans for which they were ABSILUTELY unqualified.
> 
> Now I have read DNSMITH using the catchy phrase, "The Market Heated Up" and I'd like a CLINICAL (you know, STEP BY STEP) explanation of how "The Market Heated Up".
> 
> I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.
> 
> Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... people are mindless lemmings who can't choose anything for themselves, and thus are at the complete mercy of anyone on a phone saying "we have a mortgage for you!".   Really?
> 
> Reminds me of this idiot that came to my high school way back when, and played a bunch of beer commercials, and explained that men were simply too stupid to not drink a beer when a commercial came on with girls on it.
> 
> To date, I have never had a beer.   Apparently I am Super-Human Androw, the one and only human being able to say the magic complete sentence "no".
> 
> Similarly, back in 2006 to 2008, I paid off all my debts, cut up my credit cards, and to this day, am completely 100% debt free, owing no one anywhere anything.
> 
> Apparently my Super-Human ability protected me from the mind control of the mortgage lenders too.
> 
> Do you realize just how incompetent this post makes you look?
> 
> Really.... you and those like you, are so unbelievable stupid, so incredibly incompetent, that some doofus on a phone said you needed a sub-prime mortgage, and you idiotically just "dur dur ok! I need a mortgage!" and you and those like you crashed the entire economy???
> 
> Personally I don't think you are that stupid.  I think you are just full of crap, making up whatever you can to try and cast blame.
> 
> But if what you say is actually true, and you mindless lemmings are so completely irresponsible that some doofus on a phone can convince you to crash the entire world economy, than I have a friendly helpful suggestion.......   If you, and those like you, are such an absolute disaster to society, then for the social well being of all of humanity, you and those like you should gather together, and commit mass suicide.
> 
> If you people are so truly incompetent, then do one last good deed for the world.  Take yourselves out of it.
> 
> *And for the last time.....   No one has ever yet suggested that Bush was not in favor of more home ownership.    Bush continued the policies that Clinton continued, that Bush Sr continued, that Reagan continued, that Carter started, and that Obama is continuing TO THIS DAY.
> 
> *Obama is pushing for more home ownership even as we speak.
> 
> Housing risk rising as FHA not compensating for high DTI loans | 2014-05-26 | HousingWire
> 
> Read it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This months NMRI update shows about 22% of all purchase loans have a debt-to-income ratio greater than the QM limit of 43%.
> 
> It states that the Federal Housing Administration is not compensating for riskiness of high DTI loans; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are compensating only to a limited extent.
> 
> It also shows that the percentage of low-risk loans accounted for 41.8% of April activity, down from 46.5% in August 2013.
> 
> The FHA leads with 45% of purchase loans exceeding the 43% DTI limit.
> 
> Indices for Fannie/Freddie and FHA/RHS both hit new highs in April.
> 
> Fully 35% of FHAs home purchase loans have a FICO score below 660 (the demarcation line for subprime credit); these have an average NMRI of 35%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your excuse now?   Is Bush the cause of FHA, Fannie and Freddie increasing sub-prime loans TODAY?!?
> 
> I want to hear it.   What's your explanation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'M SO IMPRESSED that you weren't one of the MILLIONS who took the bait because until ONE DAY BEFORE THE CRASH the S&P stated that the "Sky was the limit!".
> Actually, I really am impressed...By your frugality, not by your dismissing recent historical facts.
> 
> Paper approvals ruled the day and you're quoting me numbers from a document that has NOTHING to do with reality?
> You think by insulting the MILLIONS who took out Jumbo Loans with Paper Approval, you are automatically whisking them into non-existence?
> How desperate are you?
Click to expand...

Just curious, what is a jumbo loan in your opinion?


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?
> 
> Thanks for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.*
> 
> CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
> If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.
Click to expand...

He has linked several times how the CRA weakened lending standards, by being pushed to get the less wealthy, without good credit, to buy homes. Are you illiterate such that you can't read? Or do you simply ignore facts so you can continue to blurt on nothings?


----------



## Chris

Glass-Steagall was repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Gramm, Leach, and Bliley were all Republicans and the legislation was passed by a Republican majority. What's more, the legislation was veto-proof. Even if Clinton were solely reponsible for the repeal (which is false), why would Republicans care? They're the ones who are always waving the deregulation banner, and it's the current crop of Republicans who are pushing for further deregulation. 

When Republicans chastise Clinton over the Glass-Steagall repeal, what they are effectively saying is this: "How dare you sign off on Republican legislation! Don't you know we can't be trusted? Don't ever believe us again!"


----------



## dnsmith35

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.*
> 
> CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
> If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's begin:
> How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?
> 
> The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.
> 
> What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?
> 
> Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
Click to expand...


That was a very good link showing how the CRA prompted non-CRA institutions to follow suit and start concentrating on sub prime loans. Here is a great graph which Androw posted earlier which proves the inflation started in the late 90s.


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
> If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin:
> How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?
> 
> The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.
> 
> What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?
> 
> Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Housing Bubble was not only a free for all for the poor black communities experiencing Red Lining, it was a free for ALL.
> I'd say "Nice try", but your postings are getting lamer by the minute.
Click to expand...

You do know that lending institutions which started to lend money to build in Red Lined in areas, did not lend their money specifically to low wage/credit black people, right? many of the loans were for people with good credit building in redlined areas to provide decent homes for the people living there. As a result according to the Fed only 6% of those loans defaulted. Apparently you don't understand the issues at all.


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> 
> It wasn't the housing bubble.


Your take on the issue is absolutely left field bullshit. *The issue which caused the great recession was all about the housing bubble and subsequent crash.* You need to start to learn how to read. Bob  and   Nancy   rode clip pity clop   down   the lane. Got it?


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.
> 
> So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.
> 
> In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."
> 
> Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?
> 
> 
> 
> When I address left wing extremism, I am talking about fanaticism. People who believe capitalism is worse for the people than socialism or communism are fanatics. Especially in the face of the economic facts that capitalism makes more people prosperous than any other system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).
> 
> Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?
> 
> Thanks for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.*
> 
> CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?
Click to expand...

CRA required liars loans?


----------



## bedowin62

record welfare and food stamps in YEAR 8  of Progressive majority rule

 left-wing Failurecrats are the ones ensuring inequality


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?
> 
> Thanks for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.*
> 
> CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
> If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.
Click to expand...


No, the housing bubble started in 1997, and I have specific proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.

Second, there was a housing bubble that started right at 1977 when the CRA was passed.   And I gave proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.

Now I will grant you that I can't find direct specific evidence linking the 1977 housing price bubble, with the CRA.     I freely admit this.

However, it does seem suspicious that a housing bubble just happens to start on the very year the CRA was put into law.   Especially since the 1997 bubble, I can directly link it to the CRA.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Chris said:


> Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> 
> It wasn't the housing bubble.



What is a derivatives Ponzi scheme?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?
> 
> Thanks for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.*
> 
> CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CRA required liars loans?
Click to expand...


No.
CRA didn't weaken lending standards?


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make innumerable claims that are generally suspect. So just for shits and giggles, why don't you offer some evidence for this "by far" statement. I'm willing to believe lite rail uses more energy to travel the same distance as one car but one car doesn't transport 800 people either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.....   if you can prove that every rail, or even the majority, or even a significant fraction, are fully loaded.... you might have a point.
> 
> But they are not.   And those numbers you are using to show that energy usage, do not include all of the hundreds of millions of megawatts of power used in support of those light rails.   All the lights, all the ticket systems, turn styles, the fresh air systems, the track systems, switches, signals, and the monitoring system, the control units, the Control center with hundreds of computers and system running 24-hours a day.
> 
> Again, there is even energy bleed just from powering the hundreds of miles of tracks with 1,200 amps worth of electricity.   Power is used (lost) even if not a single train is moving.
> 
> Now if you want to believe blindly that all those nearly empty trains running all day long, is still energy efficient over a car, fine.  Believe whatever myths you want.   But you are the one making the claim they are.  The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.  So you show me an efficiency report, that includes all those costs I just listed, and compares it to the average Sedan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to see how this works, just look how it functions in all the other developed nations around the world.
> 
> Saying they run all day without passengers shows you are not being careful. I am not talking about metro elevated trains like Chicago, DC, Denver, SLC, BART etc. I'm talking real fast travel across the US. That is what lite rail means. But as far as things go, I think we agree on some basic points here and I don't want to detract from that.
> 
> BTW, thanks for the InfoLinks signature.
Click to expand...


No problem.  No one should be bothered by adware.

FYI...   generally speaking, when people refer to Light Rail, they mean subways, streetcars, and Elevated trains.   If you mean city-to-city rail service, generally those are referred to as Rapid Rail, or High Speed Rail.     This denotes the average speed of 33 MPH for light rail, and over 100 mph for city-to-city Rapid Rail.  (and the fact that city-to-city trains are anything but 'light')

Second, my Grand Marquis can get 30 miles per gallon of gas running highway from state to state.  That's with a V-8.    A smaller car, I'm sure easily gets much better than that.    Now if city light rail can't compete with autos getting city gas mileage (and I know they can't), then I doubt that long distance light rail can compete with cars getting highway mileage.

But it's possible I'm wrong.

The real kicker though, is that this is the wrong comparison anyway.   Research has shown that most of the people who travel long distance rapid rail, are not people who would have driven a car.   They are people who would have flown.

And then the problem continues because what's the first thing people do when they get to the new city?    Generally, it's rent a car.   Why do you think the airport is surrounded by a half dozen car rental agencies?

Same is true of Rapid Rail service.  You can find car rental agencies in all the main Europe stations. I can post pictures if you like.

Point being, how much energy is really being saved, when the first they people do when they get to the city they are going to, is rent a oil burning car to drive around in?

Now I absolutely will grant you this....  it's entire possible, perhaps even likely, that there is energy savings between a Rapid Rail car, and an airplane.

Possible.    But when you compare the direct costs to society, in the tens of billions spent to build and operate such a system, it's not even close.

And as far as clean energy goes.... not going to happen.    One single Eurostar passenger rail, uses 16 Mega Watts of power per hour.  Just one.

For comparison, the recently opened Wyandot Solar Facility, here in Ohio, uses 80 acres of land, over 159,000 solar panels, in order to create a maximum out put of 12 Mega Watts.  That's ideal situation, no clouds, bright sun, no haze.    Of course when the sun goes down, all the trains stop.

So just to sum up...  you are not going to save the environment going all 'green-energy', with Rapid Rail service.  Not going to happen.  Not even close.

Now, you may be saving energy over air transport.  I don't know.  I haven't seen energy consumption comparisons between the two.

However, the cost to society for rapid rail is horrendous, compared to air travel.  We're talking multiple billions in difference.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.*
> 
> CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
> If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the housing bubble started in 1997, and I have specific proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.
> 
> Second, there was a housing bubble that started right at 1977 when the CRA was passed.   And I gave proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.
> 
> Now I will grant you that I can't find direct specific evidence linking the 1977 housing price bubble, with the CRA.     I freely admit this.
> 
> However, it does seem suspicious that a housing bubble just happens to start on the very year the CRA was put into law.   Especially since the 1997 bubble, I can directly link it to the CRA.
Click to expand...

*But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:*

"19972005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
20002003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
*20012005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).*
2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
20022003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
June 17resident G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith-based organizations.[34]"

Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
> If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin:
> How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?
> 
> The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.
> 
> What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?
> 
> Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Housing Bubble was not only a free for all for the poor black communities experiencing Red Lining, it was a free for ALL.
> I'd say "Nice try", but your postings are getting lamer by the minute.
Click to expand...


It's posts like this, that convince me you have your head shoved so far up your politics, that you couldn't see truth if someone beat you on the head with it.

No one said the housing bubble was only for one group or another.

Further, it is exactly because of this attack on red lining that spawns all of our trouble.    Red lining was never about "poor blacks" to begin with.   It wasn't racism.

Racism is not denoted by a geographical location, that includes a dozens races, including whites.

Red lining was about banks not wanting collateral that was losing value.

If you want to give your buddy a loan, and you want something as collateral for the loan, to make sure he pays you back, are you going to take all his DVDs as collateral?  Of course not, they are dropping in value by the minute.  Everyone has NetFlix now.

You want collateral that has value, and is gaining in value.

Neighborhoods go up and down in value together.   If you have an area where crime is going up, or employment is moving out, the value of the homes in that area start to drop.     Red Lining was the bank saying "we don't want to give out loans in these areas that are dropping in value, because we'll end up with high default rates."

This is exactly what the government pushed with CRA loans.  And just like the banks knew, the default rate was massive on CRA loans.

You people on the left thought you knew better than the banks, what was good for people, and you pushed them to make bad loans.    So the banks ended up making bad loans to everyone, and it crashed the system.

You can twist and spin, and try and deny it all you want, and come up with your fifty excuses, the fact remains you pushed this, and you crashed us.    Your fault.  End of story.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
> If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the housing bubble started in 1997, and I have specific proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.
> 
> Second, there was a housing bubble that started right at 1977 when the CRA was passed.   And I gave proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.
> 
> Now I will grant you that I can't find direct specific evidence linking the 1977 housing price bubble, with the CRA.     I freely admit this.
> 
> However, it does seem suspicious that a housing bubble just happens to start on the very year the CRA was put into law.   Especially since the 1997 bubble, I can directly link it to the CRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:*
> 
> "19972005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
> 20002003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
> *20012005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).*
> 2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
> 20022003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
> 2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
> June 17resident G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith-based organizations.[34]"
> 
> Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


What part of this is too hard for you?








> *20012005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).*



This is absolutely, totally false.  And I proved this already.   You are wrong.   Thus everything else you said, was wrong too.

The bubble did NOT start in the 2000s.  You are wrong.  It started in 1997.   The facts prove that.   It's not up for debate.

Now are you going to admit this truth, or are you going to shove your head so far up your politics you can't see anything that contradicts your per-determined answer?


----------



## Andylusion

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.*
> 
> CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?
> 
> 
> 
> CRA required liars loans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> CRA didn't weaken lending standards?
Click to expand...


This is so childish on their part.   And so pathetic relative to everything else they believe.

How many times have we heard from leftists about how 'people don't have a choice' when it comes to working for minimum wage for example?    How many times do we hear 'we have to regulate companies because people don't have a choice in (insert whatever fad claim of the day is)"?

We hear that all the time.

Now when it comes to mortgages, and Freddie and Fannie which were designed from the start to directly influence the mortgage market, when it come to the CRA which was designed from the start to influence the mortgage market, when it comes to the Clinton administration directly suing banks to make bad loans, and ACORN suing banks to make bad loans, with the full intention of influencing the mortgage market.....

All of a sudden....  "did the law require it?   If not then they had a choice and it can't possibly be government's fault"

The hypocrisy and double standard just grates on my nerves sometimes.  These people on the left are pathetic children sometimes... always twist their views to fit whatever argument is at hand.  Never consistent on anything.  It's so immature.


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> The Housing Bubble was not only a free for all for the poor black communities experiencing Red Lining, it was a free for ALL.
> I'd say "Nice try", but your postings are getting lamer by the minute.



LOL.... I just realized the absolute stupidity of this post, so I had to respond again....

He's complaining about racist red lining of poor blacks.

Then he complains that the housing bubble effected everyone......   that it didn't just affect poor blacks.

Hey stupid....  if the banks ONLY gave bad loans to blacks....  that would be racist.   They would be engaging in the racism you were just complaining about.

Leftard: "Dur it's racist to not give bad loans to black people!  Dur it's horrible they gave everyone bad loans, and not just black people! DUR!"






You are hereby given leave to get the heel of your shoe surgically removed from your mouth.

Try and at least act smarter, next time you're on the forum.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the housing bubble started in 1997, and I have specific proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.
> 
> Second, there was a housing bubble that started right at 1977 when the CRA was passed.   And I gave proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.
> 
> Now I will grant you that I can't find direct specific evidence linking the 1977 housing price bubble, with the CRA.     I freely admit this.
> 
> However, it does seem suspicious that a housing bubble just happens to start on the very year the CRA was put into law.   Especially since the 1997 bubble, I can directly link it to the CRA.
> 
> 
> 
> *But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:*
> 
> "19972005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
> 20002003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
> *20012005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).*
> 2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
> 20022003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
> 2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
> June 17resident G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith-based organizations.[34]"
> 
> Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of this is too hard for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *20012005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is absolutely, totally false.  And I proved this already.   You are wrong.   Thus everything else you said, was wrong too.
> 
> The bubble did NOT start in the 2000s.  You are wrong.  It started in 1997.   The facts prove that.   It's not up for debate.
> 
> Now are you going to admit this truth, or are you going to shove your head so far up your politics you can't see anything that contradicts your per-determined answer?
Click to expand...

*Your graph "...is based on sale prices of standard existing houses, not new construction, to track the value of housing as an investment over time."

What significance do you attach to that?*

"1997: Mortgage denial rate of 29 percent for conventional home purchase loans.[18]

"July: The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 repealed the Section 121 exclusion and section 1034 rollover rules, and replaced them with a $500,000 married/$250,000 single exclusion of capital gains on the sale of a home, available once every two years.[19] 

"This encouraged people to buy more expensive first homes, as well as invest in second homes and investment properties.

"November: Fannie Mae helped First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launch the first publicly available securitization of CRA loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. All carried a Fannie Mae guarantee as to timely interest and principal.[20][21]"

*It's possible we are both letting our political inclinations blind us to the fact that big government (CRA) and big business (Wall Street) conspire to privatize profit and socialize cost through fraud. 

The unspoken understanding is that when the $hit hits the fan, only government will be blamed.

At the very least, we should kick this around before the next economic collapse.*

Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE ONLY thing capitalism seems to gaurantee is legions of angry, whining progressive losers butt-hurt over their failed agenda; and the record welfare and food stamps it has produced, crying like the bitches they are that corporations are making MORE MONEY ON PROGRESSIVE'S WATCH than they did under those mean ol Republicans!
> 
> lol why dont you go hang yourself idiot?
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's the next guarantee capitalism has in mind for humanity
> Don't forget to $wallow (if you can afford market price)*
> 
> "The third wave of imperialist wars is currently being fought over nature&#8217;s most valuable commodity: water.
> 
> "Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, CIA analysts reported on a prediction of a new theater of war: hydrological warfare, '*in which rivers, lakes and aquifers become national security assets to be fought over, or controlled'*.
> 
> "These predictions became realized in quick succession, beginning with the recent wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria.
> 
> "It is now clear that the age of hydro-imperialism is upon us."
> 
> US Water Wars in the Middle East » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
Click to expand...

You say facts, I say opinion, and not a very good opinion at that. CIA analysists have bungled
analysis as a matter of routine. Like yellow cake in Iraq? WMD in Iraq?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending.  The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'
> 
> "And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'
> 
> "The facts are simple, Bair said.
> 
> "The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."
> 
> FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you want to believe it or not, even those banks which were not covered by CRA started to follow CRA guidelines because of regulators pushing those standards and sub prime loans, even if not considered covered by CRA, were the over all reason BECAUSE OF SUPER LOW INTEREST RATES, prompted the inflationary housing prices because they over heated the market, along with other bad government policies, until the crash occurs. Instead of listening to the government defend its policies, why not do the research and figure it out for yourself? Are you than incapable of thinking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.
> 
> Why is that?
Click to expand...

Actually several of us did, with links, proving that the Mae/Mac and bank regulaters did in fact insist on sub prime loans, and our current left wing president sued to insure they did so as a lawyer in Illinois.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post*
> 
> "Largest (voter registration over 75,000)[edit]
> Libertarian Party - Libertarianism, laissez-faire, pro-civil rights, anti-war
> Green Party of the United States - Green politics, eco-socialism, progressivism
> Constitution Party - Social conservatism, religious right, paleoconservatism
> Smaller parties by ideology[edit]
> Right-wing[edit]
> This section includes any party that advocates positions associated with American conservatism, including both Old Right and New Right tendencies.
> America First Party
> Christian Liberty Party
> America's Party
> Independent American Party"
> 
> Third party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> This comment should be pointed squarely at you.
> 
> *You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only point you've proven so far is that you're a legend in your own mind.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO at your stupidity.


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?
> 
> Thanks for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.*
> 
> CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
> If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.
Click to expand...

Go back and read the links you obviously passed over as several prove the point splendidly.


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
> If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin:
> How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?
> 
> The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.
> 
> What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?
> 
> Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Housing Bubble was not only a free for all for the poor black communities experiencing Red Lining, it was a free for ALL.
> I'd say "Nice try", but your postings are getting lamer by the minute.
Click to expand...

You really do need to learn something about economics. Every measurable change in an economic situation is reacting to a prior situation. That the government chose to pass a law did not make the actions or reactions take place immediately; they realistically follow by some time. As it tis, the housing bubble did start in 1997, and it advanced radically from 1999 all the way to 2006. That bubble and subsequent crash caused the great recession. The most important issues were low interest and no down payment loans, both pushed by government regulating agencies, but mostly Mae and Mac and the Fed, all related to fiscal and monetary policy.


----------



## dnsmith35

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again.....   if you can prove that every rail, or even the majority, or even a significant fraction, are fully loaded.... you might have a point.
> 
> But they are not.   And those numbers you are using to show that energy usage, do not include all of the hundreds of millions of megawatts of power used in support of those light rails.   All the lights, all the ticket systems, turn styles, the fresh air systems, the track systems, switches, signals, and the monitoring system, the control units, the Control center with hundreds of computers and system running 24-hours a day.
> 
> Again, there is even energy bleed just from powering the hundreds of miles of tracks with 1,200 amps worth of electricity.   Power is used (lost) even if not a single train is moving.
> 
> Now if you want to believe blindly that all those nearly empty trains running all day long, is still energy efficient over a car, fine.  Believe whatever myths you want.   But you are the one making the claim they are.  The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.  So you show me an efficiency report, that includes all those costs I just listed, and compares it to the average Sedan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to see how this works, just look how it functions in all the other developed nations around the world.
> 
> Saying they run all day without passengers shows you are not being careful. I am not talking about metro elevated trains like Chicago, DC, Denver, SLC, BART etc. I'm talking real fast travel across the US. That is what lite rail means. But as far as things go, I think we agree on some basic points here and I don't want to detract from that.
> 
> BTW, thanks for the InfoLinks signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem.  No one should be bothered by adware.
> 
> FYI...   generally speaking, when people refer to Light Rail, they mean subways, streetcars, and Elevated trains.   If you mean city-to-city rail service, generally those are referred to as Rapid Rail, or High Speed Rail.     This denotes the average speed of 33 MPH for light rail, and over 100 mph for city-to-city Rapid Rail.  (and the fact that city-to-city trains are anything but 'light')
> 
> Second, my Grand Marquis can get 30 miles per gallon of gas running highway from state to state.  That's with a V-8.    A smaller car, I'm sure easily gets much better than that.    Now if city light rail can't compete with autos getting city gas mileage (and I know they can't), then I doubt that long distance light rail can compete with cars getting highway mileage.
> 
> But it's possible I'm wrong.
> 
> The real kicker though, is that this is the wrong comparison anyway.   Research has shown that most of the people who travel long distance rapid rail, are not people who would have driven a car.   They are people who would have flown.
> 
> And then the problem continues because what's the first thing people do when they get to the new city?    Generally, it's rent a car.   Why do you think the airport is surrounded by a half dozen car rental agencies?
> 
> Same is true of Rapid Rail service.  You can find car rental agencies in all the main Europe stations. I can post pictures if you like.
> 
> Point being, how much energy is really being saved, when the first they people do when they get to the city they are going to, is rent a oil burning car to drive around in?
> 
> Now I absolutely will grant you this....  it's entire possible, perhaps even likely, that there is energy savings between a Rapid Rail car, and an airplane.
> 
> Possible.    But when you compare the direct costs to society, in the tens of billions spent to build and operate such a system, it's not even close.
> 
> And as far as clean energy goes.... not going to happen.    One single Eurostar passenger rail, uses 16 Mega Watts of power per hour.  Just one.
> 
> For comparison, the recently opened Wyandot Solar Facility, here in Ohio, uses 80 acres of land, over 159,000 solar panels, in order to create a maximum out put of 12 Mega Watts.  That's ideal situation, no clouds, bright sun, no haze.    Of course when the sun goes down, all the trains stop.
> 
> So just to sum up...  you are not going to save the environment going all 'green-energy', with Rapid Rail service.  Not going to happen.  Not even close.
> 
> Now, you may be saving energy over air transport.  I don't know.  I haven't seen energy consumption comparisons between the two.
> 
> However, the cost to society for rapid rail is horrendous, compared to air travel.  We're talking multiple billions in difference.
Click to expand...

There is one more thing to consider, summed up nicely in an old saying, "as GM goes, so goes the economy of our nation." There may actually be a power savings, but at what cost? How many jobs will be lost if we go to high speed rail?

As it is, every country which has rapid rail systems tend to be small and densely populated. When I was living in Europe I took their rail system when I did not need to transport large pay loads. They were not particularly high speed. In japan, I did travel on their high speed rail systems. The train originating in Tokyo going to Yokohama was a very high speed train. Just don't try to use it during the busy periods.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
> If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the housing bubble started in 1997, and I have specific proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.
> 
> Second, there was a housing bubble that started right at 1977 when the CRA was passed.   And I gave proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.
> 
> Now I will grant you that I can't find direct specific evidence linking the 1977 housing price bubble, with the CRA.     I freely admit this.
> 
> However, it does seem suspicious that a housing bubble just happens to start on the very year the CRA was put into law.   Especially since the 1997 bubble, I can directly link it to the CRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:*
> 
> "19972005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
> 20002003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
> *20012005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).*
> 2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
> 20022003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
> 2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
> June 17resident G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith-based organizations.[34]"
> 
> Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that the government is going to admit fault of fraud? Do you really believe that regulators did not pressure banks to do sub prime loans?

Are you really that ignorant?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:*
> 
> "1997&#8211;2005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
> 2000&#8211;2003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
> *2001&#8211;2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).*
> 2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
> 2002&#8211;2003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
> 2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
> June 17resident G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith-based organizations.[34]"
> 
> Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of this is too hard for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2001&#8211;2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is absolutely, totally false.  And I proved this already.   You are wrong.   Thus everything else you said, was wrong too.
> 
> The bubble did NOT start in the 2000s.  You are wrong.  It started in 1997.   The facts prove that.   It's not up for debate.
> 
> Now are you going to admit this truth, or are you going to shove your head so far up your politics you can't see anything that contradicts your per-determined answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your graph "...is based on sale prices of standard existing houses, not new construction, to track the value of housing as an investment over time."
> 
> What significance do you attach to that?*
> 
> "1997: Mortgage denial rate of 29 percent for conventional home purchase loans.[18]
> 
> "July: The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 repealed the Section 121 exclusion and section 1034 rollover rules, and replaced them with a $500,000 married/$250,000 single exclusion of capital gains on the sale of a home, available once every two years.[19]
> 
> "This encouraged people to buy more expensive first homes, as well as invest in second homes and investment properties.
> 
> "November: Fannie Mae helped First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launch the first publicly available securitization of CRA loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. All carried a Fannie Mae guarantee as to timely interest and principal.[20][21]"
> 
> *It's possible we are both letting our political inclinations blind us to the fact that big government (CRA) and big business (Wall Street) conspire to privatize profit and socialize cost through fraud.
> 
> The unspoken understanding is that when the $hit hits the fan, only government will be blamed.
> 
> At the very least, we should kick this around before the next economic collapse.*
> 
> Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE GOVERNMENT ALONE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FISCAL/MONETARY POLICIES WHICH WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT CAUSE OF THE HOUSING CRASH.

The form it took? LOW INTEREST AND NO DOWN PAYMENT LOANS. 

This graph tracks ALL homes, not just new or old construction. What was happening in 1997 is not as evident as 1999 start of the  housing bubble. The up cycle did start in 1997, but the inflation of price to value started in 1999 in spades. Trying to split hairs with what caused the recession is not very sensible on your part. The major cause of the housing spike was government fiscal and monetary policy. There can be no argument on that point because every single bit of proof tells us that.  CRA may not have verbally tell us that the government regulators and the Mae and Mac were going to artificially push subprime loans at low interest and no down payment; but when the situation is examined and as all of Androw's and my Links categorically prove.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE ONLY thing capitalism seems to gaurantee is legions of angry, whining progressive losers butt-hurt over their failed agenda; and the record welfare and food stamps it has produced, crying like the bitches they are that corporations are making MORE MONEY ON PROGRESSIVE'S WATCH than they did under those mean ol Republicans!
> 
> lol why dont you go hang yourself idiot?
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's the next guarantee capitalism has in mind for humanity
> Don't forget to $wallow (if you can afford market price)*
> 
> "The third wave of imperialist wars is currently being fought over natures most valuable commodity: water.
> 
> "Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, CIA analysts reported on a prediction of a new theater of war: hydrological warfare, '*in which rivers, lakes and aquifers become national security assets to be fought over, or controlled'*.
> 
> "These predictions became realized in quick succession, beginning with the recent wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria.
> 
> "It is now clear that the age of hydro-imperialism is upon us."
> 
> US Water Wars in the Middle East » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say facts, I say opinion, and not a very good opinion at that. CIA analysists have bungled
> analysis as a matter of routine. Like yellow cake in Iraq? WMD in Iraq?
Click to expand...

*The CIA's mistakes in Iraq had more to do with your fellow traveler Dick Cheney twisting their arms than with incompetence.*

US Water Wars in the Middle East » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

"'Syrian control of half of our water poses more of a threat than Iran with one bomb', once remarked ex-Israeli intelligence head, Meir Dagan."

*"Water is to the twenty-first century what oil was to the twentieth century: the commodity that determines the wealth and stability of nations."*


----------



## dnsmith35

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Peter J. Wallison and coauthor Edward Pinto believed that the *housing bubble and crash was due to federal mandates to promote affordable housing. These were applied through the Community Reinvestment Act and "government sponsored entities" (GSE's) "Fannie Mae" (Federal National Mortgage Association) and "Freddie Mac" (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation).[22] Journalist Daniel Indiviglio argues the two GSE's played a major role, while not denying the importance of Wall Street and others in the private sector in creating the collapse.[4]*

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. *Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie&#8217;s and Freddie&#8217;s loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. In 1995 HUD mandated that 40 percent of Fannie and Freddie&#8217;s loan purchases would have to support affordable housing. In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Under the Bush Administration HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase affordable housing purchases &#8211; to as high as 56 percent by the year 2008.[*22] *To satisfy these mandates, Fannie and Freddie eventually announced low-income and minority loan commitments totaling $5 trillion.[23] Critics argue that, to meet these commitments, Fannie and Freddie promoted a loosening of lending standards - industry-wide.[24]*

*Regarding the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charged the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA*.[25] American Enterprise Institute Scholar Edward Pinto noted that, in *2008, Bank of America reported that its CRA portfolio, which constituted only 7 percent of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses*.[26] *A Cleveland Plain Dealer investigation found that "The City of Cleveland has aggravated its vexing foreclosure problems and has lost millions in tax dollars by helping people buy homes they could not afford."* The newspaper added that these problem mortgages *"typically came from local banks fulfilling federal requirements to lend money in poorer neighborhoods."* *Min's contention that Fannie and Freddie did not buy a significant amount of high-risk mortgage backed securities must be evaluated in light of subsequent SEC security fraud charges brought against executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in December 2011. Significantly, the SEC alleged (and still maintains) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reported as subprime and substandard less than 10 percent of their actual subprime and substandard loans*.[44] In other words, the substandard loans held in the GSE portfolios may have been 10 times greater than originally reported. According to Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, that would make the SEC's estimate of GSE substandard loans about $2 trillion - significantly higher than Edward Pinto's estimate.

*Economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that banks undergoing CRA-related regulatory exams took additional mortgage lending ri*sk. The authors of a study entitled "Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending?" compared "the lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month (the treatment group) to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that did not face these exams (the control group). *This comparison clearly indicates that adherence to the CRA led to riskier lending by banks." They concluded: "The evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier." Loan delinquency averaged 15% higher in the treatment group than the control group one year after mortgage origination.[*URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research[/URL]


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's the next guarantee capitalism has in mind for humanity
> Don't forget to $wallow (if you can afford market price)*
> 
> "The third wave of imperialist wars is currently being fought over natures most valuable commodity: water.
> 
> "Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, CIA analysts reported on a prediction of a new theater of war: hydrological warfare, '*in which rivers, lakes and aquifers become national security assets to be fought over, or controlled'*.
> 
> "These predictions became realized in quick succession, beginning with the recent wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria.
> 
> "It is now clear that the age of hydro-imperialism is upon us."
> 
> US Water Wars in the Middle East » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> 
> 
> You say facts, I say opinion, and not a very good opinion at that. CIA analysists have bungled
> analysis as a matter of routine. Like yellow cake in Iraq? WMD in Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The CIA's mistakes in Iraq had more to do with your fellow traveler Dick Cheney twisting their arms than with incompetence.*
> 
> US Water Wars in the Middle East » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> "'Syrian control of half of our water poses more of a threat than Iran with one bomb', once remarked ex-Israeli intelligence head, Meir Dagan."
> 
> *"Water is to the twenty-first century what oil was to the twentieth century: the commodity that determines the wealth and stability of nations."*
Click to expand...

If you believe that Dick Cheney is one of my "fellow travelers" you are out of your mind. In addition, I doubt he had as much influence on CIA conclusions as you claim.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you want to believe it or not, even those banks which were not covered by CRA started to follow CRA guidelines because of regulators pushing those standards and sub prime loans, even if not considered covered by CRA, were the over all reason BECAUSE OF SUPER LOW INTEREST RATES, prompted the inflationary housing prices because they over heated the market, along with other bad government policies, until the crash occurs. Instead of listening to the government defend its policies, why not do the research and figure it out for yourself? Are you than incapable of thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually several of us did, with links, proving that the Mae/Mac and bank regulaters did in fact insist on sub prime loans, and our current left wing president sued to insure they did so as a lawyer in Illinois.
Click to expand...

*Sub prime loans with or without loan standards like employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, and assets?

Do you agree with the following timeline?*

"19972005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
20002003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
20012005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
20022003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997..."

"2003-2007: The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards (employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability), *emphasizing instead lender's ability to securitize and repackage subprime loans*.[28]
2004:

"U.S. homeownership rate peaked with an all time high of 69.2 percent.[38]
HUD increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans.[16]

"October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government-imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1.[39]"

Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the housing bubble started in 1997, and I have specific proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.
> 
> Second, there was a housing bubble that started right at 1977 when the CRA was passed.   And I gave proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.
> 
> Now I will grant you that I can't find direct specific evidence linking the 1977 housing price bubble, with the CRA.     I freely admit this.
> 
> However, it does seem suspicious that a housing bubble just happens to start on the very year the CRA was put into law.   Especially since the 1997 bubble, I can directly link it to the CRA.
> 
> 
> 
> *But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:*
> 
> "19972005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
> 20002003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
> *20012005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).*
> 2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
> 20022003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
> 2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
> June 17resident G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith-based organizations.[34]"
> 
> Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really believe that the government is going to admit fault of fraud? Do you really believe that regulators did not pressure banks to do sub prime loans?
> 
> Are you really that ignorant?
Click to expand...

Are you indifferent enough to believe government wasn't acting for Wall Street's benefit? The fraud occurred because big government and big business collaborated to socialize risk and privatize profits; When Tim Geithner served as president of the New York Fed, was he acting on behalf of Washington or Warburg? The simple fact is that a looting 70 times larger than the S & L Crisis went unpunished, and will likely happen again.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:*
> 
> "1997&#8211;2005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
> 2000&#8211;2003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
> *2001&#8211;2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).*
> 2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
> 2002&#8211;2003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
> 2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
> June 17resident G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith-based organizations.[34]"
> 
> Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of this is too hard for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2001&#8211;2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is absolutely, totally false.  And I proved this already.   You are wrong.   Thus everything else you said, was wrong too.
> 
> The bubble did NOT start in the 2000s.  You are wrong.  It started in 1997.   The facts prove that.   It's not up for debate.
> 
> Now are you going to admit this truth, or are you going to shove your head so far up your politics you can't see anything that contradicts your per-determined answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your graph "...is based on sale prices of standard existing houses, not new construction, to track the value of housing as an investment over time."
> 
> What significance do you attach to that?*
Click to expand...


None.  Dude, take your hand, and slap your forehead.   New construction should logically be excluded.  Otherwise the price numbers would be irrelevant.

New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house.   Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.  

What construction company would build residential housing......  if the cost of building the house, was higher than (or even equal to) the market price?    What individual would ever build a home, if the cost to hire someone to build the home, was greater than the home would be worth on the market?  If they could find a similar home, for the same or lower price, why would they build one?

So logically......   Construction is always going to be lower than the fair market value of the resulting home.   In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.

Two... how exactly would you suggest incorporating the 'market value' of a home, into the home price index.....  WHEN THE HOME HAS NEVER BEEN ON THE MARKET?!?

The Index of American Housing prices, is built on the value of sold homes on the market..... which duh.... it should be.   A house that doesn't exist yet, or is in the process of being built, has no real value, and certainly isn't sold on the market yet.

Come on!!!! This is so obvious, I feel like doing a high school remedial course.



> "1997: Mortgage denial rate of 29 percent for conventional home purchase loans.[18]



What relevance does this factoid have, on anything?



> "July: The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 repealed the Section 121 exclusion and section 1034 rollover rules, and replaced them with a $500,000 married/$250,000 single exclusion of capital gains on the sale of a home, available once every two years.[19]



What relevance does this have either?   Also, I think it's wrong.  Wiki is not doing too well today from what I've seen.  The Section 121 exclusion was not repealed.... from what I've read.... it was enacted in 1997, to replace the 1034 Rollover.



> "This encouraged people to buy more expensive first homes, as well as invest in second homes and investment properties.



No, actually not.   The 1034 Rollover applied to all property, thus people could avoid paying capital gains on any investment property, if they rolled it to a new property.

The 121 Exclusion made is so your primary residence was completely exempt from taxes, but investment property was completely unprotected.

This is another example of bills labeled "tax payer relief" being an increase in taxes in reality.



> "November: Fannie Mae helped First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launch the first publicly available securitization of CRA loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. All carried a Fannie Mae guarantee as to timely interest and principal.[20][21]"



Wiki is wrong again.  It was Freddie Mac, not Fannie Mae.  But that's a minor error.  The point is, Freddie Mac did exactly that above.  They guaranteed sub-prime loans.   Which started the sub-prime boom, and eventual crash.






Source "Inside Mortgage Finance", an industry trade magazine.



> *It's possible we are both letting our political inclinations blind us to the fact that big government (CRA) and big business (Wall Street) conspire to privatize profit and socialize cost through fraud. *


*

Or maybe it's just you.   Name one thing that I have said, that you can prove with evidence is wrong?




			At the very least, we should kick this around before the next economic collapse.
		
Click to expand...

*
Which could come pretty soon given the leftists in government are still pushing sub-prime loans even as we speak.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually several of us did, with links, proving that the Mae/Mac and bank regulaters did in fact insist on sub prime loans, and our current left wing president sued to insure they did so as a lawyer in Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Sub prime loans with or without loan standards like employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, and assets?
> 
> Do you agree with the following timeline?*
> 
> "19972005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
> 20002003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
> 20012005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
> 2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
> 20022003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997..."
> 
> "2003-2007: The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards (employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability), *emphasizing instead lender's ability to securitize and repackage subprime loans*.[28]
> 2004:
> 
> "U.S. homeownership rate peaked with an all time high of 69.2 percent.[38]
> HUD increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans.[16]
> 
> "October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government-imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1.[39]"
> 
> Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


*The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards *

Standards were lowered? Sounds familiar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:*
> 
> "19972005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
> 20002003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
> *20012005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).*
> 2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
> 20022003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
> 2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
> June 17resident G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith-based organizations.[34]"
> 
> Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that the government is going to admit fault of fraud? Do you really believe that regulators did not pressure banks to do sub prime loans?
> 
> Are you really that ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you indifferent enough to believe government wasn't acting for Wall Street's benefit? The fraud occurred because big government and big business collaborated to socialize risk and privatize profits; When Tim Geithner served as president of the New York Fed, was he acting on behalf of Washington or Warburg? The simple fact is that a looting 70 times larger than the S & L Crisis went unpunished, and will likely happen again.
Click to expand...


*The fraud occurred because big government and big business collaborated to socialize risk and privatize profits; *

Banks lost hundreds of billions.

*The simple fact is that a looting 70 times larger than the S & L Crisis went unpunished, *

Looting? I know Main Street home buyers defaulted on massive amounts of mortgages, but I wouldn't call them looters.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I address left wing extremism, I am talking about fanaticism. People who believe capitalism is worse for the people than socialism or communism are fanatics. Especially in the face of the economic facts that capitalism makes more people prosperous than any other system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).
> 
> Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.
Click to expand...


I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.

So in America if you want a job and a factory to hire you, you need to say, "our community is willing to work for bargain wages (far below minimum standards) so that our labor is competitive with the labor of China, Bangladesh and the like. Only if Americans accept lower wages will factories and industry return. So magically agreeing we should have higher wages and cheering for capitalism is like jeering at your ice cream cone because it tastes like shit when you fail to realize your ice cream literally is a pile of shit. 

You are sadly inept at understanding your own creeds and how the interact but that's to be expected when you call anything that disagrees with your brainwashed mentality as "extremism" thereby effectively covering your ears to valid points about flaws that are inherent in capitalism.

btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of this is too hard for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is absolutely, totally false.  And I proved this already.   You are wrong.   Thus everything else you said, was wrong too.
> 
> The bubble did NOT start in the 2000s.  You are wrong.  It started in 1997.   The facts prove that.   It's not up for debate.
> 
> Now are you going to admit this truth, or are you going to shove your head so far up your politics you can't see anything that contradicts your per-determined answer?
> 
> 
> 
> *Your graph "...is based on sale prices of standard existing houses, not new construction, to track the value of housing as an investment over time."
> 
> What significance do you attach to that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None.  Dude, take your hand, and slap your forehead.   New construction should logically be excluded.  Otherwise the price numbers would be irrelevant.
> 
> New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house.   Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.
> 
> What construction company would build residential housing......  if the cost of building the house, was higher than (or even equal to) the market price?    What individual would ever build a home, if the cost to hire someone to build the home, was greater than the home would be worth on the market?  If they could find a similar home, for the same or lower price, why would they build one?
> 
> So logically......   Construction is always going to be lower than the fair market value of the resulting home.   In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.
> 
> Two... how exactly would you suggest incorporating the 'market value' of a home, into the home price index.....  WHEN THE HOME HAS NEVER BEEN ON THE MARKET?!?
> 
> The Index of American Housing prices, is built on the value of sold homes on the market..... which duh.... it should be.   A house that doesn't exist yet, or is in the process of being built, has no real value, and certainly isn't sold on the market yet.
> 
> Come on!!!! This is so obvious, I feel like doing a high school remedial course.
> 
> 
> 
> What relevance does this factoid have, on anything?
> 
> 
> 
> What relevance does this have either?   Also, I think it's wrong.  Wiki is not doing too well today from what I've seen.  The Section 121 exclusion was not repealed.... from what I've read.... it was enacted in 1997, to replace the 1034 Rollover.
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually not.   The 1034 Rollover applied to all property, thus people could avoid paying capital gains on any investment property, if they rolled it to a new property.
> 
> The 121 Exclusion made is so your primary residence was completely exempt from taxes, but investment property was completely unprotected.
> 
> This is another example of bills labeled "tax payer relief" being an increase in taxes in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki is wrong again.  It was Freddie Mac, not Fannie Mae.  But that's a minor error.  The point is, Freddie Mac did exactly that above.  They guaranteed sub-prime loans.   Which started the sub-prime boom, and eventual crash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source "Inside Mortgage Finance", an industry trade magazine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's possible we are both letting our political inclinations blind us to the fact that big government (CRA) and big business (Wall Street) conspire to privatize profit and socialize cost through fraud. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Or maybe it's just you.   Name one thing that I have said, that you can prove with evidence is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the very least, we should kick this around before the next economic collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Which could come pretty soon given the leftists in government are still pushing sub-prime loans even as we speak.
Click to expand...

How many compassionate conservatives on Wall Street are securitizing those sub-prime loans compared to 2006 when 84% of sub prime mortgages were issued by private lenders? Private lenders whose mouthpiece is "Inside Mortgage Finance". If you're actually gullible enough to believe their account, maybe you can work for the FBI.  

Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable housing laws; maybe you're convinced Countrywide was issuing "Nontraditional" mortgages to make Barney Frank happy and not to package them off to Wall Street? 

Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall to 2004's federal preemption of state anti-predatory lending laws was done to advance the acquisition of private profit at public expense, and that's where your mistakes begin.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your graph "...is based on sale prices of standard existing houses, not new construction, to track the value of housing as an investment over time."
> 
> What significance do you attach to that?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None.  Dude, take your hand, and slap your forehead.   New construction should logically be excluded.  Otherwise the price numbers would be irrelevant.
> 
> New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house.   Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.
> 
> What construction company would build residential housing......  if the cost of building the house, was higher than (or even equal to) the market price?    What individual would ever build a home, if the cost to hire someone to build the home, was greater than the home would be worth on the market?  If they could find a similar home, for the same or lower price, why would they build one?
> 
> So logically......   Construction is always going to be lower than the fair market value of the resulting home.   In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.
> 
> Two... how exactly would you suggest incorporating the 'market value' of a home, into the home price index.....  WHEN THE HOME HAS NEVER BEEN ON THE MARKET?!?
> 
> The Index of American Housing prices, is built on the value of sold homes on the market..... which duh.... it should be.   A house that doesn't exist yet, or is in the process of being built, has no real value, and certainly isn't sold on the market yet.
> 
> Come on!!!! This is so obvious, I feel like doing a high school remedial course.
> 
> 
> 
> What relevance does this factoid have, on anything?
> 
> 
> 
> What relevance does this have either?   Also, I think it's wrong.  Wiki is not doing too well today from what I've seen.  The Section 121 exclusion was not repealed.... from what I've read.... it was enacted in 1997, to replace the 1034 Rollover.
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually not.   The 1034 Rollover applied to all property, thus people could avoid paying capital gains on any investment property, if they rolled it to a new property.
> 
> The 121 Exclusion made is so your primary residence was completely exempt from taxes, but investment property was completely unprotected.
> 
> This is another example of bills labeled "tax payer relief" being an increase in taxes in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki is wrong again.  It was Freddie Mac, not Fannie Mae.  But that's a minor error.  The point is, Freddie Mac did exactly that above.  They guaranteed sub-prime loans.   Which started the sub-prime boom, and eventual crash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source "Inside Mortgage Finance", an industry trade magazine.
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe it's just you.   Name one thing that I have said, that you can prove with evidence is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the very least, we should kick this around before the next economic collapse.[/B]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which could come pretty soon given the leftists in government are still pushing sub-prime loans even as we speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many compassionate conservatives on Wall Street are securitizing those sub-prime loans compared to 2006 when 84% of sub prime mortgages were issued by private lenders? Private lenders whose mouthpiece is "Inside Mortgage Finance". If you're actually gullible enough to believe their account, maybe you can work for the FBI.
> 
> Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable housing laws; maybe you're convinced Countrywide was issuing "Nontraditional" mortgages to make Barney Frank happy and not to package them off to Wall Street?
> 
> Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall to 2004's federal preemption of state anti-predatory lending laws was done to advance the acquisition of private profit at public expense, and that's where your mistakes begin.
Click to expand...


*Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall *

How did the repeal of Glass-Steagall contribute to the bubble or collapse? 

Be as specific as you can.


----------



## SAYIT

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).
> 
> Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.
Click to expand...


Typically whiny socialist pap. Not all or even most wealthy peeps own factories and not all or even most American firms outsource to foreign countries.
Americans get wealthy by selling their services, skills and products competitively in the global market and no amount of socialist whining will make you wealthy.


----------



## gnarlylove

gnarlylove said:


> I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.



Typically whiny socialist pap.
Meaningless ad hominem. Provides no relevant information to the matter at hand: capitalism

Not all or even most wealthy peeps own factories and not all or even most American firms outsource to foreign countries.
Assuming this is true, it has no relevancy to the fact that American jobs have been outsourced at the behest of the adorable profit motive. And it also aligns with the fact real wages have stagnated since the 70s--companies don't have to pay rising wages anymore. They can simply make more profit elsewhere if the pampered American worker won't accept it, and they in fact do.

Americans get wealthy by selling their services, skills and products competitively in the global market
If you are implying all Americans who become wealthy do so based on merit, you are obviously leaving how a significant portion become rich: inheritance...the opposite of merit. Do you have any data suggesting otherwise? I may be wrong and would love to see what you're trying to say here.

and no amount of socialist whining will make you wealthy.
You finish strong with another hollow personal attack, which is evidently unrelated to how outsourcing has effected people and communities i.e. deficit of good paying jobs in the Rust Belt leading to drug related crime sky rocket and drug overdoses to increase 200 fold over the last two decades.


----------



## Andylusion

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually several of us did, with links, proving that the Mae/Mac and bank regulaters did in fact insist on sub prime loans, and our current left wing president sued to insure they did so as a lawyer in Illinois.
> 
> 
> 
> *Sub prime loans with or without loan standards like employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, and assets?
> 
> Do you agree with the following timeline?*
> 
> "19972005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
> 20002003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
> 20012005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
> 2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
> 20022003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997..."
> 
> "2003-2007: The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards (employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability), *emphasizing instead lender's ability to securitize and repackage subprime loans*.[28]
> 2004:
> 
> "U.S. homeownership rate peaked with an all time high of 69.2 percent.[38]
> HUD increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans.[16]
> 
> "October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government-imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1.[39]"
> 
> Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards *
> 
> Standards were lowered? Sounds familiar.
Click to expand...


More importantly, the Federal Government isn't going to condemn itself.

See, if the Federal Reserve, or any agent of the government anywhere, was to attack the banks for making these loans, the biggest abuser of that was Freddie and Fannie.

You can't say "Countrywide, these loans you are making are very bad", and then not expect Countrywide to respond "Um....  These are the same loans that Fannie Mae is buying from us....  is what they are doing bad?"

And once that started there would be a political bomb going off.    Because you can't look at two different banks, and say X is bad for you, but X is good for government.

Remember, Government was directly suing banks to make these loans.  If the Federal Reserve started saying "ok all those loans Clinton was suing people to make, are bad."  There would be a tidal wave of political blow back.   There's no way Alan Greenspan was going to hang himself intentionally.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house.   Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.


*Argument from incredulity*
That's an absurd assumption.  Someone might build a house because they want a brand new house, or specific customization, or for whatever reason they want what they want.

Build or Buy? A Housing Market Dilemma - US News



Androw said:


> What construction company would build residential housing......  if the cost of building the house, was higher than (or even equal to) the market price?


*Argument from incredulity*
The type that incorrectly calculates what that market value is.  Have you never seen a construction company abandon a residential housing project, specifically because the market did not bear what they originally thought it would?
9 Worst Recession Ghost Towns in America | The Fiscal Times

Androw, simply because you cannot imagine it existing does not mean it does not exist.



Androw said:


> What individual would ever build a home, if the cost to hire someone to build the home, was greater than the home would be worth on the market?


*Argument from incredulity*
The new owners may not know how gaudy and odd their tastes are.  Maybe they thought it was a good idea to build a house that looked like an igloo?  Just a possibility.  I've seen some ugly specialty built houses.




Androw said:


> If they could find a similar home, for the same or lower price, why would they build one?


If the consumer can find two fungible products that the consumer wants; then yes, generally consumer will purchase the cheaper one.



Androw said:


> So logically......   Construction is always going to be lower than the fair market value of the resulting home.



Classic faulty syllogism.



Androw said:


> In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.


I would be interested in you substantiating that assertion.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).
> 
> Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing.
Click to expand...


Now you are just spewing bull crap.   Seriously, why do you say these things when we all know it's not true?

First off, outsource supplies jobs to other people.  Either way, that CEO supplies jobs, doesn't he?   Are are you so racist that only Americans deserve jobs?   You keep talking about how other 3rd world countries need jobs, and then when a company employs them, you start screaming that outsourcing is horrible.

Second, very few CEO even work in areas that could be outsourced.  Can you 'outsource' transportation?   Of course not.  Can you outsource food?   No, because it would rot.   Can you outsource entertainment?  Can you outsource construction?

None of these can be outsourced.   You can't ship all the lumber to China, have them build you a house, and float it back to Ohio and put it on a plot of land.

Third, those that do outsource, do so in order to save jobs.   My company outsourced the production of the control units for our products.   If we had not done this, the entire company would have closed.   How much better off would we, and the country, have been if we had not outsourced?

There are millions of jobs that would not exist if not for outsourcing.

Lastly, the primary targets of outsourcing are Union jobs, because Unions drive up the cost of labor, beyond the market value of the item.  If it wasn't for Unions, there would be far fewer outsourced jobs, than what there are.

Again, which companies closed plants, and opened shops in other countries?    GM and Chrysler?  Or Toyota and Honda?    Toyota and Honda were actually opening up new plants in the US, at the very same time that GM and Chrysler were closing theirs.

The problem is Unions.  In fact, Monroe just recently announced plans to open a new plant in Ohio, non-union of course, that will create 150 to 200 new jobs.    Why didn't they outsource like you just moronically claimed all CEO do?

Please.  Stop with the bull crap.  You know better... or you should know better.



> They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.



Prove all of that.  First off, any one is going to go where they can purchase things cheaper.    You go to a store that has lower prices.  You punch up google shopping, to find the cheapest price for something you want to buy.

But somehow when a company does this, you b!tch about it, even though all of us do that all the time in our daily lives.

Further, in low wage areas, they normally need jobs.  That's why it's a low wage area.  Are you saying those who need jobs the most, shouldn't get them, because it's a low wage area?    Again, the left says they want to help the poor 3rd world people, and then when companies offer jobs to them, you complain.

And lastly, you start b!tching about profit again.   You yourself would never go to work and provide your labor free without compensation.   You profit from your job.   That's ok.    But how dare the person giving you the job, also profit?

Nothing in life, exists without profit.  Nothing.   Look around your house.  There is barely anything there, that would exist without someone profiting.   Every time you say "profit bad", what you are saying is that you support impoverishment.    Because that's what happen when no one can profit.  Pre-1978 China, the poverty level was $2 a DAY.... and 63% of the population lived BELOW the $2 a day poverty level.

But at least no one profited.  That's all that matters.



> btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.



That's a pretty safe bet, because your position is built on your intentions, not the results of your beliefs.

We look at what you say, and follow it to it's historic results... not your mythical utopian ideal.

You can 'say' that you support the poor, but the fact is your policies harm the poor.

You can 'say' that you want what's best for the country, but your policies have historically harmed every country that has tried them.

So we look at what you say, and come the conclusion that you are leftist, and socialist, that will ruin the economy, ruin the country, and ruin most of the public, and you say "You don't know what I stand for!".... well no, we actually do.    This is it.    But it's not what you think you stand for.

Reminds me of an old Jewish lady who was interviewed by the BBC, and her parents mother and father, were supporters of Stalin.  They were actually part of Stalin's government, part of the communist party, and believed in Socialism and Equality.    They were supporting, and producing propaganda for Stalin, right up to the purge that had them both killed.

Do you think they really supported that?  Of course not.  Doesn't matter.  That's what their beliefs and views resulted in.  Same is true of you, and all the leftists like you.   Yeah, you may believe in some workers paradise, but the end results of those ideals is always a living hell.  I don't see many people swimming to Cuba.  But I do see several hundred thousand Cubans, and now Venezuelans, in Florida.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).
> 
> Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.
> 
> So in America if you want a job and a factory to hire you, you need to say, "our community is willing to work for bargain wages (far below minimum standards) so that our labor is competitive with the labor of China, Bangladesh and the like. Only if Americans accept lower wages will factories and industry return. So magically agreeing we should have higher wages and cheering for capitalism is like jeering at your ice cream cone because it tastes like shit when you fail to realize your ice cream literally is a pile of shit.
> 
> You are sadly inept at understanding your own creeds and how the interact but that's to be expected when you call anything that disagrees with your brainwashed mentality as "extremism" thereby effectively covering your ears to valid points about flaws that are inherent in capitalism.
> 
> btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.
Click to expand...

Then you should be crying now and turn yourself in. Your description of why rich people got richer, outsourcing. It is obvious you do not understand nor do you read the studies that prove you so wrong. Oh, and I leave the being brain washed to people like you who have swallowed left wing rhetoric hook, line and sinker. The difference? You read your sources and believe them. I do research for myself and take the data of studies and draw my own conclusions when it relates to economics. I am going to over look your insulting remarks this time because I haven't got the time to be messed with.

Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Peter J. Wallison and coauthor Edward Pinto believed that the *housing bubble and crash was due to federal mandates to promote affordable housing. These were applied through the Community Reinvestment Act and "government sponsored entities" (GSE's) "Fannie Mae" (Federal National Mortgage Association) and "Freddie Mac" (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation).[22] Journalist Daniel Indiviglio argues the two GSE's played a major role, while not denying the importance of Wall Street and others in the private sector in creating the collapse.[4]*
> 
> The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. *Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannies and Freddies loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. In 1995 HUD mandated that 40 percent of Fannie and Freddies loan purchases would have to support affordable housing. In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Under the Bush Administration HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase affordable housing purchases  to as high as 56 percent by the year 2008.[*22] *To satisfy these mandates, Fannie and Freddie eventually announced low-income and minority loan commitments totaling $5 trillion.[23] Critics argue that, to meet these commitments, Fannie and Freddie promoted a loosening of lending standards - industry-wide.[24]*
> 
> *Regarding the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charged the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA*.[25] American Enterprise Institute Scholar Edward Pinto noted that, in *2008, Bank of America reported that its CRA portfolio, which constituted only 7 percent of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses*.[26] *A Cleveland Plain Dealer investigation found that "The City of Cleveland has aggravated its vexing foreclosure problems and has lost millions in tax dollars by helping people buy homes they could not afford."* The newspaper added that these problem mortgages *"typically came from local banks fulfilling federal requirements to lend money in poorer neighborhoods."* *Min's contention that Fannie and Freddie did not buy a significant amount of high-risk mortgage backed securities must be evaluated in light of subsequent SEC security fraud charges brought against executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in December 2011. Significantly, the SEC alleged (and still maintains) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reported as subprime and substandard less than 10 percent of their actual subprime and substandard loans*.[44] In other words, the substandard loans held in the GSE portfolios may have been 10 times greater than originally reported. According to Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, that would make the SEC's estimate of GSE substandard loans about $2 trillion - significantly higher than Edward Pinto's estimate.



I wish you all would stop with the talking points.  Everyone knows that the GOP has been pushing this flimsy explanation for a couple years now.  I mean really, try some original thought.

Here. let me help you:

Between 2000 and the bubbles peak, inflation- adjusted housing prices in California and Florida more than doubled, and since the peak they have fallen by 20 to 30 percent. In contrast, housing prices in Georgia and Texas grew by only about 20 to 25 percent, and they havent significantly declined.

In other words, *California and Florida housing bubbled, but Georgia and Texas housing did not*. This is hardly because people dont want to live in Georgia and Texas: since 2000, Atlanta, DallasFt. Worth, and Houston have been the nations fastest-growing urban areas, each growing by more than 120,000 people per year.

This suggests that *local factors, not national policies*, were a necessary condition for the housing bubbles where they took place.​How Urban Planners Caused the Housing Bubble | Cato Institute

Now that is some original and thought provoking analysis as opposed to rehashing Marco Rubio's response to Obama's State of the Union Address 2013.  C'mon, guys, your narrative is tired.  And besides, it's classic "Fallacy of the single cause".  That fallacy usually goes like this:
_Two kids are playing around inside and knock over a lamp.
One turns to the other and says "It just has to be your fault.  Nothing I did could have been bad."_


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> How many compassionate conservatives on Wall Street are securitizing those sub-prime loans compared to 2006 when 84% of sub prime mortgages were issued by private lenders? Private lenders whose mouthpiece is "Inside Mortgage Finance". If you're actually gullible enough to believe their account, maybe you can work for the FBI.


 I know of no compassionate politicians, neither left or right. Neither extreme does a darned thing to help the little people. The RW doesn't necessarily want to, and the left wing has not got the slightest idea how to do it. 





> Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable housing laws; maybe you're convinced Countrywide was issuing "Nontraditional" mortgages to make Barney Frank happy and not to package them off to Wall Street?


 Not specifically subject to the laws, but they all did what the government wanted them relative to subprime loans.





> Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall to 2004's federal preemption of state anti-predatory lending laws was done to advance the acquisition of private profit at public expense, and that's where your mistakes begin.


ROTFLMAO! Virtually NONE of the housing bubble and its collapse was because of Glass-Steagall. The government's primary causal factor was pushing low interest, no down payment loans, and allowing ARMs with a low initial rate to go up so much at the first adjustment period. Actually, unless the borrower is very financially capable, no one should be allowed to get an ARM. Though housing prices did not become inflated until 1999 the beginning of the bubble DID start in 1997.


----------



## gnarlylove

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house.   Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.
> 
> 
> 
> *Argument from incredulity*
> That's an absurd assumption.  Someone might build a house because they want a brand new house, or specific customization, or for whatever reason they want what they want.
> 
> Build or Buy? A Housing Market Dilemma - US News
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> What construction company would build residential housing......  if the cost of building the house, was higher than (or even equal to) the market price?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Argument from incredulity*
> The type that incorrectly calculates what that market value is.  Have you never seen a construction company abandon a residential housing project, specifically because the market did not bear what they originally thought it would?
> 9 Worst Recession Ghost Towns in America | The Fiscal Times
> 
> Androw, simply because you cannot imagine it existing does not mean it does not exist.
> 
> 
> *Argument from incredulity*
> The new owners may not know how gaudy and odd their tastes are.  Maybe they thought it was a good idea to build a house that looked like an igloo?  Just a possibility.  I've seen some ugly specialty built houses.
> 
> 
> 
> If the consumer can find two fungible products that the consumer wants; then yes, generally consumer will purchase the cheaper one.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> So logically......   Construction is always going to be lower than the fair market value of the resulting home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Classic faulty syllogism.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would be interested in you substantiating that assertion.
Click to expand...


Someone sat in on a logic class. Glad someone understands how assertions and arguments work. Just don't expect to get far on this forum since about 1 person for every 5,000 people on here have a clue how to reason, how to assess formal and informal logic, fallacies of thinking and so on. Basically they don't know how to think.

Our education system produces people who know how to run off at the mouth/keyboard but are puzzled when you tell them there's steps one should take to verify the accuracy of propositions. Too many want to scrutinize their opponent's position eager to tell you what to think without offering convincing argument. And too few care to hear scrutiny of their own position, which makes genuine debate impossible.


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are just spewing bull crap.   Seriously, why do you say these things when we all know it's not true?
> 
> First off, outsource supplies jobs to other people.  Either way, that CEO supplies jobs, doesn't he?   Are are you so racist that only Americans deserve jobs?   You keep talking about how other 3rd world countries need jobs, and then when a company employs them, you start screaming that outsourcing is horrible.
> 
> Second, very few CEO even work in areas that could be outsourced.  Can you 'outsource' transportation?   Of course not.  Can you outsource food?   No, because it would rot.   Can you outsource entertainment?  Can you outsource construction?
> 
> None of these can be outsourced.   You can't ship all the lumber to China, have them build you a house, and float it back to Ohio and put it on a plot of land.
> 
> Third, those that do outsource, do so in order to save jobs.   My company outsourced the production of the control units for our products.   If we had not done this, the entire company would have closed.   How much better off would we, and the country, have been if we had not outsourced?
> 
> There are millions of jobs that would not exist if not for outsourcing.
> 
> Lastly, the primary targets of outsourcing are Union jobs, because Unions drive up the cost of labor, beyond the market value of the item.  If it wasn't for Unions, there would be far fewer outsourced jobs, than what there are.
> 
> Again, which companies closed plants, and opened shops in other countries?    GM and Chrysler?  Or Toyota and Honda?    Toyota and Honda were actually opening up new plants in the US, at the very same time that GM and Chrysler were closing theirs.
> 
> The problem is Unions.  In fact, Monroe just recently announced plans to open a new plant in Ohio, non-union of course, that will create 150 to 200 new jobs.    Why didn't they outsource like you just moronically claimed all CEO do?
> 
> Please.  Stop with the bull crap.  You know better... or you should know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove all of that.  First off, any one is going to go where they can purchase things cheaper.    You go to a store that has lower prices.  You punch up google shopping, to find the cheapest price for something you want to buy.
> 
> But somehow when a company does this, you b!tch about it, even though all of us do that all the time in our daily lives.
> 
> Further, in low wage areas, they normally need jobs.  That's why it's a low wage area.  Are you saying those who need jobs the most, shouldn't get them, because it's a low wage area?    Again, the left says they want to help the poor 3rd world people, and then when companies offer jobs to them, you complain.
> 
> And lastly, you start b!tching about profit again.   You yourself would never go to work and provide your labor free without compensation.   You profit from your job.   That's ok.    But how dare the person giving you the job, also profit?
> 
> Nothing in life, exists without profit.  Nothing.   Look around your house.  There is barely anything there, that would exist without someone profiting.   Every time you say "profit bad", what you are saying is that you support impoverishment.    Because that's what happen when no one can profit.  Pre-1978 China, the poverty level was $2 a DAY.... and 63% of the population lived BELOW the $2 a day poverty level.
> 
> But at least no one profited.  That's all that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a pretty safe bet, because your position is built on your intentions, not the results of your beliefs.
> 
> We look at what you say, and follow it to it's historic results... not your mythical utopian ideal.
> 
> You can 'say' that you support the poor, but the fact is your policies harm the poor.
> 
> You can 'say' that you want what's best for the country, but your policies have historically harmed every country that has tried them.
> 
> So we look at what you say, and come the conclusion that you are leftist, and socialist, that will ruin the economy, ruin the country, and ruin most of the public, and you say "You don't know what I stand for!".... well no, we actually do.    This is it.    But it's not what you think you stand for.
> 
> Reminds me of an old Jewish lady who was interviewed by the BBC, and her parents mother and father, were supporters of Stalin.  They were actually part of Stalin's government, part of the communist party, and believed in Socialism and Equality.    They were supporting, and producing propaganda for Stalin, right up to the purge that had them both killed.
> 
> Do you think they really supported that?  Of course not.  Doesn't matter.  That's what their beliefs and views resulted in.  Same is true of you, and all the leftists like you.   Yeah, you may believe in some workers paradise, but the end results of those ideals is always a living hell.  I don't see many people swimming to Cuba.  But I do see several hundred thousand Cubans, and now Venezuelans, in Florida.
Click to expand...


First, there is tons of outsourcing food (Salmon that are farm raised in Chile sent to the US markets, Nestle chocolate produced in the Ivory Coast under conditions of child slavery for Western markets), entertainment (Korean animators for the Simpsons and countless other examples). You must not understand economics very well if you think few industries can be outsourced.

Second, I did not intend my statement "how did rich get rich? by outsourcing" as the only way rich people earned their wealth. They earn it all sorts of ways, including outsourcing. It's easy for you to criticize my post when you don't consider it within it's context.

How many times do you have to denounce Stalin full well knowing it has nothing to do with the actual concept of communism? And for that matter, communism has no relevancy to the topic. This is about facts of capitalism: the desire for profit leads to outsourcing. If you have to continually shift focus from the topic, go masturbate or something. Stop rehashing your hatred for leftism and stick to the god damn topic.

I'd rather live in a functioning society without extremism caused by unaddressed grievances, which are the result of few opportunities to employ oneself productively. But that cannot happen so long as selfish fucks prioritize profit over people and societal cohesion. You've been in Ohio. You know what outsourcing does to communities. You are also smart enough to know why outsourcing happened. You also should be smart enough to realize outsourcing results because of profit over people meaning the CEO decides the wealth generated by that community should be spent on outsourcing. Thus the community that produced the wealth are of secondary concern to the Board. And when people are secondary, social consequences happen.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typically whiny socialist pap.
> Meaningless ad hominem. Provides no relevant information to the matter at hand: capitalism
> 
> Not all or even most wealthy peeps own factories and not all or even most American firms outsource to foreign countries.
> Assuming this is true, it has no relevancy to the fact that American jobs have been outsourced at the behest of the adorable profit motive. And it also aligns with the fact real wages have stagnated since the 70s--companies don't have to pay rising wages anymore. They can simply make more profit elsewhere if the pampered American worker won't accept it, and they in fact do.Which has no bearing on the plight of the American worker. Studies show data which supports between 1.1 and 1.7 new jobs in the US for every job off shored. A second study shows that those who lost their jobs lost no more than 3% of their wage if in the same industry and no more than 7% if starting a new job in a new industry. Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
> 
> 
> 
> Americans get wealthy by selling their services, skills and products competitively in the global market
> If you are implying all Americans who become wealthy do so based on merit, you are obviously leaving how a significant portion become rich: inheritance...the opposite of merit. Do you have any data suggesting otherwise? I may be wrong and would love to see what you're trying to say here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most millionaires today do not come from old money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and no amount of socialist whining will make you wealthy.
> You finish strong with another hollow personal attack, which is evidently unrelated to how outsourcing has effected people and communities i.e. deficit of good paying jobs in the Rust Belt leading to drug related crime sky rocket and drug overdoses to increase 200 fold over the last two decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have no idea how outsourcing has effected people and communities.
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house.   Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.
> 
> 
> 
> *Argument from incredulity*
> That's an absurd assumption.  Someone might build a house because they want a brand new house, or specific customization, or for whatever reason they want what they want.
> 
> Build or Buy? A Housing Market Dilemma - US News
> 
> 
> *Argument from incredulity*
> The type that incorrectly calculates what that market value is.  Have you never seen a construction company abandon a residential housing project, specifically because the market did not bear what they originally thought it would?
> 9 Worst Recession Ghost Towns in America | The Fiscal Times
> 
> Androw, simply because you cannot imagine it existing does not mean it does not exist.
> 
> 
> *Argument from incredulity*
> The new owners may not know how gaudy and odd their tastes are.  Maybe they thought it was a good idea to build a house that looked like an igloo?  Just a possibility.  I've seen some ugly specialty built houses.
> 
> 
> 
> If the consumer can find two fungible products that the consumer wants; then yes, generally consumer will purchase the cheaper one.
> 
> 
> 
> Classic faulty syllogism.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would be interested in you substantiating that assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone sat in on a logic class. Glad someone understands how assertions and arguments work. Just don't expect to get far on this forum since about 1 person for every 5,000 people on here have a clue how to reason, how to assess formal and informal logic, fallacies of thinking and so on. Our education system produces people who know how to run off at the mouth/keyboard but are puzzled when you tell them there's steps to take to verify the accuracy of propositions. Too many want to scrutinize their opponent's position and too few know the first steps of how to scrutinize their own position.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, now I get it. All left wing extremists are rude, he is a left wing extremist, therefore he is rude.


----------



## dnsmith35

Androw said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are just spewing bull crap.   Seriously, why do you say these things when we all know it's not true?
> 
> First off, outsource supplies jobs to other people.  Either way, that CEO supplies jobs, doesn't he?   Are are you so racist that only Americans deserve jobs?   You keep talking about how other 3rd world countries need jobs, and then when a company employs them, you start screaming that outsourcing is horrible.
Click to expand...

It is not unusual for left wingers to prefer a union elitist worker get his raise than to give a labor intensive job to a 3rd world worker. Who knew?





> Second, very few CEO even work in areas that could be outsourced.  Can you 'outsource' transportation?   Of course not.  Can you outsource food?   No, because it would rot.   Can you outsource entertainment?  Can you outsource construction?
> 
> None of these can be outsourced.   You can't ship all the lumber to China, have them build you a house, and float it back to Ohio and put it on a plot of land.
> 
> Third, those that do outsource, do so in order to save jobs.   My company outsourced the production of the control units for our products.   If we had not done this, the entire company would have closed.   How much better off would we, and the country, have been if we had not outsourced?


But, but, but 10 elitist high paid workers lost their job, for what? Giving 500 low paid workers who have to work under the conditions which exist in that 3rd world country? How sad!





> There are millions of jobs that would not exist if not for outsourcing.


Between 1.1 and 1.7 of those  jobs in the US. Wow, who knew? The economists who did the study.





> Lastly, the primary targets of outsourcing are Union jobs, because Unions drive up the cost of labor, beyond the market value of the item.  If it wasn't for Unions, there would be far fewer outsourced jobs, than what there are.
> 
> Again, which companies closed plants, and opened shops in other countries?    GM and Chrysler?  Or Toyota and Honda?    Toyota and Honda were actually opening up new plants in the US, at the very same time that GM and Chrysler were closing theirs.
> 
> The problem is Unions.  In fact, Monroe just recently announced plans to open a new plant in Ohio, non-union of course, that will create 150 to 200 new jobs.    Why didn't they outsource like you just moronically claimed all CEO do?
> 
> Please.  Stop with the bull crap.  You know better... or you should know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove all of that.  First off, any one is going to go where they can purchase things cheaper.    You go to a store that has lower prices.  You punch up google shopping, to find the cheapest price for something you want to buy.
> 
> But somehow when a company does this, you b!tch about it, even though all of us do that all the time in our daily lives.
> 
> Further, in low wage areas, they normally need jobs.  That's why it's a low wage area.  Are you saying those who need jobs the most, shouldn't get them, because it's a low wage area?    Again, the left says they want to help the poor 3rd world people, and then when companies offer jobs to them, you complain.
> 
> And lastly, you start b!tching about profit again.   You yourself would never go to work and provide your labor free without compensation.   You profit from your job.   That's ok.    But how dare the person giving you the job, also profit?
> 
> Nothing in life, exists without profit.  Nothing.   Look around your house.  There is barely anything there, that would exist without someone profiting.   Every time you say "profit bad", what you are saying is that you support impoverishment.    Because that's what happen when no one can profit.  Pre-1978 China, the poverty level was $2 a DAY.... and 63% of the population lived BELOW the $2 a day poverty level.
> 
> But at least no one profited.  That's all that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a pretty safe bet, because your position is built on your intentions, not the results of your beliefs.
> 
> We look at what you say, and follow it to it's historic results... not your mythical utopian ideal.
> 
> You can 'say' that you support the poor, but the fact is your policies harm the poor.
> 
> You can 'say' that you want what's best for the country, but your policies have historically harmed every country that has tried them.
> 
> So we look at what you say, and come the conclusion that you are leftist, and socialist, that will ruin the economy, ruin the country, and ruin most of the public, and you say "You don't know what I stand for!".... well no, we actually do.    This is it.    But it's not what you think you stand for.
> 
> Reminds me of an old Jewish lady who was interviewed by the BBC, and her parents mother and father, were supporters of Stalin.  They were actually part of Stalin's government, part of the communist party, and believed in Socialism and Equality.    They were supporting, and producing propaganda for Stalin, right up to the purge that had them both killed.
> 
> Do you think they really supported that?  Of course not.  Doesn't matter.  That's what their beliefs and views resulted in.  Same is true of you, and all the leftists like you.   Yeah, you may believe in some workers paradise, but the end results of those ideals is always a living hell.  I don't see many people swimming to Cuba.  But I do see several hundred thousand Cubans, and now Venezuelans, in Florida.
Click to expand...

What our "outsourcing" haters also don't or won't understand is, off shoring is helping 3rd world countries create new middle class labor pools who are becoming consumers of our goods and services.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> .....





> Androw - That's a pretty safe bet, because your position is built on your intentions, not the results of your beliefs.


That is a profoundly correct statement. The right wing may not want to help the poor through government, but more important, the left wing has not got the slightest idea how to help the poor. The simple fact is, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL SOCIALIST EXPERIMENT THAT LASTED WITHOUT IT BEING A DICTATORSHIP. The so called socialist states of Scandinavia are not Socialist, they are Capitalist with more social programs than we have.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.
> 
> So in America if you want a job and a factory to hire you, you need to say, "our community is willing to work for bargain wages (far below minimum standards) so that our labor is competitive with the labor of China, Bangladesh and the like. Only if Americans accept lower wages will factories and industry return. So magically agreeing we should have higher wages and cheering for capitalism is like jeering at your ice cream cone because it tastes like shit when you fail to realize your ice cream literally is a pile of shit.
> 
> You are sadly inept at understanding your own creeds and how the interact but that's to be expected when you call anything that disagrees with your brainwashed mentality as "extremism" thereby effectively covering your ears to valid points about flaws that are inherent in capitalism.
> 
> btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should be crying now and turn yourself in. Your description of why rich people got richer, outsourcing. It is obvious you do not understand nor do you read the studies that prove you so wrong. Oh, and I leave the being brain washed to people like you who have swallowed left wing rhetoric hook, line and sinker. The difference? You read your sources and believe them. I do research for myself and take the data of studies and draw my own conclusions when it relates to economics. I am going to over look your insulting remarks this time because I haven't got the time to be messed with.
> 
> Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
Click to expand...


Did I mention the pay gap? No. Then what does your research have to do with my point? Nothing.

The fact remains: it is more profitable to leave communities in the US, reducing opportunities in the US, so a board of directors can pursue greater sums of money. When US companies outsource, they are showing money is more important then the a community, then their employees who have worked for them for decades. Why? Capitalism says to pursue your own interests, your own self maximization. So it makes perfect sense to dismiss the ramifications of uprooting good jobs for millions of Americans: the primary objective is seeking one's own profit maximization.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> How many compassionate conservatives on Wall Street are securitizing those sub-prime loans compared to 2006 when 84% of sub prime mortgages were issued by private lenders? Private lenders whose mouthpiece is "Inside Mortgage Finance". If you're actually gullible enough to believe their account, maybe you can work for the FBI.
> 
> Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable housing laws; maybe you're convinced Countrywide was issuing "Nontraditional" mortgages to make Barney Frank happy and not to package them off to Wall Street?
> 
> Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall to 2004's federal preemption of state anti-predatory lending laws was done to advance the acquisition of private profit at public expense, and that's where your mistakes begin.



First off, most of wall street are all democrats, and liberals.

Again, Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it.  None of the provision of Glass-Steagall EVEN APPLIED to the banks that crashed, with only a few exceptions.   Countrywide would not have been affected by Glass Steagall.    Indymac, Bear Stearns, AIG, Wachovia, the list goes on and on.  None would have been covered by Glass-Steagall.

You talk about mistakes, and yet you keep bringing up completely and totally irrelevant policies that had absolutely nothing to do with the entire problem.  You might as well bring up that CAFE standards were not applied to banks either.  That has just as much baring on the sub-prime crash as Glass-Steagall.

As for predatory lending, it would not have changed anything.  The bubble was already created by 1998.  You can't blame a policy change in 2004, for a price bubble, and sub-prime boom, that started in 1997.  You are just floundering around again, grasping at anything.

And lastly, you are becoming an idiot.  Can you prove the information from Insider Mortgage Financial, which would know more about the mortgage market, than you could dream to know, wrong?   If not, then shut up.  You don't know jack, and you just becoming a dumb asshole on the forums.

Who Really Drove the Economy Into the Ditch?
 By Joseph Fried
Page 109-110.



> Years before Sub-prime mortgage crisis erupted, F&F were promoting subprime lending - industry wide.  In 1997, Matt Millar, a Director of Single-Family Affordable Lending at Freddie Mac, addressed private lenders at an Affordable Housing Symposium.  He said that Freddie could usually find a way to buy and securitize their affordable housing loans "Though the us of Loan Prospectors research and creative credit enhancements"
> 
> Then Mr Miller added "But what can you do if after all this analysis the product you are holding is not up standards of the conventional secondary market?  [in other words, what if Freddie can't legally buy the loans - even after putting lipstick on them with loan prospector?]
> 
> Matt Miller had a solution:  Freddie would work with "several firms" in an effort to find buyers for these extra-smelly loans.  These flunky firms would, at the behest of Freddie, buy the garbage loans that were so bad they could not be called conforming.



And then you see the sub-prime market in 1997 take off.

Again, all the evidence is against you.  Freddie and Fannie were pushing these loans.  The government was pushing these loans.  And all you can do is fart around saying "If you're actually gullible enough"... well if you are so mindlessly stupid that all the evidence in the world is just "a Private lenders mouthpiece", then you are too plain stupid to be discussing this topic.

Fannie Mae Foundation  Oct 2000.
"&#65279;Case Study:  Countrywide Financial Inc."
Page 119



> Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the GSE programs.
> 
> When necessaryin cases where applicants have no established credit history, for exampleCountrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the GSEs.



Now whatcha going to do?  Straight from Fannie Mae, Countrywide is engaging in sub-prime lending that the GSEs promoted.

Is Fannie Mae a 'Private lenders mouthpiece'?  Huh?

Page 118, the page before.



> Since Countrwide's founding in 1969, the company has been involved in the entry-level home-buying market.  Between 1969 and 1992, most of its lending conformed to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA guidelines and loan limits.  FHA loans constituted the largest share of Countrywide's activity, until Fannia Mae and Freddie Mac began accepting loans with higher LTVs and greater underwriting flexibilities



What's your excuse now?  What random irrelevant crap are you going to barf on the forum now, to dodge the words direct from Fannie Mae saying that Countrywide followed the guidelines until Fannie and Freddie started accepting loans with higher loan to value ratios, and more flexible standards?

Grow up dude.  Just grow up.  Stop being that 10 year old that blames absolutely everyone else for what went wrong.

Fannie and Freddie were designed to influence the mortgage market, and that's exactly what they did, and that's what crashed it.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> Studies show data which supports between 1.1 and 1.7 new jobs in the US for every job off shored.



First that statistic was used by you to indicate how many jobs have been created since the global crisis. Now you are using it in regards to jobs that are outsourced. Now which is it? It cannot be both since outsourcing has been occurring since the late 70s and the crisis began in 07.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> First off, outsource supplies jobs to other people.  Either way, that CEO supplies jobs, doesn't he?


Okay, let's go easy on the deification of the 1%.  Why do you build a Golden Calf for the glory of the 1%-ers?  We need not demonize them, but it is also absurd to worship them as living gods as you do.  It is strange to meet someone with a million living gods.



Androw said:


> Are are you [gnarlylove] so racist that only Americans deserve jobs?


That could be an interesting point, if we remove the accusation.  Why do people decry globalization?  By way of Global Labor Arbitrage, real wages are increasing in developing countries.  It is rather mercantilist to argue against Globalization.  And Global Free Trade is a better path to World Peace than is Mutually Assured Destruction.
Here is a paper actually advocating a return to mercantilism:
http://www.msaiki.com/Mercantilism.7.pdf



Androw said:


> Second, very few CEO even work in areas that could be outsourced.  Can you 'outsource' transportation?   Of course not.


That's not a good one.  We have a lot of foreign cars.  We most certainly import foreign oil.  We import a good deal that pertains to transportation.



Androw said:


> Can you outsource food?   No, because it would rot.


Also not a good one.  Wow, that's really horrible.  Yes, we can import food by the ton and we do.



Androw said:


> Can you outsource entertainment?


Hollywood or Bollywood, take your pick.



Androw said:


> Can you outsource construction?


Need steel for that construction?



Androw said:


> You can't ship all the lumber to China, have them build you a house, and float it back to Ohio and put it on a plot of land.


Pushing aside the qualifier "all"... You could do exactly what you say you cannot do.
Prefab homes exist.  And you can plop the prefab home on a plot of land in any place you want.
A builder in China can, in fact, import lumber, construct some cruddy little house, and then send it to the US for a US importer to sell in the US market.  Whether or not the house ends up in Ohio is just too specific on your part.



Androw said:


> Third, those that do outsource, do so in order to save jobs.



They do it for profit.



Androw said:


> My company outsourced the production of the control units for our products.   If we had not done this, the entire company would have closed.


And that is good for the laid off, how?  You have a number of disturbing anecdotes about this place.  I think you need a new job.



Androw said:


> How much better off would we, and the country, have been if we had not outsourced?



You mentioned pay slashing at this company in another thread.  If this company shutdown, you would have to go work for someplace that maybe does not slash pay.  Might be good for you.

As for the country, the country does not really care about this pay-slashing kiosk console making sweatshop in Ohio.



Androw said:


> There are millions of jobs that would not exist if not for outsourcing.


Okay, you're going to have to substantiate that wild claim with something besides your own unique analysis.



Androw said:


> Lastly, the primary targets of outsourcing are Union jobs, because Unions drive up the cost of labor, beyond the market value of the item.  If it wasn't for Unions, there would be far fewer outsourced jobs, than what there are.


Oh goodness, now comes the demonizing of collective bargaining.  Are you reading off a worksheet from Glenn Beck University?



Androw said:


> Again, which companies closed plants, and opened shops in other countries?    GM and Chrysler?  Or Toyota and Honda?    Toyota and Honda were actually opening up new plants in the US, at the very same time that GM and Chrysler were closing theirs.


This is true.



Androw said:


> The problem is Unions.  In fact, Monroe just recently announced plans to open a new plant in Ohio, non-union of course, that will create 150 to 200 new jobs.    Why didn't they outsource like you just moronically claimed all CEO do?


Fallacy of the single cause
I don't know what gnarlylove's claim was, but two bad claim's don't make a truth.
Did it ever occur to you that there are numerous reasons?
UGN considered locations in Ohio and Indiana to build the plant. Ohio ultimately won the business for several reasons, including the state and local governments partnering to offer incentives to help lower the investment cost, Khalaf said.​New auto plant announced for Monroe | www.daytondailynews.com




Androw said:


> btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a pretty safe bet, because your position is built on your intentions, not the results of your beliefs.
> 
> We look at what you say, and follow it to it's historic results... not your mythical utopian ideal.
> 
> You can 'say' that you support the poor, but the fact is your policies harm the poor.
> 
> You can 'say' that you want what's best for the country, but your policies have historically harmed every country that has tried them.
> 
> 
> So we look at what you say, and come the conclusion that you are leftist, and socialist, that will ruin the economy, ruin the country, and ruin most of the public...
Click to expand...

Wow there's a lot of sanctimony here.  This melodrama is a bit much.  Reason would be a better defense against bad policy as opposed to witchhunting, whether the witch you're looking for is a CEO or a Hippie.


----------



## crisismangement

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studies show data which supports between 1.1 and 1.7 new jobs in the US for every job off shored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First that statistic was used by you to indicate how many jobs have been created since the global crisis. Now you are using it in regards to jobs that are outsourced. Now which is it? It cannot be both since outsourcing has been occurring since the late 70s and the crisis began in 07.
Click to expand...

I have never seen it used it to suggest anything other than outsourcing does not cost the US jobs. You are wrong, and I challenge you to link me to that fictitious post. You do know it doesn't exist, why lie?


----------



## Andylusion

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house.   Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.
> 
> 
> 
> *Argument from incredulity*
> That's an absurd assumption.  Someone might build a house because they want a brand new house, or specific customization, or for whatever reason they want what they want.
Click to expand...


Which is STILL NOT A MARKET VALUE.

Fail. 

You can't look at the cost of construction, and determine the market value of the home.  

Look... if you are this dumb... then nothing else you post is worth reading.

If you can't figure out this most basic of concepts...  then you are finished here. Someone saying things this stupid, can't possibly have anything else of value to say.

You are dismissed.



gnarlylove said:


> Someone sat in on a logic class. Glad someone understands how assertions and arguments work. Just don't expect to get far on this forum since about 1 person for every 5,000 people on here have a clue how to reason, how to assess formal and informal logic, fallacies of thinking and so on. Basically they don't know how to think.
> 
> Our education system produces people who know how to run off at the mouth/keyboard but are puzzled when you tell them there's steps one should take to verify the accuracy of propositions. Too many want to scrutinize their opponent's position eager to tell you what to think without offering convincing argument. And too few care to hear scrutiny of their own position, which makes genuine debate impossible.



That was a completely idiotic, and illogical post, by someone that I have added to my /ignore list, and you just praised them on their idiocy?

If not for you quoting them, I would not have seen their stupidity.

Are you seriously telling me, that you believe that companies build homes for a higher price, than what the house would be worth on the market?  Following that logic, can you explain how a housing construction company would stay in business following that model?

And are you seriously suggesting that you believe that regardless, such a cost, should be added to housing price index even though the house in question has never been on the market?

I'm just baffled, because you never seem to make such idiotic claims to this point, so I'm shocked you praised such logic.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> First, there is tons of outsourcing food (Salmon that are farm raised in Chile sent to the US markets, Nestle chocolate produced in the Ivory Coast under conditions of child slavery for Western markets), entertainment (Korean animators for the Simpsons and countless other examples). You must not understand economics very well if you think few industries can be outsourced.



Well perhaps you are right.   I have no idea about supposed 'child slavery'.   The left tends to make up a lot of crap about supposed slavery.   But maybe far more than I think could be outsourced.

Does that not suggest to you that outsourcing isn't the big boogie man that you claim?   If all the jobs could be outsourced, and yet we have the highest standard of living in the world, the poorest people own cars and big screen TVs and smart phones, the median wage is $50K, when $30K makes you the top 1% of wage earners in the world.....

Does that not show that apparently outsourcing isn't this huge threat?



> Second, I did not intend my statement "how did rich get rich? by outsourcing" as the only way rich people earned their wealth. They earn it all sorts of ways, including outsourcing. It's easy for you to criticize my post when you don't consider it within it's context.



Well that's better.   Some.... a few.... outsource.   And I have no problem with that.   Outsourcing to keep the company open, and thousands of jobs in the US, to me is a net benefit, not loss.



> How many times do you have to denounce Stalin full well knowing it has nothing to do with the actual concept of communism? And for that matter, communism has no relevancy to the topic. This is about facts of capitalism: the desire for profit leads to outsourcing. If you have to continually shift focus from the topic, go masturbate or something. Stop rehashing your hatred for leftism and stick to the god damn topic.



But it doesn't 'automatically' lead to outsourcing.   And of course there is a desire for profit.   Again, if there was no desire for profit, they would not have invested money into creating the company in first place.

All the jobs that exist, only exist because of a desire for profit.   If you were running a lemonade stand, there would be only one reason to invest the money into buying the equipment and supplies, and hire people to operate a second lemonade stand.   Profit.

If those people you hire, form a union and drive up labor costs, or the government passes laws that drive up labor costs, so that you could no longer profit from having those other lemonade stands, you are going to do one of two things.   Either close the stand, or find some way to outsource it to cheaper labor, so you can make a profit again.

That's how the world operates.  That's how every individual operates.



> I'd rather live in a functioning society without extremism caused by unaddressed grievances, which are the result of few opportunities to employ oneself productively. But that cannot happen so long as selfish fucks prioritize profit over people and societal cohesion. You've been in Ohio. You know what outsourcing does to communities. You are also smart enough to know why outsourcing happened. You also should be smart enough to realize outsourcing results because of profit over people meaning the CEO decides the wealth generated by that community should be spent on outsourcing. Thus the community that produced the wealth are of secondary concern to the Board. And when people are secondary, social consequences happen.



The problem with using the 'unaddressed grievances', is that many people don't have any, but think they do.

And further, again, you are just wrong about this claim that "few opportunities to employ oneself productively".     If that was true, why are Asian immigrating to the US, and have a higher standard of living than white Americans?

If that was true, why are people coming to the US from all over the world?

Why is it that a guy with no education, immigrating here from Jamaica, can open a business selling Jamaican food, and end up a millionaire?   Did he miss the white American memo that there simply were no opportunities to employ himself productively?

What about this guy from Egypt, who has a business down the street, fixing up and reselling used electronic equipment?  
USTRG
I used to work for the guy.    Did he miss the memo that there was no opportunities for him here?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-self-made-immigrant-millionaires.html?page=all

Why didn't all these immigrants come here and become millionaires, if there were just so few opportunities?

It's just not true.


----------



## SAYIT

gnarlylove said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house.   Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.
> 
> 
> 
> *Argument from incredulity*
> That's an absurd assumption.  Someone might build a house because they want a brand new house, or specific customization, or for whatever reason they want what they want.
> 
> Build or Buy? A Housing Market Dilemma - US News
> 
> 
> *Argument from incredulity*
> The type that incorrectly calculates what that market value is.  Have you never seen a construction company abandon a residential housing project, specifically because the market did not bear what they originally thought it would?
> 9 Worst Recession Ghost Towns in America | The Fiscal Times
> 
> Androw, simply because you cannot imagine it existing does not mean it does not exist.
> 
> 
> *Argument from incredulity*
> The new owners may not know how gaudy and odd their tastes are.  Maybe they thought it was a good idea to build a house that looked like an igloo?  Just a possibility.  I've seen some ugly specialty built houses.
> 
> 
> 
> If the consumer can find two fungible products that the consumer wants; then yes, generally consumer will purchase the cheaper one.
> 
> 
> 
> Classic faulty syllogism.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would be interested in you substantiating that assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone sat in on a logic class. Glad someone understands how assertions and arguments work. Just don't expect to get far on this forum since about 1 person for every 5,000 people on here have a clue how to reason, how to assess formal and informal logic, fallacies of thinking and so on. Basically they don't know how to think.
> 
> Our education system produces people who know how to run off at the mouth/keyboard but are puzzled when you tell them there's steps one should take to verify the accuracy of propositions. Too many want to scrutinize their opponent's position eager to tell you what to think without offering convincing argument. And too few care to hear scrutiny of their own position, which makes genuine debate impossible.
Click to expand...


*Meaningless ad hominem. Provides no relevant information to the matter at hand: socialism*


----------



## gnarlylove

Androw said:


> And of course there is a desire for profit.   Again, if there was no desire for profit, they would not have invested money into creating the company in first place.
> 
> All the jobs that exist, only exist because of a desire for profit.   If you were running a lemonade stand, there would be only one reason to invest the money into buying the equipment and supplies, and hire people to operate a second lemonade stand.   Profit.



I can accept most of what your post said. But this section I've quoted above raises some issues. And it illustrates nicely our divergence in how we think about human beings and the world.

You believe self-satisfaction through pursuit of capital is the prime virtue. But all the great world teachings consistently accuse selfish pursuits of muddying the waters. A person can operate a Lemonade stand for an infinite array of reasons. You identified one and called it the only one. A person can operate a Lemonade stand because she desires to service her community, who has helped raise her, educate her, and provide her with the social settings that have generated her feelings of gratitude. A person can operate a Lemonade stand because they wish to see children smile, ignoring the profit motive and being merely concerned with breaking even because the smiles from customers delights them beyond monetary possibilities.

In a warm and cherished community the people embrace one another based in gratitude and love. Profit pits each person in a community against each other for the sake of personal gain. Competition exists for each job, and for each winner, there are dozens of losers.
In fact, the primary reason society has dismal people and dismal situations is the profit motive. In seeking and attaining great amounts of wealth the rich have learned it's profitable to hoard money, thus failing to circulate it from whence it came: society. Profit does not exist in a vacuum. It is the product of land, resources, labor, time and energy of all contributors in society, a global society now. Without each working part there is no profit generated. And in capitalism, the people who decide what to do with the profits is about 20-30 people, meaning, as is obvious, they pay themselves handsomely as if they were gods an "masters of the universe."

This is the pinnacle of profit: demagoguery. And without shame too: Are ?masters of the universe? born or bred? - FT.com

But I suspect you refuse to listen to obvious conclusions about profit. Instead let me reference the fact that all the great teachings of the last 4,000 years has taught that selfish pursuits (profit) is the root of all evil.

The Bible teaches "the love of money (profit) is the root of all evil." In many modern versions, "the love of money" is actually replaced by the word "profit."

The Buddha taught to end desire to attain satisfaction.

The Tao teaches this in verse 19:

Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom
and the people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit
and there will be no thieves.

All of these are superficial outward forms alone;
they are not sufficient in themselves.
Just stay at the centre of the circle
and let all things take their course.

It is more important to see the simplicity,
to realise ones true nature,
to cast off selfishness and temper desire.

Profit is not virtuous. The desire to amass wealth is a vice. All world religions have taught this exact truth and yet a modern religiosity has challenged that called capitalism. W see the global results: unimaginable luxury for a few while the majority struggle to pay their bills and survive. Constant war because war is profitable and massive rates of incarceration because it too is profitable. Rampant drug abuse is a good thing because it fuels the industries of rehabilitations, methadone, pharmaceuticals like oxycotin, the police and prisons and the companies who supply the prison population. This is a vision of a society that is dystopian for the majority and utopian for a few.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many compassionate conservatives on Wall Street are securitizing those sub-prime loans compared to 2006 when 84% of sub prime mortgages were issued by private lenders? Private lenders whose mouthpiece is "Inside Mortgage Finance". If you're actually gullible enough to believe their account, maybe you can work for the FBI.
> 
> Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable housing laws; maybe you're convinced Countrywide was issuing "Nontraditional" mortgages to make Barney Frank happy and not to package them off to Wall Street?
> 
> Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall to 2004's federal preemption of state anti-predatory lending laws was done to advance the acquisition of private profit at public expense, and that's where your mistakes begin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, most of wall street are all democrats, and liberals.
> 
> Again, Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it.  None of the provision of Glass-Steagall EVEN APPLIED to the banks that crashed, with only a few exceptions.   Countrywide would not have been affected by Glass Steagall.    Indymac, Bear Stearns, AIG, Wachovia, the list goes on and on.  None would have been covered by Glass-Steagall.
> 
> You talk about mistakes, and yet you keep bringing up completely and totally irrelevant policies that had absolutely nothing to do with the entire problem.  You might as well bring up that CAFE standards were not applied to banks either.  That has just as much baring on the sub-prime crash as Glass-Steagall.
> 
> As for predatory lending, it would not have changed anything.  The bubble was already created by 1998.  You can't blame a policy change in 2004, for a price bubble, and sub-prime boom, that started in 1997.  You are just floundering around again, grasping at anything.
> 
> And lastly, you are becoming an idiot.  Can you prove the information from Insider Mortgage Financial, which would know more about the mortgage market, than you could dream to know, wrong?   If not, then shut up.  You don't know jack, and you just becoming a dumb asshole on the forums.
> 
> Who Really Drove the Economy Into the Ditch?
> By Joseph Fried
> Page 109-110.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Years before Sub-prime mortgage crisis erupted, F&F were promoting subprime lending - industry wide.  In 1997, Matt Millar, a Director of Single-Family Affordable Lending at Freddie Mac, addressed private lenders at an Affordable Housing Symposium.  He said that Freddie could usually find a way to buy and securitize their affordable housing loans "Though the us of Loan Prospectors research and creative credit enhancements"
> 
> Then Mr Miller added "But what can you do if after all this analysis the product you are holding is not up standards of the conventional secondary market?  [in other words, what if Freddie can't legally buy the loans - even after putting lipstick on them with loan prospector?]
> 
> Matt Miller had a solution:  Freddie would work with "several firms" in an effort to find buyers for these extra-smelly loans.  These flunky firms would, at the behest of Freddie, buy the garbage loans that were so bad they could not be called conforming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then you see the sub-prime market in 1997 take off.
> 
> Again, all the evidence is against you.  Freddie and Fannie were pushing these loans.  The government was pushing these loans.  And all you can do is fart around saying "If you're actually gullible enough"... well if you are so mindlessly stupid that all the evidence in the world is just "a Private lenders mouthpiece", then you are too plain stupid to be discussing this topic.
> 
> Fannie Mae Foundation  Oct 2000.
> "&#65279;Case Study:  Countrywide Financial Inc."
> Page 119
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the GSE programs.
> 
> When necessaryin cases where applicants have no established credit history, for exampleCountrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the GSEs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now whatcha going to do?  Straight from Fannie Mae, Countrywide is engaging in sub-prime lending that the GSEs promoted.
> 
> Is Fannie Mae a 'Private lenders mouthpiece'?  Huh?
> 
> Page 118, the page before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Countrwide's founding in 1969, the company has been involved in the entry-level home-buying market.  Between 1969 and 1992, most of its lending conformed to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA guidelines and loan limits.  FHA loans constituted the largest share of Countrywide's activity, until Fannia Mae and Freddie Mac began accepting loans with higher LTVs and greater underwriting flexibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your excuse now?  What random irrelevant crap are you going to barf on the forum now, to dodge the words direct from Fannie Mae saying that Countrywide followed the guidelines until Fannie and Freddie started accepting loans with higher loan to value ratios, and more flexible standards?
> 
> Grow up dude.  Just grow up.  Stop being that 10 year old that blames absolutely everyone else for what went wrong.
> 
> Fannie and Freddie were designed to influence the mortgage market, and that's exactly what they did, and that's what crashed it.
Click to expand...

*Let us start by determining exactly how many "sub prime mortgages" were involved before deciding if private lenders or GSEs deserve the blame:*

"First, central to Wallison's argument that affordable housing policies (including those advocated by Rep. Frank in 1992) caused the mortgage crisis is his claim that the federal government is responsible for *19.2 million 'subprime' mortgages* (with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being responsible for 12 million of those). 

"But what Wallison fails to tell the Atlantic's readers is that he is using his own made-up definition of 'subprime,' a definition that no one outside of his think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, uses. 

"By way of comparison, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office has estimated that there were only *4.58 million subprime* and other high risk loans outstanding, with very few of these attributable to the federal government.

For the Last Time, Fannie and Freddie Didn't Cause the Housing Crisis - David Min - The Atlantic


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many compassionate conservatives on Wall Street are securitizing those sub-prime loans compared to 2006 when 84% of sub prime mortgages were issued by private lenders? Private lenders whose mouthpiece is "Inside Mortgage Finance". If you're actually gullible enough to believe their account, maybe you can work for the FBI.
> 
> Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable housing laws; maybe you're convinced Countrywide was issuing "Nontraditional" mortgages to make Barney Frank happy and not to package them off to Wall Street?
> 
> Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall to 2004's federal preemption of state anti-predatory lending laws was done to advance the acquisition of private profit at public expense, and that's where your mistakes begin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, most of wall street are all democrats, and liberals.
> 
> Again, Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it.  None of the provision of Glass-Steagall EVEN APPLIED to the banks that crashed, with only a few exceptions.   Countrywide would not have been affected by Glass Steagall.    Indymac, Bear Stearns, AIG, Wachovia, the list goes on and on.  None would have been covered by Glass-Steagall.
> 
> You talk about mistakes, and yet you keep bringing up completely and totally irrelevant policies that had absolutely nothing to do with the entire problem.  You might as well bring up that CAFE standards were not applied to banks either.  That has just as much baring on the sub-prime crash as Glass-Steagall.
> 
> As for predatory lending, it would not have changed anything.  The bubble was already created by 1998.  You can't blame a policy change in 2004, for a price bubble, and sub-prime boom, that started in 1997.  You are just floundering around again, grasping at anything.
> 
> And lastly, you are becoming an idiot.  Can you prove the information from Insider Mortgage Financial, which would know more about the mortgage market, than you could dream to know, wrong?   If not, then shut up.  You don't know jack, and you just becoming a dumb asshole on the forums.
> 
> Who Really Drove the Economy Into the Ditch?
> By Joseph Fried
> Page 109-110.
> 
> 
> 
> And then you see the sub-prime market in 1997 take off.
> 
> Again, all the evidence is against you.  Freddie and Fannie were pushing these loans.  The government was pushing these loans.  And all you can do is fart around saying "If you're actually gullible enough"... well if you are so mindlessly stupid that all the evidence in the world is just "a Private lenders mouthpiece", then you are too plain stupid to be discussing this topic.
> 
> Fannie Mae Foundation  Oct 2000.
> "&#65279;Case Study:  Countrywide Financial Inc."
> Page 119
> 
> 
> 
> Now whatcha going to do?  Straight from Fannie Mae, Countrywide is engaging in sub-prime lending that the GSEs promoted.
> 
> Is Fannie Mae a 'Private lenders mouthpiece'?  Huh?
> 
> Page 118, the page before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Countrwide's founding in 1969, the company has been involved in the entry-level home-buying market.  Between 1969 and 1992, most of its lending conformed to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA guidelines and loan limits.  FHA loans constituted the largest share of Countrywide's activity, until Fannia Mae and Freddie Mac began accepting loans with higher LTVs and greater underwriting flexibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your excuse now?  What random irrelevant crap are you going to barf on the forum now, to dodge the words direct from Fannie Mae saying that Countrywide followed the guidelines until Fannie and Freddie started accepting loans with higher loan to value ratios, and more flexible standards?
> 
> Grow up dude.  Just grow up.  Stop being that 10 year old that blames absolutely everyone else for what went wrong.
> 
> Fannie and Freddie were designed to influence the mortgage market, and that's exactly what they did, and that's what crashed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Let us start by determining exactly how many "sub prime mortgages" were involved before deciding if private lenders or GSEs deserve the blame:*
> 
> "First, central to Wallison's argument that affordable housing policies (including those advocated by Rep. Frank in 1992) caused the mortgage crisis is his claim that the federal government is responsible for *19.2 million 'subprime' mortgages* (with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being responsible for 12 million of those).
> 
> "But what Wallison fails to tell the Atlantic's readers is that he is using his own made-up definition of 'subprime,' a definition that no one outside of his think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, uses.
> 
> "By way of comparison, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office has estimated that there were only *4.58 million subprime* and other high risk loans outstanding, with very few of these attributable to the federal government.
> 
> For the Last Time, Fannie and Freddie Didn't Cause the Housing Crisis - David Min - The Atlantic
Click to expand...


*affordable housing policies (including those advocated by Rep. Frank in 1992) caused the mortgage crisis *

They didn't cause it.....they did contribute.

*Fannie and Freddie Didn't Cause the Housing Crisis *

They didn't cause it.....they did contribute.

*Glass-Steagall*

They didn't cause it.....they didn't contribute.


----------



## crisismangement

Androw said:


> Does that not suggest to you that outsourcing isn't the big boogie man that you claim?   If all the jobs could be outsourced, and yet we have the highest standard of living in the world, the poorest people own cars and big screen TVs and smart phones, the median wage is $50K, when $30K makes you the top 1% of wage earners in the world.....
> 
> Does that not show that apparently outsourcing isn't this huge threat?


Outsourcing is not a threat at all. It creates as many jobs, more actually, than it causes us to lose. We tend to outsource menial jobs, which in turn creates less labor intensive jobs in the US and the loss of wage is minimal. The left wing twits are arguing over nothing, or more precisely they object to a good thing. We get more jobs, they get more jobs and as their economies grow they become consumers of our goods and services. 

The crap the left wing twits throw out about the USSR NOT being true communism is bogus. The cruel dictatorships we see in countries that are "not true communism" is what happens in any "workers utopia". That dictatorship is always the result in any attempt at socialism or communism.


----------



## kaz

crisismangement said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studies show data which supports between 1.1 and 1.7 new jobs in the US for every job off shored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First that statistic was used by you to indicate how many jobs have been created since the global crisis. Now you are using it in regards to jobs that are outsourced. Now which is it? It cannot be both since outsourcing has been occurring since the late 70s and the crisis began in 07.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never seen it used it to suggest anything other than outsourcing does not cost the US jobs. You are wrong, and I challenge you to link me to that fictitious post. You do know it doesn't exist, why lie?
Click to expand...


Absolutely.  Offshoring jobs both creates and protects American jobs.

1)  It creates them by lowering prices for consumers.  Who then have more money to buy more things.  It also invigorates other economies creating more of a market for our products, and those people are more pro-American business because they work for American businesses.

2)  Offshoring protects jobs because we are in a global economy and our competitors are doing it.  If we don't, our corporations will suffer with higher cost, have to charge higher prices, and will suffer sales losses which will lead to job cuts.

I have done a lot of IT offshoring, and there have been way fewer job losses than you think even in the offshored group.   You can't just move a job offshore, there need to be onshore components.  And then you free skilled workers to do more value added work.  And you leave more money in the business side to invest in new projects which create jobs.

As a career manager and manager consultant, I can tell you American management kicks ass.  We aren't being protected by politicians, we are being limited by them.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually several of us did, with links, proving that the Mae/Mac and bank regulaters did in fact insist on sub prime loans, and our current left wing president sued to insure they did so as a lawyer in Illinois.
> 
> 
> 
> *Sub prime loans with or without loan standards like employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, and assets?
> 
> Do you agree with the following timeline?*
> 
> "19972005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
> 20002003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
> 20012005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
> 2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
> 20022003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997..."
> 
> "2003-2007: The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards (employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability), *emphasizing instead lender's ability to securitize and repackage subprime loans*.[28]
> 2004:
> 
> "U.S. homeownership rate peaked with an all time high of 69.2 percent.[38]
> HUD increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans.[16]
> 
> "October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government-imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1.[39]"
> 
> Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards *
> 
> Standards were lowered? Sounds familiar.
Click to expand...

Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sub prime loans with or without loan standards like employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, and assets?
> 
> Do you agree with the following timeline?*
> 
> "19972005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
> 20002003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
> 20012005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
> 2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
> 20022003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997..."
> 
> "2003-2007: The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards (employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability), *emphasizing instead lender's ability to securitize and repackage subprime loans*.[28]
> 2004:
> 
> "U.S. homeownership rate peaked with an all time high of 69.2 percent.[38]
> HUD increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans.[16]
> 
> "October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government-imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1.[39]"
> 
> Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards *
> 
> Standards were lowered? Sounds familiar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
Click to expand...


*Standards were lowered to increase private profits *

Standards were lowered to comply with the CRA. 
It wasn't until later that they figured out how to make a profit on these weaker loans.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.



Power hungry politicians trying to buy votes caused a crisis then pointed fingers at businesses rather than accept the blame for their own actions.  Then they appeal to the greed and wealth envy of their minions to pound the message home.

Yep, business as usual.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.
> 
> So in America if you want a job and a factory to hire you, you need to say, "our community is willing to work for bargain wages (far below minimum standards) so that our labor is competitive with the labor of China, Bangladesh and the like. Only if Americans accept lower wages will factories and industry return. So magically agreeing we should have higher wages and cheering for capitalism is like jeering at your ice cream cone because it tastes like shit when you fail to realize your ice cream literally is a pile of shit.
> 
> You are sadly inept at understanding your own creeds and how the interact but that's to be expected when you call anything that disagrees with your brainwashed mentality as "extremism" thereby effectively covering your ears to valid points about flaws that are inherent in capitalism.
> 
> btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be crying now and turn yourself in. Your description of why rich people got richer, outsourcing. It is obvious you do not understand nor do you read the studies that prove you so wrong. Oh, and I leave the being brain washed to people like you who have swallowed left wing rhetoric hook, line and sinker. The difference? You read your sources and believe them. I do research for myself and take the data of studies and draw my own conclusions when it relates to economics. I am going to over look your insulting remarks this time because I haven't got the time to be messed with.
> 
> Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I mention the pay gap? No. Then what does your research have to do with my point? Nothing.
Click to expand...

This comment in your first paragraph suggests you are concerned about pay inequality, "This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but *given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour*" This site discusses WHY they make 5-10 $$$ less per hour. 





> The fact remains: it is more profitable to leave communities in the US, reducing opportunities in the US, so a board of directors can pursue greater sums of money. When US companies outsource, they are showing money is more important then the a community, then their employees who have worked for them for decades. Why? Capitalism says to pursue your own interests, your own self maximization. So it makes perfect sense to dismiss the ramifications of uprooting good jobs for millions of Americans: the primary objective is seeking one's own profit maximization.


The fact remains: leaving the country to cut costs keeps companies from going bankrupt, and does not negatively effect the jobs overall in the US. http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studies show data which supports between 1.1 and 1.7 new jobs in the US for every job off shored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First that statistic was used by you to indicate how many jobs have been created since the global crisis. Now you are using it in regards to jobs that are outsourced. Now which is it? It cannot be both since outsourcing has been occurring since the late 70s and the crisis began in 07.
Click to expand...

I guess that you have run out of argument so now you are resorting to absolute false hoods. I have never used that statistic for anything other than representing the relative number of jobs created in the US for every job off shored. This did not come from a blog, or an opinion piece, IT CAME FROM A STUDY. Studies trump opinions every time.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.



LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.

Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.


----------



## dnsmith35

In his classic work Knowledge and Decisions, Thomas Sowell espoused a sophisticated, largely Hayekian approach, revealing how the efficient spread of relevant knowledge is shaped by our social institutions, and often warped and misshapen by government. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465037380/reasonmagazineA/]Knowledge And Decisions: Thomas Sowell: 9780465037384: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Now, in The Housing Boom and Bust (Basic Books)[ame]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465018807/reasonmagazineA/[/ame], Sowell contemplates the greatest expansion of government power in a generation, which was itself occasioned by the greatest economic crisis in as long. A quick but thorough guide to the causes of the crises, Sowell's book shows how government policies led to a huge increase in highly risky housing loans. As he notes, the immense local variability in housing prices and failed loans reveals that the government mistook a set of local problems for a national one, and then imposed a single troublesome national solution. Sowell argues that while foolish decisions to indulge in complicated investment vehicles affected the specifics of how the financial contagion spread, at its root the housing problem is one of bad mortgages. And those came from bad decisions by government and by borrowers themselves.


----------



## dnsmith35

Now, addressing the myth of income inequality reducing consumer spending. It has been opined that since low income consumers spend all their money; and since high income individuals save or invest their money; and based on the undisputed fact that consumer spending equals to 70% of our economy; the conclusion tends to support that demand side economics is the best way to stimulate our economy out of a down cycle. The following chart suggests that is not the actual case.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Observe the red curve. It increases significantly over time albeit in a very erratic fashion. Now observe the blue line curve. It increases at a more regular rate. The indication of that graph, which combines the income inequality curve to the actual consumer spending curve, both represented as a per capita issue.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course there is a desire for profit.   Again, if there was no desire for profit, they would not have invested money into creating the company in first place.
> 
> All the jobs that exist, only exist because of a desire for profit.   If you were running a lemonade stand, there would be only one reason to invest the money into buying the equipment and supplies, and hire people to operate a second lemonade stand.   Profit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can accept most of what your post said. But this section I've quoted above raises some issues. And it illustrates nicely our divergence in how we think about human beings and the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your quote of his assertion is the reason that after attaining an MBA with a major in economics I took the next step, the study of Psychology to the Ed.S level. Human behavior characteristics form the basis for economics. Androw is correct, without the profit motive there would be little prosperity as witnessed with every experiment with Socialism/Communism, or more simply ANY EXPERIMENT WITH MARXISM having miserably failed. When an economy veers away from reasonably regulated capitalism the result is the spreading around poverty and misery. The "lofty ideals  of Marxism" simply do  not work in the real world, and to keep the high achievers in a Marxist economic/government system it must relatively quickly become a dictatorship. That is another simply explained situation. "The from everyone according to his ability and to everyone according to his needs," is doomed to failure BECAUSE of that human behavior. The high achievers get tired of carrying the load for the low on non-achievers and leave, requiring a dictatorship/authoritative government to keep those high achievers producing. Yet, even they stop achieving and the result is: a few leaders get rich and everyone else is stuck in poverty such as the US has never experienced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GNARLEY - You believe self-satisfaction through pursuit of capital is the prime virtue. But all the great world teachings consistently accuse selfish pursuits of muddying the waters. A person can operate a Lemonade stand for an infinite array of reasons. You identified one and called it the only one. A person can operate a Lemonade stand because she desires to service her community, who has helped raise her, educate her, and provide her with the social settings that have generated her feelings of gratitude. A person can operate a Lemonade stand because they wish to see children smile, ignoring the profit motive and being merely concerned with breaking even because the smiles from customers delights them beyond monetary possibilities..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your little story discusses only 1 in 100,000 who labor for the reward of helping others. In a capitalist economy, the only one which increases prosperity for the maximum % of its people, produce its share of those, because they have ability or prosperity tend "to do for the least of his people." Altruism is a great trait, but for it to be of value to the needy there must be sufficient prosperity for it to help the greatest number of people.
> 
> A successful economic system revolves around the truism, "man has an unlimited desire for wealth." If it doesn't, it fails, MISERABLY.
Click to expand...


----------



## Misty

Capitalism is equality. No matter where you live or if you are poor or rich, capitalism guarantees that ANYONE can make as much money as they want.


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
Click to expand...

What point do you imagine you (and grandma) are making here?
Are you implying private banks weren't behind more than 84% of sub prime mortgages in 2006?
Bill left in 2001, remember, Comrade?
The richest 1% of the evil 1% own Wall Street banks, and they're instigating the next crisis as we speak. Maybe you can outsource Goldman Sachs?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards *
> 
> Standards were lowered? Sounds familiar.
> 
> 
> 
> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Standards were lowered to increase private profits *
> 
> Standards were lowered to comply with the CRA.
> It wasn't until later that they figured out how to make a profit on these weaker loans.
Click to expand...

*Exactly.*

"The FBI defines mortgage fraud as 'the intentional misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission by an applicant or other interest parties, relied on by a lender or underwriter to provide funding for, to purchase, or to insure a mortgage loan.'"[111] In 2004, the Federal Bureau of Investigation warned of an "epidemic" in mortgage fraud, an important credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending, which, they said, could lead to "a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis".[112][113][114][115]

"The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that: '... mortgage fraud... flourished in an environment of collapsing lending standards and lax regulation. 

"The number of suspicious activity reports  reports of possible financial crimes filed by depository banks and their affiliates  related to mortgage fraud grew 20-fold between 1996 and 2005 and then more than doubled again between 2005 and 2009. 

"One study places the losses resulting from fraud on mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007 at $112 billion.

"Predatory lending describes unfair..."

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Power hungry politicians trying to buy votes caused a crisis then pointed fingers at businesses rather than accept the blame for their own actions.  Then they appeal to the greed and wealth envy of their minions to pound the message home.
> 
> Yep, business as usual.
Click to expand...

*Politicians from both major parties who depend on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements did their parts in creating the crisis, but it was private bankers resorting to an epidemic of control accounting fraud (80% by lenders) that were the biggest culprits in The Mess. 

The current Administration then did its part by not prosecuting a single major financial figure in the greatest looting of the US economy since the Great Depression.*

"The Mess
The economy was at risk of a deep recession after the dotcom bubble burst in early 2000; this situation was compounded by the September 11 terrorist attacks that followed in 2001. In response, central banks around the world tried to stimulate the economy. They created capital liquidity through a reduction in interest rates. 

"In turn, investors sought higher returns through riskier investments. Lenders took on greater risks too, and approved subprime mortgage loans to borrowers with poor credit. 

Consumer demand drove the housing bubble to all-time highs in the summer of 2005, which ultimately collapsed in August of 2006. (For an in-depth discussion of these events, see The Fuel That Fed The Subprime Meltdown.)

"The end result of these key events was increased foreclosure activity, large lenders and hedge funds declaring bankruptcy, and fears regarding further decreases in economic growth and consumer spending. 

"So who's to blame? Let's take a look at the key players

Biggest Culprit: The Lenders
Most of the blame should be pointed at the mortgage originators (lenders) for creating these problems. It was the lenders who ultimately lent funds to people with poor credit and a high risk of default. (To learn more about subprime lending, see Subprime Is Often Subpar.)

Who Is To Blame For The Subprime Crisis?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Standards were lowered to increase private profits *
> 
> Standards were lowered to comply with the CRA.
> It wasn't until later that they figured out how to make a profit on these weaker loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Exactly.*
> 
> "The FBI defines mortgage fraud as 'the intentional misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission by an applicant or other interest parties, relied on by a lender or underwriter to provide funding for, to purchase, or to insure a mortgage loan.'"[111] In 2004, the Federal Bureau of Investigation warned of an "epidemic" in mortgage fraud, an important credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending, which, they said, could lead to "a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis".[112][113][114][115]
> 
> "The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that: '... mortgage fraud... flourished in an environment of collapsing lending standards and lax regulation.
> 
> "The number of suspicious activity reports  reports of possible financial crimes filed by depository banks and their affiliates  related to mortgage fraud grew 20-fold between 1996 and 2005 and then more than doubled again between 2005 and 2009.
> 
> "One study places the losses resulting from fraud on mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007 at $112 billion.
> 
> "Predatory lending describes unfair..."
> 
> Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


*"The FBI defines mortgage fraud as 'the intentional misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission by an applicant *

Yup, those Main Street borrowers did that a lot.

*The number of suspicious activity reports  reports of possible financial crimes filed by depository banks and their affiliates *

See, the banks filed the reports, against borrowers. Thanks for bringing this up.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studies show data which supports between 1.1 and 1.7 new jobs in the US for every job off shored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First that statistic was used by you to indicate how many jobs have been created since the global crisis. Now you are using it in regards to jobs that are outsourced. Now which is it? It cannot be both since outsourcing has been occurring since the late 70s and the crisis began in 07.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that you have run out of argument so now you are resorting to absolute false hoods. I have never used that statistic for anything other than representing the relative number of jobs created in the US for every job off shored. This did not come from a blog, or an opinion piece, IT CAME FROM A STUDY. Studies trump opinions every time.
Click to expand...


Can you provide that study?

Does that study say that the entire history of outsourcing (1970s onward) has created more jobs then were lost? Or does the study only speak to 2007 onward? The difference is huge.

In the most recent crisis millions of medium-high wage jobs were lost and fewer of higher wage jobs recovered. Instead, low wage jobs came back replacing the high paying jobs. Didn't you say you wanted higher wage jobs?


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course there is a desire for profit.   Again, if there was no desire for profit, they would not have invested money into creating the company in first place.
> 
> All the jobs that exist, only exist because of a desire for profit.   If you were running a lemonade stand, there would be only one reason to invest the money into buying the equipment and supplies, and hire people to operate a second lemonade stand.   Profit!
> 
> 
> 
> Your quote of his assertion is the reason that after attaining an MBA with a major in economics I took the next step, the study of Psychology to the Ed.S level. Human behavior characteristics form the basis for economics. Androw is correct, without the profit motive there would be little prosperity as witnessed with every experiment with Socialism/Communism, or more simply ANY EXPERIMENT WITH MARXISM having miserably failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been no worker owned experiment. You are confusing propaganda for truth. Communism was a word that appealed to the Russian working class to support Bolsheviks and soon after the US picked up on that term and taught you to fear it.
> 
> Please if you're going to make claims socialism and marxism have been tried, first you have to define what those terms mean and then show historical circumstances where those ideas were applied. You cannot show where they applied because none exist. No experiments in the last century+ have been one where the workers controlled the means to production. It has consistently remained in the hands of a few.
> 
> wish we could point to examples of how good/evil scary concepts like socialism are but we have no examples. A "state socialist" model (which is a oxymoron) like in Denmark and the social safety net in the US are examples that pure unregulated capitalism is untenable and too heinous to operate a functioning society. Thus you need to redistribute wealth in order to keep society functioning.
> 
> In psychology you must know the idea that people perceive what they want out of situations. That interpretation dims ones ability to see events objectively and unless one tries to extricate themselves from personal bias they will consistently perceive the world how they like and no fact or event can change it. Do you aim to be objective?
Click to expand...


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

ADVENTURES IN CORRECTING THE LOGIC OF OTHERS

Tonight's Episode: *Androw*




Androw said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house.   Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.
> 
> 
> 
> *Argument from incredulity*
> That's an absurd assumption.  Someone might build a house because they want a brand new house, or specific customization, or for whatever reason they want what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is STILL NOT A MARKET VALUE.
Click to expand...


You claimed "_New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house._"

*You actually claimed that.*  And you defended your claim with "_Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house._"

Which is...
*Argument from incredulity* 

You can't think of any other possibility, therefore no other possibility exists.  Which is a fail.



Androw said:


> You can't look at the cost of construction, and determine the market value of the home.



Then why would you claim it was cheaper?  You just said that new construction would always be cheaper.  Now you say the value cannot be determined; ergo, new construction may not be cheaper. 




Androw said:


> Are you seriously telling me, that you believe that companies build homes for a higher price, than what the house would be worth on the market?


You just said that they couldn't know that!



Androw said:


> Following that logic, can you explain how a housing construction company would stay in business following that model?


The market could go bust and they would cease construction to minimize their losses or they would build specialty homes.  That's just two possibilities.
You claim there are none.



Androw said:


> And are you seriously suggesting that you believe that regardless, such a cost, should be added to housing price index even though the house in question has never been on the market?


Now this is an interesting question, Androw.  Finally, Androw has something constructive to add.
Let me help you to prove it without you appealing to your own authority.
Understanding The Case-Shiller Housing Index
House price index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Well Done!

It only took you a few posts and twice as many ad hominems.

But we got there, people.  We got there.




Androw said:


> If not for you [gnarlylove] quoting them, I would not have seen their stupidity.


Then I should encourage others to quote me until you learn how logic works.




Androw said:


> I'm just baffled, because you never seem to make such idiotic claims to this point, so I'm shocked you praised such logic.


Don't sulk, kiddo, you sorta got the point in the end. (pun?)


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I address left wing extremism, I am talking about fanaticism. People who believe capitalism is worse for the people than socialism or communism are fanatics. Especially in the face of the economic facts that capitalism makes more people prosperous than any other system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).
> 
> Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.
Click to expand...


I agree.  Regulated Capitalism rocks!


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> without the profit motive there would be little prosperity as witnessed with every experiment with Socialism/Communism, or more simply ANY EXPERIMENT WITH MARXISM having miserably failed. When an economy veers away from reasonably regulated capitalism the result is the spreading around poverty and misery. The "lofty ideals  of Marxism" simply do  not work in the real world, and to keep the high achievers in a Marxist economic/government system it must relatively quickly become a dictatorship. That is another simply explained situation. "The from everyone according to his ability and to everyone according to his needs," is doomed to failure BECAUSE of that human behavior. The high achievers get tired of carrying the load for the low on non-achievers and leave, requiring a dictatorship/authoritative government to keep those high achievers producing. Yet, even they stop achieving and the result is: a few leaders get rich and everyone else is stuck in poverty such as the US has never experienced.
> 
> ...
> 
> A successful economic system revolves around the truism, "man has an unlimited desire for wealth." If it doesn't, it fails, MISERABLY.



If we look at the coal industry in the late 19th and early twentieth century, paying their employees in company scrip, forcing employees to do business with the infamous company stores, abolishing all competition for commodities needed by the employees, 
does such a scenario to your mind follow the model of Capitalism or Feudalism...or some other model?


----------



## Chris

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
Click to expand...


The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.

It wasn't the housing market.


----------



## georgephillip

Zombie_Pundit said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> without the profit motive there would be little prosperity as witnessed with every experiment with Socialism/Communism, or more simply ANY EXPERIMENT WITH MARXISM having miserably failed. When an economy veers away from reasonably regulated capitalism the result is the spreading around poverty and misery. The "lofty ideals  of Marxism" simply do  not work in the real world, and to keep the high achievers in a Marxist economic/government system it must relatively quickly become a dictatorship. That is another simply explained situation. "The from everyone according to his ability and to everyone according to his needs," is doomed to failure BECAUSE of that human behavior. The high achievers get tired of carrying the load for the low on non-achievers and leave, requiring a dictatorship/authoritative government to keep those high achievers producing. Yet, even they stop achieving and the result is: a few leaders get rich and everyone else is stuck in poverty such as the US has never experienced.
> 
> A successful economic system revolves around the truism, "man has an unlimited desire for wealth." If it doesn't, it fails, MISERABLY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we look at the coal industry in the late 19th and early twentieth century, paying their employees in company scrip, forcing employees to do business with the infamous company stores, abolishing all competition for commodities needed by the employees,
> does such a scenario to your mind follow the model of Capitalism or Feudalism...or some other model?
Click to expand...

*Well...at the risk of being next up in the Logic Docket, what you're describing sounds suspiciously like slavery, to me:*

"Bloomberg View: When the New York City banker James Brown tallied his wealth in 1842, he had to look far below Wall Street to trace its origins. His investments in the American South exceeded $1.5 million, a quarter of which was directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations.

"Brown was among the world's most powerful dealers in raw cotton, and his familys firm, Brown Brothers & Co., served as one of the most important sources of capital and foreign exchange to the U.S. economy. Still, no small amount of his time was devoted to managing slaves from the study of his Leonard Street brownstone in Lower Manhattan."

How Slavery Led To Modern Capitalism

*Man's unlimited desire for wealth has brought this planet and specie to the brink of extinction; some capitalists find something to celebrate about that cosmic fallacy.*


----------



## georgephillip

Chris said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
Click to expand...

*But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?*

"Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.

"Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened. 

"We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."

Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

georgephillip said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> without the profit motive there would be little prosperity as witnessed with every experiment with Socialism/Communism, or more simply ANY EXPERIMENT WITH MARXISM having miserably failed. When an economy veers away from reasonably regulated capitalism the result is the spreading around poverty and misery. The "lofty ideals  of Marxism" simply do  not work in the real world, and to keep the high achievers in a Marxist economic/government system it must relatively quickly become a dictatorship. That is another simply explained situation. "The from everyone according to his ability and to everyone according to his needs," is doomed to failure BECAUSE of that human behavior. The high achievers get tired of carrying the load for the low on non-achievers and leave, requiring a dictatorship/authoritative government to keep those high achievers producing. Yet, even they stop achieving and the result is: a few leaders get rich and everyone else is stuck in poverty such as the US has never experienced.
> 
> A successful economic system revolves around the truism, "man has an unlimited desire for wealth." If it doesn't, it fails, MISERABLY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we look at the coal industry in the late 19th and early twentieth century, paying their employees in company scrip, forcing employees to do business with the infamous company stores, abolishing all competition for commodities needed by the employees,
> does such a scenario to your mind follow the model of Capitalism or Feudalism...or some other model?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well...at the risk of being next up in the Logic Docket, what you're describing sounds suspiciously like slavery, to me:*
> 
> "Bloomberg View: When the New York City banker James Brown tallied his wealth in 1842, he had to look far below Wall Street to trace its origins. His investments in the American South exceeded $1.5 million, a quarter of which was directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations.
> 
> "Brown was among the world's most powerful dealers in raw cotton, and his familys firm, Brown Brothers & Co., served as one of the most important sources of capital and foreign exchange to the U.S. economy. Still, no small amount of his time was devoted to managing slaves from the study of his Leonard Street brownstone in Lower Manhattan."
> 
> How Slavery Led To Modern Capitalism
> 
> *Man's unlimited desire for wealth has brought this planet and specie to the brink of extinction; some capitalists find something to celebrate about that cosmic fallacy.*
Click to expand...


There's a book called Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery.  It's been a long time since I read it, but it does not define "Slavery" as a specific economic system, more an offense against Capitalism with specific comparisons between the slave laborers and laborers in the north.


----------



## Andylusion

Chris said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
Click to expand...


Empty claims.  Zero evidence.

The crash was caused by sub-prime loans.  We know this because no other derivative markets had a problem.

Second, government created derivative back in the 60s and 70s.   The very first derivative was created by Genie Mac.

Third, housing prices do not go up or down, based on derivatives.  Otherwise, the prices would not have dropped.  Prices dropped first.  Then derivatives based on those prices dropped.

This indicates there was a price bubble.   Which based on the information I gave before, clearly there was.

Fourth, that price bubble started in 1997, before Bush became president, and before the SEC did anything you suggest.

In other words, what you said was wrong.


----------



## Chris

georgephillip said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?*
> 
> "Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
> 
> "Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
> 
> "We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
> 
> Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
Click to expand...


You think Republicans would elect someone like Elizabeth Warren???


----------



## Chris

Androw said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Empty claims.  Zero evidence.
> 
> The crash was caused by sub-prime loans.  We know this because no other derivative markets had a problem.
> 
> Second, government created derivative back in the 60s and 70s.   The very first derivative was created by Genie Mac.
> 
> Third, housing prices do not go up or down, based on derivatives.  Otherwise, the prices would not have dropped.  Prices dropped first.  Then derivatives based on those prices dropped.
> 
> This indicates there was a price bubble.   Which based on the information I gave before, clearly there was.
> 
> Fourth, that price bubble started in 1997, before Bush became president, and before the SEC did anything you suggest.
> 
> In other words, what you said was wrong.
Click to expand...


How did 4% of American homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of Iceland?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Power hungry politicians trying to buy votes caused a crisis then pointed fingers at businesses rather than accept the blame for their own actions.  Then they appeal to the greed and wealth envy of their minions to pound the message home.
> 
> Yep, business as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Politicians from both major parties who depend on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements did their parts in creating the crisis, but it was private bankers resorting to an epidemic of control accounting fraud (80% by lenders) that were the biggest culprits in The Mess.
> 
> The current Administration then did its part by not prosecuting a single major financial figure in the greatest looting of the US economy since the Great Depression.*
> 
> "The Mess
> The economy was at risk of a deep recession after the dotcom bubble burst in early 2000; this situation was compounded by the September 11 terrorist attacks that followed in 2001. In response, central banks around the world tried to stimulate the economy. They created capital liquidity through a reduction in interest rates.
> 
> "In turn, investors sought higher returns through riskier investments. Lenders took on greater risks too, and approved subprime mortgage loans to borrowers with poor credit.
> 
> Consumer demand drove the housing bubble to all-time highs in the summer of 2005, which ultimately collapsed in August of 2006. (For an in-depth discussion of these events, see The Fuel That Fed The Subprime Meltdown.)
> 
> "The end result of these key events was increased foreclosure activity, large lenders and hedge funds declaring bankruptcy, and fears regarding further decreases in economic growth and consumer spending.
> 
> "So who's to blame? Let's take a look at the key players
> 
> Biggest Culprit: The Lenders
> Most of the blame should be pointed at the mortgage originators (lenders) for creating these problems. It was the lenders who ultimately lent funds to people with poor credit and a high risk of default. (To learn more about subprime lending, see Subprime Is Often Subpar.)
> 
> Who Is To Blame For The Subprime Crisis?
Click to expand...


The lenders who were sued to make bad loans.  Given security to make bad loans.  Given incentives to make bad loans.   All under the direction of government.

So who is the biggest culprits?   Government.

If you beat your child with a stick, ordering him to throw stones at passing cars......  if you offer your child $10 for each car he hits with stones.....   Who is at fault for your kid throwing stones at cars?

Obviously in leftist land, it's the kids fault!  He should have known better.  Everyone else told him he shouldn't!   Why didn't he know??   How dare that kid do what you instructed him to do!   Darn kid.  What an evil kid.  We need kid control regulations.    We need stone throwing reform laws.   Blasted idiot kid.

Your position on this is absolutely idiotic.


----------



## georgephillip

Zombie_Pundit said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we look at the coal industry in the late 19th and early twentieth century, paying their employees in company scrip, forcing employees to do business with the infamous company stores, abolishing all competition for commodities needed by the employees,
> does such a scenario to your mind follow the model of Capitalism or Feudalism...or some other model?
> 
> 
> 
> *Well...at the risk of being next up in the Logic Docket, what you're describing sounds suspiciously like slavery, to me:*
> 
> "Bloomberg View: When the New York City banker James Brown tallied his wealth in 1842, he had to look far below Wall Street to trace its origins. His investments in the American South exceeded $1.5 million, a quarter of which was directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations.
> 
> "Brown was among the world's most powerful dealers in raw cotton, and his familys firm, Brown Brothers & Co., served as one of the most important sources of capital and foreign exchange to the U.S. economy. Still, no small amount of his time was devoted to managing slaves from the study of his Leonard Street brownstone in Lower Manhattan."
> 
> How Slavery Led To Modern Capitalism
> 
> *Man's unlimited desire for wealth has brought this planet and specie to the brink of extinction; some capitalists find something to celebrate about that cosmic fallacy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a book called Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery.  It's been a long time since I read it, but it does not define "Slavery" as a specific economic system, more an offense against Capitalism with specific comparisons between the slave laborers and laborers in the north.
Click to expand...

I think that's correct if you consider slaves as unpaid labor only.
According to a MOOC I just finished, slaves also served as capital in bond markets on both sides of the Atlantic.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Chris said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empty claims.  Zero evidence.
> 
> The crash was caused by sub-prime loans.  We know this because no other derivative markets had a problem.
> 
> Second, government created derivative back in the 60s and 70s.   The very first derivative was created by Genie Mac.
> 
> Third, housing prices do not go up or down, based on derivatives.  Otherwise, the prices would not have dropped.  Prices dropped first.  Then derivatives based on those prices dropped.
> 
> This indicates there was a price bubble.   Which based on the information I gave before, clearly there was.
> 
> Fourth, that price bubble started in 1997, before Bush became president, and before the SEC did anything you suggest.
> 
> In other words, what you said was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did 4% of American homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of Iceland?
Click to expand...

Your opponent is using the "fallacy of the single cause" as a rhetorical device to blame the "evil progressives" for "everything bad".
Fast forward to the financial meltdown of 2008 and what do we see? America again was celebrating. The economy was booming. Everyone seemed to be getting wealthier, even though the warning signs were everywhere: too much borrowing, foolish investments, greedy banks, regulators asleep at the wheel, politicians eager to promote home-ownership for those who couldnt afford it, and distinguished analysts openly predicting this could only end badly. And then, when Lehman Bros fell, the financial system froze and world economy almost collapsed. Why?

The root cause wasnt just the reckless lending and the excessive risk taking. The problem at the core was a lack of transparency.​Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes


----------



## georgephillip

Chris said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> 
> 
> *But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?*
> 
> "Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
> 
> "Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
> 
> "We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
> 
> Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think Republicans would elect someone like Elizabeth Warren???
Click to expand...

Before Bernie Sanders maybe


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

georgephillip said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well...at the risk of being next up in the Logic Docket, what you're describing sounds suspiciously like slavery, to me:*
> 
> "Bloomberg View: When the New York City banker James Brown tallied his wealth in 1842, he had to look far below Wall Street to trace its origins. His investments in the American South exceeded $1.5 million, a quarter of which was directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations.
> 
> "Brown was among the world's most powerful dealers in raw cotton, and his familys firm, Brown Brothers & Co., served as one of the most important sources of capital and foreign exchange to the U.S. economy. Still, no small amount of his time was devoted to managing slaves from the study of his Leonard Street brownstone in Lower Manhattan."
> 
> How Slavery Led To Modern Capitalism
> 
> *Man's unlimited desire for wealth has brought this planet and specie to the brink of extinction; some capitalists find something to celebrate about that cosmic fallacy.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a book called Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery.  It's been a long time since I read it, but it does not define "Slavery" as a specific economic system, more an offense against Capitalism with specific comparisons between the slave laborers and laborers in the north.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that's correct if you consider slaves as unpaid labor only.
> According to a MOOC I just finished, slaves also served as capital in bond markets on both sides of the Atlantic.
Click to expand...

I am, sadly, able to believe that.  As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism?  Or do we need some other qualifier such as "integrated" "regulated" "fair" to disambiguate a system that treats humans as capital from the system that we have today?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

georgephillip said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?*
> 
> "Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
> 
> "Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
> 
> "We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
> 
> Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think Republicans would elect someone like Elizabeth Warren???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before Bernie Sanders maybe
Click to expand...


Hey, georgephillip, we cited the same article!


----------



## Chris

Not for nothing did US billionaire Warren Buffett call them the real &#8216;weapons of mass destruction&#8217;

By Margareta Pagano and Simon Evans
12 October 12 2008

The market is worth more than $516 trillion, (£303 trillion), roughly 10 times the value of the entire world&#8217;s output: it&#8217;s been called the &#8220;ticking time-bomb&#8221;.

 It&#8217;s a market in which the lead protagonists &#8211; typically aggressive, highly educated, and now wealthy young men &#8211; have flourished in the derivatives boom. But it&#8217;s a market that is set to come to a crashing halt &#8211; the Great Unwind has begun.

Last week the beginning of the end started for many hedge funds with the combination of diving market values and worried investors pulling out their cash for safer climes.

Some of the world&#8217;s biggest hedge funds &#8211; SAC Capital, Lone Pine and Tiger Global &#8211; all revealed they were sitting on double-digit losses this year. September&#8217;s falls wiped out any profits made in the rest of the year. Polygon, once a darling of the London hedge fund circuit, last week said it was capping the basic salaries of its managers to £100,000 each. Not bad for the average punter but some way off the tens of millions plundered by these hotshots during the good times. But few will be shedding any tears.

The complex and opaque derivatives markets in which these hedge funds played has been dubbed the world&#8217;s biggest black hole because they operate outside of the grasp of governments, tax inspectors and regulators. They operate in a parallel, shadow world to the rest of the banking system. They are private contracts between two companies or institutions which can&#8217;t be controlled or properly assessed. In themselves derivative contracts are not dangerous, but if one of them should go wrong &#8211; the bad 2 per cent as it&#8217;s been called &#8211; then it is the domino effect which could be so enormous and scary.

A £516 trillion derivatives ?time-bomb? | Did You Know


----------



## georgephillip

Zombie_Pundit said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a book called Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery.  It's been a long time since I read it, but it does not define "Slavery" as a specific economic system, more an offense against Capitalism with specific comparisons between the slave laborers and laborers in the north.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's correct if you consider slaves as unpaid labor only.
> According to a MOOC I just finished, slaves also served as capital in bond markets on both sides of the Atlantic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am, sadly, able to believe that.  As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism?  Or do we need some other qualifier such as "integrated" "regulated" "fair" to disambiguate a system that treats humans as capital from the system that we have today?
Click to expand...

I wish I had acquired the education that might allow me to give an adequate answer to your question. My formative years took place during the great compression, from about 1945 to 1970. In the mid '70s a single wage job paid me enough to cover rent on a brand new one-bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain an six year-old Chevy. Today, a single minimum wage job would put me under a bridge with a shopping cart and food stamps. I know our country resorted to slavery and genocide during its formative era, and sometimes it seems to me the former is making a comeback, of sorts. I'm not really sure if capitalism is even able to supply an adequate number of jobs for people today. If its private sector can't accomplish this fundamental economic task, the only option I see is for the public sector to step in the way it did with the New Deal.


----------



## georgephillip

Zombie_Pundit said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Republicans would elect someone like Elizabeth Warren???
> 
> 
> 
> Before Bernie Sanders maybe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, georgephillip, we cited the same article!
Click to expand...

I noticed Zombie_Pundit
I'm tempted to point out "great minds think alike"
But, I won't


----------



## Chris

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Chris said:


> From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.
> 
> Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.



Interesting...  I tried to start a thread on the 1986 tax bubble when I first arrived on this forum.  I got reppies for it, but no responses.  The distorted 1980s logic went something like this:
"If we're going to tax capital gains as income, then the middle income brackets must have a higher tax rate than the higher income brackets".
I would love it if someone could explain that 1980s tax bubble to me.  Because I still don't understand the logic behind that thing.

The reason I bring it up is the last time we taxed capital gains as income, the middle class wound up with a higher tax rate.

If I am in any way misreading the infamous tax bubble, please explain it to me.  I am not so proud that I cannot learn new things.


----------



## Andylusion

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course there is a desire for profit.   Again, if there was no desire for profit, they would not have invested money into creating the company in first place.
> 
> All the jobs that exist, only exist because of a desire for profit.   If you were running a lemonade stand, there would be only one reason to invest the money into buying the equipment and supplies, and hire people to operate a second lemonade stand.   Profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can accept most of what your post said. But this section I've quoted above raises some issues. And it illustrates nicely our divergence in how we think about human beings and the world.
> 
> You believe self-satisfaction through pursuit of capital is the prime virtue. But all the great world teachings consistently accuse selfish pursuits of muddying the waters. A person can operate a Lemonade stand for an infinite array of reasons. You identified one and called it the only one. A person can operate a Lemonade stand because she desires to service her community, who has helped raise her, educate her, and provide her with the social settings that have generated her feelings of gratitude. A person can operate a Lemonade stand because they wish to see children smile, ignoring the profit motive and being merely concerned with breaking even because the smiles from customers delights them beyond monetary possibilities.
> 
> In a warm and cherished community the people embrace one another based in gratitude and love. Profit pits each person in a community against each other for the sake of personal gain. Competition exists for each job, and for each winner, there are dozens of losers.
> In fact, the primary reason society has dismal people and dismal situations is the profit motive. In seeking and attaining great amounts of wealth the rich have learned it's profitable to hoard money, thus failing to circulate it from whence it came: society. Profit does not exist in a vacuum. It is the product of land, resources, labor, time and energy of all contributors in society, a global society now. Without each working part there is no profit generated. And in capitalism, the people who decide what to do with the profits is about 20-30 people, meaning, as is obvious, they pay themselves handsomely as if they were gods an "masters of the universe."
> 
> This is the pinnacle of profit: demagoguery. And without shame too: Are ?masters of the universe? born or bred? - FT.com
> 
> But I suspect you refuse to listen to obvious conclusions about profit. Instead let me reference the fact that all the great teachings of the last 4,000 years has taught that selfish pursuits (profit) is the root of all evil.
> 
> The Bible teaches "the love of money (profit) is the root of all evil." In many modern versions, "the love of money" is actually replaced by the word "profit."
> 
> The Buddha taught to end desire to attain satisfaction.
> 
> The Tao teaches this in verse 19:
> 
> Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom
> and the people will be a hundred times happier.
> Throw away morality and justice
> and people will do the right thing.
> Throw away industry and profit
> and there will be no thieves.
> 
> All of these are superficial outward forms alone;
> they are not sufficient in themselves.
> Just stay at the centre of the circle
> and let all things take their course.
> 
> It is more important to see the simplicity,
> to realise one&#8217;s true nature,
> to cast off selfishness and temper desire.
> 
> Profit is not virtuous. The desire to amass wealth is a vice. All world religions have taught this exact truth and yet a modern religiosity has challenged that called capitalism. W see the global results: unimaginable luxury for a few while the majority struggle to pay their bills and survive. Constant war because war is profitable and massive rates of incarceration because it too is profitable. Rampant drug abuse is a good thing because it fuels the industries of rehabilitations, methadone, pharmaceuticals like oxycotin, the police and prisons and the companies who supply the prison population. This is a vision of a society that is dystopian for the majority and utopian for a few.
Click to expand...


No, I didn't say, or suggest anything you just blathered on about. Saying "All the jobs that exist, only exist because of a desire for profit.", does not mean "self-satisfaction through pursuit of capital is the prime virtue".  Nor does 'profit' mean a desire to simply amass wealth. 

Then you made up crap.
*
"the love of money (profit) is the root of all evil."*

Not true.  The Bible does not say "profit".  "love of money" does not equal "profit".

1 Timothy 6 NIV
The Bible hub, contains 19 of the most widely recognized translations.   Not one says 'profit'.  Not even one.      Why?  Because if you go get the Orthodox Jewish translation, the Greek words used, specifically describe the 'desire' or 'coveting' money. 

In other words, making profit is not wrong.  Not according to this verse.  You desiring, or coveting the money others have earned... is.

Don't try and pretend the Bible is on your side of this argument.  It isn't.  In fact, the Bible condemns you.  Moving on.

*There are many people who profit from what they do, and they are not tied down to a love of money.
*
Go read "Winner Never Cheat".   Go read Alex Spanos, "Sharing the Wealth".    There are hundreds of examples, of people who engaged in profit throughout their whole lives, and were not tied down by the love of money.

Rick Baker created a company, and does so to make a profit.   He also does so because Timely Medical Alternatives, his company, saves lives.

Profit and positive beneficial motives are not mutually exclusive.   And truth is, in a Capitalist system, they are nearly symbiotic.   The whole reason a company is profitable, is because it is beneficial.   The only exceptions would be government run programs and companies, and companies dependent on government.

I don't care at all what Buddha or Tao taught.  Or anyone else for that matter.    Nifty, but irrelevant to me.

*And no, it is simply not true that profit pits people against each other.   Profit is mutually beneficial.    Lack of profit, is what pits people against each other.
*
Let's say for example that there is a completely selfish, completely greedy person, who happens to be extremely wealthy and has tons of resources.   Without a profit motive, why would he share any of what he has with anyone else?    Well he wouldn't.

The reason a super wealth rich person, shares what they have with everyone else, is because of the profit motive.

Look at the history of the Soviet Union.   Communist party leaders had yachts, private resorts, stores of food only available to government officials, homes and land for personal use, money and wealth..... all kept to themselves.   None for the masses under the Communist system.

Why?  Because there was no profit in selling stuff to the people, so they didn't.

When those same government run enterprises were privatized, the first thing they did was start selling to the public at a profit.

Same is true in Pre-78 China.   You claim that profit doesn't have to be the motivation for opening a lemonade stand.

So why didn't the Chinese prior to 1978, do that?   Where were all the Chinese trying to be altruistic?  Where was the "desires to service the community"?    Didn't the Chinese prior to 78, want "a warm and cherished community the people embrace one another based in gratitude and love"?

People were starving to death in China.   Entire communities lived on less than $2 a day!   Where were all those people with "desires to service the community" who wanted "a warm and cherished community the people embrace in gratitude and love"!    WHERE WAS IT?!

But guess what happened after 78, when China allowed people to make a profit, and openly encourages Chinese to "get rich"?    All of sudden, stores opened up, food shops opened, and people started getting food.

Why?  Profit.

*Take Shuanghui International.   Shuanghui, was created by a local government in 1958.   Producing pork products, it was a net exporter of pork.
*
Now think about that.... why were they exporting food, during the years of mass starvation?   People could barely get rice, and here they were exporting meat products outside China.

Why?  Profit.  They could profit from selling outside China.  Not inside China.  They had a socialist system, and no profit.

Then in 1984, after the 78 Chinese liberalization process was well underway, the company was privatized, and profit was legal.   Today they have 13 processing facilities.   60 thousand employees, now have jobs because of profit.     The company is now a net importer of food products, with over $200 Million dollars worth of imported pork from the US, which benefits us in export sales, and benefits them in now feeding their domestic population.... because of profit.

They have even purchased Smithfield Foods, for a mere $4.7 Billion dollars of direct investment into the US economy.   The plan to increase production, and employment, specifically to increase exports of pork to China.....  all because of profit.

*See here's the difference between us.    You have all these made up fantasies, built around your own personal definition of what is morally right and wrong.*

I don't really care about any of your moral arguments, but it's just your opinion of what is moral.   It's not based on anything other than what you believe is right and wrong in your head, and those who agree with your opinion.

But that's just you, and those like you.   Everyone else who disagrees with your opinion of morals and right and wrong, are just as valid.

So all your 'moral arguments' to me are irrelevant.

I'm not looking at this from some sort of philosophical debate.  I'm looking at this from the perspective of how the world works.    How does reality work?    Not how 'should' it work.   How it 'should' work is irrelevant.

In my moral judgement, no one should ever murder or harm or steal, or anything bad.  Thus no one should ever need police.   No one should ever need to defend themselves.   And that's morally right!

Now when I compare how I think the world should work, verses how it really is, I have two options.  I can be bitter, and complain, and demand everyone change, and write 3-page essays on how my views are correct....    Or I can accept this is how reality is.  People do bad things.    Thus we need police, and to defend ourselves, and laws.

Same is true of you, and your made up utopian vision.    Wouldn't it be great if everyone just worked together in that workers paradise you mentioned?  Wouldn't it be great if those Chinese in pre-78 China opened up the lemonade stand, and gave everyone food for the benefit of society, and loving embrace and blaw blaw blaw?

But welcome to reality.  Without profit, people don't do things.   Without profit, everyone lives on less than $2 a day.  Without profit, massive starvation while exporting food to other countries.   Without profit, impoverishment and misery is the standard of the land.

This is reality.   Everyone that has pushed for your utopian view, has resulted in hellish nightmare.   That's simply how it is.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

gnarlylove said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course there is a desire for profit.   Again, if there was no desire for profit, they would not have invested money into creating the company in first place.
> 
> All the jobs that exist, only exist because of a desire for profit.   If you were running a lemonade stand, there would be only one reason to invest the money into buying the equipment and supplies, and hire people to operate a second lemonade stand.   Profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can accept most of what your post said. But this section I've quoted above raises some issues. And it illustrates nicely our divergence in how we think about human beings and the world.
> 
> You believe self-satisfaction through pursuit of capital is the prime virtue. But all the great world teachings consistently accuse selfish pursuits of muddying the waters. A person can operate a Lemonade stand for an infinite array of reasons. You identified one and called it the only one. A person can operate a Lemonade stand because she desires to service her community, who has helped raise her, educate her, and provide her with the social settings that have generated her feelings of gratitude. A person can operate a Lemonade stand because they wish to see children smile, ignoring the profit motive and being merely concerned with breaking even because the smiles from customers delights them beyond monetary possibilities.
> 
> In a warm and cherished community the people embrace one another based in gratitude and love. Profit pits each person in a community against each other for the sake of personal gain. Competition exists for each job, and for each winner, there are dozens of losers.
> In fact, the primary reason society has dismal people and dismal situations is the profit motive. In seeking and attaining great amounts of wealth the rich have learned it's profitable to hoard money, thus failing to circulate it from whence it came: society. Profit does not exist in a vacuum. It is the product of land, resources, labor, time and energy of all contributors in society, a global society now. Without each working part there is no profit generated. And in capitalism, the people who decide what to do with the profits is about 20-30 people, meaning, as is obvious, they pay themselves handsomely as if they were gods an "masters of the universe."
> 
> This is the pinnacle of profit: demagoguery. And without shame too: Are ?masters of the universe? born or bred? - FT.com
> 
> But I suspect you refuse to listen to obvious conclusions about profit. Instead let me reference the fact that all the great teachings of the last 4,000 years has taught that selfish pursuits (profit) is the root of all evil.
> 
> The Bible teaches "the love of money (profit) is the root of all evil." In many modern versions, "the love of money" is actually replaced by the word "profit."
> 
> The Buddha taught to end desire to attain satisfaction.
> 
> The Tao teaches this in verse 19:
> 
> Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom
> and the people will be a hundred times happier.
> Throw away morality and justice
> and people will do the right thing.
> Throw away industry and profit
> and there will be no thieves.
> 
> All of these are superficial outward forms alone;
> they are not sufficient in themselves.
> Just stay at the centre of the circle
> and let all things take their course.
> 
> It is more important to see the simplicity,
> to realise ones true nature,
> to cast off selfishness and temper desire.
> 
> Profit is not virtuous. The desire to amass wealth is a vice. All world religions have taught this exact truth and yet a modern religiosity has challenged that called capitalism. W see the global results: unimaginable luxury for a few while the majority struggle to pay their bills and survive. Constant war because war is profitable and massive rates of incarceration because it too is profitable. Rampant drug abuse is a good thing because it fuels the industries of rehabilitations, methadone, pharmaceuticals like oxycotin, the police and prisons and the companies who supply the prison population. This is a vision of a society that is dystopian for the majority and utopian for a few.
Click to expand...


Gnarlylove,
In that person's version of the Bible, Jesus says:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone; unless the accused is a taxman, in which case USE A BAZOOKA!"
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's, but you assholes just lost this coin.  With that Jesus pocketed the coin, and the people were amazed."


----------



## Andylusion

Chris said:


> From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.
> 
> Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.



Raising the minimum wage always results in jobs lost.   People earning one wage now, earn zero.

The minimum wage in 1941, was 30¢ per hour.   Calculating inflation, that would be $4.80 today.

Unskilled low wage labor, was lower then, than today. 

Further, the rich don't have 'money', they have assets.  Warren Buffet, doesn't have billions in dollars.  He actually only earns $100K.   Most of wealth is in assets.

The amount of money collected from high taxes was actually far lower, than how much we're collecting in taxes today.

No evidence that shows higher top marginal taxes increase revenue. | ObjectoBot

There is so much evidence showing this, that you'd have to be a very ignorant person to not know.






Numbers are adjusted for inflation.






Higher tax rates, lower tax revenue.






Higher top marginal rate, lower tax revenue as a percent of GDP.

In fact, Bill Clinton's own team of economic advisers back in the early 90s, researched the effects of lowering tax rates in the 80s, and concluded the massive influx of money into the government, and the rebounding economy, were both directly related to Reagan lowering taxes.

Of course Clinton swept the report under the rug, and never mentioned it.

But the point is, you pretty much have to be completely ignorant to not know this.  It's recorded is hundreds of places, from dozens of sources.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> What point do you imagine you (and grandma) are making here?
> Are you implying private banks weren't behind more than 84% of sub prime mortgages in 2006?


Imply hell! let me say it straight out. The banks did what the government told them to do. The fault is the government's. No matter how you try to pass it off on the banks whose only blame is trying not to lose too much money with low interest toxic loans. If there is another crisis in the making, look to our politicians in Washington, D.C., not to the banks.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.
> 
> Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raising the minimum wage always results in jobs lost.   People earning one wage now, earn zero.
Click to expand...

Wild claim, no substantiation.  



Androw said:


> Further, the rich don't have 'money', they have assets.  Warren Buffet, doesn't have billions in dollars.  He actually only earns $100K.   Most of wealth is in assets.


Are you including "liquid assets"?  How do you know so much Warren Buffet's portfolio as to suggest he has zero liquid assets?  And are you allowed to be sharing that very personal information with us?  Or are you just making that up?
Doesn't matter.  Assets are measured dollars which is why Buffet is called a Billionaire.



Androw said:


> The amount of money collected from high taxes was actually far lower, than how much we're collecting in taxes today.


We all know the Laffer Curve
Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Androw said:


> There is so much evidence showing this, that you'd have to be a very ignorant person to not know.


You seem to be assuming that the Laffer Curve indicates that the lower the tax rate is, the higher the revenue.  That is not what it says.  You're supposed to use it to find the point of maximum revenue.  You know, set its derivative to zero, check that you didn't stumble on any local maxima or worse yet, any minima.





Androw said:


> In fact, Bill Clinton's own team of economic advisers back in the early 90s, researched the effects of lowering tax rates in the 80s, and concluded the massive influx of money into the government, and the rebounding economy, were both directly related to Reagan lowering taxes.
> 
> Of course Clinton swept the report under the rug, and never mentioned it.


Under the rug with the Foster murder weapon, right?



Androw said:


> But the point is, you pretty much have to be completely ignorant to not know this.  It's recorded is hundreds of places, from dozens of sources.


I think Chris knows the Laffer curve.  Maybe it's you who needs a refresher.
Chris suggested we tax capital gains as income.  Capital gains were taxed differently under Reagan (the champion of the Laffer curve) than they are now.  Your hero Reagan taxed capital gains, dude.  

So tell me, what are your thoughts on the Tax Reform Act of 1986?


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> First that statistic was used by you to indicate how many jobs have been created since the global crisis. Now you are using it in regards to jobs that are outsourced. Now which is it? It cannot be both since outsourcing has been occurring since the late 70s and the crisis began in 07.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that you have run out of argument so now you are resorting to absolute false hoods. I have never used that statistic for anything other than representing the relative number of jobs created in the US for every job off shored. This did not come from a blog, or an opinion piece, IT CAME FROM A STUDY. Studies trump opinions every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you provide that study?
> 
> Does that study say that the entire history of outsourcing (1970s onward) has created more jobs then were lost? Or does the study only speak to 2007 onward? The difference is huge.
> 
> In the most recent crisis millions of medium-high wage jobs were lost and fewer of higher wage jobs recovered. Instead, low wage jobs came back replacing the high paying jobs. Didn't you say you wanted higher wage jobs?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would like the minimum wage to go up, but we have really not discussed that issue. I have posted the link 4 or 5 times in the last few days, but here it is again. That you did not notice it speaks to your choosing not to read about facts.Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says"More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment."

Think maybe you'll read it this time?


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> ADVENTURES IN CORRECTING THE LOGIC OF OTHERS
> 
> Tonight's Episode: *Androw*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Argument from incredulity*
> That's an absurd assumption.  Someone might build a house because they want a brand new house, or specific customization, or for whatever reason they want what they want.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is STILL NOT A MARKET VALUE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed "_New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house._"
> 
> *You actually claimed that.*  And you defended your claim with "_Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house._"
> 
> Which is...
> *Argument from incredulity*
> 
> You can't think of any other possibility, therefore no other possibility exists.  Which is a fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why would you claim it was cheaper?  You just said that new construction would always be cheaper.  Now you say the value cannot be determined; ergo, new construction may not be cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> You just said that they couldn't know that!
> 
> 
> The market could go bust and they would cease construction to minimize their losses or they would build specialty homes.  That's just two possibilities.
> You claim there are none.
> 
> 
> Now this is an interesting question, Androw.  Finally, Androw has something constructive to add.
> Let me help you to prove it without you appealing to your own authority.
> Understanding The Case-Shiller Housing Index
> House price index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Well Done!
> 
> It only took you a few posts and twice as many ad hominems.
> 
> But we got there, people.  We got there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> If not for you [gnarlylove] quoting them, I would not have seen their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I should encourage others to quote me until you learn how logic works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just baffled, because you never seem to make such idiotic claims to this point, so I'm shocked you praised such logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't sulk, kiddo, you sorta got the point in the end. (pun?)
Click to expand...

He has had the point all along. When do you expect to arrive? When discussing new construction the "appraisers" must look at the plans, the size of the house, where it is located, determine what similar new construction sold for then ESTIMATE its value so as to set a fair price. Having been in the real estate business while pursuing my graduate work it became that "appraisers" can be off either way as to the actual value of the house and the price at which it should be sold. Until about 1995 the "appraisers" mostly took the price to construct from the builder giving the builder huge profits in many cases. In the mid 90's our state's laws took the appraiser out of the brokerage business such that they could hold them responsible for more accurate estimates and insisted they complete a course in appraisal before getting their license. Things changed for the better toward the end of Clinton's term and we started to get appraisals which adhered to value.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> ......


...

A successful economic system revolves around the truism, "man has an unlimited desire for wealth." If it doesn't, it fails, MISERABLY.





> If we look at the coal industry in the late 19th and early twentieth century, paying their employees in company scrip, forcing employees to do business with the infamous company stores, abolishing all competition for commodities needed by the employees,
> does such a scenario to your mind follow the model of Capitalism or Feudalism...or some other model?


I choose to discuss the here and now. It doesn't matter what happened 100 years ago. Our government has taken over the role of the unions as to OSHA in spite of some failures, including coal mine disasters.


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
Click to expand...

Horse manure! You have tried to make that stupid comment before. It was not right then and it certainly has not gotten more right.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> without the profit motive there would be little prosperity as witnessed with every experiment with Socialism/Communism, or more simply ANY EXPERIMENT WITH MARXISM having miserably failed. When an economy veers away from reasonably regulated capitalism the result is the spreading around poverty and misery. The "lofty ideals  of Marxism" simply do  not work in the real world, and to keep the high achievers in a Marxist economic/government system it must relatively quickly become a dictatorship. That is another simply explained situation. "The from everyone according to his ability and to everyone according to his needs," is doomed to failure BECAUSE of that human behavior. The high achievers get tired of carrying the load for the low on non-achievers and leave, requiring a dictatorship/authoritative government to keep those high achievers producing. Yet, even they stop achieving and the result is: a few leaders get rich and everyone else is stuck in poverty such as the US has never experienced.
> 
> A successful economic system revolves around the truism, "man has an unlimited desire for wealth." If it doesn't, it fails, MISERABLY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we look at the coal industry in the late 19th and early twentieth century, paying their employees in company scrip, forcing employees to do business with the infamous company stores, abolishing all competition for commodities needed by the employees,
> does such a scenario to your mind follow the model of Capitalism or Feudalism...or some other model?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Well...at the risk of being next up in the Logic Docket, what you're describing sounds suspiciously like slavery, to me:*
> 
> "Bloomberg View: When the New York City banker James Brown tallied his wealth in 1842, he had to look far below Wall Street to trace its origins. His investments in the American South exceeded $1.5 million, a quarter of which was directly bound up in the ownership of slave plantations.
> 
> "Brown was among the world's most powerful dealers in raw cotton, and his familys firm, Brown Brothers & Co., served as one of the most important sources of capital and foreign exchange to the U.S. economy. Still, no small amount of his time was devoted to managing slaves from the study of his Leonard Street brownstone in Lower Manhattan."
> 
> How Slavery Led To Modern Capitalism
> 
> *Man's unlimited desire for wealth has brought this planet and specie to the brink of extinction; some capitalists find something to celebrate about that cosmic fallacy.*
Click to expand...

Still ate up with absurdities George? Huff Post, wow. Got any more left wing sources you want to post showing their opinion pieces?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that you have run out of argument so now you are resorting to absolute false hoods. I have never used that statistic for anything other than representing the relative number of jobs created in the US for every job off shored. This did not come from a blog, or an opinion piece, IT CAME FROM A STUDY. Studies trump opinions every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide that study?
> 
> Does that study say that the entire history of outsourcing (1970s onward) has created more jobs then were lost? Or does the study only speak to 2007 onward? The difference is huge.
> 
> In the most recent crisis millions of medium-high wage jobs were lost and fewer of higher wage jobs recovered. Instead, low wage jobs came back replacing the high paying jobs. Didn't you say you wanted higher wage jobs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I would like the minimum wage to go up, but we have really not discussed that issue. I have posted the link 4 or 5 times in the last few days, but here it is again. That you did not notice it speaks to your choosing not to read about facts.Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says"More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment."
Click to expand...


Okay, now that is a fantastic point.  Global Trade does create US jobs, but not so directly.  Jobs that were lost are just not coming back, and it is difficult for people to abandon their whole way of life (Detroit?).  

I think we need to be very specific in the qualifiers of our claims.

Some basic questions:
Does outsourcing offset the job loss by creating an equal or greater number of the same jobs as those outsourced?
Does Global Trade, as an umbrella term that includes the freedom to outsource, provide new opportunities for job growth?
We have to make sure we carefully examine the data presented in any article attempting to answer such questions.  here is an article advocating careful examination of the data:
Ralph Gomory: Does Outsourcing Create Jobs?
While this sounds impressive, it is probably wise to take a hard look at the data before attempting to reduce unemployment in the U.S. by advocating more outsourcing.​What the article to which I link lacks is an assessment of other business opportunities opened up as we participate more in the Global Marketplace.  There are secondary and tertiary effects that few of these articles cover.  The effects are not the benefits of the profit margin of an outsourcing company but new companies that spring up in response to Global Demand.  Participating in the Global Marketplace need not be a "race to the bottom", unless we stay committed to competing for labor in the industries of our yesteryear.


----------



## Indeependent

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What point do you imagine you (and grandma) are making here?
> Are you implying private banks weren't behind more than 84% of sub prime mortgages in 2006?
> 
> 
> 
> Imply hell! let me say it straight out. The banks did what the government told them to do. The fault is the government's. No matter how you try to pass it off on the banks whose only blame is trying not to lose too much money with low interest toxic loans. If there is another crisis in the making, look to our politicians in Washington, D.C., not to the banks.
Click to expand...


Wow.  You must be privy to secret meetings between lots politicians and loan officers.
You must have 20/20 hearing.
Any proof or is this more bloviating on your part?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?*
> 
> "Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
> 
> "Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
> 
> "We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
> 
> Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
Click to expand...

Neither party is going to bite the hand that feeds them, and the politicians can't stand success, they wouldn't  have a point to run on.


----------



## dnsmith35

Androw said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Empty claims.  Zero evidence.
> 
> The crash was caused by sub-prime loans.  We know this because no other derivative markets had a problem.
> 
> Second, government created derivative back in the 60s and 70s.   The very first derivative was created by Genie Mac.
> 
> Third, housing prices do not go up or down, based on derivatives.  Otherwise, the prices would not have dropped.  Prices dropped first.  Then derivatives based on those prices dropped.
> 
> This indicates there was a price bubble.   Which based on the information I gave before, clearly there was.
> 
> Fourth, that price bubble started in 1997, before Bush became president, and before the SEC did anything you suggest.
> 
> In other words, what you said was wrong.
Click to expand...

Correct! Not only did your graph showed the start of the bubble, this one does too.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The up swing started in 1997 and inflation of price to value started in 1999.


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empty claims.  Zero evidence.
> 
> The crash was caused by sub-prime loans.  We know this because no other derivative markets had a problem.
> 
> Second, government created derivative back in the 60s and 70s.   The very first derivative was created by Genie Mac.
> 
> Third, housing prices do not go up or down, based on derivatives.  Otherwise, the prices would not have dropped.  Prices dropped first.  Then derivatives based on those prices dropped.
> 
> This indicates there was a price bubble.   Which based on the information I gave before, clearly there was.
> 
> Fourth, that price bubble started in 1997, before Bush became president, and before the SEC did anything you suggest.
> 
> In other words, what you said was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did 4% of American homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of Iceland?
Click to expand...

Different problems stupid!


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a book called Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery.  It's been a long time since I read it, but it does not define "Slavery" as a specific economic system, more an offense against Capitalism with specific comparisons between the slave laborers and laborers in the north.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's correct if you consider slaves as unpaid labor only.
> According to a MOOC I just finished, slaves also served as capital in bond markets on both sides of the Atlantic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am, sadly, able to believe that.  As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism?
Click to expand...

Not in any intelligent manner. Slavery was evil, but it was not the back bone of the industrial rise in capitalism. Once the agrarian era was over, and it became obvious that the concept of capital is the excessive production of labor had been totally wrong, capitalism was born. Then we realized it needed regulation. It is the only economic system which makes the most people and nations prosperous.


----------



## Indeependent

dnsmith35 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Empty claims.  Zero evidence.
> 
> The crash was caused by sub-prime loans.  We know this because no other derivative markets had a problem.
> 
> Second, government created derivative back in the 60s and 70s.   The very first derivative was created by Genie Mac.
> 
> Third, housing prices do not go up or down, based on derivatives.  Otherwise, the prices would not have dropped.  Prices dropped first.  Then derivatives based on those prices dropped.
> 
> This indicates there was a price bubble.   Which based on the information I gave before, clearly there was.
> 
> Fourth, that price bubble started in 1997, before Bush became president, and before the SEC did anything you suggest.
> 
> In other words, what you said was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did 4% of American homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of Iceland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Different problems stupid!
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, DNS!  What an intelligent response!
Sub-Prime Loans <3% of the crash.
And you call "stupid"?
Whew!


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.
> 
> Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.


Yes, raise the minimum wage. But you make a common mistake that it was the high taxes on the rich and capital rather than prosperity happened in spite of those high taxes. JFK was right in lowering the top rate from 91% to 70%. And prosperity has continued, only we have a much larger % of our population enjoying a reasonably good life whereas most our "poverty stricken" people are only relatively poor. IE, they have less wealth than the next higher quintiles.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just baffled, because you never seem to make such idiotic claims to this point, so I'm shocked you praised such logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't sulk, kiddo, you sorta got the *point in the end*. (pun?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He has had the point all along.*
Click to expand...

Okay, now that's funny on a number of levels.



dnsmith35 said:


> When do you expect to arrive? When discussing new construction the "appraisers" must look at the plans, the size of the house, where it is located, determine what similar new construction sold for then ESTIMATE its value so as to set a fair price. Having been in the real estate business while pursuing my graduate work it became that "appraisers" can be off either way as to the actual value of the house and the price at which it should be sold. Until about 1995 the "appraisers" mostly took the price to construct from the builder giving the builder huge profits in many cases. In the mid 90's our state's laws took the appraiser out of the brokerage business such that they could hold them responsible for more accurate estimates and insisted they complete a course in appraisal before getting their license. Things changed for the better toward the end of Clinton's term and we started to get appraisals which adhered to value.


I wouldn't expect a price index to include a market value on the home until it had sold a few times.  Is the resale not the real test of value?  Wasn't that the original point of contention?
But I digress...
I don't disagree that some form of appraisal is needed for setting a price on a new thing.  Of course, the market will provide the real answer.  
Hypothetical:
If you started to build a development of some 30 homes, had the model homes appraised, was happy with that price because it was around your target and then started getting sales based on that projected price range... things would be great, right?
Now, let's throw in market forces... the housing market heats up... prices of existing homes all around your development are spiking.  Do you
A) increase your prices because the market will bear more
B) keep your prices the same, ride through on easy sales
C) lower your prices because you're a real nice guy
Do market forces have no effect on the final sale price, is what I'm asking.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Context, quote from earlier post: "A successful economic system revolves around the truism, "man has an unlimited desire for wealth." If it doesn't, it fails, MISERABLY."



dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we look at the coal industry in the late 19th and early twentieth century, paying their employees in company scrip, forcing employees to do business with the infamous company stores, abolishing all competition for commodities needed by the employees,
> does such a scenario to your mind follow the model of Capitalism or Feudalism...or some other model?
> 
> 
> 
> I choose to discuss the here and now. It doesn't matter what happened 100 years ago. Our government has taken over the role of the unions as to OSHA in spite of some failures, including coal mine disasters.
Click to expand...

Then onto the subject of "truisms"

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"


----------



## gnarlylove

Zombie_Pundit said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a book called Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery.  It's been a long time since I read it, but it does not define "Slavery" as a specific economic system, more an offense against Capitalism with specific comparisons between the slave laborers and laborers in the north.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's correct if you consider slaves as unpaid labor only.
> According to a MOOC I just finished, slaves also served as capital in bond markets on both sides of the Atlantic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am, sadly, able to believe that.  As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism?  Or do we need some other qualifier such as "integrated" "regulated" "fair" to disambiguate a system that treats humans as capital from the system that we have today?
Click to expand...


Today compared to two centuries ago is improvement. However, I don't think we've reached the qualifier "fair." Countless millions are systematically denied basic rights, including the right to exist domestically (homeless, propertyless) and all over the globe (often at the behest of US and the West in general for the sake of open markets for western corporations). Would you agree?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

gnarlylove said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's correct if you consider slaves as unpaid labor only.
> According to a MOOC I just finished, slaves also served as capital in bond markets on both sides of the Atlantic.
> 
> 
> 
> I am, sadly, able to believe that.  As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism?  Or do we need some other qualifier such as "integrated" "regulated" "fair" to disambiguate a system that treats humans as capital from the system that we have today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today compared to two centuries ago is improvement. However, I don't think we've reached the qualifier "fair." Countless millions are systematically denied basic rights, including the right to exist domestically (homeless, propertyless) and all over the globe (often at the behest of US and the West in general for the sake of open markets for western corporations). Would you agree?
Click to expand...


Okay, there is a dangerous double-edge sword at play here.  Global trade has, in point of fact, increased the real wage in developing countries.  Global trade has also, in point of fact, set up sweatshops so terrible that the workers leap from windows.
So my answer is I don't know.  I want that real wage increased.  Global trade is a good path to world peace.  Little girls making Nike shoes is why I don't buy Nikes.  

We need not trade with nations that enslave people.  C'mon, be fair, Nike didn't open up a plant in Sudan.  That being said, I don't know how to implement global trade without recognizing the sovereignty of foreign nations over their own people.  Maybe, just maybe, as these other nations go through many of the pains we went through, these other countries will go through those pains more quickly and with less pain overall than we experienced.  Maybe we can try to set a good example?


----------



## AntiParty

Godboy said:


> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.



I don't know how many likes this statement had, maybe 30/40. 

I'm curious why Capitalism is now the "helper" of the poor when every post up until now has said, "Socialism and it's welfare programs costing us yadda yadda"...

The truth is neither Capitalism or Socialism have anything to do with the "Welfare State". 

So I'm extremely confused about the amount of likes when someone stated "Capitalism helped the poor".....I would be just as confused if a Socialist stated they were the reason the poor lived in such good conditions today...

AGAIN, Welfare has nothing to do with Socialism or Capitalism........


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> 
> 
> *But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?*
> 
> "Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
> 
> "Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
> 
> "We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
> 
> Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither party is going to bite the hand that feeds them, and the politicians can't stand success, they wouldn't  have a point to run on.
Click to expand...

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

"Many actors obviously played a role in this story. 

"Some of the actors were in the public sector and some of them were in the private sector. 

"But the public sector agencies were acting at behest of the private sector. 

"Its not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, 'Lets abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!' Or the SEC spontaneously happened to have the bright idea of relaxing capital requirements on the investment banks. Or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of its own accord abruptly had the idea of preempting state laws protecting borrowers. 

"These agencies of government were being strenuously lobbied to do the very things that would benefit the financial sector and their managers and traders. 

"And behind it all, was the drive for short-term profits."

*Maybe we can all agree to blame the lobbyists?*


----------



## georgephillip

Chris said:


> From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.
> 
> Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.


Apply a property tax to intangible property like stocks and bonds, and eliminate the FICA cap.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What point do you imagine you (and grandma) are making here?
> Are you implying private banks weren't behind more than 84% of sub prime mortgages in 2006?
> 
> 
> 
> Imply hell! let me say it straight out. The banks did what the government told them to do. The fault is the government's. No matter how you try to pass it off on the banks whose only blame is trying not to lose too much money with low interest toxic loans. If there is another crisis in the making, look to our politicians in Washington, D.C., not to the banks.
Click to expand...

*Of course, those banks hired the lobbyists to tell government which laws to pass, right?*

"Even this morning, November 22, 2011, a seemingly smart guy like Joe Kernan was saying on CNBCs Squawkbox, 'When the losses at Fannie and Freddie reach $200 billion how can the deniers say that Fannie and Freddie were enablers for a lot of the housing crisis. When it gets up to that levels, how can they say that they were only into sub-prime late, and they were only in it a little bit?'

"The reason that people can say that is because it is true. 

"The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy."

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


----------



## Andylusion

Indeependent said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What point do you imagine you (and grandma) are making here?
> Are you implying private banks weren't behind more than 84% of sub prime mortgages in 2006?
> 
> 
> 
> Imply hell! let me say it straight out. The banks did what the government told them to do. The fault is the government's. No matter how you try to pass it off on the banks whose only blame is trying not to lose too much money with low interest toxic loans. If there is another crisis in the making, look to our politicians in Washington, D.C., not to the banks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  You must be privy to secret meetings between lots politicians and loan officers.
> You must have 20/20 hearing.
> Any proof or is this more bloviating on your part?
Click to expand...


We have provided proof dozens of times in this thread alone.   Possibly hundreds of times throughout the forum.

The Clinton Administration, and the Democrats, both pushed banks to make bad loans.   They were very very open about it.   They even had public announcements of their success in forcing banks to make bad loans, and even openly admitted the default rate would be higher on these bad loans.

[ame=http://youtu.be/PEoqKYCMDmc]1998: Andrew Cuomo admits Forcing Banks to Make Affirmative Action Loans - YouTube[/ame]

Andrew Cuomo, praising the actions of the Federal Government forcing banks to make bad loans, that he admits will have a higher risk, and a higher default rate.   1998.

I have on my computer right now, a court document, of a lawsuit by Acorn, against a bank to make more sub-prime loans.   The document includes the name Barack Obama.

This claim that we have been saying over and over, is a well established documented fact.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What point do you imagine you (and grandma) are making here?
> Are you implying private banks weren't behind more than 84% of sub prime mortgages in 2006?
> Bill left in 2001, remember, Comrade?
> The richest 1% of the evil 1% own Wall Street banks, and they're instigating the next crisis as we speak. Maybe you can outsource Goldman Sachs?
Click to expand...


LOL, every time government controls free markets it makes things worse.  Then you find that a reason for MORE control over markets.  See Einstein's definition of insanity.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Power hungry politicians trying to buy votes caused a crisis then pointed fingers at businesses rather than accept the blame for their own actions.  Then they appeal to the greed and wealth envy of their minions to pound the message home.
> 
> Yep, business as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Politicians from both major parties who depend on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements did their parts in creating the crisis, but it was private bankers resorting to an epidemic of control accounting fraud (80% by lenders) that were the biggest culprits in The Mess.
> 
> The current Administration then did its part by not prosecuting a single major financial figure in the greatest looting of the US economy since the Great Depression.*
> 
> "The Mess
> The economy was at risk of a deep recession after the dotcom bubble burst in early 2000; this situation was compounded by the September 11 terrorist attacks that followed in 2001. In response, central banks around the world tried to stimulate the economy. They created capital liquidity through a reduction in interest rates.
> 
> "In turn, investors sought higher returns through riskier investments. Lenders took on greater risks too, and approved subprime mortgage loans to borrowers with poor credit.
> 
> Consumer demand drove the housing bubble to all-time highs in the summer of 2005, which ultimately collapsed in August of 2006. (For an in-depth discussion of these events, see The Fuel That Fed The Subprime Meltdown.)
> 
> "The end result of these key events was increased foreclosure activity, large lenders and hedge funds declaring bankruptcy, and fears regarding further decreases in economic growth and consumer spending.
> 
> "So who's to blame? Let's take a look at the key players
> 
> Biggest Culprit: The Lenders
> Most of the blame should be pointed at the mortgage originators (lenders) for creating these problems. It was the lenders who ultimately lent funds to people with poor credit and a high risk of default. (To learn more about subprime lending, see Subprime Is Often Subpar.)
> 
> Who Is To Blame For The Subprime Crisis?
Click to expand...


You missed the biggest one.  The housing bubble which was caused by government.  When you flood the market with free money and force banks to lend to more people, then the price of housing raises ever artificially higher.  Then when the economy goes into a recession and people can't pay, housing not only drops but the bubble bursts as well. Then people who were OK are suddenly under water.  Which is exactly what happened.

Clinton turned what should have been a normal recession into a great recession.  W didn't help, he continued the policy.  But Clinton started the policy.  Only blinders on Democrats don't see that.  Government?  That's the solution, it can't be the problem!


----------



## kaz

Chris said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standards were lowered to increase private profits stemming from an epidemic of mortgage fraud on behalf of Wall Street and the 1%. Sounds like business as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
Click to expand...


LOL, now there wasn't even a housing bubble.  You can't baaa -ck that up.  You people explain how Jamestown happened.

Do even know what derivatives are Chris?


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?*
> 
> "Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
> 
> "Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
> 
> "We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
> 
> Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
Click to expand...


Whenever something goes wrong, the left instantly blames big business, and makes this claim that government is somehow in the pocket of big business.

But this very topic disproves that entire concept.

The big banks were completely against sub-prime loans to begin with.  Default rates of CRA loans were easily double that of conventional mortgages.

None of the banks wanted the CRA, or sub-prime to begin with.   The only reason CRA and sub-prime loans existed is because government forced them to.

And of course the government isn't going to back track on this.   They all believe that home ownership is inherently good.   Barnie Frank even said there was no bubble at all.

[ame=http://youtu.be/iW5qKYfqALE]Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble? - YouTube[/ame]

2005, no bubble, no problem, not a dot.com.   There will be no collapse, and those of us on our committee will continue to push for more home ownership.

Again, has nothing to do with 'government is in the pocket of business' bull crap.... it's government pushing this agenda.    They were warned there was a price bubble, and they ignored it.


----------



## bripat9643

AntiParty said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many likes this statement had, maybe 30/40.
> 
> I'm curious why Capitalism is now the "helper" of the poor when every post up until now has said, "Socialism and it's welfare programs costing us yadda yadda"...
> 
> The truth is neither Capitalism or Socialism have anything to do with the "Welfare State".
> 
> So I'm extremely confused about the amount of likes when someone stated "Capitalism helped the poor".....I would be just as confused if a Socialist stated they were the reason the poor lived in such good conditions today...
> 
> AGAIN, Welfare has nothing to do with Socialism or Capitalism........
Click to expand...


Before capitalism, the poor starved on a regular basis.  They had no healthcare, no clothing, no food, no television, no cell phones, no central heating, no air conditioning, no nothing.   The poor live like kings compared to how they lived before capitalism.

Your claim that welfare has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism is one of the most hilarious statements ever posted to this forum.

Welfare doesn't really help the poor, but it sure costs a lot of money.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?*
> 
> "Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
> 
> "Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
> 
> "We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
> 
> Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> Neither party is going to bite the hand that feeds them, and the politicians can't stand success, they wouldn't  have a point to run on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
> 
> "Many actors obviously played a role in this story.
> 
> "Some of the actors were in the public sector and some of them were in the private sector.
> 
> "But the public sector agencies were acting at behest of the private sector.
> 
> "Its not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, 'Lets abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!' Or the SEC spontaneously happened to have the bright idea of relaxing capital requirements on the investment banks. Or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of its own accord abruptly had the idea of preempting state laws protecting borrowers.
> 
> "These agencies of government were being strenuously lobbied to do the very things that would benefit the financial sector and their managers and traders.
> 
> "And behind it all, was the drive for short-term profits."
> 
> *Maybe we can all agree to blame the lobbyists?*
Click to expand...


*Its not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, 'Lets abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!*

Still waiting for the tiniest bit of proof that this repeal had anything to do with the real estate buubble or the crash.


----------



## kaz

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> 
> 
> *But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?*
> 
> "Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
> 
> "Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
> 
> "We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
> 
> Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither party is going to bite the hand that feeds them, and the politicians can't stand success, they wouldn't  have a point to run on.
Click to expand...


Yes, then when Democrats say that, they follow up with we need more government.

So government is controlled by the evil rich, so we want it to be stronger.  

Is there any logical inconsistency in that?   I think there is...


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, now there wasn't even a housing bubble.  You can't baaa -ck that up.  You people explain how Jamestown happened.
> 
> Do even know what derivatives are Chris?
Click to expand...


"Derivatives" is just the bad Ju-Ju word that libturds have been brainwashed to parrot whenever the subject of the recession comes up.


----------



## kaz

Androw said:


> Whenever something goes wrong, the left instantly blames big business, and makes this claim that government is somehow in the pocket of big business.
> 
> But this very topic disproves that entire concept.
> 
> The big banks were completely against sub-prime loans to begin with.  Default rates of CRA loans were easily double that of conventional mortgages.



Democrats wanted sub-prime loans specifically to get less qualified people in homes because Democrats think that life is random.  Sub-prime aren't less risky because of their behavior, it was just luck.  Some people with good luck had good credit, some people with bad luck have not as good credit.  So if you get less lucky people in homes, they aren't more likely to default than prime borrowers, there's no reason past luck will recur in future luck.  They were wrong, it's behavior.

So they did a hands down their own pants policy.  And rather than fix it, they use their own failures to advocate more hands down their own pants policies.  Repeal Glass-Stengal!  More government regulation!  Liberals never learn they were wrong, they only learn they weren't right enough.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, now there wasn't even a housing bubble.  You can't baaa -ck that up.  You people explain how Jamestown happened.
> 
> Do even know what derivatives are Chris?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Derivatives" is just the bad Ju-Ju word that libturds have been brainwashed to parrot whenever the subject of the recession comes up.
Click to expand...


They do like those bad ju-ju words.  That's highly corrolated with their Jamestown behavior.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What point do you imagine you (and grandma) are making here?
> Are you implying private banks weren't behind more than 84% of sub prime mortgages in 2006?
> 
> 
> 
> Imply hell! let me say it straight out. The banks did what the government told them to do. The fault is the government's. No matter how you try to pass it off on the banks whose only blame is trying not to lose too much money with low interest toxic loans. If there is another crisis in the making, look to our politicians in Washington, D.C., not to the banks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Of course, those banks hired the lobbyists to tell government which laws to pass, right?*
> 
> "Even this morning, November 22, 2011, a seemingly smart guy like Joe Kernan was saying on CNBCs Squawkbox, 'When the losses at Fannie and Freddie reach $200 billion how can the deniers say that Fannie and Freddie were enablers for a lot of the housing crisis. When it gets up to that levels, how can they say that they were only into sub-prime late, and they were only in it a little bit?'
> 
> "The reason that people can say that is because it is true.
> 
> "The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy."
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
Click to expand...


*"The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy."*

I love it when stupid people say stupid things about derivatives.

I've got a $10 bet on the next Black Hawks game. 
Is my bet worth $10 or over $1 billion?


----------



## kaz

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Its not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, 'Lets abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!*
> 
> Still waiting for the tiniest bit of proof that this repeal had anything to do with the real estate buubble or the crash.



Obviously it had nothing to do with it, you're right Toddster.  Just a chance to get what they wanted anyway.  Repealing Glass-Steagall because of the housing bubble is like helping your wife do the dishes by watching TV.


----------



## gnarlylove

bripat9643 said:


> Before capitalism, the poor starved on a regular basis.  They had no healthcare, no clothing, no food, no television, no cell phones, no central heating, no air conditioning, no nothing.   The poor live like kings compared to how they lived before capitalism.



You must be fond of the idea that civilization started about 100 years ago and beforehand people were savage animals who had no direction until capitalism baptized them. You've regularly advocate learning about history but have opted for a white washed history that paints the modern era as the only leap forward in human civilization.

Given your level of knowledge about the world, your viewpoint on capitalism is accurate and I am wrong. But there's a big difference between what you perceive to know about the world and how the facts bear. We have no hope of knowing all the facts but your amnesia of history permits the view that capitalism has saved the world.

If you want to maintain your perceptions, I suggest you never look at history because you will be shaken. The phrase "there's nothing new under the sun" was true when Solomon wrote it in 700BC and still is. But you would only agree if you actually knew the facts of history, the Hellenic Age, the Dynasties in Asia, on and on and on.


----------



## gnarlylove

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Okay, there is a dangerous double-edge sword at play here.  Global trade has, in point of fact, increased the real wage in developing countries.  Global trade has also, in point of fact, set up sweatshops so terrible that the workers leap from windows.
> So my answer is I don't know.  I want that real wage increased.  Global trade is a good path to world peace.  Little girls making Nike shoes is why I don't buy Nikes.
> 
> We need not trade with nations that enslave people.  C'mon, be fair, Nike didn't open up a plant in Sudan.  That being said, I don't know how to implement global trade without recognizing the sovereignty of foreign nations over their own people.  Maybe, just maybe, as these other nations go through many of the pains we went through, these other countries will go through those pains more quickly and with less pain overall than we experienced.  Maybe we can try to set a good example?



The relevant question then is what is the engine that actuates systemic denial and violation of the most basic rights? I think it's evident that there is systemic violations day in and day out across the globe. Some areas worse than others but no place is immune.

As I gather you assert regulated capitalism is a relative good given our place in history. I might be on board with that as it generates wealth, undoubtedly. But doesn't wealth accumulate despite regulation? And when one becomes so wealthy, isn't that the engine behind systemic violations? That capital is set above the rights of human beings in order to make more capital/generate wealth in the vicious cycle of wealth accumulation?

Wages have "increased" relative to the fact that many subsistence farmers have been forcibly moved from arable land so that big agro-business can utilize it and export as capitalism holds: comparative advantage. Thus the locals have re-located to the hills as in Haiti and to the slums and favelas near the city. Since they no longer feed themselves through crops, they need employment. And as a result of its opening up at the behest of capitalist enterprises, employment and wages have increased. I would hardly understand this as a genuine rise in real wages when wages don't include the conditions under which one now works and lives compared to the cycle of leisure and work that results from being a farmer.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before capitalism, the poor starved on a regular basis.  They had no healthcare, no clothing, no food, no television, no cell phones, no central heating, no air conditioning, no nothing.   The poor live like kings compared to how they lived before capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be fond of the idea that civilization started about 100 years ago and beforehand people were savage animals who had no direction until capitalism baptized them. You've regularly advocate learning about history but have opted for a white washed history that paints the modern era as the only leap forward in human civilization.
> 
> Given your level of knowledge about the world, your viewpoint on capitalism is accurate and I am wrong. But there's a big difference between what you perceive to know about the world and how the facts bear. We have no hope of knowing all the facts but your amnesia of history permits the view that capitalism has saved the world.
> 
> If you want to maintain your perceptions, I suggest you never look at history because you will be shaken. The phrase "there's nothing new under the sun" was true when Solomon wrote it in 700BC and still is. But you would only agree if you actually knew the facts of history, the Hellenic Age, the Dynasties in Asia, on and on and on.
Click to expand...

Nicely said.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's correct if you consider slaves as unpaid labor only.
> According to a MOOC I just finished, slaves also served as capital in bond markets on both sides of the Atlantic.
> 
> 
> 
> I am, sadly, able to believe that.  As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in any intelligent manner. *Slavery was evil, but it was not the back bone of the industrial rise in capitalism*. Once the agrarian era was over, and it became obvious that the concept of capital is the excessive production of labor had been totally wrong, capitalism was born. Then we realized it needed regulation. It is the only economic system which makes the most people and nations prosperous.
Click to expand...

*In fact, during the years before the US Civil War, there was no capitalism without slavery; they were one and the same thing.*
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"In the 1830s, hundreds of millions of acres of conquered land were surveyed and put up for sale by the United States. This vast privatization of the public domain touched off one of the greatest economic booms in the history of the world up to that time..."

"Without slavery, however, the survey maps of the General Land Office would have remained a sort of science-fiction plan for a society that could never happen. 

"Between 1820 and 1860 more than a million enslaved people were transported from the upper to the lower South, the vast majority by the venture-capitalist slave traders the slaves called 'soul drivers.' 

"The first wave cleared the region for cultivation. 'Forests were literally dragged out by the roots,' the former slave John Parker remembered in 'His Promised Land.' 

"Those who followed planted the fields in cotton, which they then protected, picked, packed and shipped  *from 'sunup to sundown' every day for the rest of their lives..*."

"When the cotton crop came in short and sales failed to meet advanced payments, planters found themselves indebted to merchants and bankers. 

"Slaves were sold to make up the difference. 

"The mobility and salability of slaves meant they functioned as the primary form of collateral in the credit-and-cotton economy of the 19th century.

"It is not simply that the labor of enslaved people underwrote 19th-century capitalism. 

"*Enslaved people were the capital: four million people worth at least $3 billion in 1860, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined*. 

"Seen in this light, the conventional distinction between slavery and capitalism fades into meaninglessness."


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

gnarlylove said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, there is a dangerous double-edge sword at play here.  Global trade has, in point of fact, increased the real wage in developing countries.  Global trade has also, in point of fact, set up sweatshops so terrible that the workers leap from windows.
> So my answer is I don't know.  I want that real wage increased.  Global trade is a good path to world peace.  Little girls making Nike shoes is why I don't buy Nikes.
> 
> We need not trade with nations that enslave people.  C'mon, be fair, Nike didn't open up a plant in Sudan.  That being said, I don't know how to implement global trade without recognizing the sovereignty of foreign nations over their own people.  Maybe, just maybe, as these other nations go through many of the pains we went through, these other countries will go through those pains more quickly and with less pain overall than we experienced.  Maybe we can try to set a good example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The relevant question then is what is the engine that actuates systemic denial and violation of the most basic rights? I think it's evident that there is systemic violations day in and day out across the globe. Some areas worse than others but no place is immune.
> 
> As I gather you assert regulated capitalism is a relative good given our place in history. I might be on board with that as it generates wealth, undoubtedly. But doesn't wealth accumulate despite regulation? And when one becomes so wealthy, isn't that the engine behind systemic violations? That capital is set above the rights of human beings in order to make more capital/generate wealth in the vicious cycle of wealth accumulation?
> 
> Wages have "increased" relative to the fact that many subsistence farmers have been forcibly moved from arable land so that big agro-business can utilize it and export as capitalism holds: comparative advantage. Thus the locals have re-located to the hills as in Haiti and to the slums and favelas near the city. Since they no longer feed themselves through crops, they need employment. And as a result of its opening up at the behest of capitalist enterprises, employment and wages have increased. I would hardly understand this as a genuine rise in real wages when wages don't include the conditions under which one works.
Click to expand...


There are a few key points in your post, if you would allow me to summarize them:
1) Wealth Accumulation and the Gini Index
2) Inalienable Rights and Violations thereof
3) Transient Effects in Establishing Global Trade


Let me address #3, because otherwise this post is going to be very long.
Let me first state something that might sound off topic, but I'll need it in a minute.
Government cannot be run like business.  Government cannot make a profit, it can only increase or decrease the money supply.  The role of Government is protect its people and fend for their prosperity.  

There are many problems with the Haitian agricultural sector.  I am no expert on the subject.  I think that imported food from subsidized farming would have a significant impact on the small Haitian farmer's ability to compete in the marketplace.  The downward trend of food prices would force the small Haitian farmer out of business.  This would lead to a net importation of food.  There are two solutions which maintain trade:  Haiti as a nation could simply become dependent on imported food (which it now is) and seek to gain prosperity for its people in other sectors; or, Haiti could demand that the farm subsidies within its trading partners cease as this is an unfair advantage and an imbalance to trade.  Haiti's economy at present is insufficient to compete in subsidies to farmers.  Haiti is not in a position to demand subsidies stop.  Therefore, the logical conclusion is that there will be a transition in Haiti toward other sectors.  The goal is that the the negative effects would only be transient.  I freely concede that these negative effects may not be so "transient".  I freely concede that Haiti may find itself excluded from prosperity in other sectors and kept in a servile position.  I would argue there is nothing free, and most certainly not fair, about such a trade relationship.

I think the Haitian Government has a duty to its people to keep the trade relationship free and fair, but that is unlikely as it has not demonstrated the capacity to approach that concept.  So what of our Government?  Why should other countries enter into trade agreements with us concerning agricultural products if Haiti is the example the world sees?  If we want other nations to open their markets to us, then maybe we should go out of our way to make things work well for Haiti.
_Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me._


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's correct if you consider slaves as unpaid labor only.
> According to a MOOC I just finished, slaves also served as capital in bond markets on both sides of the Atlantic.
> 
> 
> 
> I am, sadly, able to believe that.  As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism?  Or do we need some other qualifier such as "integrated" "regulated" "fair" to disambiguate a system that treats humans as capital from the system that we have today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today compared to two centuries ago is improvement. However, I don't think we've reached the qualifier "fair." Countless millions are systematically denied basic rights, including the right to exist domestically (homeless, propertyless) and all over the globe (often at the behest of US and the West in general for the sake of open markets for western corporations). Would you agree?
Click to expand...

*Today, some are arguing the next, new caste system in the capitalist US involves the mass incarceration of millions of superfluous young people currently residing in prisons.

One-third of black men are likely to spend time locked up before being permanently relegated to a lifetime of second-class citizenship.

Michelle Alexander explains it better than I can:*

"Professor Alexander, who is black, knew that African-Americans were overrepresented in prison, though she resisted the idea that this was anything more than unequal implementation of colorblind laws. 

"But her work as director of the American Civil Liberties Unions Racial Justice Project in Northern California, she said, opened her eyes to the extent of the lifelong exclusion many offenders face, including job discrimination, elimination from juries and voter rolls, and even disqualification from food stamps, public housing and student loans.

'Its easy to be completely unaware that this vast new system of racial and social control has emerged,' she said. 'Unlike in Jim Crow days, there were no "Whites Only" signs. This system is out of sight, out of mind.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imply hell! let me say it straight out. The banks did what the government told them to do. The fault is the government's. No matter how you try to pass it off on the banks whose only blame is trying not to lose too much money with low interest toxic loans. If there is another crisis in the making, look to our politicians in Washington, D.C., not to the banks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  You must be privy to secret meetings between lots politicians and loan officers.
> You must have 20/20 hearing.
> Any proof or is this more bloviating on your part?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have provided proof dozens of times in this thread alone.   Possibly hundreds of times throughout the forum.
> 
> The Clinton Administration, and the Democrats, both pushed banks to make bad loans.   They were very very open about it.   They even had public announcements of their success in forcing banks to make bad loans, and even openly admitted the default rate would be higher on these bad loans.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/PEoqKYCMDmc]1998: Andrew Cuomo admits Forcing Banks to Make Affirmative Action Loans - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Andrew Cuomo, praising the actions of the Federal Government forcing banks to make bad loans, that he admits will have a higher risk, and a higher default rate.   1998.
> 
> I have on my computer right now, a court document, of a lawsuit by Acorn, against a bank to make more sub-prime loans.   The document includes the name Barack Obama.
> 
> This claim that we have been saying over and over, is a well established documented fact.
Click to expand...

"The Clinton Administration, and the Democrats, both pushed banks to make bad loans.   They were very very open about it."

*Is that right?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
How did Sandi Weill feel about that governmental action?*

"Weissman notes that Glass-Steagall remained law until 1998, when Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging:

"Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers. 

"The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed. 

"Citigroups co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut. But as the deal-making on the bill moved into its final phase in Fall 1999, fears ran high that the entire exercise would collapse. (Reed now says repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake.)

"Robert Rubin stepped into the breach. 

"Having recently stepped aside as Treasury Secretary, Rubin was at the time negotiating the terms of his next job as an executive without portfolio at Citigroup. 

"But this was not public knowledge at the time. 

"Deploying the credibility built up as part of what the media had labeled 'The Committee to Save the World' (Rubin, Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, so named for their interventions in addressing the Asian financial crisis in 1997), Rubin helped broker the final deal."

*What about Rubin?
Was he functioning as a representative of big business or big government?
Lobbyists are paid by big business to buy big government*

Looking Back at the Repeal of Glass-Steagall, or, How the Banks Caught Casino Fever | Roosevelt Institute


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am, sadly, able to believe that.  As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism?  Or do we need some other qualifier such as "integrated" "regulated" "fair" to disambiguate a system that treats humans as capital from the system that we have today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today compared to two centuries ago is improvement. However, I don't think we've reached the qualifier "fair." Countless millions are systematically denied basic rights, including the right to exist domestically (homeless, propertyless) and all over the globe (often at the behest of US and the West in general for the sake of open markets for western corporations). Would you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Today, some are arguing the next, new caste system in the capitalist US involves the mass incarceration of millions of superfluous young people currently residing in prisons.
> 
> One-third of black men are likely to spend time locked up before being permanently relegated to a lifetime of second-class citizenship.
> 
> Michelle Alexander explains it better than I can:*
> 
> "Professor Alexander, who is black, knew that African-Americans were overrepresented in prison, though she resisted the idea that this was anything more than unequal implementation of colorblind laws.
> 
> "But her work as director of the American Civil Liberties Unions Racial Justice Project in Northern California, she said, opened her eyes to the extent of the lifelong exclusion many offenders face, including job discrimination, elimination from juries and voter rolls, and even disqualification from food stamps, public housing and student loans.
> 
> 'Its easy to be completely unaware that this vast new system of racial and social control has emerged,' she said. 'Unlike in Jim Crow days, there were no "Whites Only" signs. This system is out of sight, out of mind.'
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all
Click to expand...


I saw Michelle Alexander on Real Time.  The question I wanted to ask her was how many non-violent criminals are convicted felons?  Of the violent offenders, how many had been incarcerated on non-violent offenses before turning to violent crime?  Specifically I am thinking of the War on Drugs and how enforcement of this new prohibition labels non-violent offenders on equal footing with violent offenders.

We cannot relent from the prosecution of violent crime.  We can however take steps to mitigate the frequency of violent crime.


----------



## bripat9643

gnarlylove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before capitalism, the poor starved on a regular basis.  They had no healthcare, no clothing, no food, no television, no cell phones, no central heating, no air conditioning, no nothing.   The poor live like kings compared to how they lived before capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be fond of the idea that civilization started about 100 years ago and beforehand people were savage animals who had no direction until capitalism baptized them. You've regularly advocate learning about history but have opted for a white washed history that paints the modern era as the only leap forward in human civilization.
> 
> Given your level of knowledge about the world, your viewpoint on capitalism is accurate and I am wrong. But there's a big difference between what you perceive to know about the world and how the facts bear. We have no hope of knowing all the facts but your amnesia of history permits the view that capitalism has saved the world.
> 
> If you want to maintain your perceptions, I suggest you never look at history because you will be shaken. The phrase "there's nothing new under the sun" was true when Solomon wrote it in 700BC and still is. But you would only agree if you actually knew the facts of history, the Hellenic Age, the Dynasties in Asia, on and on and on.
Click to expand...



You wasted three paragraphs saying I'm stupid and I don't know history.  The fact is I know history quite a bit better than you do.  Apparently you believe the poor in  Europe live in some kind of pastoral splendor prior to the industrial revolution.  The reality is that their lives were nasty, brutish and short.  Average life span in those days was about 35 years.  Poor people had one suit of dirty scratchy wool clothing that couldn't be washed and that they wore 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  They worked bent over in the fields from sun up until sun down.  They seldom had any kind of lighting for the night hours.  They were all illiterate.  Many of their children never survived childhood, and many women died giving birth.

The invention of the power loom meant the poor could buy cheap cotton clothing that was comfortable and washable.  Formerly cotton clothing was reserved for the rich.  Railroads meant the poor could travel and that raw materials and manufactured goods could be transported from the factories where they were made to the rest of the country.  Railroads made mass production feasible, which intern made thousands of consumer goods affordable for the masses.

Prior to the industrial revolution, 80-90% of the population was what we would consider "poor,"  far poor than any welfare queen today.  Only about 10% were "middle class" and only a couple of percent were wealthy.

If you think life prior to the industrial revolution was preferable, you are an ignorant fool.  You've been reading too much Marxist propaganda.


----------



## bripat9643

PaintMyHouse said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before capitalism, the poor starved on a regular basis.  They had no healthcare, no clothing, no food, no television, no cell phones, no central heating, no air conditioning, no nothing.   The poor live like kings compared to how they lived before capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be fond of the idea that civilization started about 100 years ago and beforehand people were savage animals who had no direction until capitalism baptized them. You've regularly advocate learning about history but have opted for a white washed history that paints the modern era as the only leap forward in human civilization.
> 
> Given your level of knowledge about the world, your viewpoint on capitalism is accurate and I am wrong. But there's a big difference between what you perceive to know about the world and how the facts bear. We have no hope of knowing all the facts but your amnesia of history permits the view that capitalism has saved the world.
> 
> If you want to maintain your perceptions, I suggest you never look at history because you will be shaken. The phrase "there's nothing new under the sun" was true when Solomon wrote it in 700BC and still is. But you would only agree if you actually knew the facts of history, the Hellenic Age, the Dynasties in Asia, on and on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nicely said.
Click to expand...


I am sure every left-wing moron has the same opinion.


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  So the Clinton administration coerced banks into lowering their lending standards so more people could buy homes and flooded the banks with endless virtually zero interest loans to fund it.  Then the banks lowered them, but it wasn't because of that, it was because of some Marxist talking point.
> 
> Actually, comrade, banks are owned by everyone who owns mutual funds.  Teacher pension accounts hold them.  The evil 1% actually largely have their wealth tied up in the businesses that made them wealthy.  Your grandmother probably owns part of the banks.
> 
> 
> 
> What point do you imagine you (and grandma) are making here?
> Are you implying private banks weren't behind more than 84% of sub prime mortgages in 2006?
> Bill left in 2001, remember, Comrade?
> The richest 1% of the evil 1% own Wall Street banks, and they're instigating the next crisis as we speak. Maybe you can outsource Goldman Sachs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, every time government controls free markets it makes things worse.  Then you find that a reason for MORE control over markets.  See Einstein's definition of insanity.
Click to expand...

And your solution is to continue dismantling democracy in favor of a financial oligarchy like Italy under Monti or Greece under Papademos? Can you even tell us your definition "free market"? Is it a market free of government regulation or one free of hedge fund regulation?


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide that study?
> 
> Does that study say that the entire history of outsourcing (1970s onward) has created more jobs then were lost? Or does the study only speak to 2007 onward? The difference is huge.
> 
> In the most recent crisis millions of medium-high wage jobs were lost and fewer of higher wage jobs recovered. Instead, low wage jobs came back replacing the high paying jobs. Didn't you say you wanted higher wage jobs?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would like the minimum wage to go up, but we have really not discussed that issue. I have posted the link 4 or 5 times in the last few days, but here it is again. That you did not notice it speaks to your choosing not to read about facts.Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says"More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, now that is a fantastic point.  Global Trade does create US jobs, but not so directly.  Jobs that were lost are just not coming back, and it is difficult for people to abandon their whole way of life (Detroit?).
> 
> I think we need to be very specific in the qualifiers of our claims.
> 
> Some basic questions:
> Does outsourcing offset the job loss by creating an equal or greater number of the same jobs as those outsourced?
> Does Global Trade, as an umbrella term that includes the freedom to outsource, provide new opportunities for job growth?
> We have to make sure we carefully examine the data presented in any article attempting to answer such questions.  here is an article advocating careful examination of the data:
> Ralph Gomory: Does Outsourcing Create Jobs?
> While this sounds impressive, it is probably wise to take a hard look at the data before attempting to reduce unemployment in the U.S. by advocating more outsourcing.​What the article to which I link lacks is an assessment of other business opportunities opened up as we participate more in the Global Marketplace.  There are secondary and tertiary effects that few of these articles cover.  The effects are not the benefits of the profit margin of an outsourcing company but new companies that spring up in response to Global Demand.  Participating in the Global Marketplace need not be a "race to the bottom", unless we stay committed to competing for labor in the industries of our yesteryear.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand the study, and your link to an opinion piece did not improve your credibility. Opinion pieces, left or right are nothing more than an expression relative to their particulary skewing of the data. What the study clearly and empirically offered to those who understand studies, is that 1 to 1.7 new jobs are created for every job offshored. It does not mean THE EXACT JOB OR EVEN THE EXACT INDUSTRY. That is the whole point of statistics, to show the TRENDS, not individual and specific jobs or persons. If you read further in another study you will note that regardless of the individual, new jobs in the same industry tends to lose no more than 3% of their wage. I personally believe the loss of 3% or even 10% of one wage justifies the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the 3rd world. Further, when I see a relatively poor person in the US, and dare to look at the abject destitute in the 3rd world, I believe that destitute person deserves his job much more than the elite automaker work force in the US or any part of the industrial world.

As the global employment revolutions take place in the 3rd world, millions move into the middle class relative to their country's economy and they will become markets for our goods and services.

The point is, Liberals, TRUE Liberals, should help the "least of his people" no matter where they live even if the not so "least" in the industrial world loses some income. The difference is the border contains some people and does not contain others. I prefer being in the latter.


----------



## dnsmith35

Indeependent said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What point do you imagine you (and grandma) are making here?
> Are you implying private banks weren't behind more than 84% of sub prime mortgages in 2006?
> 
> 
> 
> Imply hell! let me say it straight out. The banks did what the government told them to do. The fault is the government's. No matter how you try to pass it off on the banks whose only blame is trying not to lose too much money with low interest toxic loans. If there is another crisis in the making, look to our politicians in Washington, D.C., not to the banks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  You must be privy to secret meetings between lots politicians and loan officers.
> You must have 20/20 hearing.
> Any proof or is this more bloviating on your part?
Click to expand...

Androw and I have both posted undeniable proof. I guess you don't bother to read posts except your own. It does not require  being privy to secret meetings, it is all shown in studies, NOT OPINION PIECES WRITTEN BY LEFT WING EXTREMIST WEB SITES.


----------



## dnsmith35

indeependent said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> how did 4% of american homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of iceland?
> 
> 
> 
> different problems stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh yeah, dns!  What an intelligent response!
> Sub-prime loans <3% of the crash.
> And you call "stupid"?
> Whew!
Click to expand...

Another stupid response!

The subprime mortgage crisis, popularly known as the &#8220;mortgage mess&#8221; or &#8220;mortgage
meltdown,&#8221; came to the public&#8217;s attention when a steep rise in home foreclosures in 2006
spiraled seemingly out of control in 2007, triggering a national financial crisis that went
global within the year. Consumer spending is down, the housing market has plummeted,
foreclosure numbers continue to rise and the stock market has been shaken. The subprime
crisis and resulting foreclosure fallout has caused dissension among consumers, lenders
and legislators and spawned furious debate over the causes and possible fixes of the
&#8220;mess.&#8221;

There are a number of theories as to what led to the mortgage crisis. Many experts and
economists believe it came about though the combination of a number of factors in which
subprime lending played a major part.

Historically Low Interest Rates
Many economists believe that the U.S. housing bubble was caused in part by historically
low interest rates. In response to the crash of the dot-com bubble in 2000 and the
subsequent recession that began in 2001, the Federal Reserve Board cut short-term
interest rates from about 6.5 percent to 1 percent. Greenspan admitted in 2007 that the
housing bubble was &#8220;fundamentally engendered by the decline in real long-term interest
rates.&#8221;

In March 2007, Greenspan led a Q&A session at the Futures Industry Association&#8217;s
annual convention. In answer to a question about the causes of the subprime crisis,
Greenspan said that it was more an issue of house prices than mortgage credit. The
former Fed Chairman said that the increase in subprime lending was new. Subprime
borrowers who &#8220;came late in the game,&#8221; borrowing after prices had already gone up,
were not able to build enough equity before interest rates rose.

http://business.cch.com/bankingfinance/focus/news/Subprime_WP_rev.pdf
​
The question becomes now, what caused the inflation of price over value in the housing market if it is not the over heating of the housing market brought on because of low interest rates, especially sub prime and ARMs (which made the payments too high when it went up at the first adjustment period.)

The widespread availability of subprime and other alternative mortgage products during this period, while arguably increasing homeownership rates (at least temporarily), has been broadly blamed for these market outcomes. In this paper we empirically investigate the validity of this proposition against several other alternative explanations.

Rather than causing the run-up in house prices, the subprime market may well have been a joint product, along with house price increases, (i.e., the &#8220;tail&#8221 of the economic, political, and regulatory environment characteristic of the early- to mid-2000&#8217;s (the &#8220;dog&#8221.

The widespread availability of subprime and other alternative mortgage products during this period, while arguably increasing consumption levels and homeownership rates, has been broadly blamed for these outcomes. *The combined share of subprime and alternative mortgage products peaked at 34.8% of all mortgages originated during the first quarter of 2006*, roughly coincident with the peak in the housing market (Inside Mortgage Finance [2007]).

The percentage of loans entering the foreclosure process was 2.05% of all loans outstanding at the end of the third quarter of 2007, up from 1.19% one year earlier. Many of these problems are related to the subprime mortgage sector, where default and foreclosure rates are even higher. According to Loan Performance5 as of September 2007, the overall serious delinquency rate on subprime loans was 13.2%.; more recent estimates are even higher. For example, Federal Reserve Governor Randall Krasner cited a *17% serious delinquency rate for subprime adjustable-rate mortgages *and a quarterly rate of 320,000 foreclosures nationwide, up 50% from levels experienced during 2005-2006 [Federal Reserve (2007)]. In addition, media sources have recently reported a substantial increase in delinquencies among prime ARM borrowers (Wall Street Journal [2007a]). Recent policy initiatives to mitigate foreclosure have focused on the payment shock likely to be encountered by households with subprime ARMs, a large number of which will re-set to higher interest rates in the near term, primarily through the expiration of &#8220;teaser rates.&#8221;​
What the study shows is, the combination of low interest rates, and the advent of sub-prime loans, drove the inflation of price over value, which subsequently caused the crash. Both of those conditions were pushed by the government with a combination of CRA, and the guarantees of securitizing by either Fannie or Freddie or both. This corresponds to the failure in our economy when government becomes to involved in a given economic process.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?*
> 
> "Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
> 
> "Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
> 
> "We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
> 
> Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> Neither party is going to bite the hand that feeds them, and the politicians can't stand success, they wouldn't  have a point to run on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
> 
> "Many actors obviously played a role in this story.
> 
> "Some of the actors were in the public sector and some of them were in the private sector.
> 
> "But the public sector agencies were acting at behest of the private sector.
> 
> "Its not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, 'Lets abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!' Or the SEC spontaneously happened to have the bright idea of relaxing capital requirements on the investment banks. Or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of its own accord abruptly had the idea of preempting state laws protecting borrowers.
> 
> "These agencies of government were being strenuously lobbied to do the very things that would benefit the financial sector and their managers and traders.
> 
> "And behind it all, was the drive for short-term profits."
> 
> *Maybe we can all agree to blame the lobbyists?*
Click to expand...


Yeah, which lobbyists?   You mean ACORN and other community groups that lobbied to lower lending standards?    Yeah.  Absolutely we blame them.

Whoever wrote that article from Forbes, was an idiot.

The very act of the banking business, involves risk.  It's fundamental to how loaning money works.   You don't know what will happen when you loan money to person X, and if they will repay or not.

Of course the banks are operating the same way they were in the past.  If you legislate out risk, there would be no banking industry.

Further, of course reform didn't work.   When you bailout banks, what reason do banks have to fundamentally change how they operate?

"WHY BANKS FAILED THE STRESS TEST"
Andrew G Haldane
Executive Director for Financial Stability
Bank of England
13 February 2009

Gave this report:



> A few years ago, ahead of the present crisis, the Bank of England and the FSA commenced a series of seminars with financial firms, exploring their stress-testing practices. The first meeting of that group sticks in my mind. We had asked firms to tell us the sorts of stress which they routinely used for their stress-tests.
> 
> A quick survey suggested these were very modest stresses. We asked why. Perhaps disaster myopia  disappointing, but perhaps unsurprising? Or network externalities  we understood how difficult these were to capture?
> 
> No. There was a much simpler explanation according to one of those present. There was absolutely no incentive for individuals or teams to run severe stress tests and show these to management. First, because if there were such a severe shock, they would very likely lose their bonus and possibly their jobs.
> 
> *Second, because in that event the authorities would have to step-in anyway to save a bank and others suffering a similar plight.*
> 
> All of the other assembled bankers began subjecting their shoes to intense scrutiny.  The unspoken words had been spoken. The officials in the room were aghast.
> 
> Did banks not understand that the official sector would not underwrite banks mismanaging their risks?
> 
> Yet history now tells us that the unnamed banker was spot-on. His was a brilliant articulation of the internal and external incentive problem within banks.



You people on the left don't seem to grasp this.   You can make a BILLION LAWS.... all trying to mitigate risk, and it's all pointless.   No amount of regulation will ever stop banks from making bad choices.  No amount of laws will stop this. 

The only system that will prevent banks from making bad choices, is letting them fail, and not bailing them out.

This report, where government officials interviewed bank executives, is absolute proof of why everything happened the way it did.

The banker years before the crisis, said they would likely lose their jobs, and the banks would end up bailed out anyway.

When Bear Stearns, one of the original players in the 1997 Sub-prime Freddie Mac Loan scheme, crash... the very first thing that happened was James Cayne, was fired. Alan Schwartz replaced him, but only for a few months, and he was gone.  Meanwhile the company was given billions, and ultimately bond holders of Bear Stearns were paid back 100¢ on the dollar by tax payers.

In other words, the bank executives were absolutely right.  They knew exactly what would happen.  The government would bail them out anyway, and they would lose their jobs, so why bother mitigating risk?

This is the real problem.   All that blaw blaw blaw blaw and Glass-Steagall, and leverage ratios, and capital requirements... all of that, doesn't mean anything.   It's all completely irrelevant.
*
As long as the banks know the government will bail them out, they will never do high risk stress tests, because there's no reason to.*

Lastly, the article makes some really lame points.

Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the crash.  If it had been left in place, nothing would have changed.  As far as I can tell, only 3 of the major banks would have been affected by it, and 2 of those did NOT fail.

Second, relaxing capital requirements on investment banks, is also largely irrelevant.   I have yet to find one single example of an investment bank that failed, that had they followed the original capital requirements, would not have failed.   If you can tell me which investment bank you think would not have failed, under the original capital requirement rules, by all means post it.

Moreover, investment banks were a fraction of the banks that failed.  IndyMac was not an investment bank.   Countrywide was not an investment bank.   Wachovia (originally First Union, one of the original 1997 sub-prime Freddie Mac lenders), was not an investment bank.  AIG was not an investment bank.

All of these, and the majority of all banks that failed, were not investment banks, and did not have their capital requirements relaxed.

Lastly, preempting state laws that protect borrowers, is something I'm against, but honestly it was good from the crisis perspective.

I'm against it, because I'm against the federal government telling anyone what to do.  It's not the Federal government's job to determine what protections borrowers have, or what regulations banks must follow.

However, that said....  Borrower protection, is exactly the opposite of what we want.   When you protect borrowers from the fallout of making bad loans, that just increases the chances of having people make bad loans.

What do you think "strategic default" means?   People intentionally default on their loans, knowing they have protections.  They can declare bankruptcy, and walk away from all the debts they owe.

This is one of the reasons Canada has had no real housing price bubble, or housing price crash, because all loans are full recourse.   Meaning, if you buy a house with a loan for $200,000, and you decide to strategically default... you end up losing everything.  They'll chase you until the end of your life until you pay back that loan.

Consequently people are not likely to make a risky loan.  They are not likely to borrow hundreds of thousands, and then walk away... because they'll lose everything, and end up garnished for years.

The article was dumb, and pointless.   Focus on the cause, not irrelevant unimportant side notes, that had nothing to do with the crash.

The cause, was government pushing bad loans.  Period.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Context, quote from earlier post: "A successful economic system revolves around the truism, "man has an unlimited desire for wealth." If it doesn't, it fails, MISERABLY."
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we look at the coal industry in the late 19th and early twentieth century, paying their employees in company scrip, forcing employees to do business with the infamous company stores, abolishing all competition for commodities needed by the employees,
> does such a scenario to your mind follow the model of Capitalism or Feudalism...or some other model?
> 
> 
> 
> I choose to discuss the here and now. It doesn't matter what happened 100 years ago. Our government has taken over the role of the unions as to OSHA in spite of some failures, including coal mine disasters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then onto the subject of "truisms"
> 
> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
Click to expand...

I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to have no down payment loans given to people with little or no credit will remember that they will repeat the housing crash. When you talk about the evils of 100 years ago, before the government started to mind the store, OHSA, and our labor laws which have made unions passé, you make zero sense.


----------



## georgephillip

Zombie_Pundit said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today compared to two centuries ago is improvement. However, I don't think we've reached the qualifier "fair." Countless millions are systematically denied basic rights, including the right to exist domestically (homeless, propertyless) and all over the globe (often at the behest of US and the West in general for the sake of open markets for western corporations). Would you agree?
> 
> 
> 
> *Today, some are arguing the next, new caste system in the capitalist US involves the mass incarceration of millions of superfluous young people currently residing in prisons.
> 
> One-third of black men are likely to spend time locked up before being permanently relegated to a lifetime of second-class citizenship.
> 
> Michelle Alexander explains it better than I can:*
> 
> "Professor Alexander, who is black, knew that African-Americans were overrepresented in prison, though she resisted the idea that this was anything more than unequal implementation of colorblind laws.
> 
> "But her work as director of the American Civil Liberties Unions Racial Justice Project in Northern California, she said, opened her eyes to the extent of the lifelong exclusion many offenders face, including job discrimination, elimination from juries and voter rolls, and even disqualification from food stamps, public housing and student loans.
> 
> 'Its easy to be completely unaware that this vast new system of racial and social control has emerged,' she said. 'Unlike in Jim Crow days, there were no "Whites Only" signs. This system is out of sight, out of mind.'
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw Michelle Alexander on Real Time.  The question I wanted to ask her was how many non-violent criminals are convicted felons?  Of the violent offenders, how many had been incarcerated on non-violent offenses before turning to violent crime?  Specifically I am thinking of the War on Drugs and how enforcement of this new prohibition labels non-violent offenders on equal footing with violent offenders.
> 
> We cannot relent from the prosecution of violent crime.  We can however take steps to mitigate the frequency of violent crime.
Click to expand...

"Painting the war on drugs as mainly a backlash against the gains of the civil rights movement, Professor Forman writes, ignores the violent crime wave of the 1970s and minimizes the support among many African-Americans for get-tough measures. 

"Furthermore, he argues, drug offenders make up less than 25 percent of the nations total prison population, while violent offenders  who receive little mention in 'The New Jim Crow'  make up a much larger share.

'Even if every single one of these drug offenders were released tomorrow,' he writes, 'the United States would still have the worlds largest prison system.'

"To Professor Alexander, however, that argument neglects the full scope of the problem. 

"Our criminal 'caste system,' as she calls it, affects not just the 2.3 million people behind bars, but also the 4.8 million others on probation or parole (predominately for nonviolent offenses), to say nothing of the millions more whose criminal records stigmatize them for life.

'This system depends on the prison label, not just prison time,' she said."

*If I understand her argument, all those convicted of felonies continue paying for their crimes long after they leave prison.

Personally, I don't think it was coincidence that the War on Drugs began about the same time capitalists began outsourcing millions of middle class jobs*

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am, sadly, able to believe that.  As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> Not in any intelligent manner. *Slavery was evil, but it was not the back bone of the industrial rise in capitalism*. Once the agrarian era was over, and it became obvious that the concept of capital is the excessive production of labor had been totally wrong, capitalism was born. Then we realized it needed regulation. It is the only economic system which makes the most people and nations prosperous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In fact, during the years before the US Civil War, there was no capitalism without slavery; they were one and the same thing.*
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
> 
> "In the 1830s, hundreds of millions of acres of conquered land were surveyed and put up for sale by the United States. This vast privatization of the public domain touched off one of the greatest economic booms in the history of the world up to that time..."
> 
> "Without slavery, however, the survey maps of the General Land Office would have remained a sort of science-fiction plan for a society that could never happen.
> 
> "Between 1820 and 1860 more than a million enslaved people were transported from the upper to the lower South, the vast majority by the venture-capitalist slave traders the slaves called 'soul drivers.'
> 
> "The first wave cleared the region for cultivation. 'Forests were literally dragged out by the roots,' the former slave John Parker remembered in 'His Promised Land.'
> 
> "Those who followed planted the fields in cotton, which they then protected, picked, packed and shipped  *from 'sunup to sundown' every day for the rest of their lives..*."
> 
> "When the cotton crop came in short and sales failed to meet advanced payments, planters found themselves indebted to merchants and bankers.
> 
> "Slaves were sold to make up the difference.
> 
> "The mobility and salability of slaves meant they functioned as the primary form of collateral in the credit-and-cotton economy of the 19th century.
> 
> "It is not simply that the labor of enslaved people underwrote 19th-century capitalism.
> 
> "*Enslaved people were the capital: four million people worth at least $3 billion in 1860, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined*.
> 
> "Seen in this light, the conventional distinction between slavery and capitalism fades into meaninglessness."
Click to expand...


If I am a slave.... I can't have capital.   If I can't have capital... it's not capitalism stupid.    Idiots on the forum today.

"We deny people the ability to own capital, and that proves capitalism is bad!" 

What moron says stuff like this?  Oh wait... some internet forum poster.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  You must be privy to secret meetings between lots politicians and loan officers.
> You must have 20/20 hearing.
> Any proof or is this more bloviating on your part?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have provided proof dozens of times in this thread alone.   Possibly hundreds of times throughout the forum.
> 
> The Clinton Administration, and the Democrats, both pushed banks to make bad loans.   They were very very open about it.   They even had public announcements of their success in forcing banks to make bad loans, and even openly admitted the default rate would be higher on these bad loans.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/PEoqKYCMDmc]1998: Andrew Cuomo admits Forcing Banks to Make Affirmative Action Loans - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Andrew Cuomo, praising the actions of the Federal Government forcing banks to make bad loans, that he admits will have a higher risk, and a higher default rate.   1998.
> 
> I have on my computer right now, a court document, of a lawsuit by Acorn, against a bank to make more sub-prime loans.   The document includes the name Barack Obama.
> 
> This claim that we have been saying over and over, is a well established documented fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Clinton Administration, and the Democrats, both pushed banks to make bad loans.   They were very very open about it."
> 
> *Is that right?
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
> How did Sandi Weill feel about that governmental action?*
> 
> "Weissman notes that Glass-Steagall remained law until 1998, when Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging:
> 
> "Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers.
> 
> "The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed.
> 
> "Citigroups co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut. But as the deal-making on the bill moved into its final phase in Fall 1999, fears ran high that the entire exercise would collapse. (Reed now says repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake.)
> 
> "Robert Rubin stepped into the breach.
> 
> "Having recently stepped aside as Treasury Secretary, Rubin was at the time negotiating the terms of his next job as an executive without portfolio at Citigroup.
> 
> "But this was not public knowledge at the time.
> 
> "Deploying the credibility built up as part of what the media had labeled 'The Committee to Save the World' (Rubin, Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, so named for their interventions in addressing the Asian financial crisis in 1997), Rubin helped broker the final deal."
> 
> *What about Rubin?
> Was he functioning as a representative of big business or big government?
> Lobbyists are paid by big business to buy big government*
> 
> Looking Back at the Repeal of Glass-Steagall, or, How the Banks Caught Casino Fever | Roosevelt Institute
Click to expand...


So what?    That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the banks that failed would not have been affected by Glass-Steagall.

Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, IndyMac, Countrywide, and hundreds of others, none of which would have been affected in any way by Glass-Steagall.

So none of that matters.  All that crap you just spewed on here, completely irrelevant, because none of it affected the vast majority of the banks that failed.

CitiGroup is the one single example that I know of, that would have been affected.

But can you even prove that had then not merged with Travelers, that this would have prevent CitiGroups sub-prime crisis?   No, you can not.

How do I know this?   Because they spun off Travelers Property Casualty Corporation, in 2002.      So even in the case of CitiGroup, it still doesn't matter.  Still doesn't show even one single example where Glass-Steagall would have prevented ANYTHING that happened in the 2008 crash.

Again, the government pushed banks to make sub-prime loans.  They sued banks to make sub-prime loans.

All you can do is keep coming up with more irrelevant arguments.  By all means, find some other dumb wrong, stupid articles that prove nothing.  

You really have lost this argument.  You have posted now, over a dozens times, things that do not prove, do not support, do not even make a good case against what I've said, and the evidence I have provided.

All you are doing now is cutting and pasting into posts, the opinions of others.  That's not an argument.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What point do you imagine you (and grandma) are making here?
> Are you implying private banks weren't behind more than 84% of sub prime mortgages in 2006?
> Bill left in 2001, remember, Comrade?
> The richest 1% of the evil 1% own Wall Street banks, and they're instigating the next crisis as we speak. Maybe you can outsource Goldman Sachs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, every time government controls free markets it makes things worse.  Then you find that a reason for MORE control over markets.  See Einstein's definition of insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your solution is to continue dismantling democracy in favor of a financial oligarchy like Italy under Monti or Greece under Papademos? Can you even tell us your definition "free market"? Is it a market free of government regulation or one free of hedge fund regulation?
Click to expand...


The most free system in the world today, is the Canadian system, and they had no sub-prime crash, and no mass bank failures in the recent crash, or in the 1930s.

You and your policies, are what is created an oligarchy and dismantling freedom.  YOU are the supporter of that.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Personally, I don't think it was coincidence that the War on Drugs began about the same time capitalists began outsourcing millions of middle class jobs



Personally, I don't think it was coincidence that the desire for drugs began about the same time Leftists engaged in a war on Capitalism, and that caused people's lives to suck, and engendered hopelessness.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in any intelligent manner. *Slavery was evil, but it was not the back bone of the industrial rise in capitalism*. Once the agrarian era was over, and it became obvious that the concept of capital is the excessive production of labor had been totally wrong, capitalism was born. Then we realized it needed regulation. It is the only economic system which makes the most people and nations prosperous.
> 
> 
> 
> *In fact, during the years before the US Civil War, there was no capitalism without slavery; they were one and the same thing.*
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I am a slave.... I can't have capital.   If I can't have capital... it's not capitalism stupid.    Idiots on the forum today.
> 
> "We deny people the ability to own capital, and that proves capitalism is bad!"
> 
> What moron says stuff like this?  Oh wait... some internet forum poster.
Click to expand...


We were having a discussion on the definition of the economic system.  Defining terms is the first stage in any intellectual exchange.  You have chosen to disrupt a respectful tone with this gibberish.  Do you live under a bridge?



Androw said:


> If I am a slave.... I can't have capital.   If I can't have capital... it's not capitalism


Idiotic.  
The slave is the capital and is traded like property alongside horses.  The slave is no more a participant in the system than is a horse.  Ergo, it doesn't matter if the slave can hold capital.



Androw said:


> "We deny people the ability to own capital, and that proves capitalism is bad!"


If the definition of Capitalism revolves around slavery, a definition which dnsmith was very careful to avoid and the reason I asked for qualifiers, then yeah it's pretty bad.
Are you just shrugging your shoulders at slavery?  Really? "meh" is how you feel about slavery?



Androw said:


> _What moron says stuff like this?  Oh wait... some internet forum poster._


_
And would some Power the small gift give us
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us,
And foolish notion:
What airs in dress and gait would leave us,
And even devotion!_
"To A Louse, On Seeing One on a Lady's Bonnet at Church" - Robert Burns (Translated)


----------



## Indeependent

So Androw cheers on CEOs  who cave in to pressure to hand out millions of bad loans.

I'd like to see the PDF that lowered the Lending Standards (doesn't exist) and I'd like to know why these ultra savvy CEOs approved bypassing the database tables with paper.

The answer is greed, avarice and knowing they would get bailed out.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Don't sulk, kiddo, you sorta got the *point in the end*. (pun?)



*He has had the point all along.*


> Okay, now that's funny on a number of levels.





dnsmith35 said:


> When do you expect to arrive? When discussing new construction the "appraisers" must look at the plans, the size of the house, where it is located, determine what similar new construction sold for then ESTIMATE its value so as to set a fair price. Having been in the real estate business while pursuing my graduate work it became that "appraisers" can be off either way as to the actual value of the house and the price at which it should be sold. Until about 1995 the "appraisers" mostly took the price to construct from the builder giving the builder huge profits in many cases. In the mid 90's our state's laws took the appraiser out of the brokerage business such that they could hold them responsible for more accurate estimates and insisted they complete a course in appraisal before getting their license. Things changed for the better toward the end of Clinton's term and we started to get appraisals which adhered to value.





> Zombie - I wouldn't expect a price index to include a market value on the home until it had sold a few times.  Is the resale not the real test of value?  Wasn't that the original point of contention?


Yes it was the original point that both Androw and I made, and you have just confirmed that we were right.





> But I digress...
> I don't disagree that some form of appraisal is needed for setting a price on a new thing.  Of course, the market will provide the real answer.


 Yep! That is what we said.





> Hypothetical:
> If you started to build a development of some 30 homes, had the model homes appraised, was happy with that price because it was around your target and then started getting sales based on that projected price range... things would be great, right?
> Now, let's throw in market forces... the housing market heats up... prices of existing homes all around your development are spiking.  Do you
> A) increase your prices because the market will bear more
> B) keep your prices the same, ride through on easy sales
> C) lower your prices because you're a real nice guy
> Do market forces have no effect on the final sale price, is what I'm asking.


For the typical contractor the answer is A) because some of the houses may eventually have to be sold at lower prices, just like a furniture store or a clothing store; the total profit for the year may be in what you sell at the market peak, and the other stock is sold at or below market to recoup investment. Construction persons are not in the business of being "real nice guys" or they won't last long in the business. Economics 101.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> The most free system in the world today, is the Canadian system



Then move to Canada!  Go on then!  

Write back and tell us how great it is to have banks fully regulated by the Of&#64257;ce of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.  No really, tell us!  That central authority seems to be doing really well.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Don't sulk, kiddo, you sorta got the *point in the end*. (pun?)





dnsmith35 said:


> *He has had the point all along.*


Okay, now that's funny on a number of levels.



dnsmith35 said:


> Yes it was the original point that both Androw and I made


Androw attempted to prove that new construction was *always* cheaper and defended the claim by exclaiming the equivalent of "well...duh!".  I didn't even touch that in relation to the original claim on price indices the subsequent claim is a non sequitur.  I do show restraint, you know. 
But I digress...
I get that you're doing some tag team thing.  That's cute.  Is it your intention to have any serious discussion in this thread or are you just tagging in and out for the lulz?


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am, sadly, able to believe that.  As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism?  Or do we need some other qualifier such as "integrated" "regulated" "fair" to disambiguate a system that treats humans as capital from the system that we have today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today compared to two centuries ago is improvement. However, I don't think we've reached the qualifier "fair." Countless millions are systematically denied basic rights, including the right to exist domestically (homeless, propertyless) and all over the globe (often at the behest of US and the West in general for the sake of open markets for western corporations). Would you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, there is a dangerous double-edge sword at play here.  Global trade has, in point of fact, increased the real wage in developing countries.  Global trade has also, in point of fact, set up sweatshops so terrible that the workers leap from windows.
> So my answer is I don't know.  I want that real wage increased.  Global trade is a good path to world peace.  Little girls making Nike shoes is why I don't buy Nikes.
> 
> We need not trade with nations that enslave people.  C'mon, be fair, Nike didn't open up a plant in Sudan.  That being said, I don't know how to implement global trade without recognizing the sovereignty of foreign nations over their own people.  Maybe, just maybe, as these other nations go through many of the pains we went through, these other countries will go through those pains more quickly and with less pain overall than we experienced.  Maybe we can try to set a good example?
Click to expand...

The problem is, you don't understand what the double edged sword really is. Each country in the 3rd world must have its own economic evolution or revolution, depending on the situation. If you turn up your nose at a product which may have been produced by that "little girl" you are delaying that country's evolution. If, and when, you choose to drive down a road in India, and you see little old ladies breaking big rocks into little rocks, you have chosen to respect her right to work such that she can eat, even if she sleeps in the ditch next to the road. When liberals with borders, choose to deny the rights of workers in other countries to support them selves even to the tune of child labor, that country's labor evolution will never occur. It doesn't matter the particular excuse you give; child labor, environmental pollution, nets to stop suicides of virtual slave labor, any and all will eventually give way to safe work places, decent wages (relative to the local economy) and liberty.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?*
> 
> "Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
> 
> "Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
> 
> "We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
> 
> Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> Neither party is going to bite the hand that feeds them, and the politicians can't stand success, they wouldn't  have a point to run on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
> 
> "Many actors obviously played a role in this story.
> 
> "Some of the actors were in the public sector and some of them were in the private sector.
> 
> "But the public sector agencies were acting at behest of the private sector.
> 
> "Its not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, 'Lets abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!' Or the SEC spontaneously happened to have the bright idea of relaxing capital requirements on the investment banks. Or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of its own accord abruptly had the idea of preempting state laws protecting borrowers.
> 
> "These agencies of government were being strenuously lobbied to do the very things that would benefit the financial sector and their managers and traders.
> 
> "And behind it all, was the drive for short-term profits."
> 
> *Maybe we can all agree to blame the lobbyists?*
Click to expand...

I think we can all agree that lobbyists played a part, politicians played a part and the banking industry was all to ready to help them along the way. Lobbying should be outlawed. Gerrymandering should be outlawed. We should go back to "all politics are local."


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages. What is the result? 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand. Stagnation is the result.
> 
> Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.
> 
> 
> 
> Apply a property tax to intangible property like stocks and bonds, and eliminate the FICA cap.
Click to expand...

I partially agree. Eliminate the FICA cap. The problem with property tax on stocks and bonds is, until you sell them there is no way to accurately determine the value; which tends to be either higher or lower than purchase price. I agree with raising the minimum wage, but taxing LONG TERM capital gains more than we currently do may well, as JFK told us, cause too much of a loss of capital in the market. I guess that is why he chose to reduce the marginal rate for the rich from 91% to 70% and lower capital gains taxes (a pretty piece of Supply Side economics).


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What point do you imagine you (and grandma) are making here?
> Are you implying private banks weren't behind more than 84% of sub prime mortgages in 2006?
> 
> 
> 
> Imply hell! let me say it straight out. The banks did what the government told them to do. The fault is the government's. No matter how you try to pass it off on the banks whose only blame is trying not to lose too much money with low interest toxic loans. If there is another crisis in the making, look to our politicians in Washington, D.C., not to the banks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Of course, those banks hired the lobbyists to tell government which laws to pass, right?*
> 
> "Even this morning, November 22, 2011, a seemingly smart guy like Joe Kernan was saying on CNBCs Squawkbox, 'When the losses at Fannie and Freddie reach $200 billion how can the deniers say that Fannie and Freddie were enablers for a lot of the housing crisis. When it gets up to that levels, how can they say that they were only into sub-prime late, and they were only in it a little bit?'
> 
> "The reason that people can say that is because it is true.
> 
> "The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy."
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
Click to expand...

Yet the failure and losses in the derivatives market was a result of the housing crash, not the cause.


----------



## Indeependent

dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today compared to two centuries ago is improvement. However, I don't think we've reached the qualifier "fair." Countless millions are systematically denied basic rights, including the right to exist domestically (homeless, propertyless) and all over the globe (often at the behest of US and the West in general for the sake of open markets for western corporations). Would you agree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, there is a dangerous double-edge sword at play here.  Global trade has, in point of fact, increased the real wage in developing countries.  Global trade has also, in point of fact, set up sweatshops so terrible that the workers leap from windows.
> So my answer is I don't know.  I want that real wage increased.  Global trade is a good path to world peace.  Little girls making Nike shoes is why I don't buy Nikes.
> 
> We need not trade with nations that enslave people.  C'mon, be fair, Nike didn't open up a plant in Sudan.  That being said, I don't know how to implement global trade without recognizing the sovereignty of foreign nations over their own people.  Maybe, just maybe, as these other nations go through many of the pains we went through, these other countries will go through those pains more quickly and with less pain overall than we experienced.  Maybe we can try to set a good example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is, you don't understand what the double edged sword really is. Each country in the 3rd world must have its own economic evolution or revolution, depending on the situation. If you turn up your nose at a product which may have been produced by that "little girl" you are delaying that country's evolution. If, and when, you choose to drive down a road in India, and you see little old ladies breaking big rocks into little rocks, you have chosen to respect her right to work such that she can eat, even if she sleeps in the ditch next to the road. When liberals with borders, choose to deny the rights of workers in other countries to support them selves even to the tune of child labor, that country's labor evolution will never occur. It doesn't matter the particular excuse you give; child labor, environmental pollution, nets to stop suicides of virtual slave labor, any and all will eventually give way to safe work places, decent wages (relative to the local economy) and liberty.
Click to expand...


So Asians aren't motivated, educated or potentially self-reliant?
You are really insulting India.

It's amazing how so many European nations have accomplished so much without all the muck and all India is doing is sucking America dry.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today compared to two centuries ago is improvement. However, I don't think we've reached the qualifier "fair." Countless millions are systematically denied basic rights, including the right to exist domestically (homeless, propertyless) and all over the globe (often at the behest of US and the West in general for the sake of open markets for western corporations). Would you agree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, there is a dangerous double-edge sword at play here.  Global trade has, in point of fact, increased the real wage in developing countries.  Global trade has also, in point of fact, set up sweatshops so terrible that the workers leap from windows.
> So my answer is I don't know.  I want that real wage increased.  Global trade is a good path to world peace.  Little girls making Nike shoes is why I don't buy Nikes.
> 
> We need not trade with nations that enslave people.  C'mon, be fair, Nike didn't open up a plant in Sudan.  That being said, I don't know how to implement global trade without recognizing the sovereignty of foreign nations over their own people.  Maybe, just maybe, as these other nations go through many of the pains we went through, these other countries will go through those pains more quickly and with less pain overall than we experienced.  Maybe we can try to set a good example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is, you don't understand what the double edged sword really is. Each country in the 3rd world must have its own economic evolution or revolution, depending on the situation. If you turn up your nose at a product which may have been produced by that "little girl" you are delaying that country's evolution. If, and when, you choose to drive down a road in India, and you see little old ladies breaking big rocks into little rocks, you have chosen to respect her right to work such that she can eat, even if she sleeps in the ditch next to the road. When liberals with borders, choose to deny the rights of workers in other countries to support them selves even to the tune of child labor, that country's labor evolution will never occur. It doesn't matter the particular excuse you give; child labor, environmental pollution, nets to stop suicides of virtual slave labor, any and all will eventually give way to safe work places, decent wages (relative to the local economy) and liberty.
Click to expand...


Hey hey now!  When it comes to the commodities I choose to purchase I am the almighty consumer and if I don't want shoes made by the torn hands of little girls, then by golly, I won't buy those things.  What's more, *you would have me believe it is okay for Nike to open up shop in a Sudanese slave labor camp if it would, eventually, better the lives of literal slave laborers.* *Notice Nike does no such a thing.* 

There must be some preconditions we impose on other nations if they want to do business with us.  The fact that Sudan has literal slavery does, to my mind, exclude that nation from participating in our marketplaces.  *Slavery=Get out of the pool*
Further, we can make an impact on the lives of the workers in those countries by refusing to purchase a product manufactured in a manner we find intolerably cruel.  Little girls with torn hands is well above my pain threshold.

I just want to add that I do support global trade.  I support immigration.  Global Trade will better the lives of everyone, and I think will eventually secure world peace.


----------



## dnsmith35

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The collapse was caused by Bush's SEC letting Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> 
> 
> *But are there any valid and sound arguments the Democrats will serve Wall Street any less obediently than Bush did?*
> 
> "Financial reform didnt work. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
> 
> "Ignoring warning signs has inevitable consequences. We ignored them before and we saw what happened.
> 
> "We can say this with virtual certainty: if we continue as now and ignore them again, the great white shark of a global financial meltdown will gobble up the meager economic recovery and make 2008 look like a hiccup."
> 
> Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whenever something goes wrong, the left instantly blames big business, and makes this claim that government is somehow in the pocket of big business.
> 
> But this very topic disproves that entire concept.
> 
> The big banks were completely against sub-prime loans to begin with.  Default rates of CRA loans were easily double that of conventional mortgages.
> 
> None of the banks wanted the CRA, or sub-prime to begin with.   The only reason CRA and sub-prime loans existed is because government forced them to.
> 
> And of course the government isn't going to back track on this.   They all believe that home ownership is inherently good.   Barnie Frank even said there was no bubble at all.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/iW5qKYfqALE]Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble? - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> Again, has nothing to do with 'government is in the pocket of business' bull crap.... it's government pushing this agenda.    They were warned there was a price bubble, and they ignored it.
Click to expand...

Barney Frank, "2005, no bubble, no problem, not a dot.com.   There will be no collapse, and those of us on our committee will continue to push for more home ownership."


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither party is going to bite the hand that feeds them, and the politicians can't stand success, they wouldn't  have a point to run on.
> 
> 
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
> 
> "Many actors obviously played a role in this story.
> 
> "Some of the actors were in the public sector and some of them were in the private sector.
> 
> "But the public sector agencies were acting at behest of the private sector.
> 
> "Its not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, 'Lets abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!' Or the SEC spontaneously happened to have the bright idea of relaxing capital requirements on the investment banks. Or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of its own accord abruptly had the idea of preempting state laws protecting borrowers.
> 
> "These agencies of government were being strenuously lobbied to do the very things that would benefit the financial sector and their managers and traders.
> 
> "And behind it all, was the drive for short-term profits."
> 
> *Maybe we can all agree to blame the lobbyists?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, which lobbyists?   You mean ACORN and other community groups that lobbied to lower lending standards?    Yeah.  Absolutely we blame them.
> 
> Whoever wrote that article from Forbes, was an idiot.
> 
> The very act of the banking business, involves risk.  It's fundamental to how loaning money works.   You don't know what will happen when you loan money to person X, and if they will repay or not.
> 
> Of course the banks are operating the same way they were in the past.  If you legislate out risk, there would be no banking industry.
> 
> Further, of course reform didn't work.   When you bailout banks, what reason do banks have to fundamentally change how they operate?
> 
> "WHY BANKS FAILED THE STRESS TEST"
> Andrew G Haldane
> Executive Director for Financial Stability
> Bank of England
> 13 February 2009
> 
> Gave this report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few years ago, ahead of the present crisis, the Bank of England and the FSA commenced a series of seminars with financial firms, exploring their stress-testing practices. The first meeting of that group sticks in my mind. We had asked firms to tell us the sorts of stress which they routinely used for their stress-tests.
> 
> A quick survey suggested these were very modest stresses. We asked why. Perhaps disaster myopia  disappointing, but perhaps unsurprising? Or network externalities  we understood how difficult these were to capture?
> 
> No. There was a much simpler explanation according to one of those present. There was absolutely no incentive for individuals or teams to run severe stress tests and show these to management. First, because if there were such a severe shock, they would very likely lose their bonus and possibly their jobs.
> 
> *Second, because in that event the authorities would have to step-in anyway to save a bank and others suffering a similar plight.*
> 
> All of the other assembled bankers began subjecting their shoes to intense scrutiny.  The unspoken words had been spoken. The officials in the room were aghast.
> 
> Did banks not understand that the official sector would not underwrite banks mismanaging their risks?
> 
> Yet history now tells us that the unnamed banker was spot-on. His was a brilliant articulation of the internal and external incentive problem within banks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people on the left don't seem to grasp this.   You can make a BILLION LAWS.... all trying to mitigate risk, and it's all pointless.   No amount of regulation will ever stop banks from making bad choices.  No amount of laws will stop this.
> 
> The only system that will prevent banks from making bad choices, is letting them fail, and not bailing them out.
> 
> This report, where government officials interviewed bank executives, is absolute proof of why everything happened the way it did.
> 
> The banker years before the crisis, said they would likely lose their jobs, and the banks would end up bailed out anyway.
> 
> When Bear Stearns, one of the original players in the 1997 Sub-prime Freddie Mac Loan scheme, crash... the very first thing that happened was James Cayne, was fired. Alan Schwartz replaced him, but only for a few months, and he was gone.  Meanwhile the company was given billions, and ultimately bond holders of Bear Stearns were paid back 100¢ on the dollar by tax payers.
> 
> In other words, the bank executives were absolutely right.  They knew exactly what would happen.  The government would bail them out anyway, and they would lose their jobs, so why bother mitigating risk?
> 
> This is the real problem.   All that blaw blaw blaw blaw and Glass-Steagall, and leverage ratios, and capital requirements... all of that, doesn't mean anything.   It's all completely irrelevant.
> *
> As long as the banks know the government will bail them out, they will never do high risk stress tests, because there's no reason to.*
> 
> Lastly, the article makes some really lame points.
> 
> Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the crash.  If it had been left in place, nothing would have changed.  As far as I can tell, only 3 of the major banks would have been affected by it, and 2 of those did NOT fail.
> 
> Second, relaxing capital requirements on investment banks, is also largely irrelevant.   I have yet to find one single example of an investment bank that failed, that had they followed the original capital requirements, would not have failed.   If you can tell me which investment bank you think would not have failed, under the original capital requirement rules, by all means post it.
> 
> Moreover, investment banks were a fraction of the banks that failed.  IndyMac was not an investment bank.   Countrywide was not an investment bank.   Wachovia (originally First Union, one of the original 1997 sub-prime Freddie Mac lenders), was not an investment bank.  AIG was not an investment bank.
> 
> All of these, and the majority of all banks that failed, were not investment banks, and did not have their capital requirements relaxed.
> 
> Lastly, preempting state laws that protect borrowers, is something I'm against, but honestly it was good from the crisis perspective.
> 
> I'm against it, because I'm against the federal government telling anyone what to do.  It's not the Federal government's job to determine what protections borrowers have, or what regulations banks must follow.
> 
> However, that said....  Borrower protection, is exactly the opposite of what we want.   When you protect borrowers from the fallout of making bad loans, that just increases the chances of having people make bad loans.
> 
> What do you think "strategic default" means?   People intentionally default on their loans, knowing they have protections.  They can declare bankruptcy, and walk away from all the debts they owe.
> 
> This is one of the reasons Canada has had no real housing price bubble, or housing price crash, because all loans are full recourse.   Meaning, if you buy a house with a loan for $200,000, and you decide to strategically default... you end up losing everything.  They'll chase you until the end of your life until you pay back that loan.
> 
> Consequently people are not likely to make a risky loan.  They are not likely to borrow hundreds of thousands, and then walk away... because they'll lose everything, and end up garnished for years.
> 
> The article was dumb, and pointless.   Focus on the cause, not irrelevant unimportant side notes, that had nothing to do with the crash.
> 
> The cause, was government pushing bad loans.  Period.
Click to expand...

*Which lobbyists pushed the government to push bad loans?
Hint: it wasn't ACORN or Obama*

"Weissman notes that Glass-Steagall remained law until 1998, when Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging:

"Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers. 

"The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed. *Citigroups co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed *led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut. 

"But as the deal-making on the bill moved into its final phase in Fall 1999, fears ran high that the entire exercise would collapse. (Reed now says repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake.)"

*If you decide to argue that the repeal of Glass-Steagall played no role in perpetuating the US housing bubble, supply proof (for a change)*

Looking Back at the Repeal of Glass-Steagall, or, How the Banks Caught Casino Fever | Roosevelt Institute


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in any intelligent manner. *Slavery was evil, but it was not the back bone of the industrial rise in capitalism*. Once the agrarian era was over, and it became obvious that the concept of capital is the excessive production of labor had been totally wrong, capitalism was born. Then we realized it needed regulation. It is the only economic system which makes the most people and nations prosperous.
> 
> 
> 
> *In fact, during the years before the US Civil War, there was no capitalism without slavery; they were one and the same thing.*
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
> 
> "In the 1830s, hundreds of millions of acres of conquered land were surveyed and put up for sale by the United States. This vast privatization of the public domain touched off one of the greatest economic booms in the history of the world up to that time..."
> 
> "Without slavery, however, the survey maps of the General Land Office would have remained a sort of science-fiction plan for a society that could never happen.
> 
> "Between 1820 and 1860 more than a million enslaved people were transported from the upper to the lower South, the vast majority by the venture-capitalist slave traders the slaves called 'soul drivers.'
> 
> "The first wave cleared the region for cultivation. 'Forests were literally dragged out by the roots,' the former slave John Parker remembered in 'His Promised Land.'
> 
> "Those who followed planted the fields in cotton, which they then protected, picked, packed and shipped  *from 'sunup to sundown' every day for the rest of their lives..*."
> 
> "When the cotton crop came in short and sales failed to meet advanced payments, planters found themselves indebted to merchants and bankers.
> 
> "Slaves were sold to make up the difference.
> 
> "The mobility and salability of slaves meant they functioned as the primary form of collateral in the credit-and-cotton economy of the 19th century.
> 
> "It is not simply that the labor of enslaved people underwrote 19th-century capitalism.
> 
> "*Enslaved people were the capital: four million people worth at least $3 billion in 1860, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined*.
> 
> "Seen in this light, the conventional distinction between slavery and capitalism fades into meaninglessness."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I am a slave.... I can't have capital.   If I can't have capital... it's not capitalism stupid.    Idiots on the forum today.
> 
> "We deny people the ability to own capital, and that proves capitalism is bad!"
> 
> What moron says stuff like this?  Oh wait... some internet forum poster.
Click to expand...

*You are fundamentally challenged, aren't you?
Were you homeschooled?
You're lack of reading COMPREHENSION skills make most of your responses imbecilic.

Slaves were NOT denied the right to have capital, Moron.

Slaves WERE capital.

Go to college*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  You must be privy to secret meetings between lots politicians and loan officers.
> You must have 20/20 hearing.
> Any proof or is this more bloviating on your part?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have provided proof dozens of times in this thread alone.   Possibly hundreds of times throughout the forum.
> 
> The Clinton Administration, and the Democrats, both pushed banks to make bad loans.   They were very very open about it.   They even had public announcements of their success in forcing banks to make bad loans, and even openly admitted the default rate would be higher on these bad loans.
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/PEoqKYCMDmc]1998: Andrew Cuomo admits Forcing Banks to Make Affirmative Action Loans - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Andrew Cuomo, praising the actions of the Federal Government forcing banks to make bad loans, that he admits will have a higher risk, and a higher default rate.   1998.
> 
> I have on my computer right now, a court document, of a lawsuit by Acorn, against a bank to make more sub-prime loans.   The document includes the name Barack Obama.
> 
> This claim that we have been saying over and over, is a well established documented fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Clinton Administration, and the Democrats, both pushed banks to make bad loans.   They were very very open about it."
> 
> *Is that right?
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
> How did Sandi Weill feel about that governmental action?*
> 
> "Weissman notes that Glass-Steagall remained law until 1998, when Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging:
> 
> "Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers.
> 
> "The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed.
> 
> "Citigroups co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut. But as the deal-making on the bill moved into its final phase in Fall 1999, fears ran high that the entire exercise would collapse. (Reed now says repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake.)
> 
> "Robert Rubin stepped into the breach.
> 
> "Having recently stepped aside as Treasury Secretary, Rubin was at the time negotiating the terms of his next job as an executive without portfolio at Citigroup.
> 
> "But this was not public knowledge at the time.
> 
> "Deploying the credibility built up as part of what the media had labeled 'The Committee to Save the World' (Rubin, Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, so named for their interventions in addressing the Asian financial crisis in 1997), Rubin helped broker the final deal."
> 
> *What about Rubin?
> Was he functioning as a representative of big business or big government?
> Lobbyists are paid by big business to buy big government*
> 
> Looking Back at the Repeal of Glass-Steagall, or, How the Banks Caught Casino Fever | Roosevelt Institute
Click to expand...


Any banks fail because Glass-Steagall was repealed? Which ones?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have provided proof dozens of times in this thread alone.   Possibly hundreds of times throughout the forum.
> 
> The Clinton Administration, and the Democrats, both pushed banks to make bad loans.   They were very very open about it.   They even had public announcements of their success in forcing banks to make bad loans, and even openly admitted the default rate would be higher on these bad loans.
> 
> 1998: Andrew Cuomo admits Forcing Banks to Make Affirmative Action Loans - YouTube
> 
> Andrew Cuomo, praising the actions of the Federal Government forcing banks to make bad loans, that he admits will have a higher risk, and a higher default rate.   1998.
> 
> I have on my computer right now, a court document, of a lawsuit by Acorn, against a bank to make more sub-prime loans.   The document includes the name Barack Obama.
> 
> This claim that we have been saying over and over, is a well established documented fact.
> 
> 
> 
> "The Clinton Administration, and the Democrats, both pushed banks to make bad loans.   They were very very open about it."
> 
> *Is that right?
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
> How did Sandi Weill feel about that governmental action?*
> 
> "Weissman notes that Glass-Steagall remained law until 1998, when Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging:
> 
> "Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers.
> 
> "The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed.
> 
> "Citigroups co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut. But as the deal-making on the bill moved into its final phase in Fall 1999, fears ran high that the entire exercise would collapse. (Reed now says repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake.)
> 
> "Robert Rubin stepped into the breach.
> 
> "Having recently stepped aside as Treasury Secretary, Rubin was at the time negotiating the terms of his next job as an executive without portfolio at Citigroup.
> 
> "But this was not public knowledge at the time.
> 
> "Deploying the credibility built up as part of what the media had labeled 'The Committee to Save the World' (Rubin, Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, so named for their interventions in addressing the Asian financial crisis in 1997), Rubin helped broker the final deal."
> 
> *What about Rubin?
> Was he functioning as a representative of big business or big government?
> Lobbyists are paid by big business to buy big government*
> 
> Looking Back at the Repeal of Glass-Steagall, or, How the Banks Caught Casino Fever | Roosevelt Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?    That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the banks that failed would not have been affected by Glass-Steagall.
> 
> Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, IndyMac, Countrywide, and hundreds of others, none of which would have been affected in any way by Glass-Steagall.
> 
> So none of that matters.  All that crap you just spewed on here, completely irrelevant, because none of it affected the vast majority of the banks that failed.
> 
> CitiGroup is the one single example that I know of, that would have been affected.
> 
> But can you even prove that had then not merged with Travelers, that this would have prevent CitiGroups sub-prime crisis?   No, you can not.
> 
> How do I know this?   Because they spun off Travelers Property Casualty Corporation, in 2002.      So even in the case of CitiGroup, it still doesn't matter.  Still doesn't show even one single example where Glass-Steagall would have prevented ANYTHING that happened in the 2008 crash.
> 
> Again, the government pushed banks to make sub-prime loans.  They sued banks to make sub-prime loans.
> 
> All you can do is keep coming up with more irrelevant arguments.  By all means, find some other dumb wrong, stupid articles that prove nothing.
> 
> You really have lost this argument.  You have posted now, over a dozens times, things that do not prove, do not support, do not even make a good case against what I've said, and the evidence I have provided.
> 
> All you are doing now is cutting and pasting into posts, the opinions of others.  That's not an argument.
Click to expand...

*Apparently, you are right about GLB:*

"Did the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act cause the housing bubble?
by Tyler Cowen on September 19, 2008 at 6:48 am	 in History | Permalink
"No.  

"That is one common myth among the progressive left.  

"Because it involves financial deregulation and the unpopular Phil Gramm, the Act is vilified and assumed to be part of a broader chain of evil events.  Here are some of the articles which promulgate the myth that the Act caused or helped cause the housing bubble.  

"One version of the claim originates with Robert Kuttner, but if you read his article (and the others) youll see theres not much to the charge.  Kuttner doesnt do more than paint the Act as part of the general trend of allowing financial conflicts of interest. 

"Most of all, the Act enabled financial diversification and thus it paved the way for a number of mergers.  Citigroup became what it is today, for instance, because of the Act.  

"Add Shearson and Primerica to the list.  So far in the crisis times the diversification has done considerably more good than harm.  

"Most importantly, GLB made it possible for JP Morgan to buy Bear Stearns and for Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch.  

"Its why Wachovia can consider a bid for Morgan Stanley.  Wince all you want, but the reality is that we all owe a big thanks to Phil Gramm and others for pushing this legislation."

Did the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act cause the housing bubble?


----------



## dnsmith35

bripat9643 said:


> Before capitalism, the poor starved on a regular basis.  They had no healthcare, no clothing, no food, no television, no cell phones, no central heating, no air conditioning, no nothing.   The poor live like kings compared to how they lived before capitalism.





gnarlylove said:


> You must be fond of the idea that civilization started about 100 years ago and beforehand people were savage animals who had no direction until capitalism baptized them. You've regularly advocate learning about history but have opted for a white washed history that paints the modern era as the only leap forward in human civilization.
> 
> Given your level of knowledge about the world, your viewpoint on capitalism is accurate and I am wrong. But there's a big difference between what you perceive to know about the world and how the facts bear. We have no hope of knowing all the facts but your amnesia of history permits the view that capitalism has saved the world.
> 
> If you want to maintain your perceptions, I suggest you never look at history because you will be shaken. The phrase "there's nothing new under the sun" was true when Solomon wrote it in 700BC and still is. But you would only agree if you actually knew the facts of history, the Hellenic Age, the Dynasties in Asia, on and on and on.


Understanding history is important, as is understanding human behavior important. Are you suggesting that during the first 100 years or so in American there was not a greater % of the population who were poor? Are you suggesting that during the period leading up to the settling of America there was not rampant serfdom and poverty in Europe or Asia? 

Basically what he said is correct, Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system. Poverty was the common condition during the Age of Solomon and the Hellenic Age in Greece or in the Dynasties in Asia. That there was more wealth concentration with the leaders of those civilizations than there is now in every capitalistic system the world over. 

I am not saying it was capitalism which relieved most people from poverty, but it sure does look like it from where I sit. I not only read a lot about ancient civilizations, I experienced one of the oldest. Of the 1 billion people in India, prior to capitalism 90% of the people lived in poverty. That has been reduced to about 50% now, and if the liberals with borders choose not to delay their labor evolution, that will drop drastically in the next generation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> So Androw cheers on CEOs  who cave in to pressure to hand out millions of bad loans.
> 
> I'd like to see the PDF that lowered the Lending Standards (doesn't exist) and I'd like to know why these ultra savvy CEOs approved bypassing the database tables with paper.
> 
> The answer is greed, avarice and knowing they would get bailed out.



*I'd like to see the PDF that lowered the Lending Standards *

The CRA didn't lower lending standards? Is that your claim?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am, sadly, able to believe that.  As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> Not in any intelligent manner. *Slavery was evil, but it was not the back bone of the industrial rise in capitalism*. Once the agrarian era was over, and it became obvious that the concept of capital is the excessive production of labor had been totally wrong, capitalism was born. Then we realized it needed regulation. It is the only economic system which makes the most people and nations prosperous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In fact, during the years before the US Civil War, there was no capitalism without slavery; they were one and the same thing.*
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
> 
> "In the 1830s, hundreds of millions of acres of conquered land were surveyed and put up for sale by the United States. This vast privatization of the public domain touched off one of the greatest economic booms in the history of the world up to that time..."
> 
> "Without slavery, however, the survey maps of the General Land Office would have remained a sort of science-fiction plan for a society that could never happen.
> 
> "Between 1820 and 1860 more than a million enslaved people were transported from the upper to the lower South, the vast majority by the venture-capitalist slave traders the slaves called 'soul drivers.'
> 
> "The first wave cleared the region for cultivation. 'Forests were literally dragged out by the roots,' the former slave John Parker remembered in 'His Promised Land.'
> 
> "Those who followed planted the fields in cotton, which they then protected, picked, packed and shipped  *from 'sunup to sundown' every day for the rest of their lives..*."
> 
> "When the cotton crop came in short and sales failed to meet advanced payments, planters found themselves indebted to merchants and bankers.
> 
> "Slaves were sold to make up the difference.
> 
> "The mobility and salability of slaves meant they functioned as the primary form of collateral in the credit-and-cotton economy of the 19th century.
> 
> "It is not simply that the labor of enslaved people underwrote 19th-century capitalism.
> 
> "*Enslaved people were the capital: four million people worth at least $3 billion in 1860, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined*.
> 
> "Seen in this light, the conventional distinction between slavery and capitalism fades into meaninglessness."
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples to lemons. Slavery was an agrarian issue, and capitalism was more about capital as money and investment whereas during the agrarian system capital was the excess production of a worker. You can talk about all of that as much as you wish, but you cannot get away from the fact that capitalism as explained by economist worth their salt, is not slavery. BTW, thank goodness that $3 billion capital was removed in the 19th century. So spew your bullshit about the 19th century and before, and I will discuss the situation as it is today; therefore I can accurately say that Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty as a % of the population than any other system. We have learned from our past and do not expect to revert to the wrongs of the past.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then onto the subject of "truisms"
> 
> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
> 
> 
> 
> I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to have no down payment loans given to people with little or no credit will remember that they will repeat the housing crash.
Click to expand...

Really?  Are you sticking with the single cause?  
Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The cause you cite is listed as a cause... a [Indefinite article] cause

So, irrational enthusiasm for home buying had no effect on demand?

You seem determined to convince me that there never would have been a bubble if the Community Reinvestment Act never existed.  I don't see this as particularly germane to the thread, but I'll play along.  To pretermit any lengthy post on history which is easily accessible on google I shall understand the term "CRA" to include all Legislative and Regulatory changes with special attention paid to the 1995 regulatory changes.  How do you blame the CRA, and only the CRA absent of any other factors, for the housing bubble?

I ask because your position seems premised on the fallacy of the single cause.  I say premised because you are only looking for one cause, therefore the existence of a single cause is not a conclusion but a premise, like a hammer looking for a nail.
Fallacy of the single cause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
_Often after a tragedy it is asked, "What was the cause of this?" Such language implies that there is one cause, when instead there was probably a large number of contributing factors. However, having produced a list of several contributing factors, it may be worthwhile to look for the strongest of the factors, or a single cause underlying several of them. A need for simplification may be perceived in order to make the explanation of the tragedy operational, so that responsible authorities can be seen to have taken action.​_


dnsmith35 said:


> When you talk about the evils of 100 years ago, before the government started to mind the store, OHSA, and our labor laws which have made unions passé, you make zero sense.


People need to be reminded why we have such laws.
People like your buddies on the far right.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither party is going to bite the hand that feeds them, and the politicians can't stand success, they wouldn't  have a point to run on.
> 
> 
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
> 
> "Many actors obviously played a role in this story.
> 
> "Some of the actors were in the public sector and some of them were in the private sector.
> 
> "But the public sector agencies were acting at behest of the private sector.
> 
> "Its not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, 'Lets abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!' Or the SEC spontaneously happened to have the bright idea of relaxing capital requirements on the investment banks. Or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of its own accord abruptly had the idea of preempting state laws protecting borrowers.
> 
> "These agencies of government were being strenuously lobbied to do the very things that would benefit the financial sector and their managers and traders.
> 
> "And behind it all, was the drive for short-term profits."
> 
> *Maybe we can all agree to blame the lobbyists?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we can all agree that lobbyists played a part, politicians played a part and the banking industry was all to ready to help them along the way. Lobbying should be outlawed. Gerrymandering should be outlawed. We should go back to "all politics are local."
Click to expand...

Lobbying and gerrymandering have certainly outlived any usefulness they ever had.
I would strongly suggest voters also stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when picking their congressional representatives, as well. Especially voters with ballots that contain Third Party alternatives for House and Senate races.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, there is a dangerous double-edge sword at play here.  Global trade has, in point of fact, increased the real wage in developing countries.  Global trade has also, in point of fact, set up sweatshops so terrible that the workers leap from windows.
> So my answer is I don't know.  I want that real wage increased.  Global trade is a good path to world peace.  Little girls making Nike shoes is why I don't buy Nikes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need not trade with nations that enslave people.  C'mon, be fair, Nike didn't open up a plant in Sudan.  That being said, I don't know how to implement global trade without recognizing the sovereignty of foreign nations over their own people.  Maybe, just maybe, as these other nations go through many of the pains we went through, these other countries will go through those pains more quickly and with less pain overall than we experienced.  Maybe we can try to set a good example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hopefully, but in the process if we don't trade with those nations, their people will continue to be enslaved in perpetuity. As long as we withhold the use of their labor we are contributing to the status quo and hurting those people even more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The relevant question then is what is the engine that actuates systemic denial and violation of the most basic rights? I think it's evident that there is systemic violations day in and day out across the globe. Some areas worse than others but no place is immune.
> 
> As I gather you assert regulated capitalism is a relative good given our place in history. I might be on board with that as it generates wealth, undoubtedly. But doesn't wealth accumulate despite regulation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can, but the point of regulation is to help level the playing field. I know of no purely laissez-faire capitalist system in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when one becomes so wealthy, isn't that the engine behind systemic violations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely not, especially since our government works to protect the little guy. The problems arise when the government goes beyond making a level playing field and tries to play in the market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That capital is set above the rights of human beings in order to make more capital/generate wealth in the vicious cycle of wealth accumulation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, absolutely not. The capital is only what it is, money and what it buys. Capitalism is what has consistently lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.
Click to expand...


Wages have "increased" relative to the fact that many subsistence farmers have been forcibly moved from arable land so that big agro-business can utilize it and export as capitalism holds: comparative advantage. [/quote]Sustenance farmers were unable to grow the quantities of food we need here in the US and what we export and sell or give to the poor in other countries. 





> Thus the locals have re-located to the hills as in Haiti and to the slums and favelas near the city. Since they no longer feed themselves through crops, they need employment. And as a result of its opening up at the behest of capitalist enterprises, employment and wages have increased. I would hardly understand this as a genuine rise in real wages when wages don't include the conditions under which one now works and lives compared to the cycle of leisure and work that results from being a farmer.


Wow, comparing capitalism in Haiti, to any other modern country is a typical ploy of the left wingers who look for the most depressed people in small countries around the globe so as to look at them and declare incorrectly that it is capitalism which caused the problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I  have said before, and posted links and citations, over the world in general, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system; especially dictatorships as was in Haiti.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then onto the subject of "truisms"
> 
> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
> 
> 
> 
> I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to have no down payment loans given to people with little or no credit will remember that they will repeat the housing crash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Are you sticking with the single cause?
> Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The cause you cite is listed as a cause... a [Indefinite article] cause
> 
> So, irrational enthusiasm for home buying had no effect on demand?
Click to expand...

Of course it did. But why do you think there was irrational enthusiasm existed? Like low interest? Like finally able to by one's own home? (with out regard for credit worthiness?





> You seem determined to convince me that there never would have been a bubble if the Community Reinvestment Act never existed.


 Absolute bullshit. The CRA was one driving force, pushing the banks to make loans that were not viable. I believe the government driving interest so low is a more important issue than the CRA, except for the part CRA may have  had in driving the rates down.





> I don't see this as particularly germane to the thread, but I'll play along.  To pretermit any lengthy post on history which is easily accessible on google I shall understand the term "CRA" to include all Legislative and Regulatory changes with special attention paid to the 1995 regulatory changes.  How do you blame the CRA, and only the CRA absent of any other factors, for the housing bubble?


You have either not read my assertions, or, you do not understand English. I have never touted the CRA as THE CAUSE, but rather one of the CAUSES, with low interest rates caused by the government as the principle cause of the housing balloon and subsequent.





> I ask because your position seems premised on the fallacy of the single cause.  I say premised because you are only looking for one cause, therefore the existence of a single cause is not a conclusion but a premise, like a hammer looking for a nail.


ROTFLMAO at your inability to read and reason.





> Fallacy of the single cause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> _Often after a tragedy it is asked, "What was the cause of this?" Such language implies that there is one cause, when instead there was probably a large number of contributing factors. However, having produced a list of several contributing factors, it may be worthwhile to look for the strongest of the factors, or a single cause underlying several of them. A need for simplification may be perceived in order to make the explanation of the tragedy operational, so that responsible authorities can be seen to have taken action.​_


Obviously you do not know what I have said or you would have come to such a stupid conclusion.





> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you talk about the evils of 100 years ago, before the government started to mind the store, OHSA, and our labor laws which have made unions passé, you make zero sense.
> 
> 
> 
> People need to be reminded why we have such laws.
> People like your buddies on the far right.
Click to expand...

The facts are, I DO NOT HAVE BUDDIES ON THE RIGHT. I am and have always been to the left of center, a true liberal, in that I believe we should have policies which help all people, starting off with the "least of his people." I KNOW why we have such laws. As the union membership started to drop as a % of our labor force the government took over the cause of labor. As a result union labor is becoming less and less of value, EXCEPT for that elite 12% of our labor force.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
> 
> "Many actors obviously played a role in this story.
> 
> "Some of the actors were in the public sector and some of them were in the private sector.
> 
> "But the public sector agencies were acting at behest of the private sector.
> 
> "Its not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, 'Lets abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!' Or the SEC spontaneously happened to have the bright idea of relaxing capital requirements on the investment banks. Or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of its own accord abruptly had the idea of preempting state laws protecting borrowers.
> 
> "These agencies of government were being strenuously lobbied to do the very things that would benefit the financial sector and their managers and traders.
> 
> "And behind it all, was the drive for short-term profits."
> 
> *Maybe we can all agree to blame the lobbyists?*
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can all agree that lobbyists played a part, politicians played a part and the banking industry was all to ready to help them along the way. Lobbying should be outlawed. Gerrymandering should be outlawed. We should go back to "all politics are local."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lobbying and gerrymandering have certainly outlived any usefulness they ever had.
> I would strongly suggest voters also stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when picking their congressional representatives, as well. Especially voters with ballots that contain Third Party alternatives for House and Senate races.
Click to expand...


People should vote for their one member of the House, because s/he is from their local area. Then they should vote for their state legislators from their local area and then perhaps vote for the state senators who represent their local district. That is where it should stop. The state legislators should appoint presidential electors from their state and the two US senators who will represent that state in the US Senate. Politics was intended to be local, and we should go back to that premise.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imply hell! let me say it straight out. The banks did what the government told them to do. The fault is the government's. No matter how you try to pass it off on the banks whose only blame is trying not to lose too much money with low interest toxic loans. If there is another crisis in the making, look to our politicians in Washington, D.C., not to the banks.
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course, those banks hired the lobbyists to tell government which laws to pass, right?*
> 
> "Even this morning, November 22, 2011, a seemingly smart guy like Joe Kernan was saying on CNBCs Squawkbox, 'When the losses at Fannie and Freddie reach $200 billion how can the deniers say that Fannie and Freddie were enablers for a lot of the housing crisis. When it gets up to that levels, how can they say that they were only into sub-prime late, and they were only in it a little bit?'
> 
> "The reason that people can say that is because it is true.
> 
> "The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy."
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet the failure and losses in the derivatives market was a result of the housing crash, not the cause.
Click to expand...

"It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too. 

"For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year. 

"If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a Credit Default Swap.

"Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the SEC. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants. 

"When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.(2008)

Role of Derivatives in Creating Mortgage Crisis


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course, those banks hired the lobbyists to tell government which laws to pass, right?*
> 
> "Even this morning, November 22, 2011, a seemingly smart guy like Joe Kernan was saying on CNBCs Squawkbox, 'When the losses at Fannie and Freddie reach $200 billion how can the deniers say that Fannie and Freddie were enablers for a lot of the housing crisis. When it gets up to that levels, how can they say that they were only into sub-prime late, and they were only in it a little bit?'
> 
> "The reason that people can say that is because it is true.
> 
> "The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy."
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the failure and losses in the derivatives market was a result of the housing crash, not the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too.
> 
> "For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.
> 
> "If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a Credit Default Swap.
> 
> "Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the SEC. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants.
> 
> "When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.(2008)
> 
> Role of Derivatives in Creating Mortgage Crisis
Click to expand...

Your comments about derivatives is not really relevant to the housing balloon, subsequent crash, or the attempts to blame capitalism for the issues you find undesirable. As I have said before, capitalism has raised a higher % of a population out of poverty than any other economic system.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't sulk, kiddo, you sorta got the *point in the end*. (pun?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *He has had the point all along.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, now that's funny on a number of levels.
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was the original point that both Androw and I made
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Androw attempted to prove that new construction was *always* cheaper and defended the claim by exclaiming the equivalent of "well...duh!".  I didn't even touch that in relation to the original claim on price indices the subsequent claim is a non sequitur.  I do show restraint, you know.
> But I digress...
> I get that you're doing some tag team thing.  That's cute.  Is it your intention to have any serious discussion in this thread or are you just tagging in and out for the lulz?
Click to expand...

ALL of my discussion is serious including when I agree with Androw, and recently when I agreed with George Phillip. Your assumptions about my posing or my use of economic studies
on which I base my opinions show little understanding of my assertions and opinions. Try to read for understanding instead of skimming and making rash comments about my posts.


----------



## dnsmith35

Nap time folks. Us old guys need our naps to recharge what little battery power we have left.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
> 
> "Many actors obviously played a role in this story.
> 
> "Some of the actors were in the public sector and some of them were in the private sector.
> 
> "But the public sector agencies were acting at behest of the private sector.
> 
> "Its not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, 'Lets abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!' Or the SEC spontaneously happened to have the bright idea of relaxing capital requirements on the investment banks. Or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of its own accord abruptly had the idea of preempting state laws protecting borrowers.
> 
> "These agencies of government were being strenuously lobbied to do the very things that would benefit the financial sector and their managers and traders.
> 
> "And behind it all, was the drive for short-term profits."
> 
> *Maybe we can all agree to blame the lobbyists?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, which lobbyists?   You mean ACORN and other community groups that lobbied to lower lending standards?    Yeah.  Absolutely we blame them.
> 
> Whoever wrote that article from Forbes, was an idiot.
> 
> The very act of the banking business, involves risk.  It's fundamental to how loaning money works.   You don't know what will happen when you loan money to person X, and if they will repay or not.
> 
> Of course the banks are operating the same way they were in the past.  If you legislate out risk, there would be no banking industry.
> 
> Further, of course reform didn't work.   When you bailout banks, what reason do banks have to fundamentally change how they operate?
> 
> "WHY BANKS FAILED THE STRESS TEST"
> Andrew G Haldane
> Executive Director for Financial Stability
> Bank of England
> 13 February 2009
> 
> Gave this report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few years ago, ahead of the present crisis, the Bank of England and the FSA commenced a series of seminars with financial firms, exploring their stress-testing practices. The first meeting of that group sticks in my mind. We had asked firms to tell us the sorts of stress which they routinely used for their stress-tests.
> 
> A quick survey suggested these were very modest stresses. We asked why. Perhaps disaster myopia  disappointing, but perhaps unsurprising? Or network externalities  we understood how difficult these were to capture?
> 
> No. There was a much simpler explanation according to one of those present. There was absolutely no incentive for individuals or teams to run severe stress tests and show these to management. First, because if there were such a severe shock, they would very likely lose their bonus and possibly their jobs.
> 
> *Second, because in that event the authorities would have to step-in anyway to save a bank and others suffering a similar plight.*
> 
> All of the other assembled bankers began subjecting their shoes to intense scrutiny.  The unspoken words had been spoken. The officials in the room were aghast.
> 
> Did banks not understand that the official sector would not underwrite banks mismanaging their risks?
> 
> Yet history now tells us that the unnamed banker was spot-on. His was a brilliant articulation of the internal and external incentive problem within banks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people on the left don't seem to grasp this.   You can make a BILLION LAWS.... all trying to mitigate risk, and it's all pointless.   No amount of regulation will ever stop banks from making bad choices.  No amount of laws will stop this.
> 
> The only system that will prevent banks from making bad choices, is letting them fail, and not bailing them out.
> 
> This report, where government officials interviewed bank executives, is absolute proof of why everything happened the way it did.
> 
> The banker years before the crisis, said they would likely lose their jobs, and the banks would end up bailed out anyway.
> 
> When Bear Stearns, one of the original players in the 1997 Sub-prime Freddie Mac Loan scheme, crash... the very first thing that happened was James Cayne, was fired. Alan Schwartz replaced him, but only for a few months, and he was gone.  Meanwhile the company was given billions, and ultimately bond holders of Bear Stearns were paid back 100¢ on the dollar by tax payers.
> 
> In other words, the bank executives were absolutely right.  They knew exactly what would happen.  The government would bail them out anyway, and they would lose their jobs, so why bother mitigating risk?
> 
> This is the real problem.   All that blaw blaw blaw blaw and Glass-Steagall, and leverage ratios, and capital requirements... all of that, doesn't mean anything.   It's all completely irrelevant.
> *
> As long as the banks know the government will bail them out, they will never do high risk stress tests, because there's no reason to.*
> 
> Lastly, the article makes some really lame points.
> 
> Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the crash.  If it had been left in place, nothing would have changed.  As far as I can tell, only 3 of the major banks would have been affected by it, and 2 of those did NOT fail.
> 
> Second, relaxing capital requirements on investment banks, is also largely irrelevant.   I have yet to find one single example of an investment bank that failed, that had they followed the original capital requirements, would not have failed.   If you can tell me which investment bank you think would not have failed, under the original capital requirement rules, by all means post it.
> 
> Moreover, investment banks were a fraction of the banks that failed.  IndyMac was not an investment bank.   Countrywide was not an investment bank.   Wachovia (originally First Union, one of the original 1997 sub-prime Freddie Mac lenders), was not an investment bank.  AIG was not an investment bank.
> 
> All of these, and the majority of all banks that failed, were not investment banks, and did not have their capital requirements relaxed.
> 
> Lastly, preempting state laws that protect borrowers, is something I'm against, but honestly it was good from the crisis perspective.
> 
> I'm against it, because I'm against the federal government telling anyone what to do.  It's not the Federal government's job to determine what protections borrowers have, or what regulations banks must follow.
> 
> However, that said....  Borrower protection, is exactly the opposite of what we want.   When you protect borrowers from the fallout of making bad loans, that just increases the chances of having people make bad loans.
> 
> What do you think "strategic default" means?   People intentionally default on their loans, knowing they have protections.  They can declare bankruptcy, and walk away from all the debts they owe.
> 
> This is one of the reasons Canada has had no real housing price bubble, or housing price crash, because all loans are full recourse.   Meaning, if you buy a house with a loan for $200,000, and you decide to strategically default... you end up losing everything.  They'll chase you until the end of your life until you pay back that loan.
> 
> Consequently people are not likely to make a risky loan.  They are not likely to borrow hundreds of thousands, and then walk away... because they'll lose everything, and end up garnished for years.
> 
> The article was dumb, and pointless.   Focus on the cause, not irrelevant unimportant side notes, that had nothing to do with the crash.
> 
> The cause, was government pushing bad loans.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Which lobbyists pushed the government to push bad loans?
> Hint: it wasn't ACORN or Obama*
> 
> "Weissman notes that Glass-Steagall remained law until 1998, when Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging:
> 
> "Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers.
> 
> "The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed. *Citigroups co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed *led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut.
> 
> "But as the deal-making on the bill moved into its final phase in Fall 1999, fears ran high that the entire exercise would collapse. (Reed now says repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake.)"
> 
> *If you decide to argue that the repeal of Glass-Steagall played no role in perpetuating the US housing bubble, supply proof (for a change)*
> 
> Looking Back at the Repeal of Glass-Steagall, or, How the Banks Caught Casino Fever | Roosevelt Institute
Click to expand...


You are becoming an idiot on the forum.

You have said over and over that Glass-Steagall had something to do with the crash, yet never once showed any proof of that at all.

I have posted proof that Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it, over and over and over and over again.

You want more proof?  You pathetic stupid hypocrite.  YOU provide proof first, then demand it from others.  You have shown nothing over and over for a dozens posts.  Here you mindlessly cut and paste a few lines from Wiki, NOT ONE OF WHICH SHOWS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN GSA AND SUB-PRIME LENDING.... and then you are such an arrogant pile of trash, you demand proof of others?    Idiot.

But I'll post more proof of what I said AGAIN.  You dumb hypocrite will find a way to ignore this too.  Idiot.

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The GrammLeachBliley Act, was passed in 1999, and came into effect in November of 1999.

The sub-prime market was already in the hundreds of billions by then.   Home prices had already increased well above the norm.  I already posted those numbers.  Go read them idiot.

The GLB Act, allowed companies to convert to Financial Holding Companies.   By doing so, they could then engage in Investment, Retail, Commercial, and Insurance, and merge with such.

"Analyzing the Credit Crisis: Was the SEC Missing in Action?"
By John C. Coffee Jr.
New York Law Journal
December 5, 2008



> No major investment bank, however, became a bank holding company until 2008 in the midst of the late-2000s financial crisis. Then all five major free standing investment banks (i.e., those not part of a bank holding company) entered bankruptcy proceedings (Lehman Brothers), were acquired by bank holding companies (Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase and Merrill Lynch by Bank of America), or became bank holding companies by converting their industrial loan companies (nonbank banks) into a national (Morgan Stanley) or state chartered Federal Reserve member bank (Goldman Sachs).



Merrill Lynch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Services:      	Investment management

Merrill Lynch was an investment bank you moron. It didn't do retail, or commercial, or insurance.    Without GSA repealed, Merrill Lynch would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.

Bear Stearns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. was a New York based global investment bank and securities trading and brokerage firm that failed in 2008 as part of the global financial crisis and recession"

Bear Stearns was an investment bank you moron. It didn't do retail, or commercial, or insurance.    Without GSA repealed, Bear Stearns would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.

Lehman Brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Before declaring bankruptcy in 2008, Lehman was the fourth-largest investment bank in the US"

Lehman Brothers was an investment bank you moron. It didn't do retail, or commercial, or insurance.    Without GSA repealed, Lehman Borthers would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.

OneWest Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Before its failure, IndyMac Bank was the largest savings and loan association in the Los Angeles area and the seventh largest mortgage originator in the United States."

IndyMac was a retail bank you moron. It didn't do investment, or commercial, or insurance.    Without GSA repealed, IndyMac would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.

How many examples do you want?

How about this.... stop being a mindless asshole.   You are too dumb to be talking about this topic.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In fact, during the years before the US Civil War, there was no capitalism without slavery; they were one and the same thing.*
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
> 
> "In the 1830s, hundreds of millions of acres of conquered land were surveyed and put up for sale by the United States. This vast privatization of the public domain touched off one of the greatest economic booms in the history of the world up to that time..."
> 
> "Without slavery, however, the survey maps of the General Land Office would have remained a sort of science-fiction plan for a society that could never happen.
> 
> "Between 1820 and 1860 more than a million enslaved people were transported from the upper to the lower South, the vast majority by the venture-capitalist slave traders the slaves called 'soul drivers.'
> 
> "The first wave cleared the region for cultivation. 'Forests were literally dragged out by the roots,' the former slave John Parker remembered in 'His Promised Land.'
> 
> "Those who followed planted the fields in cotton, which they then protected, picked, packed and shipped  *from 'sunup to sundown' every day for the rest of their lives..*."
> 
> "When the cotton crop came in short and sales failed to meet advanced payments, planters found themselves indebted to merchants and bankers.
> 
> "Slaves were sold to make up the difference.
> 
> "The mobility and salability of slaves meant they functioned as the primary form of collateral in the credit-and-cotton economy of the 19th century.
> 
> "It is not simply that the labor of enslaved people underwrote 19th-century capitalism.
> 
> "*Enslaved people were the capital: four million people worth at least $3 billion in 1860, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined*.
> 
> "Seen in this light, the conventional distinction between slavery and capitalism fades into meaninglessness."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am a slave.... I can't have capital.   If I can't have capital... it's not capitalism stupid.    Idiots on the forum today.
> 
> "We deny people the ability to own capital, and that proves capitalism is bad!"
> 
> What moron says stuff like this?  Oh wait... some internet forum poster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You are fundamentally challenged, aren't you?
> Were you homeschooled?
> You're lack of reading COMPREHENSION skills make most of your responses imbecilic.
> 
> Slaves were NOT denied the right to have capital, Moron.
> 
> Slaves WERE capital.
> 
> Go to college*
Click to expand...


You sir, are an idiot.  You are simply too stupid to be on a forum.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, there is a dangerous double-edge sword at play here.  Global trade has, in point of fact, increased the real wage in developing countries.  Global trade has also, in point of fact, set up sweatshops so terrible that the workers leap from windows.
> So my answer is I don't know.  I want that real wage increased.  Global trade is a good path to world peace.  Little girls making Nike shoes is why I don't buy Nikes.
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully, but in the process if we don't trade with those nations, their people will continue to be enslaved in perpetuity. As long as we withhold the use of their labor we are contributing to the status quo and hurting those people even more.It can, but the point of regulation is to help level the playing field. I know of no purely laissez-faire capitalist system in the world.  Absolutely not, especially since our government works to protect the little guy. The problems arise when the government goes beyond making a level playing field and tries to play in the market.Again, absolutely not. The capital is only what it is, money and what it buys. Capitalism is what has consistently lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wages have "increased" relative to the fact that many subsistence farmers have been forcibly moved from arable land so that big agro-business can utilize it and export as capitalism holds: comparative advantage.
Click to expand...

Sustenance farmers were unable to grow the quantities of food we need here in the US and what we export and sell or give to the poor in other countries. 





> Thus the locals have re-located to the hills as in Haiti and to the slums and favelas near the city. Since they no longer feed themselves through crops, they need employment. And as a result of its opening up at the behest of capitalist enterprises, employment and wages have increased. I would hardly understand this as a genuine rise in real wages when wages don't include the conditions under which one now works and lives compared to the cycle of leisure and work that results from being a farmer.


Wow, comparing capitalism in Haiti, to any other modern country is a typical ploy of the left wingers who look for the most depressed people in small countries around the globe so as to look at them and declare incorrectly that it is capitalism which caused the problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I  have said before, and posted links and citations, over the world in general, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system; especially dictatorships as was in Haiti.[/QUOTE]
*I wonder if you're aware of who financed Haiti's dictators?*

"The first United States occupation of Haiti began on July 28, 1915, when 330 US Marines landed at Port-au-Prince on the authority of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to safeguard the interests of U.S. corporations. 

"The first invasion forces however already had debarked from U.S.S. 'Montana' on 27 January, 1914.[1]

"The occupation ended on August 1, 1934 after Franklin D. Roosevelt reaffirmed an August 1933 disengagement agreement. The last contingent of U.S. Marines departed on August 15, 1934 after a formal transfer of authority to the Garde."

United States occupation of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Haiti got on the wrong side of US elites when it became home of the only successful slave revolt in human history early in the 19th Century. Since that time it's been home to one mass murder after another perpetrated in the commercial interests of foreign powers.

In 1915 US Marines invaded and occupied Haiti on behalf of The National City Bank of New York (today's Citi), and they didn't leave until 1934.

Some argue Haiti is where Slavery changed its name to Capitalism.*


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course, those banks hired the lobbyists to tell government which laws to pass, right?*
> 
> "Even this morning, November 22, 2011, a seemingly smart guy like Joe Kernan was saying on CNBCs Squawkbox, 'When the losses at Fannie and Freddie reach $200 billion how can the deniers say that Fannie and Freddie were enablers for a lot of the housing crisis. When it gets up to that levels, how can they say that they were only into sub-prime late, and they were only in it a little bit?'
> 
> "The reason that people can say that is because it is true.
> 
> "The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy."
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the failure and losses in the derivatives market was a result of the housing crash, not the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too.
> 
> "For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.
> 
> "If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a Credit Default Swap.
> 
> "Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the SEC. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants.
> 
> "When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.(2008)
> 
> Role of Derivatives in Creating Mortgage Crisis
Click to expand...


You idiot.    Yes, other things can be the underlining asset.  Those other assets didn't crash stupid.   The only counter example was AIG, which had Credit Default Swaps on other companies.....  COMPANIES THAT WERE IN THE SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE MARKING MORON.

Idiot.  You are just an idiot.  You don't know what you are talking about.   In fact, I bet that's why all you do is cut and past from Wiki.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, which lobbyists?   You mean ACORN and other community groups that lobbied to lower lending standards?    Yeah.  Absolutely we blame them.
> 
> Whoever wrote that article from Forbes, was an idiot.
> 
> The very act of the banking business, involves risk.  It's fundamental to how loaning money works.   You don't know what will happen when you loan money to person X, and if they will repay or not.
> 
> Of course the banks are operating the same way they were in the past.  If you legislate out risk, there would be no banking industry.
> 
> Further, of course reform didn't work.   When you bailout banks, what reason do banks have to fundamentally change how they operate?
> 
> "WHY BANKS FAILED THE STRESS TEST"
> Andrew G Haldane
> Executive Director for Financial Stability
> Bank of England
> 13 February 2009
> 
> Gave this report:
> 
> 
> 
> You people on the left don't seem to grasp this.   You can make a BILLION LAWS.... all trying to mitigate risk, and it's all pointless.   No amount of regulation will ever stop banks from making bad choices.  No amount of laws will stop this.
> 
> The only system that will prevent banks from making bad choices, is letting them fail, and not bailing them out.
> 
> This report, where government officials interviewed bank executives, is absolute proof of why everything happened the way it did.
> 
> The banker years before the crisis, said they would likely lose their jobs, and the banks would end up bailed out anyway.
> 
> When Bear Stearns, one of the original players in the 1997 Sub-prime Freddie Mac Loan scheme, crash... the very first thing that happened was James Cayne, was fired. Alan Schwartz replaced him, but only for a few months, and he was gone.  Meanwhile the company was given billions, and ultimately bond holders of Bear Stearns were paid back 100¢ on the dollar by tax payers.
> 
> In other words, the bank executives were absolutely right.  They knew exactly what would happen.  The government would bail them out anyway, and they would lose their jobs, so why bother mitigating risk?
> 
> This is the real problem.   All that blaw blaw blaw blaw and Glass-Steagall, and leverage ratios, and capital requirements... all of that, doesn't mean anything.   It's all completely irrelevant.
> *
> As long as the banks know the government will bail them out, they will never do high risk stress tests, because there's no reason to.*
> 
> Lastly, the article makes some really lame points.
> 
> Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the crash.  If it had been left in place, nothing would have changed.  As far as I can tell, only 3 of the major banks would have been affected by it, and 2 of those did NOT fail.
> 
> Second, relaxing capital requirements on investment banks, is also largely irrelevant.   I have yet to find one single example of an investment bank that failed, that had they followed the original capital requirements, would not have failed.   If you can tell me which investment bank you think would not have failed, under the original capital requirement rules, by all means post it.
> 
> Moreover, investment banks were a fraction of the banks that failed.  IndyMac was not an investment bank.   Countrywide was not an investment bank.   Wachovia (originally First Union, one of the original 1997 sub-prime Freddie Mac lenders), was not an investment bank.  AIG was not an investment bank.
> 
> All of these, and the majority of all banks that failed, were not investment banks, and did not have their capital requirements relaxed.
> 
> Lastly, preempting state laws that protect borrowers, is something I'm against, but honestly it was good from the crisis perspective.
> 
> I'm against it, because I'm against the federal government telling anyone what to do.  It's not the Federal government's job to determine what protections borrowers have, or what regulations banks must follow.
> 
> However, that said....  Borrower protection, is exactly the opposite of what we want.   When you protect borrowers from the fallout of making bad loans, that just increases the chances of having people make bad loans.
> 
> What do you think "strategic default" means?   People intentionally default on their loans, knowing they have protections.  They can declare bankruptcy, and walk away from all the debts they owe.
> 
> This is one of the reasons Canada has had no real housing price bubble, or housing price crash, because all loans are full recourse.   Meaning, if you buy a house with a loan for $200,000, and you decide to strategically default... you end up losing everything.  They'll chase you until the end of your life until you pay back that loan.
> 
> Consequently people are not likely to make a risky loan.  They are not likely to borrow hundreds of thousands, and then walk away... because they'll lose everything, and end up garnished for years.
> 
> The article was dumb, and pointless.   Focus on the cause, not irrelevant unimportant side notes, that had nothing to do with the crash.
> 
> The cause, was government pushing bad loans.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> *Which lobbyists pushed the government to push bad loans?
> Hint: it wasn't ACORN or Obama*
> 
> "Weissman notes that Glass-Steagall remained law until 1998, when Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging:
> 
> "Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers.
> 
> "The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed. *Citigroups co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed *led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut.
> 
> "But as the deal-making on the bill moved into its final phase in Fall 1999, fears ran high that the entire exercise would collapse. (Reed now says repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake.)"
> 
> *If you decide to argue that the repeal of Glass-Steagall played no role in perpetuating the US housing bubble, supply proof (for a change)*
> 
> Looking Back at the Repeal of Glass-Steagall, or, How the Banks Caught Casino Fever | Roosevelt Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are becoming an idiot on the forum.
> 
> You have said over and over that Glass-Steagall had something to do with the crash, yet never once showed any proof of that at all.
> 
> I have posted proof that Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it, over and over and over and over again.
> 
> You want more proof?  You pathetic stupid hypocrite.  YOU provide proof first, then demand it from others.  You have shown nothing over and over for a dozens posts.  Here you mindlessly cut and paste a few lines from Wiki, NOT ONE OF WHICH SHOWS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN GSA AND SUB-PRIME LENDING.... and then you are such an arrogant pile of trash, you demand proof of others?    Idiot.
> 
> But I'll post more proof of what I said AGAIN.  You dumb hypocrite will find a way to ignore this too.  Idiot.
> 
> Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The GrammLeachBliley Act, was passed in 1999, and came into effect in November of 1999.
> 
> The sub-prime market was already in the hundreds of billions by then.   Home prices had already increased well above the norm.  I already posted those numbers.  Go read them idiot.
> 
> The GLB Act, allowed companies to convert to Financial Holding Companies.   By doing so, they could then engage in Investment, Retail, Commercial, and Insurance, and merge with such.
> 
> "Analyzing the Credit Crisis: Was the SEC Missing in Action?"
> By John C. Coffee Jr.
> New York Law Journal
> December 5, 2008
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No major investment bank, however, became a bank holding company until 2008 in the midst of the late-2000s financial crisis. Then all five major free standing investment banks (i.e., those not part of a bank holding company) entered bankruptcy proceedings (Lehman Brothers), were acquired by bank holding companies (Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase and Merrill Lynch by Bank of America), or became bank holding companies by converting their industrial loan companies (nonbank banks) into a national (Morgan Stanley) or state chartered Federal Reserve member bank (Goldman Sachs).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Merrill Lynch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Services:      	Investment management
> 
> Merrill Lynch was an investment bank you moron. It didn't do retail, or commercial, or insurance.    Without GSA repealed, Merrill Lynch would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.
> 
> Bear Stearns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> "The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. was a New York based global investment bank and securities trading and brokerage firm that failed in 2008 as part of the global financial crisis and recession"
> 
> Bear Stearns was an investment bank you moron. It didn't do retail, or commercial, or insurance.    Without GSA repealed, Bear Stearns would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.
> 
> Lehman Brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> "Before declaring bankruptcy in 2008, Lehman was the fourth-largest investment bank in the US"
> 
> Lehman Brothers was an investment bank you moron. It didn't do retail, or commercial, or insurance.    Without GSA repealed, Lehman Borthers would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.
> 
> OneWest Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> "Before its failure, IndyMac Bank was the largest savings and loan association in the Los Angeles area and the seventh largest mortgage originator in the United States."
> 
> IndyMac was a retail bank you moron. It didn't do investment, or commercial, or insurance.    Without GSA repealed, IndyMac would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.
> 
> How many examples do you want?
> 
> How about this.... stop being a mindless asshole.   You are too dumb to be talking about this topic.
Click to expand...

*Your link, Homeschool:*

"The act is 'often cited as a cause' of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis 'even by some of its onetime supporters.'[26] 

"President Barack Obama has stated that GLB led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression.[citation needed] 

"Its passage, critics also say, cleared the way for companies that were too big and intertwined to fail.[27]

"Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund, economists who follow the free-market Austrian School, have also criticized the Act as contributing to the crisis, noting that the act did not at all 'deregulate' in the literal sense of the word, but merely transferred regulatory power to the regional Federal Reserve Banks. 

"They state that 'in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance' the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made perfect sense as a legitimate act of so-called 'deregulation', but under the present fiat monetary it 'amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly'.[28]

"Another Austrian School economist, Frank Shostak, has argued that GLB actually gave more regulation over the banking sector. He argues that with the existence of a central bank, competition among banks led to increased inflation and 'rather than promoting an efficient allocation of real savings, the current "deregulated" monetary system has been channeling money created out of thin air across the economy'".[29]

"Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also argued that the Act helped to create the crisis.[30] 

"In an article in The Nation, Mark Sumner asserted that the GrammLeachBliley Act was responsible for the creation of entities that took on more risk due to their being considered 'too big to fail'.[31] 

"Other critics also assert that proponents and defenders of the Act espouse a form of 'eliteconomics' that has, with the passage of the Act, directly precipitated the current economic recession while at the same time shifting the burden of belt-tightening measures onto the lower- and middle-income classes.[32]"


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can all agree that lobbyists played a part, politicians played a part and the banking industry was all to ready to help them along the way. Lobbying should be outlawed. Gerrymandering should be outlawed. We should go back to "all politics are local."
> 
> 
> 
> Lobbying and gerrymandering have certainly outlived any usefulness they ever had.
> I would strongly suggest voters also stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when picking their congressional representatives, as well. Especially voters with ballots that contain Third Party alternatives for House and Senate races.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People should vote for their one member of the House, because s/he is from their local area. Then they should vote for their state legislators from their local area and then perhaps vote for the state senators who represent their local district. That is where it should stop. The state legislators should appoint presidential electors from their state and the two US senators who will represent that state in the US Senate. Politics was intended to be local, and we should go back to that premise.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that provide the richest citizens (corporate and natural) in each local area with even more control over democracy than they currently enjoy? You really have problems with direct elections of US Senators?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> ROTFLMAO at your inability to read and reason.  Obviously you do not know what I have said or you would have come to such a stupid conclusion.


That sort of comment isn't going to help things.



dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to have *no down payment loans given to people with little or no credit* will remember that they will repeat the housing crash.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Are you sticking with the single cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it did. But why do you think there was irrational enthusiasm existed? Like low interest? Like finally able to by one's own home? (with out regard for credit worthiness? Absolute bullshit. The CRA was one driving force, pushing the banks to make loans that were not viable. *I believe the government driving interest so low is a more important issue than the CRA*, except for the part CRA may have  had in driving the rates down.
Click to expand...


*So then, why didn't you say *
_"I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to make poor decisions, such as driving interest so low and the CRA, will remember that they will repeat the housing crash."_​
But that's not what you said.  I would really rather not dredge up tens of pages of posts of that not being what you said.  There is a choice here.  I can either choose to let this go; or, we can argue about what you said for tens more pages.
*How about we just move on.*

I am satisfied.



dnsmith35 said:


> You have either not read my assertions, or, you do not understand English. I have never touted the CRA as THE CAUSE, but rather one of the CAUSES, with low interest rates caused by the government as the principle cause of the housing balloon and subsequent.


Okay, again, why then wouldn't you assert that here:


dnsmith35 said:


> I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to have *no down payment loans given to people* with little or no credit will remember that they will repeat the housing crash.


I mean you just argued that, for the sake of posterity, as the lesson to carry forward into the history books, it was the CRA that was the culprit.
I would really rather not dredge up tens of pages of posts of that being what you said.  There is a choice here.  I can either choose to let this go; or, we can argue about what you said for tens more pages.
*How about we just move on.*



dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you talk about the evils of 100 years ago, before the government started to mind the store, OHSA, and our labor laws which have made unions passé, you make zero sense.
> 
> 
> 
> People need to be reminded why we have such laws.
> People like your buddies on the far right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are, I DO NOT HAVE BUDDIES ON THE RIGHT. I am and have always been to the left of center, a true liberal
Click to expand...

Then I owe you an apology.  I apologize.  I'm more to the right of center; of course that was before the definition of "Political Center" moved underneath me.  Now I am engaged in RL conversations trying to explain that the intent of a Ponzi scheme is to bamboozle people whereas the intent of Social Security is to give a small subsidy to the elderly such that the elderly won't have to eat dog food.  That's in Real Life, let alone a message board.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> *Your link, Homeschool:*
> 
> "The act is 'often cited as a cause' of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis 'even by some of its onetime supporters.'[26]



Opinion.



> "President Barack Obama has stated that GLB led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression.[citation needed]



Opinion.  The same Obama that was suing banks to make bad loans.



> "Its passage, critics also say, cleared the way for companies that were too big and intertwined to fail.[27]



I just proved that most of the companies would not be effected by Glass Steagall.   Regardless, what does this have to do with sub-prime mortgages?   Nothing.



> "Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund, economists who follow the free-market Austrian School, have also criticized the Act as contributing to the crisis, noting that the act did not at all 'deregulate' in the literal sense of the word, but merely transferred regulatory power to the regional Federal Reserve Banks.



So both noted that it didn't "deregulate" at all.   Great.  And how does this prove the act contributed to sub-prime loans?   No proof here at all.



> "They state that 'in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance' the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made perfect sense as a legitimate act of so-called 'deregulation', but under the present fiat monetary it 'amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly'.[28]



Well I would agree with that.   We should have a gold standard, and we should have no FDIC.    Great.   What's this got to do with sub-prime lending?  Nothing.



> "Another Austrian School economist, Frank Shostak, has argued that GLB actually gave more regulation over the banking sector. He argues that with the existence of a central bank, competition among banks led to increased inflation and 'rather than promoting an efficient allocation of real savings, the current "deregulated" monetary system has been channeling money created out of thin air across the economy'".[29]



What does this have to do with sub-prime lending.



> "Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also argued that the Act helped to create the crisis.[30]



Opinion.



> "In an article in The Nation, Mark Sumner asserted that the Gramm&#8211;Leach&#8211;Bliley Act was responsible for the creation of entities that took on more risk due to their being considered 'too big to fail'.[31]



Again, I just proved that the act didn't affect the companies that crashed.  So.... he's wrong.    Are you too dumb to think for yourself?



> "Other critics also assert that proponents and defenders of the Act espouse a form of 'eliteconomics' that has, with the passage of the Act, directly precipitated the current economic recession while at the same time shifting the burden of belt-tightening measures onto the lower- and middle-income classes.[32]"



What's this got to do with sub-prime lending?

Idiot.  You are just so absolutely stupid, you don't even realize how moronic your posts are.

Are you just too plain stupid to think for yourself?   Glass Steagall, didn't have anything to do with 90% of what you said, and the other 10%, it was just wrong.    I just proved that those companies where not Retail, Commercial, Investment and Insurance companies. 

That's the ONLY THINK that Glass-Steagall prevented, was one bank doing all four things.

None of what you just said, matters to that, except for the claim that repealing it allowed the banks to get bigger.... which I just proved did not apply.   Those banks that failed were not doing that.   Glass-Steagall would not effect them.

Are you too dumb to figure that out?  Are you so blindly stupid, all you can do is repost other people's opinions?    Are you idiotic, that you think opinions are the same as facts??

Get off the forum.  You are too immature to be here.  Grow up, learn something, and maybe we'll bother listening to you again.

I'm done with you.   You have proven yourself incapable of reason, incapable of logic, you post opinion as fact, then demand proof.  You are an idiot.  You are waste of oxygen.   You couldn't argue your way out of a 4th grade debate club.  You and me... we're done.  I'm not wasting my time with such a pathetic idiot.


----------



## Andylusion

dnsmith35 said:


> Nap time folks. Us old guys need our naps to recharge what little battery power we have left.



You can't fix stupid anyway.  Every time you make a point, he goes to wiki, does a 'cut and paste' job on some morons opinion, posts it like fact, and then demands others provide proof.

He's a complete waste of time.   People this stupid are only good to be laughed at.  Total idiot.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

georgephillip said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Today, some are arguing the next, new caste system in the capitalist US involves the mass incarceration of millions of superfluous young people currently residing in prisons.
> 
> One-third of black men are likely to spend time locked up before being permanently relegated to a lifetime of second-class citizenship.
> 
> Michelle Alexander explains it better than I can:*
> 
> "Professor Alexander, who is black, knew that African-Americans were overrepresented in prison, though she resisted the idea that this was anything more than unequal implementation of colorblind laws.
> 
> "But her work as director of the American Civil Liberties Unions Racial Justice Project in Northern California, she said, opened her eyes to the extent of the lifelong exclusion many offenders face, including job discrimination, elimination from juries and voter rolls, and even disqualification from food stamps, public housing and student loans.
> 
> 'Its easy to be completely unaware that this vast new system of racial and social control has emerged,' she said. 'Unlike in Jim Crow days, there were no "Whites Only" signs. This system is out of sight, out of mind.'
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw Michelle Alexander on Real Time.  The question I wanted to ask her was how many non-violent criminals are convicted felons?  Of the violent offenders, how many had been incarcerated on non-violent offenses before turning to violent crime?  Specifically I am thinking of the War on Drugs and how enforcement of this new prohibition labels non-violent offenders on equal footing with violent offenders.
> 
> We cannot relent from the prosecution of violent crime.  We can however take steps to mitigate the frequency of violent crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Painting the war on drugs as mainly a backlash against the gains of the civil rights movement, Professor Forman writes, ignores the violent crime wave of the 1970s and minimizes the support among many African-Americans for get-tough measures.
> 
> "Furthermore, he argues, drug offenders make up less than 25 percent of the nations total prison population, while violent offenders  who receive little mention in 'The New Jim Crow'  make up a much larger share.
> 
> 'Even if every single one of these drug offenders were released tomorrow,' he writes, 'the United States would still have the worlds largest prison system.'
> 
> "To Professor Alexander, however, that argument neglects the full scope of the problem.
> 
> "Our criminal 'caste system,' as she calls it, affects not just the 2.3 million people behind bars, but also the 4.8 million others on probation or parole (predominately for nonviolent offenses), to say nothing of the millions more whose criminal records stigmatize them for life.
> 
> 'This system depends on the prison label, not just prison time,' she said."
> 
> *If I understand her argument, all those convicted of felonies continue paying for their crimes long after they leave prison.
> 
> Personally, I don't think it was coincidence that the War on Drugs began about the same time capitalists began outsourcing millions of middle class jobs*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all
Click to expand...


I meant to respond to this earlier.  A non-violent offender, to my mind, should be square with society after he pays his dues.  Unfortunately, a conviction on their record may disqualify a non-violent offender from a number of jobs.  I'm not sure it is conducive to rehabilitation of non-violent offenders to put scarlet letters around them for life.

A violent offender, on the hand, I am not so apt to forgive.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't sulk, kiddo, you sorta got the *point in the end*. (pun?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, now that's funny on a number of levels.
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was the original point that both Androw and I made
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Androw attempted to prove that new construction was *always* cheaper and defended the claim by exclaiming the equivalent of "well...duh!".  I didn't even touch that in relation to the original claim on price indices the subsequent claim is a non sequitur.  I do show restraint, you know.
> But I digress...
> I get that you're doing some tag team thing.  That's cute.  Is it your intention to have any serious discussion in this thread or are you just tagging in and out for the lulz?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ALL of my discussion is serious including when I agree with Androw, and recently when I agreed with George Phillip. Your assumptions about my posing or my use of economic studies
> on which I base my opinions show little understanding of my assertions and opinions. Try to read for understanding instead of skimming and making rash comments about my posts.
Click to expand...

If you're going to spend multiple posts deflecting an obvious logical error in the defense of another person for reasons you have been unwilling to explain, that is just fine with me.
But don't then complain when I label him your buddy.

For the record, I have not commented on any of the aforementioned studies in this exchange which should make this exchange rather dull, not exciting.  I commented on that to which you chose to respond.
_Notene post,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...antees-rising-inequality-265.html#post9185264
different exchange_


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before capitalism, the poor starved on a regular basis.  They had no healthcare, no clothing, no food, no television, no cell phones, no central heating, no air conditioning, no nothing.   The poor live like kings compared to how they lived before capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be fond of the idea that civilization started about 100 years ago and beforehand people were savage animals who had no direction until capitalism baptized them. You've regularly advocate learning about history but have opted for a white washed history that paints the modern era as the only leap forward in human civilization.
> 
> Given your level of knowledge about the world, your viewpoint on capitalism is accurate and I am wrong. But there's a big difference between what you perceive to know about the world and how the facts bear. We have no hope of knowing all the facts but your amnesia of history permits the view that capitalism has saved the world.
> 
> If you want to maintain your perceptions, I suggest you never look at history because you will be shaken. The phrase "there's nothing new under the sun" was true when Solomon wrote it in 700BC and still is. But you would only agree if you actually knew the facts of history, the Hellenic Age, the Dynasties in Asia, on and on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understanding history is important, as is understanding human behavior important. Are you suggesting that during the first 100 years or so in American there was not a greater % of the population who were poor? Are you suggesting that during the period leading up to the settling of America there was not rampant serfdom and poverty in Europe or Asia?
> 
> Basically what he said is correct, Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system. Poverty was the common condition during the Age of Solomon and the Hellenic Age in Greece or in the Dynasties in Asia. That there was more wealth concentration with the leaders of those civilizations than there is now in every capitalistic system the world over.
> 
> I am not saying it was capitalism which relieved most people from poverty, but it sure does look like it from where I sit. I not only read a lot about ancient civilizations, I experienced one of the oldest. Of the 1 billion people in India, prior to capitalism 90% of the people lived in poverty. That has been reduced to about 50% now, and if the liberals with borders choose not to delay their labor evolution, that will drop drastically in the next generation.
Click to expand...


I'm not implying anything outside of what I said. Bri is well known for citing history but it's not as factual as it is in service to his political ideology. We must be careful not to let our predilections re-write history.

Yes all civilizations have had their troubles surrounding survival. You claim capitalism is beneficiary since it has reduced problems of survival. I don't doubt the sheer volume of commodities and wealth created has raised the standard of living for many millions, probably a couple billion. However, there are costs that are not calculated in clean statistics like poverty reduction. Such numbers offer a clean figure, easy to gloss over and forget it doesn't represent the full situation but is a sliver of information that neglects other information that is perhaps more revealing. So the real question should and must be, how has capitalism transformed the collective world and each person? The good is visible from where you sit. The bad or the costs are externalized (pollution), poverty (slums, esp. India).

Basically capitalism has good and bad. In the present moment staring into our computer screen appears good. But the present moment of our experience does not account for the realities of billions of people or how our own realities might change over time or the reality of how our planet will become less viable as corporations tear through our resources seeking to profit off our collective planet.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> .....





dnsmith35 said:


> Hopefully, but in the process if we don't trade with those nations, their people will continue to be enslaved in perpetuity. As long as we withhold the use of their labor we are contributing to the status quo and hurting those people even more.It can, but the point of regulation is to help level the playing field. I know of no purely laissez-faire capitalist system in the world.  Absolutely not, especially since our government works to protect the little guy. The problems arise when the government goes beyond making a level playing field and tries to play in the market.Again, absolutely not. The capital is only what it is, money and what it buys. Capitalism is what has consistently lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.





> Wages have "increased" relative to the fact that many subsistence farmers have been forcibly moved from arable land so that big agro-business can utilize it and export as capitalism holds: comparative advantage.


Sustenance farmers were unable to grow the quantities of food we need here in the US and what we export and sell or give to the poor in other countries. 





> Thus the locals have re-located to the hills as in Haiti and to the slums and favelas near the city. Since they no longer feed themselves through crops, they need employment. And as a result of its opening up at the behest of capitalist enterprises, employment and wages have increased. I would hardly understand this as a genuine rise in real wages when wages don't include the conditions under which one now works and lives compared to the cycle of leisure and work that results from being a farmer.


Wow, comparing capitalism in Haiti, to any other modern country is a typical ploy of the left wingers who look for the most depressed people in small countries around the globe so as to look at them and declare incorrectly that it is capitalism which caused the problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I  have said before, and posted links and citations, over the world in general, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system; especially dictatorships as was in Haiti.





> *I wonder if you're aware of who financed Haiti's dictators?*
> 
> "The first United States occupation of Haiti began on July 28, 1915, when 330 US Marines landed at Port-au-Prince on the authority of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to safeguard the interests of U.S. corporations.
> 
> "The first invasion forces however already had debarked from U.S.S. 'Montana' on 27 January, 1914.[1]
> 
> "The occupation ended on August 1, 1934 after Franklin D. Roosevelt reaffirmed an August 1933 disengagement agreement. The last contingent of U.S. Marines departed on August 15, 1934 after a formal transfer of authority to the Garde."
> 
> United States occupation of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Haiti got on the wrong side of US elites when it became home of the only successful slave revolt in human history early in the 19th Century. Since that time it's been home to one mass murder after another perpetrated in the commercial interests of foreign powers.
> 
> In 1915 US Marines invaded and occupied Haiti on behalf of The National City Bank of New York (today's Citi), and they didn't leave until 1934.
> 
> Some argue Haiti is where Slavery changed its name to Capitalism.*


You have deceitfully changed th quotes above to give credit for my post to Gnarley. I Have corrected the error. Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism. In addition, protecting US business is part of government's duty. It was not capitalism run amok, it was government run amok. Your diatribe has not shown capitalism to be the great enemy of man as you hoped it would


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lobbying and gerrymandering have certainly outlived any usefulness they ever had.
> I would strongly suggest voters also stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when picking their congressional representatives, as well. Especially voters with ballots that contain Third Party alternatives for House and Senate races.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People should vote for their one member of the House, because s/he is from their local area. Then they should vote for their state legislators from their local area and then perhaps vote for the state senators who represent their local district. That is where it should stop. The state legislators should appoint presidential electors from their state and the two US senators who will represent that state in the US Senate. Politics was intended to be local, and we should go back to that premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wouldn't that provide the richest citizens (corporate and natural) in each local area with even more control over democracy than they currently enjoy? You really have problems with direct elections of US Senators?
Click to expand...

Not at all! It would bypass the corrupt national elections situation. 

It is difficult, if not impossible, for the common man to understand politics beyond his local area. National elections have little credibility. Just look at the elections since 1992, that should tell you something. Or maybe back all the way back to 1960, in which organized crime played a part in the selection process.

There were organized efforts to bury JFK because of religion, corruption at its worst.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO at your inability to read and reason.  Obviously you do not know what I have said or you would have come to such a stupid conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> That sort of comment isn't going to help things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need help. I have proved my points concretely. So when you come up with accusations I said, or meant something other than what I asserted, I note either the unwillingness to read or the inability to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it did. But why do you think there was irrational enthusiasm existed? Like low interest? Like finally able to by one's own home? (with out regard for credit worthiness? Absolute bullshit. The CRA was one driving force, pushing the banks to make loans that were not viable. *I believe the government driving interest so low is a more important issue than the CRA*, except for the part CRA may have  had in driving the rates down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So then, why didn't you say *
> _"I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to make poor decisions, such as driving interest so low and the CRA, will remember that they will repeat the housing crash."_​
> But that's not what you said.  I would really rather not dredge up tens of pages of posts of that not being what you said.  There is a choice here.  I can either choose to let this go; or, we can argue about what you said for tens more pages.
> *How about we just move on.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you don't want to dredge up what I said, because you know I said nothing counter to the assertions I made in the post to which you responded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are? Why? You have not yet countered any of my assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, again, why then wouldn't you assert that here:
> 
> I mean you just argued that, for the sake of posterity, as the lesson to carry forward into the history books, it was the CRA that was the culprit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Second to government's low interest rates. Like I said, you obviously have not read or you obviously have not understood my assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would really rather not dredge up tens of pages of posts of that being what you said.  There is a choice here.  I can either choose to let this go; or, we can argue about what you said for tens more pages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dredge them up, prove I am right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How about we just move on.*
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> People need to be reminded why we have such laws.
> People like your buddies on the far right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are, I DO NOT HAVE BUDDIES ON THE RIGHT. I am and have always been to the left of center, a true liberal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I owe you an apology.  I apologize.  I'm more to the right of center; of course that was before the definition of "Political Center" moved underneath me.  Now I am engaged in RL conversations trying to explain that the intent of a Ponzi scheme is to bamboozle people whereas the intent of Social Security is to give a small subsidy to the elderly such that the elderly won't have to eat dog food.  That's in Real Life, let alone a message board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are to move on, I suggest you don't jump to conclusions after I have spent days saying the government's artificial interest rates were the primary culprit. CRA falls somewhere beyond that, along with sub prime loans.
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your link, Homeschool:*
> 
> "The act is 'often cited as a cause' of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis 'even by some of its onetime supporters.'[26]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "President Barack Obama has stated that GLB led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression.[citation needed]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion.  The same Obama that was suing banks to make bad loans.
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved that most of the companies would not be effected by Glass Steagall.   Regardless, what does this have to do with sub-prime mortgages?   Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> So both noted that it didn't "deregulate" at all.   Great.  And how does this prove the act contributed to sub-prime loans?   No proof here at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I would agree with that.   We should have a gold standard, and we should have no FDIC.    Great.   What's this got to do with sub-prime lending?  Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with sub-prime lending.
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In an article in The Nation, Mark Sumner asserted that the GrammLeachBliley Act was responsible for the creation of entities that took on more risk due to their being considered 'too big to fail'.[31]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I just proved that the act didn't affect the companies that crashed.  So.... he's wrong.    Are you too dumb to think for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Other critics also assert that proponents and defenders of the Act espouse a form of 'eliteconomics' that has, with the passage of the Act, directly precipitated the current economic recession while at the same time shifting the burden of belt-tightening measures onto the lower- and middle-income classes.[32]"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's this got to do with sub-prime lending?
> 
> Idiot.  You are just so absolutely stupid, you don't even realize how moronic your posts are.
> 
> Are you just too plain stupid to think for yourself?   Glass Steagall, didn't have anything to do with 90% of what you said, and the other 10%, it was just wrong.    I just proved that those companies where not Retail, Commercial, Investment and Insurance companies.
> 
> That's the ONLY THINK that Glass-Steagall prevented, was one bank doing all four things.
> 
> None of what you just said, matters to that, except for the claim that repealing it allowed the banks to get bigger.... which I just proved did not apply.   Those banks that failed were not doing that.   Glass-Steagall would not effect them.
> 
> Are you too dumb to figure that out?  Are you so blindly stupid, all you can do is repost other people's opinions?    Are you idiotic, that you think opinions are the same as facts??
> 
> Get off the forum.  You are too immature to be here.  Grow up, learn something, and maybe we'll bother listening to you again.
> 
> I'm done with you.   You have proven yourself incapable of reason, incapable of logic, you post opinion as fact, then demand proof.  You are an idiot.  You are waste of oxygen.   You couldn't argue your way out of a 4th grade debate club.  You and me... we're done.  I'm not wasting my time with such a pathetic idiot.
Click to expand...

I wonder if he realizes that calling you home school is not an insult. Home schooled kids consistently out score public school kids here in Alabama, as the AEA has consistently lowered education standards in the process of improving their own lot.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> A non-violent offender, to my mind, should be square with society after he pays his dues.  Unfortunately, a conviction on their record may disqualify a non-violent offender from a number of jobs.  I'm not sure it is conducive to rehabilitation of non-violent offenders to put scarlet letters around them for life.
> 
> A violent offender, on the hand, I am not so apt to forgive.


I agree with that comment, for the first offense, but from then on they have been informed as to how their NON-VIOLENT CRIME does in fact cause VIOLENT CRIME in the drug distribution system. Once aware, you must beware!


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, now that's funny on a number of levels.
> 
> 
> Androw attempted to prove that new construction was *always* cheaper and defended the claim by exclaiming the equivalent of "well...duh!".  I didn't even touch that in relation to the original claim on price indices the subsequent claim is a non sequitur.  I do show restraint, you know.
> But I digress...
> I get that you're doing some tag team thing.  That's cute.  Is it your intention to have any serious discussion in this thread or are you just tagging in and out for the lulz?
> 
> 
> 
> ALL of my discussion is serious including when I agree with Androw, and recently when I agreed with George Phillip. Your assumptions about my posing or my use of economic studies
> on which I base my opinions show little understanding of my assertions and opinions. Try to read for understanding instead of skimming and making rash comments about my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to spend multiple posts deflecting an obvious logical error in the defense of another person for reasons you have been unwilling to explain, that is just fine with me.
> But don't then complain when I label him your buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little obvious logical error in Androw's posts concerning the fault of government in the housing crash. You are illogically incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, I have not commented on any of the aforementioned studies in this exchange which should make this exchange rather dull, not exciting.  I commented on that to which you chose to respond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Studies are which prove the points, not your clamoring for quasi intellectual guff.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith, what is your concept of logic?


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before capitalism, the poor starved on a regular basis.  They had no healthcare, no clothing, no food, no television, no cell phones, no central heating, no air conditioning, no nothing.   The poor live like kings compared to how they lived before capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be fond of the idea that civilization started about 100 years ago and beforehand people were savage animals who had no direction until capitalism baptized them. You've regularly advocate learning about history but have opted for a white washed history that paints the modern era as the only leap forward in human civilization.
> 
> Given your level of knowledge about the world, your viewpoint on capitalism is accurate and I am wrong. But there's a big difference between what you perceive to know about the world and how the facts bear. We have no hope of knowing all the facts but your amnesia of history permits the view that capitalism has saved the world.
> 
> If you want to maintain your perceptions, I suggest you never look at history because you will be shaken. The phrase "there's nothing new under the sun" was true when Solomon wrote it in 700BC and still is. But you would only agree if you actually knew the facts of history, the Hellenic Age, the Dynasties in Asia, on and on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understanding history is important, as is understanding human behavior important. Are you suggesting that during the first 100 years or so in American there was not a greater % of the population who were poor? Are you suggesting that during the period leading up to the settling of America there was not rampant serfdom and poverty in Europe or Asia?
> 
> Basically what he said is correct, Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system. Poverty was the common condition during the Age of Solomon and the Hellenic Age in Greece or in the Dynasties in Asia. That there was more wealth concentration with the leaders of those civilizations than there is now in every capitalistic system the world over.
> 
> I am not saying it was capitalism which relieved most people from poverty, but it sure does look like it from where I sit. I not only read a lot about ancient civilizations, I experienced one of the oldest. Of the 1 billion people in India, prior to capitalism 90% of the people lived in poverty. That has been reduced to about 50% now, and if the liberals with borders choose not to delay their labor evolution, that will drop drastically in the next generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Basically capitalism has good and bad. In the present moment staring into our computer screen appears good. But the present moment of our experience does not account for the realities of billions of people or how our own realities might change over time or the reality of how our planet will become less viable as corporations tear through our resources seeking to profit off our collective planet.
Click to expand...

Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.

Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith, what is your concept of logic?


A logical construct is a statement of assumption. Then a conclusion drawn fro that statement, which may or may not follow logically. EXAMPLE:

All girls wear panties. John wears panties. John is therefore a girl. That is not a logical conclusion. 

If I said, all girls wear panties. Jean s a girl, therefore Jean wears panties, them it is a logical conclusion.


----------



## dnsmith35

Goodnight all!


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

I've taken the liberty of removing faulty formatting from the following quote.


dnsmith35 said:


> ALL of my discussion is serious including when I agree with Androw, and recently when I agreed with George Phillip. Your assumptions about my posing or my use of economic studies
> on which I base my opinions show little understanding of my assertions and opinions. Try to read for understanding instead of skimming and making rash comments about my posts.There is little obvious logical error in Androw's posts concerning the fault of government in the housing crash. You are illogically incorrect.Studies are which prove the points, not your clamoring for quasi intellectual guff.


I am illogically incorrect?  I don't think that's what you meant to say.

Do want to take a second stab at that post?
Look, if you're going to take a swipe at me and suggest that I am "clamoring for quasi intellectual guff" then you could at least take the time to properly format your post.  Poor formatting takes all the sting out of your zingers.



Androw said:


> New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house.   Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.


This is your buddy's claim that you are defending.  So, please enlighten me as to the "studies are which prove the points"?  No really, I'd love to see some studies that show customization and land development as infrequent reasons for home construction.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith, what is your concept of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> A logical construct is a statement of assumption. Then a conclusion drawn fro that statement, which may or may not follow logically. EXAMPLE:
> 
> All girls wear panties. John wears panties. John is therefore a girl. That is not a logical conclusion.
> 
> If I said, all girls wear panties. Jean s a girl, therefore Jean wears panties, them it is a logical conclusion.
Click to expand...


That's a syllogism.  A syllogism based on the false premise that "all girls wear panties" and therefore a faulty syllogism.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.
> 
> Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.



You have consistently exonerated capitalism when you admit misdeeds have occurred. In the case of Haiti you said:

"Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism."

You've made at least 2 very similar exonerations regarding other misdeeds. I find it puzzling you insist capitalism is innocent in cases of wrongdoing while also agreeing it is not innocent, not perfect and has bad parts, but, as you would surely add: is the best damn economic system we have currently--which may be true. But if you conclude from that that there are no viable alternatives, you are mistaken. It is a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot envision or don't want to imagine another way of organizing an economy does not mean that they do not exist. It only means you are unaware of better alternatives. I'm not advocating for alternatives at present, I'm merely identifying your ambivalence about capitalism and invalid logic that you seem to regularly deploy in support of capitalism.

Can you identify an instance where capitalism is the engine, the cause of wrongdoing? Apparently you don't think so in Haiti but understanding Woodrow Wilson's thinking which lead to the invasion of Haiti during his Presidency is helpful. So let's just read what he wrote:

"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."

I think this leaves no question as to the fact that increasing market share drives governments to deploy force to expand markets. Is the desire to expand market share of US corporations a motivating factor in Haiti? Yes. It may not be the only motivation but certainly among the key motivations that resulted in the decimation of Haitian society, from which is has not recovered to this day. The massive presence of US corporations in Haiti's economy is a sure sign that the motivation to increase market share paid off for wealthy investors and corporations. Not surprisingly it has had the opposite effect on Haitians.

Do you assert Haitians are mostly at fault? Or is the desire to expand markets at fault? ya know, the profit motive? Does the desire to expand markets potentially threaten human rights and freedom?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Again, I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the terrible formatting.


dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMAO at your inability to read and reason.  Obviously you do not know what I have said or you would have come to such a stupid conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> That sort of comment isn't going to help things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need help. I have proved my points concretely. So when you come up with accusations I said, or meant something other than what I asserted, I note either the unwillingness to read or the inability to understand.
Click to expand...


Now you're just being obtuse and obstinate.  So, if I link to your posts in which you say something different then you say now, then the only possible explanation is that I have a reading comprehension problem because you could not possibly be wrong?



dnsmith35 said:


> Of course you don't want to dredge up what I said, because you know I said nothing counter to the assertions I made in the post to which you responded.
> ...
> Like I said, you obviously have not read or you obviously have not understood my assertions.Dredge them up...



I'm getting tired of cleaning up your bad formatting, and you've already stated plainly that you can never admit when you've made an error, but here ya go:
Exhibit A) Notice the defendant claims that only the CRA is responsible.  The defendant makes a reference to the 1995 amendment to the CRA.   This is the defendant's entire post.  Follow the link. 


dnsmith35 said:


> I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to have *no down payment loans given to people with little or no credit* will remember that they will repeat the housing crash.


Exhibit B)


dnsmith35 said:


> The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Peter J. Wallison and coauthor Edward Pinto believed that the *housing bubble and crash was due to federal mandates to promote affordable housing.* ...



This post is quite lengthy and I have snipped it.  A link to the original post is provided.
I replied to this post with:


Zombie_Pundit said:


> I wish you all would stop with the talking points.  Everyone knows that the GOP has been pushing this flimsy explanation for a couple years now.  I mean really, try some original thought.
> Here. let me help you:
> ...
> How Urban Planners Caused the Housing Bubble | Cato Institute
> Now that is some original and thought provoking analysis as opposed to rehashing Marco Rubio's response to Obama's State of the Union Address 2013.  C'mon, guys, your narrative is tired.  And besides, it's classic "Fallacy of the single cause". ...


Again the post is snipped for brevity.  A link to the original post is provided.
I have presented evidence demonstrating that dnsmith did in fact, on several occasions, write a post that claimed only the CRA as responsible for the housing bubble bust.  Now comes the part where dnsmith claims I have misinterpreted his posts because he could not possibly be wrong, or requires more examples.  This cycle of evidence and denial will go on for pages, as things do on the internet.  However, I choose a different path.  I choose *CASE CLOSED*​


dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are? Why? You have not yet countered any of my assertions.
Click to expand...

Evidently, I did.  The evidence is shown above.  I have countered several of your assertions.  I have countered your assertion that you never wrote a post claiming only the CRA was responsible for the housing bubble burst, however inadvertent that claim was on your part.  I have countered your assertion that Androw's argument from incredulity was logical.  I have countered your assertion that you don't need help by helping you with your erroneous post formatting.  I have countered your assertion that we should ignore concerns over foreign working conditions by pointing out that, while you are correct about labor conditions improving by way of free trade, there are limits to the amount of cruelty we as a nation will tolerate from our trading partners specifically citing Sudanese slavery as a case in point.  
These examples all took place in different exchanges between us.  

But none of that is why I am satisfied.  I am satisfied because you abandoned the fallacy of the single cause.  That's all I wanted in the first place.




dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How about we just move on.*
> 
> 
> 
> If we are to move on, I suggest you don't jump to conclusions after I have spent days saying the government's artificial interest rates were the primary culprit. CRA falls somewhere beyond that, along with sub prime loans.
Click to expand...

I believe you have spent days on this subject.  There are over 200 pages of posts in this thread.  I wish you wouldn't keep this up.  This is a thread, I thought, on the virtues of capitalism.
So let me guess... Someone brought up the most recent bust in the business cycle as a means of pointing out flaws in Capitalism.
You and your buddy jumped down their throat claiming it wasn't Capitalism's fault, it was the big bad government, and in doing so you dove headlong into the famous "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Is that what happened... for days on end?
Did it ever occur to you that the true strength of Capitalism is that Capitalism survives busts?  How many economic systems can turn a economic bust into a cyclic pattern that can be endured?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I am a slave.... I can't have capital.   If I can't have capital... it's not capitalism stupid.    Idiots on the forum today.
> 
> "We deny people the ability to own capital, and that proves capitalism is bad!"
> 
> What moron says stuff like this?  Oh wait... some internet forum poster.
> 
> 
> 
> *You are fundamentally challenged, aren't you?
> Were you homeschooled?
> You're lack of reading COMPREHENSION skills make most of your responses imbecilic.
> 
> Slaves were NOT denied the right to have capital, Moron.
> 
> Slaves WERE capital.
> 
> Go to college*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sir, are an idiot.  You are simply too stupid to be on a forum.
Click to expand...

*You, on the other hand, are a semi-literate slave too ignorant of your own history to pass judgement on others.

What part of "slaves were capital" lead you to believe slaves were not entitled to possess capital?*

"As slaveholders supplied themselves (and, much more meanly, their slaves) with Northern goods, the credit originally advanced against cotton made its way north, into the hands of New York and New England merchants who used it to purchase British goods. 

"Thus were Indian land, African-American labor, Atlantic finance and British industry synthesized into racial domination, profit and economic development on a national and a global scale."

*In other words, slavery changed its name to capitalism.
You're the living proof. *

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course, those banks hired the lobbyists to tell government which laws to pass, right?*
> 
> "Even this morning, November 22, 2011, a seemingly smart guy like Joe Kernan was saying on CNBCs Squawkbox, 'When the losses at Fannie and Freddie reach $200 billion how can the deniers say that Fannie and Freddie were enablers for a lot of the housing crisis. When it gets up to that levels, how can they say that they were only into sub-prime late, and they were only in it a little bit?'
> 
> "The reason that people can say that is because it is true.
> 
> "The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy."
> 
> Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the failure and losses in the derivatives market was a result of the housing crash, not the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too.
> 
> "For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.
> 
> "If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a Credit Default Swap.
> 
> "Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the SEC. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants.
> 
> "When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.(2008)
> 
> Role of Derivatives in Creating Mortgage Crisis
Click to expand...


*For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year. *

CDOs are bonds, not derivatives.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully, but in the process if we don't trade with those nations, their people will continue to be enslaved in perpetuity. As long as we withhold the use of their labor we are contributing to the status quo and hurting those people even more.It can, but the point of regulation is to help level the playing field. I know of no purely laissez-faire capitalist system in the world.  Absolutely not, especially since our government works to protect the little guy. The problems arise when the government goes beyond making a level playing field and tries to play in the market.Again, absolutely not. The capital is only what it is, money and what it buys. Capitalism is what has consistently lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sustenance farmers were unable to grow the quantities of food we need here in the US and what we export and sell or give to the poor in other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the locals have re-located to the hills as in Haiti and to the slums and favelas near the city. Since they no longer feed themselves through crops, they need employment. And as a result of its opening up at the behest of capitalist enterprises, employment and wages have increased. I would hardly understand this as a genuine rise in real wages when wages don't include the conditions under which one now works and lives compared to the cycle of leisure and work that results from being a farmer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, comparing capitalism in Haiti, to any other modern country is a typical ploy of the left wingers who look for the most depressed people in small countries around the globe so as to look at them and declare incorrectly that it is capitalism which caused the problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I  have said before, and posted links and citations, over the world in general, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system; especially dictatorships as was in Haiti.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I wonder if you're aware of who financed Haiti's dictators?*
> 
> "The first United States occupation of Haiti began on July 28, 1915, when 330 US Marines landed at Port-au-Prince on the authority of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to safeguard the interests of U.S. corporations.
> 
> "The first invasion forces however already had debarked from U.S.S. 'Montana' on 27 January, 1914.[1]
> 
> "The occupation ended on August 1, 1934 after Franklin D. Roosevelt reaffirmed an August 1933 disengagement agreement. The last contingent of U.S. Marines departed on August 15, 1934 after a formal transfer of authority to the Garde."
> 
> United States occupation of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Haiti got on the wrong side of US elites when it became home of the only successful slave revolt in human history early in the 19th Century. Since that time it's been home to one mass murder after another perpetrated in the commercial interests of foreign powers.
> 
> In 1915 US Marines invaded and occupied Haiti on behalf of The National City Bank of New York (today's Citi), and they didn't leave until 1934.
> 
> Some argue Haiti is where Slavery changed its name to Capitalism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have deceitfully changed th quotes above to give credit for my post to Gnarley. I Have corrected the error. Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism. In addition, protecting US business is part of government's duty. It was not capitalism run amok, it was government run amok. Your diatribe has not shown capitalism to be the great enemy of man as you hoped it would
Click to expand...

I've never changed any quotes for any reasons.
I have noticed the USMB software sometimes transposes responses.

Let's see if we can move on.

Is the Federal Reserve "government" or "private" in your world view?
I ask that because you seem to believe National City Bank exerted no more control over US "government" in 1915 than Citi influenced governmental events during capitalism's most recent looting.

Your amateurish apologies for capitalism aren't changing any minds.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People should vote for their one member of the House, because s/he is from their local area. Then they should vote for their state legislators from their local area and then perhaps vote for the state senators who represent their local district. That is where it should stop. The state legislators should appoint presidential electors from their state and the two US senators who will represent that state in the US Senate. Politics was intended to be local, and we should go back to that premise.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that provide the richest citizens (corporate and natural) in each local area with even more control over democracy than they currently enjoy? You really have problems with direct elections of US Senators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all! It would bypass the corrupt national elections situation.
> 
> It is difficult, if not impossible, for the common man to understand politics beyond his local area. National elections have little credibility. Just look at the elections since 1992, that should tell you something. Or maybe back all the way back to 1960, in which organized crime played a part in the selection process.
> 
> There were organized efforts to bury JFK because of religion, corruption at its worst.
Click to expand...

Are you planning to  bring back literacy tests and the poll tax?


----------



## georgephillip

Zombie_Pundit said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw Michelle Alexander on Real Time.  The question I wanted to ask her was how many non-violent criminals are convicted felons?  Of the violent offenders, how many had been incarcerated on non-violent offenses before turning to violent crime?  Specifically I am thinking of the War on Drugs and how enforcement of this new prohibition labels non-violent offenders on equal footing with violent offenders.
> 
> We cannot relent from the prosecution of violent crime.  We can however take steps to mitigate the frequency of violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> "Painting the war on drugs as mainly a backlash against the gains of the civil rights movement, Professor Forman writes, ignores the violent crime wave of the 1970s and minimizes the support among many African-Americans for get-tough measures.
> 
> "Furthermore, he argues, drug offenders make up less than 25 percent of the nations total prison population, while violent offenders  who receive little mention in 'The New Jim Crow'  make up a much larger share.
> 
> 'Even if every single one of these drug offenders were released tomorrow,' he writes, 'the United States would still have the worlds largest prison system.'
> 
> "To Professor Alexander, however, that argument neglects the full scope of the problem.
> 
> "Our criminal 'caste system,' as she calls it, affects not just the 2.3 million people behind bars, but also the 4.8 million others on probation or parole (predominately for nonviolent offenses), to say nothing of the millions more whose criminal records stigmatize them for life.
> 
> 'This system depends on the prison label, not just prison time,' she said."
> 
> *If I understand her argument, all those convicted of felonies continue paying for their crimes long after they leave prison.
> 
> Personally, I don't think it was coincidence that the War on Drugs began about the same time capitalists began outsourcing millions of middle class jobs*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant to respond to this earlier.  A non-violent offender, to my mind, should be square with society after he pays his dues.  Unfortunately, a conviction on their record may disqualify a non-violent offender from a number of jobs.  I'm not sure it is conducive to rehabilitation of non-violent offenders to put scarlet letters around them for life.
> 
> A violent offender, on the hand, I am not so apt to forgive.
Click to expand...

If I understand Alexander's point, there's a prison "brand" that follows all ex-cons throughout their lives. This "brand" makes many of them ineligible for food stamps, housing assistance, employment, schooling, and non-emergency medical care. If I was given to conspiracy theories, I would suspect these policies were designed to encourage recidivism and the private profits which flow from having the largest prison population in the world.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Understanding history is important, as is understanding human behavior important. Are you suggesting that during the first 100 years or so in American there was not a greater % of the population who were poor? Are you suggesting that during the period leading up to the settling of America there was not rampant serfdom and poverty in Europe or Asia?
> 
> Basically what he said is correct, Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system. Poverty was the common condition during the Age of Solomon and the Hellenic Age in Greece or in the Dynasties in Asia. That there was more wealth concentration with the leaders of those civilizations than there is now in every capitalistic system the world over.
> 
> I am not saying it was capitalism which relieved most people from poverty, but it sure does look like it from where I sit. I not only read a lot about ancient civilizations, I experienced one of the oldest. Of the 1 billion people in India, prior to capitalism 90% of the people lived in poverty. That has been reduced to about 50% now, and if the liberals with borders choose not to delay their labor evolution, that will drop drastically in the next generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically capitalism has good and bad. In the present moment staring into our computer screen appears good. But the present moment of our experience does not account for the realities of billions of people or how our own realities might change over time or the reality of how our planet will become less viable as corporations tear through our resources seeking to profit off our collective planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.
> 
> Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.
Click to expand...

*Capitalism delivers the goods: while no economic system yet devised delivers as many goods and services as capitalism, capitalism  also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.

Since 2007 capitalism has proven unable to connect record levels of unemployed workers with roughly 30 percent of the economy's tools, equipment, factory, office, and store space, and raw materials which are currently standing idle.

Capitalism delivers the "Bads" to a sizable segment of workers in the US today.
It threatens to accomplish far worse in the future.
Recovery for the few, austerity for the many guarantees hard times for generations.*

What Capitalism Delivers | Professor Richard D. Wolff

"In the capitalist corporate enterprises that dominate economies today, their major shareholders and the boards of directors they select are in the undemocratic, exclusive position of making all the key decisions. 

"Major shareholders and boards of directors constitute a small minority of those directly connected to capitalist enterprises. 

"The majority are the enterprise's workers and the populations of communities dependent on those enterprises. 

"Yet that minority's decisions (about what, how, and where to produce and what to do with profits) impact the majority -- including bringing crises -- without permitting that majority any direct role in making those decisions. 

"It is hardly surprising then that the minority seeks and is in the position to take the lion's share of income and wealth for itself. 

"It likewise buys control of politics to block the majority from using government to rectify its economic disadvantages and deprivations. 

"That's why we now have government bailouts for the rich and austerity for the rest of us."


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> I've taken the liberty of removing faulty formatting from the following quote.





dnsmith35 said:


> ALL of my discussion is serious including when I agree with Androw, and recently when I agreed with George Phillip. Your assumptions about my posing or my use of economic studies on which I base my opinions show little understanding of my assertions and opinions. Try to read for understanding instead of skimming and making rash comments about my posts.There is little obvious logical error in Androw's posts concerning the fault of government in the housing crash. You are illogically incorrect.Studies are which prove the points, not your clamoring for quasi intellectual guff.


I am illogically incorrect?  I don't think that's what you meant to say.
QUOTE]YES, YOU ARE ILLOGICAL AND YOU ARE INCORRECT. Face it, you are an elitist snob.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically capitalism has good and bad. In the present moment staring into our computer screen appears good. But the present moment of our experience does not account for the realities of billions of people or how our own realities might change over time or the reality of how our planet will become less viable as corporations tear through our resources seeking to profit off our collective planet.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.
> 
> Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Capitalism delivers the goods: while no economic system yet devised delivers as many goods and services as capitalism, capitalism  also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.
> 
> Since 2007 capitalism has proven unable to connect record levels of unemployed workers with roughly 30 percent of the economy's tools, equipment, factory, office, and store space, and raw materials which are currently standing idle.
> 
> Capitalism delivers the "Bads" to a sizable segment of workers in the US today.
> It threatens to accomplish far worse in the future.
> Recovery for the few, austerity for the many guarantees hard times for generations.*
> 
> What Capitalism Delivers | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> "In the capitalist corporate enterprises that dominate economies today, their major shareholders and the boards of directors they select are in the undemocratic, exclusive position of making all the key decisions.
> 
> "Major shareholders and boards of directors constitute a small minority of those directly connected to capitalist enterprises.
> 
> "The majority are the enterprise's workers and the populations of communities dependent on those enterprises.
> 
> "Yet that minority's decisions (about what, how, and where to produce and what to do with profits) impact the majority -- including bringing crises -- without permitting that majority any direct role in making those decisions.
> 
> "It is hardly surprising then that the minority seeks and is in the position to take the lion's share of income and wealth for itself.
> 
> "It likewise buys control of politics to block the majority from using government to rectify its economic disadvantages and deprivations.
> 
> "That's why we now have government bailouts for the rich and austerity for the rest of us."
Click to expand...


*capitalism also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.*

Venezuela does a much better job.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.
> 
> Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism delivers the goods: while no economic system yet devised delivers as many goods and services as capitalism, capitalism  also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.
> 
> Since 2007 capitalism has proven unable to connect record levels of unemployed workers with roughly 30 percent of the economy's tools, equipment, factory, office, and store space, and raw materials which are currently standing idle.
> 
> Capitalism delivers the "Bads" to a sizable segment of workers in the US today.
> It threatens to accomplish far worse in the future.
> Recovery for the few, austerity for the many guarantees hard times for generations.*
> 
> What Capitalism Delivers | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> "In the capitalist corporate enterprises that dominate economies today, their major shareholders and the boards of directors they select are in the undemocratic, exclusive position of making all the key decisions.
> 
> "Major shareholders and boards of directors constitute a small minority of those directly connected to capitalist enterprises.
> 
> "The majority are the enterprise's workers and the populations of communities dependent on those enterprises.
> 
> "Yet that minority's decisions (about what, how, and where to produce and what to do with profits) impact the majority -- including bringing crises -- without permitting that majority any direct role in making those decisions.
> 
> "It is hardly surprising then that the minority seeks and is in the position to take the lion's share of income and wealth for itself.
> 
> "It likewise buys control of politics to block the majority from using government to rectify its economic disadvantages and deprivations.
> 
> "That's why we now have government bailouts for the rich and austerity for the rest of us."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *capitalism also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.*
> 
> Venezuela does a much better job.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## gnarlylove

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Again, I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the terrible formatting.
> 
> So, if I link to your posts in which you say something different then you say now, *then the only possible explanation is that I have a reading comprehension problem because you could not possibly be wrong?*
> 
> How many economic systems can turn a economic bust into a cyclic pattern that can be endured?



As for your first statement, dnsmith has consistently churned out terrible formats (not necessarily his fault--he's not a "techie" and USMB formatting is sub-par). Yet as a result of the poor formatting so that it appears who is saying what is false, he then accuses someone of malevolence. Odd approach. It leads into the second comment:

He may have been wrong in the past but his current thinking is preservation of beliefs at all costs. He is not wrong, so "you must be an idiot." You absolutely captured his approach in what I emboldened. 

Thirdly, do you suspect a boom-bust pattern or the business cycle is sustainable? Hasn't government necessarily served as the safety valve for the normal processes of mass transfer of wealth upwards that capitalism succeeds in doing so well? The 40s-60s were egalitarian-ish but then free market ideology took over and we see the results. Wouldn't it make sense to investigate whether this boom-bust pattern is really beneficial for society in comparison to potential alternatives? I'm not advocating for anything in particular, merely an inquiry. I don't think regular crisis is appropriate for wealthiest and most free nation in history.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism delivers the goods: while no economic system yet devised delivers as many goods and services as capitalism, capitalism  also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.
> 
> Since 2007 capitalism has proven unable to connect record levels of unemployed workers with roughly 30 percent of the economy's tools, equipment, factory, office, and store space, and raw materials which are currently standing idle.
> 
> Capitalism delivers the "Bads" to a sizable segment of workers in the US today.
> It threatens to accomplish far worse in the future.
> Recovery for the few, austerity for the many guarantees hard times for generations.*
> 
> What Capitalism Delivers | Professor Richard D. Wolff
> 
> "In the capitalist corporate enterprises that dominate economies today, their major shareholders and the boards of directors they select are in the undemocratic, exclusive position of making all the key decisions.
> 
> "Major shareholders and boards of directors constitute a small minority of those directly connected to capitalist enterprises.
> 
> "The majority are the enterprise's workers and the populations of communities dependent on those enterprises.
> 
> "Yet that minority's decisions (about what, how, and where to produce and what to do with profits) impact the majority -- including bringing crises -- without permitting that majority any direct role in making those decisions.
> 
> "It is hardly surprising then that the minority seeks and is in the position to take the lion's share of income and wealth for itself.
> 
> "It likewise buys control of politics to block the majority from using government to rectify its economic disadvantages and deprivations.
> 
> "That's why we now have government bailouts for the rich and austerity for the rest of us."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *capitalism also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.*
> 
> Venezuela does a much better job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


*capitalism also does a ridiculously poor job of allocating those goods and services.*

What does a better job?  Venezuela?


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith, what is your concept of logic?
> 
> 
> 
> A logical construct is a statement of assumption. Then a conclusion drawn fro that statement, which may or may not follow logically. EXAMPLE:
> 
> All girls wear panties. John wears panties. John is therefore a girl. That is not a logical conclusion.
> 
> If I said, all girls wear panties. Jean s a girl, therefore Jean wears panties, them it is a logical conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a syllogism.  A syllogism based on the false premise that "all girls wear panties" and therefore a faulty syllogism.
Click to expand...

Bullshit! That was a classic example at the beginning of logic study. They point was to use a statement, any statement, and determine if there followed a logical or illogical assertion based on the statement. It looks like you elitist bullshit continues to prove you are a flurb. *A categorical syllogism and a logical deduction are synonymic. *

Logic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

log·ic
 noun \&#712;lä-jik\  

: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something

: a particular way of thinking about something

: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning

Related to LOGIC

Synonyms: intellection, ratiocination, reason, reasoning, sense


Related Words: cogency, coherence, *logicality*, logicalness, rationality, rationalness; convincingness, persuasiveness; *syllogism*, synthesis; analysis, dissection; deduction, induction; argumentation, disputation​
Your argument is nothing more than the common ways different people pronounce tomato or Mayonnaise. Grow up and discuss like an adult.


----------



## gnarlylove

Meriam Webster offers rapid definitions. While you can get a very broad sense for what logic is, you cannot come to know the system of logic. Syllogisms are one part under the umbrella of logic, formal and informal logic, soundness and validity and how those interact are entirely missing from the definition.

While your syllogism may be a textbook example, it's truly faulty. Though it has formal valid deductions, the content of the premise that all girls wear panties is simply factually false. They can wear items other than panties or not wear anything at all thus demonstrating this textbook example is faulty.

Your agitation is so rapid that it prevents you from understanding the simple points being made.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> .......





dnsmith35 said:


> Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.
> 
> Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.





> You have consistently exonerated capitalism when you admit misdeeds have occurred. In the case of Haiti you said:
> 
> "Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism."
> 
> You've made at least 2 very similar exonerations regarding other misdeeds. I find it puzzling you insist capitalism is innocent in cases of wrongdoing while also agreeing it is not innocent, not perfect and has bad parts, but, as you would surely add: is the best damn economic system we have currently--which may be true.


I have never, not once said Capitalism is fault free. My contention has been, "capitalism is the best system known to man." That is not exoneration of capitalism, it is simply a comparative analysis based on history relative to the % of the population which is relatively well off compared to the less well off.





> But if you conclude from that that there are no viable alternatives, you are mistaken. It is a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot envision or don't want to imagine another way of organizing an economy does not mean that they do not exist. It only means you are unaware of better alternatives. I'm not advocating for alternatives at present, I'm merely identifying your ambivalence about capitalism and invalid logic that you seem to regularly deploy in support of capitalism.


Actually, since there has never been a system which has elevated more people from poverty and since every system previously experimented with has been less successful it is logical to presume that of all we have experienced, capitalism is the one which gives us the most liberty and prosperity. It is within that comparative situation that my conclusion is, "capitalism is the system which produced the most prosperity for the most people. 





> Can you identify an instance where capitalism is the engine, the cause of wrongdoing? Apparently you don't think so in Haiti but understanding Woodrow Wilson's thinking which lead to the invasion of Haiti during his Presidency is helpful. So let's just read what he wrote:
> 
> "Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."


What you consistently over look in this discussion is, there are always people who are evil, and who do evil things. Wilson may have been a bit gung ho with his suggestion that we force ourselves on others, but again, that is not capitalist, that is government doing the wrong thing. Doing the wrong thing is quite different from the basic value of the system, and capitalism's basic value is the creation of prosperity.





> I think this leaves no question as to the fact that increasing market share drives governments to deploy force to expand markets. Is the desire to expand market share of US corporations a motivating factor in Haiti? Yes. It may not be the only motivation but certainly among the key motivations that resulted in the decimation of Haitian society, from which is has not recovered to this day. The massive presence of US corporations in Haiti's economy is a sure sign that the motivation to increase market share paid off for wealthy investors and corporations. Not surprisingly it has had the opposite effect on Haitians.


You have yet to tie capitalism to the motivation of individuals. No matter how good the system is, there can be people who use it improperly.





> Do you assert Haitians are mostly at fault?


 No! 





> Or is the desire to expand markets at fault?


Capitalism has no "desire." Only humans have desire, and human desire can corrupt and specific localized situation. So no, capitalism is just capitalism, and it offers prosperity no other known system offers. 





> ya know, the profit motive? Does the desire to expand markets potentially threaten human rights and freedom?


The system will not potentially threaten human rights and freedoms, only the way some evil people who do evil things do that.

The issue is benevolence. At any given time in any given place a benevolent dictator may give his/her people freedom. But that boils down to specific behavior of specific people. Capitalism as a system is not inherently evil. Individual capitalists can be evil, yet those individuals don't live forever and the SYSTEM will eventually do for the people what the evil capitalist did not.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Again, I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the terrible formatting.
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sort of comment isn't going to help things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need help. I have proved my points concretely. So when you come up with accusations I said, or meant something other than what I asserted, I note either the unwillingness to read or the inability to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just being obtuse and obstinate.  So, if I link to your posts in which you say something different then you say now, then the only possible explanation is that I have a reading comprehension problem because you could not possibly be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting tired of cleaning up your bad formatting, and you've already stated plainly that you can never admit when you've made an error, but here ya go:
> Exhibit A) Notice the defendant claims that only the CRA is responsible.  The defendant makes a reference to the 1995 amendment to the CRA.   This is the defendant's entire post.  Follow the link.
> 
> Exhibit B)
> 
> 
> This post is quite lengthy and I have snipped it.  A link to the original post is provided.
> I replied to this post with:
> 
> Again the post is snipped for brevity.  A link to the original post is provided.
> I have presented evidence demonstrating that dnsmith did in fact, on several occasions, write a post that claimed only the CRA as responsible for the housing bubble bust.  Now comes the part where dnsmith claims I have misinterpreted his posts because he could not possibly be wrong, or requires more examples.  This cycle of evidence and denial will go on for pages, as things do on the internet.  However, I choose a different path.  I choose *CASE CLOSED*​
> 
> Evidently, I did.  The evidence is shown above.  I have countered several of your assertions.  I have countered your assertion that you never wrote a post claiming only the CRA was responsible for the housing bubble burst, however inadvertent that claim was on your part.  I have countered your assertion that Androw's argument from incredulity was logical.  I have countered your assertion that you don't need help by helping you with your erroneous post formatting.  I have countered your assertion that we should ignore concerns over foreign working conditions by pointing out that, while you are correct about labor conditions improving by way of free trade, there are limits to the amount of cruelty we as a nation will tolerate from our trading partners specifically citing Sudanese slavery as a case in point.
> These examples all took place in different exchanges between us.
> 
> But none of that is why I am satisfied.  I am satisfied because you abandoned the fallacy of the single cause.  That's all I wanted in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How about we just move on.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are to move on, I suggest you don't jump to conclusions after I have spent days saying the government's artificial interest rates were the primary culprit. CRA falls somewhere beyond that, along with sub prime loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe you have spent days on this subject.  There are over 200 pages of posts in this thread.  I wish you wouldn't keep this up.  This is a thread, I thought, on the virtues of capitalism.
> So let me guess... Someone brought up the most recent bust in the business cycle as a means of pointing out flaws in Capitalism.
> You and your buddy jumped down their throat claiming it wasn't Capitalism's fault, it was the big bad government, and in doing so you dove headlong into the famous "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
> Is that what happened... for days on end?
> Did it ever occur to you that the true strength of Capitalism is that Capitalism survives busts?  How many economic systems can turn a economic bust into a cyclic pattern that can be endured?
Click to expand...


I have never changed my convictions. The theme of all my posts is, Capitalism is the BEST ECONOMIC KNOWN TO MAN. Is it perfect? Only to the extent the PEOPLE who control capital are good, or bad. 

I have further made the claim, and I stick to it, that government fiscal/monetary policy was THE MOST OBVIOUS cause of the housing balloon and burst.

Have I in other posts discussed why CRA was part of that cause while not discussing the other causes? Of course, but then you try to make a judgment of my assertions out of context of ALL of the posts I have made. 

In so far as my claiming infallibility, that is bullshit of the worst kind. I have said that I have made concretely correct assertions based on studies. I have never claimed infallibility based on simple opinion. 

So let me reiterate! You have taken a few of my posts of which you are familiar and tried to use them out of context of the whole to form an incorrect conclusion about which my assertions are. In that context, *you are LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH *WHEN YOU SAY I HAVE MADE THE ASSERTION THAT CRA IS THE ONLY CAUSE OF THE HOUSING BALLOON AND SUBSEQUENT.

If you don't want to accept that, climb back under your rock and stew about it.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Again, I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the terrible formatting.
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sort of comment isn't going to help things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need help. I have proved my points concretely. So when you come up with accusations I said, or meant something other than what I asserted, I note either the unwillingness to read or the inability to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just being obtuse and obstinate.  So, if I link to your posts in which you say something different then you say now, then the only possible explanation is that I have a reading comprehension problem because you could not possibly be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting tired of cleaning up your bad formatting, and you've already stated plainly that you can never admit when you've made an error, but here ya go:
> Exhibit A) Notice the defendant claims that only the CRA is responsible.  The defendant makes a reference to the 1995 amendment to the CRA.   This is the defendant's entire post.  Follow the link.​
Click to expand...

Where is the link? Lying again does not help your cause.





> Exhibit B)
> 
> 
> This post is quite lengthy and I have snipped it.  A link to the original post is provided.
> I replied to this post with:
> 
> Again the post is snipped for brevity.  A link to the original post is provided.
> I have presented evidence demonstrating that dnsmith did in fact, on several occasions, write a post that claimed only the CRA as responsible for the housing bubble bust.  Now comes the part where dnsmith claims I have misinterpreted his posts because he could not possibly be wrong, or requires more examples.  This cycle of evidence and denial will go on for pages, as things do on the internet.  However, I choose a different path.  I choose *CASE CLOSED*





> Evidently, I did.  The evidence is shown above.  I have countered several of your assertions.  I have countered your assertion that you never wrote a post claiming only the CRA was responsible for the housing bubble burst, however inadvertent that claim was on your part.  I have countered your assertion that Androw's argument from incredulity was logical.  I have countered your assertion that you don't need help by helping you with your erroneous post formatting.  I have countered your assertion that we should ignore concerns over foreign working conditions by pointing out that, while you are correct about labor conditions improving by way of free trade, there are limits to the amount of cruelty we as a nation will tolerate from our trading partners specifically citing Sudanese slavery as a case in point.
> These examples all took place in different exchanges between us.
> 
> But none of that is why I am satisfied.  I am satisfied because you abandoned the fallacy of the single cause.  That's all I wanted in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How about we just move on.*
> 
> 
> 
> If we are to move on, I suggest you don't jump to conclusions after I have spent days saying the government's artificial interest rates were the primary culprit. CRA falls somewhere beyond that, along with sub prime loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe you have spent days on this subject.  There are over 200 pages of posts in this thread.  I wish you wouldn't keep this up.  This is a thread, I thought, on the virtues of capitalism.
> So let me guess... Someone brought up the most recent bust in the business cycle as a means of pointing out flaws in Capitalism.
> You and your buddy jumped down their throat claiming it wasn't Capitalism's fault, it was the big bad government, and in doing so you dove headlong into the famous "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
> Is that what happened... for days on end?
> Did it ever occur to you that the true strength of Capitalism is that Capitalism survives busts?  How many economic systems can turn a economic bust into a cyclic pattern that can be endured?
Click to expand...


I have never changed my convictions. The theme of all my posts is, Capitalism is the BEST ECONOMIC KNOWN TO MAN. Is it perfect? Only to the extent the PEOPLE who control capital are good, or bad. 

I have further made the claim, and I stick to it, that government fiscal/monetary policy was THE MOST OBVIOUS cause of the housing balloon and burst.

Have I in other posts discussed why CRA was part of that cause while not discussing the other causes? Of course, but then you try to make a judgment of my assertions out of context of ALL of the posts I have made. 

In so far as my claiming infallibility, that is bullshit of the worst kind. I have said that I have made concretely correct assertions based on studies. I have never claimed infallibility based on simple opinion. 

So let me reiterate! You have taken a few of my posts of which you are familiar and tried to use them out of context of the whole to form an incorrect conclusion about which my assertions are. In that context, *you are LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH *WHEN YOU SAY I HAVE MADE THE ASSERTION THAT CRA IS THE ONLY CAUSE OF THE HOUSING BALLOON AND SUBSEQUENT CRASH..

If you don't want to accept that, climb back under your rock and stew about it.


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> Actually, since there has never been a system which has elevated more people from poverty and since every system previously experimented with has been less successful it is logical to presume that of all we have experienced, capitalism is the one which gives us the most liberty and prosperity.



Is capitalism the only bringer of liberty and prosperity? It's a complicated matter as to how we arrived at where we are. Technology has been instrumental in creating prosperity but technology is not something new; relative prosperity has been advanced throughout history. Technology is not just the result of capitalism. 

So to assert prosperity is the result of capitalism is only partially true with many other factors that may interact but are not effects of capitalism. I suspect your loose definition of capitalism plays into the generalization that capitalism is the best thing ever.




dnsmith35 said:


> Capitalism has no "desire." Only humans have desire, and human desire can corrupt and specific localized situation. So no, capitalism is just capitalism, and it offers prosperity no other known system offers.



So you say capitalism isn't perfect yet at every opportunity you defend it like an innocent child. I'm beginning to wonder if you are engaged in doublespeak.



dnsmith35 said:


> The issue is benevolence. At any given time in any given place a benevolent dictator may give his/her people freedom. But that boils down to specific behavior of specific people. Capitalism as a system is not inherently evil. Individual capitalists can be evil, yet those individuals don't live forever and the SYSTEM will eventually do for the people what the evil capitalist did not.



The massive scale of wars over markets can been seen a result of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic arrangement where society sustains itself or not through generating constant profit. Profit is often generated by expanding markets. Wars expand markets and so does genocide as has been a regular occurrence. Paying a penny a day for a sick child is not profitable under capitalism (except maybe for PR campaigns) so in most cases malaria and other diseases, malnutrition etc. are ignored. These pockets of neglect exist in every country including the US. Some smaller or larger but never before has it been on such a massive scale where most of the world's prosperity is narrowly injected to 1 percent of the global population. That's a lot of concentrated benevolence/prosperity leaving billions across the world wondering where it is for them. While many areas are simply sacrifice zones where no benevolence is seen.

To assume capitalism is the most prosperous system because it sustains the largest population of humans is ignoring how it treats specific people in order to do that. Often times ruthless deals are made. Furthermore population has grown as a result of agricultural innovation thus creating more prosperity. To say because more numbers of people are living under prosperity is still a relative comparison. Just because sheer numbers have been increased does not mean we are better off in real terms.

It is easily imaginable that an alternative economic arrangement can view that creating wealth is not a matter of individuals but wealth should bring prosperity for all people. So that individual profit takes a backseat to the view that what is humanly profitable (crime reduction, less need for war, unnecessary suffering and death) is far more prosperous then leaving profit up to a few individuals.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> .....





dnsmith35 said:


> Actually, since there has never been a system which has elevated more people from poverty and since every system previously experimented with has been less successful, it is logical to presume that of all we have experienced, capitalism is the one which gives us the most liberty and prosperity.





> Is capitalism the only bringer of liberty and prosperity?


I have n never claimed it was. It is simply the one which has proved to do so most frequently. A benevolent dictatorship and be good; but what about the next dictator? It is not a concrete issue, it is a comparable issue. 





> It's a complicated matter as to how we arrived at where we are. Technology has been instrumental in creating prosperity but technology is not something new; relative prosperity has been advanced throughout history. Technology is not just the result of capitalism.


Right, but under capitalism technology has been exploited to bring prosperity than any other system.





> So to assert prosperity is the result of capitalism is only partially true with many other factors that may interact but are not effects of capitalism. I suspect your loose definition of capitalism plays into the generalization that capitalism is the best thing ever.


1. Capitalism has created more prosperity than any other system.

2. I have not asserted that there has never been prosperity in other systems.

3. I use the common definition of Capitalism, that being the primary engines of production and distribution are in the hands of private enterprise. Regulation by government to level the playing field and social programs do not detract from the basic capitalist system. Examples are the Scandinavian countries. They are capitalist economically with more social programs than other capitalist systems.


dnsmith35 said:


> Capitalism has no "desire." Only humans have desire, and human desire can corrupt any specific localized situation. So no, capitalism is just capitalism, and it offers prosperity no other known system offers.





> So you say capitalism isn't perfect yet at every opportunity you defend it like an innocent child. I'm beginning to wonder if you are engaged in doublespeak.


I defend capitalism only to the point that no other system has proven to be better. I have lived under socialism, one being benevolent, the other being dictatorial.


dnsmith35 said:


> The issue is benevolence. At any given time in any given place a benevolent dictator may give his/her people freedom. But that boils down to specific behavior of specific people. Capitalism as a system is not inherently evil. Individual capitalists can be evil, yet those individuals don't live forever and the SYSTEM will eventually do for the people what the evil capitalist did not.





> The massive scale of wars over markets can been seen a result of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic arrangement where society sustains itself or not through generating constant profit. Profit is often generated by expanding markets. Wars expand markets and so does genocide as has been a regular occurrence.


Capitalism does not start the wars nor do they cause genocide. Evil people, in the name of capitalism, or in the name of religion, or simply because the evil individuals want to expand the territory they "own."





> Paying a penny a day for a sick child is not profitable under capitalism (except maybe for PR campaigns) so in most cases malaria and other diseases, malnutrition etc. are ignored.


With that I totally disagree. Social ills such as bad health care systems detract from the value of the capitalist state based on lower productivity.





> These pockets of neglect exist in every country including the US.


Of course they do. I have never once suggested they don't. But as a % of the population capitalism tends to increase the prosperity even of those pockets of neglect. 





> Some smaller or larger but never before has it been on such a massive scale where most of the world's prosperity is narrowly injected to 1 percent of the global population. That's a lot of concentrated benevolence/prosperity leaving billions across the world wondering where it is for them. While many areas are simply sacrifice zones where no benevolence is seen.


The fact is, the 1% does not cause the ill fate of the 99%, as discussed on this site: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and this site: Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm SheetSocially and politically, there are plenty of reasons to worry about the growing income gap. But rage against the 1% is misplaced. Income is not a zero-sum game: The rich aren't getting wealthier at the expense of the poor. Harvard's Lawrence Katz has calculated that even if all the gains of the top 1% were redistributed to the 99%, household incomes would go up by less than half of what they would if everyone had a college degree. In other words, the financial rewards of higher education are a big contributor to the income gap.​


> To assume capitalism is the most prosperous system because it sustains the largest population of humans is ignoring how it treats specific people in order to do that.


Blaming the system for the ill acts of people within the system is ridiculous. The system ALLOWS FOR MORE WEALTH AND PROSPERITY. It is not the fault of the system for the ills of the world. That fault goes straight to the shoulders of individuals. 





> Often times ruthless deals are made. Furthermore population has grown as a result of agricultural innovation thus creating more prosperity. To say because more numbers of people are living under prosperity is still a relative comparison. Just because sheer numbers have been increased does not mean we are better off in real terms.


Of course it is relative. In some countries capitalism has not had the labor evolution such that the people can take advantage of capitalism.





> It is easily imaginable that an alternative economic arrangement can view that creating wealth is not a matter of individuals but wealth should bring prosperity for all people. So that individual profit takes a backseat to the view that what is humanly profitable (crime reduction, less need for war, unnecessary suffering and death) is far more prosperous then leaving profit up to a few individuals.


Yet, there has never been a system which has a better way to increase individual prosperity than capitalism. Dream, and hope, but the utopia you dream about has never and likely will never happen and if it should happen, it will likely be a form of capitalism. It is not that attempts have not been tried. You know, the "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need." Every attempt to institute such a philosophy has failed miserably, BECAUSE of human behavior. It is not the trait of a human to forever high achieve such that the low or no achievers reap the benefits of his achievements. In relative short order an autocratic/dictatorial government takes over to keep the high achievers in the system. As the achievement continues those high achievers reduce their achievement because they are no longer willing to carry everyone in the system. That is basic human behavior.

To reiterate, certainly, we must recognize that capitalism is not perfect but only to the inability of government to regulate the greed out of the system. NO SYSTEM can regulate greed. In Marxist states the greed is usually detected in the leaders of the state, the commissars if you will; and in Marxist states only the leaders and their favorites gain any measurable prosperity.


----------



## georgephillip

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.
> 
> Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have consistently exonerated capitalism when you admit misdeeds have occurred. In the case of Haiti you said:
> 
> "Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism."
> 
> You've made at least 2 very similar exonerations regarding other misdeeds. I find it puzzling you insist capitalism is innocent in cases of wrongdoing while also agreeing it is not innocent, not perfect and has bad parts, but, as you would surely add: is the best damn economic system we have currently--which may be true. But if you conclude from that that there are no viable alternatives, you are mistaken. It is a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot envision or don't want to imagine another way of organizing an economy does not mean that they do not exist. It only means you are unaware of better alternatives. I'm not advocating for alternatives at present, I'm merely identifying your ambivalence about capitalism and invalid logic that you seem to regularly deploy in support of capitalism.
> 
> Can you identify an instance where capitalism is the engine, the cause of wrongdoing? Apparently you don't think so in Haiti but understanding Woodrow Wilson's thinking which lead to the invasion of Haiti during his Presidency is helpful. So let's just read what he wrote:
> 
> "Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
> 
> I think this leaves no question as to the fact that increasing market share drives governments to deploy force to expand markets. Is the desire to expand market share of US corporations a motivating factor in Haiti? Yes. It may not be the only motivation but certainly among the key motivations that resulted in the decimation of Haitian society, from which is has not recovered to this day. The massive presence of US corporations in Haiti's economy is a sure sign that the motivation to increase market share paid off for wealthy investors and corporations. Not surprisingly it has had the opposite effect on Haitians.
> 
> Do you assert Haitians are mostly at fault? Or is the desire to expand markets at fault? ya know, the profit motive? Does the desire to expand markets potentially threaten human rights and freedom?
Click to expand...

*Here's a left-wing view written in 1920 about Wall Street's influence in Haiti:*

"To know the reasons for the present political situation in Haiti, to understand why the United States landed and has for five years maintained military forces in that country, why some three thousand Haitian men, women, and children have been shot down by American rifles and machine guns, it is necessary, among other things, to know that the National City Bank of New York is very much interested in Haiti. 

"It is necessary to know that the National City Bank controls the National Bank of Haiti and is the depository for all of the Haitian national funds that are being collected by American officials, and that Mr. R. L. Farnham, vice-president of the National City Bank, is virtually the representative of the State Department in matters relating to the island republic."

Windows on Haiti

*Today, US banks continue the plunder from Palestine to Ukraine.
Socialize the cost and privatize the profit.
American voters who think "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth changes the looting only confirm what Einstein said about insanity.*


----------



## bedowin62

left-wing nutjob guarantees stupid; useless posts


----------



## bedowin62

the fact that people aren't equal guarantees inequality


FAILED PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGY making things WORSE guarantees it will rise when they're in power

they are and it IS

 idiots and hypocrites


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the failure and losses in the derivatives market was a result of the housing crash, not the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> "It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too.
> 
> "For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.
> 
> "If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a Credit Default Swap.
> 
> "Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the SEC. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants.
> 
> "When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.(2008)
> 
> Role of Derivatives in Creating Mortgage Crisis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year. *
> 
> CDOs are bonds, not derivatives.
Click to expand...

CDOs are securities backed by a pool of bonds, loans, or other assets.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too.
> 
> "For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.
> 
> "If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a Credit Default Swap.
> 
> "Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the SEC. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants.
> 
> "When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.(2008)
> 
> Role of Derivatives in Creating Mortgage Crisis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year. *
> 
> CDOs are bonds, not derivatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CDOs are securities backed by a pool of bonds, loans, or other assets.
Click to expand...


Yes, when you slice up a bond, you have bonds.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year. *
> 
> CDOs are bonds, not derivatives.
> 
> 
> 
> CDOs are securities backed by a pool of bonds, loans, or other assets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, when you slice up a bond, you have bonds.
Click to expand...

So what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> CDOs are securities backed by a pool of bonds, loans, or other assets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when you slice up a bond, you have bonds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?
Click to expand...


Your silly source gave a bad definition for a derivative.

I corrected her.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when you slice up a bond, you have bonds.
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your silly source gave a bad definition for a derivative.
> 
> I corrected her.
Click to expand...

Who are you?


----------



## dblack

I won't be happy until the state controls every move I make.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> I won't be happy until the state controls every move I make.


Too late?
Would you be any happier if Wall Street controlled your every movement?


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't be happy until the state controls every move I make.
> 
> 
> 
> Too late?
> Would you be any happier if Wall Street controlled your every movement?
Click to expand...


No way! Wall street doesn't have cops. i want the full meal deal.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't be happy until the state controls every move I make.
> 
> 
> 
> Too late?
> Would you be any happier if Wall Street controlled your every movement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No way! Wall street doesn't have cops. i want the full meal deal.
Click to expand...

*Wall Street has cops:*

"A private military company (PMC), private military firm (PMF),[1] or private military or security company, provides armed security services. PMCs refer to their staff as 'security contractors' or 'private military contractors'. 

"Private military companies refer to their business generally as the 'private military industry' or 'The Circuit'.[2][3] 

"The hiring of mercenaries is a common practice in the history of armed conflict and prohibited in the modern age by the United Nations Mercenary Convention; the United Kingdom and United States are not signatories to the convention, but the United States has stated that describing PMCs under US contract as mercenaries is inaccurate."

Private military company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too late?
> Would you be any happier if Wall Street controlled your every movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No way! Wall street doesn't have cops. i want the full meal deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wall Street has cops:*
> 
> "A private military company (PMC), private military firm (PMF),[1] or private military or security company, provides armed security services. PMCs refer to their staff as 'security contractors' or 'private military contractors'.
> 
> "Private military companies refer to their business generally as the 'private military industry' or 'The Circuit'.[2][3]
> 
> 
> 
> "The hiring of mercenaries is a common practice in the history of armed conflict and prohibited in the modern age by the United Nations Mercenary Convention; the United Kingdom and United States are not signatories to the convention, but the United States has stated that describing PMCs under US contract as mercenaries is inaccurate."
> 
> Private military company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


OH, bullshit. Fringe case don't amount to reality.

Listen, if you wanna submit to government as your master - go for it. But I'll fight you all the way.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No way! Wall street doesn't have cops. i want the full meal deal.
> 
> 
> 
> *Wall Street has cops:*
> 
> "A private military company (PMC), private military firm (PMF),[1] or private military or security company, provides armed security services. PMCs refer to their staff as 'security contractors' or 'private military contractors'.
> 
> "Private military companies refer to their business generally as the 'private military industry' or 'The Circuit'.[2][3]
> 
> 
> 
> "The hiring of mercenaries is a common practice in the history of armed conflict and prohibited in the modern age by the United Nations Mercenary Convention; the United Kingdom and United States are not signatories to the convention, but the United States has stated that describing PMCs under US contract as mercenaries is inaccurate."
> 
> Private military company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH, bullshit. Fringe case don't amount to reality.
> 
> Listen, if you wanna submit to government as your master - go for it. But I'll fight you all the way.
Click to expand...

"In December, 2006, in Iraq there were estimated to be at least 100,000 contractors working directly for the United States Department of Defense which was a tenfold increase in the use of private contractors for military operations since the Persian Gulf War, just over a decade earlier.[19] 

"The prevalence of PMCs led to the foundation of trade group the Private Security Company Association of Iraq. In Iraq, the issue of accountability, especially in the case of contractors carrying weapons, was a sensitive one. Iraqi laws do not hold over contractors."

*Think it can't happen here?*

Private military company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Hi gnarly,

Thank you for your insight.  I snipped your quote because I think it would be best if we got this discussion back on track.



gnarlylove said:


> Thirdly, do you suspect a boom-bust pattern or the business cycle is sustainable? Hasn't government necessarily served as the safety valve for the normal processes of mass transfer of wealth upwards that capitalism succeeds in doing so well? The 40s-60s were egalitarian-ish but then free market ideology took over and we see the results. Wouldn't it make sense to investigate whether this boom-bust pattern is really beneficial for society in comparison to potential alternatives? I'm not advocating for anything in particular, merely an inquiry. I don't think regular crisis is appropriate for wealthiest and most free nation in history.


I think the boom and bust cycle occur naturally.  Let's consider Tulip bulbs in the Netherlands.  The reason Tulip bulbs became worth so much is because everyone wanted to have them.  People would invest in and then resell Tulip bulbs to cash in on the mania.  Then the price collapsed.
First, do people have the right to be so inexplicably infatuated with some material thing?  I think they do.  Second, do other people have the right to observe this infatuation and begin making speculative investments to profit from this demand?  I think they do.
What I'm describing is a speculative bubble not a boom-bust cycle, but these two concepts share some traits.  And at least for me visualizing the rise and fall of one commodity is easier than visualizing aggregate demand.  If we establish that people have the right to throw their money at tulip bulbs, and thus allow popular demand to determine worth, then I think the boom and bust cycle is a pattern that must be endured.  It is not that the boom and bust cycle is beneficial to the total output of a society, but rather the effect of having millions of individuals making individual decisions and sometimes not good ones.
I think that the boom-bust cycle makes people happy overall.  They suffer in the bust, but they are so elated in the boom.  In order to take away boom and bust, the government would have to engage in significant economic planning.

I believe there is an alternative.  Keynes offered this alternative.  The boom and bust cycles can be mitigated by government policy.  The extensive literature of Keynesianism would offer a better explanation than I would.  Ultimately I conclude that laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable; regulated Capitalism is an economic system fit for actual use.

As for the accumulation of wealth in a few hands, there are concepts like Distributism, from where we get our anti-trust legislation.  
Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have distributist influences in our modern laws.
Distributism does not prevent boom-bust cycles, but it does seek to maximize the spread of property ownership.


----------



## Chris

Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0. 

Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.

Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.


----------



## georgephillip

Chris said:


> Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.
> 
> Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.
> 
> Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.


Any ideas on how we would go about catching up with Canada?


----------



## Chris

georgephillip said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.
> 
> Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.
> 
> Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Any ideas on how we would go about catching up with Canada?
Click to expand...


Elect Democrats so we can get more dems on the Supreme Court.

Or pass a Constitutional amendment that bans corporate campaign contributions.


----------



## georgephillip

Chris said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.
> 
> Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.
> 
> Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Any ideas on how we would go about catching up with Canada?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Elect Democrats so we can get more dems on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Or pass a Constitutional amendment that bans corporate campaign contributions.
Click to expand...

Ever since the Democrats lost three consecutive presidential elections, they seem to have gone over to the "dark side." If both parties depend on the same 1% of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements, how do progressives accomplish anything within the two party duopoly?


----------



## Chris

georgephillip said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any ideas on how we would go about catching up with Canada?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elect Democrats so we can get more dems on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Or pass a Constitutional amendment that bans corporate campaign contributions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever since the Democrats lost three consecutive presidential elections, they seem to have gone over to the "dark side." If both parties depend on the same 1% of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements, how do progressives accomplish anything within the two party duopoly?
Click to expand...


False equivalency.

If we had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House, things would be different.


----------



## bedowin62

Chris said:


> Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.
> 
> Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.
> 
> Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.



YAWN
 why are libs such lying; distorting idiots?

"as a result....'/
 you're saying Canada has universal healthcare, gayu marriage...etc BECAUSE they don't allow corporate campaign contributions? how can you ever back that up? and prove money from corporations doesn't find its way into Canadian politics in the first place

prove Republicans on the Supreme Court have allowed "unilimited secret campaing contributions".
prove they will all remain secret

or kindly shut up


----------



## georgephillip

Chris said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elect Democrats so we can get more dems on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Or pass a Constitutional amendment that bans corporate campaign contributions.
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since the Democrats lost three consecutive presidential elections, they seem to have gone over to the "dark side." If both parties depend on the same 1% of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements, how do progressives accomplish anything within the two party duopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False equivalency.
> 
> If we had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House, things would be different.
Click to expand...

*Why don't we have single payer today?*

"In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency."

111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly source gave a bad definition for a derivative.
> 
> I corrected her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you?
Click to expand...


The guy who knows more than your silly source.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

georgephillip said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Painting the war on drugs as mainly a backlash against the gains of the civil rights movement, Professor Forman writes, ignores the violent crime wave of the 1970s and minimizes the support among many African-Americans for get-tough measures.
> 
> "Furthermore, he argues, drug offenders make up less than 25 percent of the nations total prison population, while violent offenders  who receive little mention in 'The New Jim Crow'  make up a much larger share.
> 
> 'Even if every single one of these drug offenders were released tomorrow,' he writes, 'the United States would still have the worlds largest prison system.'
> 
> "To Professor Alexander, however, that argument neglects the full scope of the problem.
> 
> "Our criminal 'caste system,' as she calls it, affects not just the 2.3 million people behind bars, but also the 4.8 million others on probation or parole (predominately for nonviolent offenses), to say nothing of the millions more whose criminal records stigmatize them for life.
> 
> 'This system depends on the prison label, not just prison time,' she said."
> 
> *If I understand her argument, all those convicted of felonies continue paying for their crimes long after they leave prison.
> 
> Personally, I don't think it was coincidence that the War on Drugs began about the same time capitalists began outsourcing millions of middle class jobs*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/books/michelle-alexanders-new-jim-crow-raises-drug-law-debates.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant to respond to this earlier.  A non-violent offender, to my mind, should be square with society after he pays his dues.  Unfortunately, a conviction on their record may disqualify a non-violent offender from a number of jobs.  I'm not sure it is conducive to rehabilitation of non-violent offenders to put scarlet letters around them for life.
> 
> A violent offender, on the hand, I am not so apt to forgive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I understand Alexander's point, there's a prison "brand" that follows all ex-cons throughout their lives. This "brand" makes many of them ineligible for food stamps, housing assistance, employment, schooling, and non-emergency medical care. If I was given to conspiracy theories, I would suspect these policies were designed to encourage recidivism and the private profits which flow from having the largest prison population in the world.
Click to expand...

If I were given to conspiracy theories, I might also notice the way the system is almost engineered such that once someone "gets in the system" they "stay in the system".  I might notice the difference between the legal representation of someone with means as opposed to someone without means.  But in the end, I'd prefer to elect representatives that will treat people justly.  An act of larceny should not equate to a life sentence.


----------



## georgephillip

Zombie_Pundit said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I meant to respond to this earlier.  A non-violent offender, to my mind, should be square with society after he pays his dues.  Unfortunately, a conviction on their record may disqualify a non-violent offender from a number of jobs.  I'm not sure it is conducive to rehabilitation of non-violent offenders to put scarlet letters around them for life.
> 
> A violent offender, on the hand, I am not so apt to forgive.
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand Alexander's point, there's a prison "brand" that follows all ex-cons throughout their lives. This "brand" makes many of them ineligible for food stamps, housing assistance, employment, schooling, and non-emergency medical care. If I was given to conspiracy theories, I would suspect these policies were designed to encourage recidivism and the private profits which flow from having the largest prison population in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I were given to conspiracy theories, I might also notice the way the system is almost engineered such that once someone "gets in the system" they "stay in the system".  I might notice the difference between the legal representation of someone with means as opposed to someone without means.  But in the end, I'd prefer to elect representatives that will treat people justly.  An act of larceny should not equate to a life sentence.
Click to expand...

*I agree.
I wonder if for profit prisons represent capitalism's inability to produce enough jobs.
If I understand Jeremy Rifkin correctly, the solution sounds somewhat socialistic:*

"In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminated tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. 

"He predicted devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees. 

"While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers would reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy, the American middle class would continue to shrink and the workplace become ever more stressful.

"As the market economy and public sector decline, Rifkin predicted the growth of a third sectorvoluntary and community-based service organizationsthat would create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services."

The End of Work - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bedowin62

Zombie_Pundit said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I meant to respond to this earlier.  A non-violent offender, to my mind, should be square with society after he pays his dues.  Unfortunately, a conviction on their record may disqualify a non-violent offender from a number of jobs.  I'm not sure it is conducive to rehabilitation of non-violent offenders to put scarlet letters around them for life.
> 
> A violent offender, on the hand, I am not so apt to forgive.
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand Alexander's point, there's a prison "brand" that follows all ex-cons throughout their lives. This "brand" makes many of them ineligible for food stamps, housing assistance, employment, schooling, and non-emergency medical care. If I was given to conspiracy theories, I would suspect these policies were designed to encourage recidivism and the private profits which flow from having the largest prison population in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I were given to conspiracy theories, I might also notice the way the system is almost engineered such that once someone "gets in the system" they "stay in the system".  I might notice the difference between the legal representation of someone with means as opposed to someone without means.  But in the end, I'd prefer to elect representatives that will treat people justly.  An act of larceny should not equate to a life sentence.
Click to expand...


 a very myopic view that avoids the whole reason people enter the system in the first place
 if I was give to conspiracy theories I might notice that the Left panders to minorities and keeps them angry and ignorant to use them politically. pandering leads to helplessness and helplessness leads to frustration; frustration leads to anger and anger leads to crime. crime leads to incarceration


----------



## dblack

The main thing is to submit to authority.


----------



## gnarlylove

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Hi gnarly,
> 
> Thank you for your insight.  I snipped your quote because I think it would be best if we got this discussion back on track.
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly, do you suspect a boom-bust pattern or the business cycle is sustainable? Hasn't government necessarily served as the safety valve for the normal processes of mass transfer of wealth upwards that capitalism succeeds in doing so well? The 40s-60s were egalitarian-ish but then free market ideology took over and we see the results. Wouldn't it make sense to investigate whether this boom-bust pattern is really beneficial for society in comparison to potential alternatives? I'm not advocating for anything in particular, merely an inquiry. I don't think regular crisis is appropriate for wealthiest and most free nation in history.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the boom and bust cycle occur naturally.  Let's consider Tulip bulbs in the Netherlands.  The reason Tulip bulbs became worth so much is because everyone wanted to have them.  People would invest in and then resell Tulip bulbs to cash in on the mania.  Then the price collapsed.
> First, do people have the right to be so inexplicably infatuated with some material thing?  I think they do.  Second, do other people have the right to observe this infatuation and begin making speculative investments to profit from this demand?  I think they do.
> What I'm describing is a speculative bubble not a boom-bust cycle, but these two concepts share some traits.  And at least for me visualizing the rise and fall of one commodity is easier than visualizing aggregate demand.  If we establish that people have the right to throw their money at tulip bulbs, and thus allow popular demand to determine worth, then I think the boom and bust cycle is a pattern that must be endured.  It is not that the boom and bust cycle is beneficial to the total output of a society, but rather the effect of having millions of individuals making individual decisions and sometimes not good ones.
> I think that the boom-bust cycle makes people happy overall.  They suffer in the bust, but they are so elated in the boom.  In order to take away boom and bust, the government would have to engage in significant economic planning.
> 
> I believe there is an alternative.  Keynes offered this alternative.  The boom and bust cycles can be mitigated by government policy.  The extensive literature of Keynesianism would offer a better explanation than I would.  Ultimately I conclude that laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable; regulated Capitalism is an economic system fit for actual use.
> 
> As for the accumulation of wealth in a few hands, there are concepts like Distributism, from where we get our anti-trust legislation.
> Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> We have distributist influences in our modern laws.
> Distributism does not prevent boom-bust cycles, but it does seek to maximize the spread of property ownership.
Click to expand...


I am familiar with Keynes. But capital accumulation can only be mitigated. And as we are seeing in our political arena, wars etc. which are fully subservient to capital and economic interests. Thus the safety valve known as regulation cannot work properly since the interests of the government and private sector align. So at our stage in history we are seeing the trend and it's obvious economic concerns rule the day, regardless of the divergence of the have and have nots, climate change and pollution in general. So as policy increasingly allows for capital accumulation, we can expect greater busts and catastrophes since the economy is global unlike the Tulip cycle you mentioned. So as speculators continue to amass huge sums of wealth, we are faced with a very concrete problem:

"The abstract possibility [of an inverted relation between real assets and speculative assets] lay in the fact, emphasized by both Marx and Keynes, that the capital accumulation process was twofold: involving the ownership of real assets and also the holding of paper claims to those real assets. Under these circumstances the possibility of a contradiction between real accumulation and financial speculation was intrinsic to the system from the start."

"There is no necessary direct connection between productive investment and the amassing of financial assets. It is thus possible for the two to be &#8220;decoupled&#8221; to a considerable degree. However, without a mature financial system this contradiction went no further than the speculative bubbles that dot the history of capitalism, normally signaling the end of a boom."

"It took the rise of monopoly capitalism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and the development of a market for industrial securities before finance could take center-stage, and before the contradiction between production and finance could mature."
http://monthlyreview.org/2007/04/01/the-financialization-of-capitalism

I think it's quite obvious such a system is unsustainable given sophistic politics, environmental degradation, and the endless goal and legal maxim of increasing profits each quarter without respect for the long term stability. It will reach a point at which the speculative nature will create a problem no government can counter. The paper/digital claims to assets will disappear since those assets didn't exist in reality to begin with thus drying up the alleged wealth of potentially billions. Ensuing thereafter will be the most lasting crisis to have ever tango-ed with mankind, especially if the climate is involved. I do not trust regulated capitalism to present a sustainable future.


----------



## dblack

Submit!!!


----------



## Chris

georgephillip said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since the Democrats lost three consecutive presidential elections, they seem to have gone over to the "dark side." If both parties depend on the same 1% of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements, how do progressives accomplish anything within the two party duopoly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False equivalency.
> 
> If we had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House, things would be different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Why don't we have single payer today?*
> 
> "In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency."
> 
> 111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Because of the stupid filibuster rule.


----------



## Doubletap

"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - 
When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - 
When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don&#8217;t protect you against them, but protect them against you - 
When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - 
You may know that your society is doomed.&#8221;
-Atlas Shrugged


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is good....and bad, about any economic system. But in my opinion it is better to start with the one which has historically more successful in elevating people from poverty. Maybe a better regulated capitalist economy? Certainly no type of Marxism which has historically made more people poor and done more harm to our ecosystems.
> 
> Effectively my entire time on this forum has been recognizing just how much better capitalism is than any other system known to mankind. Most of the infighting has been about degree and disagreement as to specific effects certain stimuli has had on the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have consistently exonerated capitalism when you admit misdeeds have occurred. In the case of Haiti you said:
> 
> "Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism."
> 
> You've made at least 2 very similar exonerations regarding other misdeeds. I find it puzzling you insist capitalism is innocent in cases of wrongdoing while also agreeing it is not innocent, not perfect and has bad parts, but, as you would surely add: is the best damn economic system we have currently--which may be true. But if you conclude from that that there are no viable alternatives, you are mistaken. It is a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot envision or don't want to imagine another way of organizing an economy does not mean that they do not exist. It only means you are unaware of better alternatives. I'm not advocating for alternatives at present, I'm merely identifying your ambivalence about capitalism and invalid logic that you seem to regularly deploy in support of capitalism.
> 
> Can you identify an instance where capitalism is the engine, the cause of wrongdoing? Apparently you don't think so in Haiti but understanding Woodrow Wilson's thinking which lead to the invasion of Haiti during his Presidency is helpful. So let's just read what he wrote:
> 
> "Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
> 
> I think this leaves no question as to the fact that increasing market share drives governments to deploy force to expand markets. Is the desire to expand market share of US corporations a motivating factor in Haiti? Yes. It may not be the only motivation but certainly among the key motivations that resulted in the decimation of Haitian society, from which is has not recovered to this day. The massive presence of US corporations in Haiti's economy is a sure sign that the motivation to increase market share paid off for wealthy investors and corporations. Not surprisingly it has had the opposite effect on Haitians.
> 
> Do you assert Haitians are mostly at fault? Or is the desire to expand markets at fault? ya know, the profit motive? Does the desire to expand markets potentially threaten human rights and freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Here's a left-wing view written in 1920 about Wall Street's influence in Haiti:*
> 
> "To know the reasons for the present political situation in Haiti, to understand why the United States landed and has for five years maintained military forces in that country, why some three thousand Haitian men, women, and children have been shot down by American rifles and machine guns, it is necessary, among other things, to know that the National City Bank of New York is very much interested in Haiti.
> 
> "It is necessary to know that the National City Bank controls the National Bank of Haiti and is the depository for all of the Haitian national funds that are being collected by American officials, and that Mr. R. L. Farnham, vice-president of the National City Bank, is virtually the representative of the State Department in matters relating to the island republic."
Click to expand...

OK, now that you have said all that, can you explain why it is caused by capitalism? Or do you recognize that bad men from any system can and will do the same thing?


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Ultimately I conclude that laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable; regulated Capitalism is an economic system fit for actual use.


Snipped for brevity. I agree, laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable. Can you give me an example of where on exists today?


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.


There may be correlation, but can you prove causation? No, you can't.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> I am familiar with Keynes. But capital accumulation can only be mitigated. And as we are seeing in our political arena, wars etc. which are fully subservient to capital and economic interests.


War is the result of power hungry humans, not capitalism, and not socialism. Communism maybe. But the pure fact is, capitalism is not at fault, people are; greedy people are; and no economic system eliminates greedy human beings. 





> "The abstract possibility [of an inverted relation between real assets and speculative assets] lay in the fact, emphasized by both Marx and Keynes, that the capital accumulation process was twofold: involving the ownership of real assets and also the holding of paper claims to those real assets. Under these circumstances the possibility of a contradiction between real accumulation and financial speculation was intrinsic to the system from the start."
> 
> "There is no necessary direct connection between productive investment and the amassing of financial assets. It is thus possible for the two to be &#8220;decoupled&#8221; to a considerable degree. However, without a mature financial system this contradiction went no further than the speculative bubbles that dot the history


If you stop right here you would be correct. History is rife with various inequities between humans, in every economic system ever known.





> (of capitalism, normally signaling the end of a boom.")


That means nothing. 





gnarlylove said:


> "It took the rise of monopoly capitalism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and the development of a market for industrial securities before finance could take center-stage, and before the contradiction between production and finance could mature."
> The Financialization of Capitalism This article was prepared for a panel organized by the *Union for Radical Political Economics at the Left Forum in New York, March 11, 2007.*


Is there any wonder why you have been referred to as a left wing fanatic? Do you believe any of that crap?





> I think it's quite obvious such a system is unsustainable given sophistic politics, environmental degradation, and the endless goal and legal maxim of increasing profits each quarter without respect for the long term stability. It will reach a point at which the speculative nature will create a problem no government can counter. The paper/digital claims to assets will disappear since those assets didn't exist in reality to begin with thus drying up the alleged wealth of potentially billions. Ensuing thereafter will be the most lasting crisis to have ever tango-ed with mankind, especially if the climate is involved. I do not trust regulated capitalism to present a sustainable future.


Paper assets are valuable based on trust and the soundness of the system. Only a capitalist system can be trusted to make the paper assets worth the investment. Financialism became the key to capitalism when the agrarian era ended and the old (outdated) concept of capital as the excess production of labor fell in disgrace. Until many producers of excess combined their "capital" as money to invest there was never any expectation of progressive economics.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> As for your first statement, dnsmith has consistently churned out terrible formats (not necessarily his fault--he's not a "techie" and USMB formatting is sub-par). Yet as a result of the poor formatting so that it appears who is saying what is false, he then accuses someone of malevolence.


I accuse someone of malevolence when and if they try to put words into my mouth. And I have noted that you, zombie and George have put names other than mine on comments I made, so don't claim success of formatting. I don't consider format or ritual important. The solution is, if you don't like my formatting, don't read my posts. *Yet, not one person on this thread has once, not even once, offered a better economic solution than Capitalism. *So, you can get off your high horse and recognize that the claims of the "progressives" on this thread have over looked the validity of empirical studies about economic situations and instead offer a pseudo intellectual discussion which means absolutely nothing in the real world.


----------



## Andylusion

dnsmith35 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your link, Homeschool:*
> 
> "The act is 'often cited as a cause' of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis 'even by some of its onetime supporters.'[26]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion.  The same Obama that was suing banks to make bad loans.
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved that most of the companies would not be effected by Glass Steagall.   Regardless, what does this have to do with sub-prime mortgages?   Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> So both noted that it didn't "deregulate" at all.   Great.  And how does this prove the act contributed to sub-prime loans?   No proof here at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I would agree with that.   We should have a gold standard, and we should have no FDIC.    Great.   What's this got to do with sub-prime lending?  Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with sub-prime lending.
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I just proved that the act didn't affect the companies that crashed.  So.... he's wrong.    Are you too dumb to think for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Other critics also assert that proponents and defenders of the Act espouse a form of 'eliteconomics' that has, with the passage of the Act, directly precipitated the current economic recession while at the same time shifting the burden of belt-tightening measures onto the lower- and middle-income classes.[32]"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's this got to do with sub-prime lending?
> 
> Idiot.  You are just so absolutely stupid, you don't even realize how moronic your posts are.
> 
> Are you just too plain stupid to think for yourself?   Glass Steagall, didn't have anything to do with 90% of what you said, and the other 10%, it was just wrong.    I just proved that those companies where not Retail, Commercial, Investment and Insurance companies.
> 
> That's the ONLY THINK that Glass-Steagall prevented, was one bank doing all four things.
> 
> None of what you just said, matters to that, except for the claim that repealing it allowed the banks to get bigger.... which I just proved did not apply.   Those banks that failed were not doing that.   Glass-Steagall would not effect them.
> 
> Are you too dumb to figure that out?  Are you so blindly stupid, all you can do is repost other people's opinions?    Are you idiotic, that you think opinions are the same as facts??
> 
> Get off the forum.  You are too immature to be here.  Grow up, learn something, and maybe we'll bother listening to you again.
> 
> I'm done with you.   You have proven yourself incapable of reason, incapable of logic, you post opinion as fact, then demand proof.  You are an idiot.  You are waste of oxygen.   You couldn't argue your way out of a 4th grade debate club.  You and me... we're done.  I'm not wasting my time with such a pathetic idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if he realizes that calling you home school is not an insult. Home schooled kids consistently out score public school kids here in Alabama, as the AEA has consistently lowered education standards in the process of improving their own lot.
Click to expand...


Of course not.  This guy debates like he's STILL in a public middle school debate club.

It's people like him, that are perfect examples of what Thomas Sowell said years ago.

Sowell was set debate a well known economist I believe, and the night before the debate told his people he was going home to get rest.  When they thought he should prepare for the debate instead, Sowell explained:

 I dont mind debating smart people.   They know the limitations of their position.  Its debating stupid people thats hard.

This guys is exactly who Sowell was talking about.  Too dumb to even know the limits of his own position.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have consistently exonerated capitalism when you admit misdeeds have occurred. In the case of Haiti you said:
> 
> "Whether the US chose to interfere in Haiti's affairs indicts the government, not capitalism."
> 
> You've made at least 2 very similar exonerations regarding other misdeeds. I find it puzzling you insist capitalism is innocent in cases of wrongdoing while also agreeing it is not innocent, not perfect and has bad parts, but, as you would surely add: is the best damn economic system we have currently--which may be true. But if you conclude from that that there are no viable alternatives, you are mistaken. It is a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot envision or don't want to imagine another way of organizing an economy does not mean that they do not exist. It only means you are unaware of better alternatives. I'm not advocating for alternatives at present, I'm merely identifying your ambivalence about capitalism and invalid logic that you seem to regularly deploy in support of capitalism.
> 
> Can you identify an instance where capitalism is the engine, the cause of wrongdoing? Apparently you don't think so in Haiti but understanding Woodrow Wilson's thinking which lead to the invasion of Haiti during his Presidency is helpful. So let's just read what he wrote:
> 
> "Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
> 
> I think this leaves no question as to the fact that increasing market share drives governments to deploy force to expand markets. Is the desire to expand market share of US corporations a motivating factor in Haiti? Yes. It may not be the only motivation but certainly among the key motivations that resulted in the decimation of Haitian society, from which is has not recovered to this day. The massive presence of US corporations in Haiti's economy is a sure sign that the motivation to increase market share paid off for wealthy investors and corporations. Not surprisingly it has had the opposite effect on Haitians.
> 
> Do you assert Haitians are mostly at fault? Or is the desire to expand markets at fault? ya know, the profit motive? Does the desire to expand markets potentially threaten human rights and freedom?
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's a left-wing view written in 1920 about Wall Street's influence in Haiti:*
> 
> "To know the reasons for the present political situation in Haiti, to understand why the United States landed and has for five years maintained military forces in that country, why some three thousand Haitian men, women, and children have been shot down by American rifles and machine guns, it is necessary, among other things, to know that the National City Bank of New York is very much interested in Haiti.
> 
> "It is necessary to know that the National City Bank controls the National Bank of Haiti and is the depository for all of the Haitian national funds that are being collected by American officials, and that Mr. R. L. Farnham, vice-president of the National City Bank, is virtually the representative of the State Department in matters relating to the island republic."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, now that you have said all that, can you explain why it is caused by capitalism? Or do you recognize that bad men from any system can and will do the same thing?
Click to expand...

You've provided the answer to that question numerous times.
Capitalism is spectacularly successful at creating wealth (remember?)
It is equally unsuccessful at distributing wealth equitably.
Since every government yet devised exists to serve its richest citizens at the expense of its majority, capitalism produces "bad men" a spectacularly, and in direct proportion, to wealth itself.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion.  The same Obama that was suing banks to make bad loans.
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved that most of the companies would not be effected by Glass Steagall.   Regardless, what does this have to do with sub-prime mortgages?   Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> So both noted that it didn't "deregulate" at all.   Great.  And how does this prove the act contributed to sub-prime loans?   No proof here at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I would agree with that.   We should have a gold standard, and we should have no FDIC.    Great.   What's this got to do with sub-prime lending?  Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> What does this have to do with sub-prime lending.
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I just proved that the act didn't affect the companies that crashed.  So.... he's wrong.    Are you too dumb to think for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> What's this got to do with sub-prime lending?
> 
> Idiot.  You are just so absolutely stupid, you don't even realize how moronic your posts are.
> 
> Are you just too plain stupid to think for yourself?   Glass Steagall, didn't have anything to do with 90% of what you said, and the other 10%, it was just wrong.    I just proved that those companies where not Retail, Commercial, Investment and Insurance companies.
> 
> That's the ONLY THINK that Glass-Steagall prevented, was one bank doing all four things.
> 
> None of what you just said, matters to that, except for the claim that repealing it allowed the banks to get bigger.... which I just proved did not apply.   Those banks that failed were not doing that.   Glass-Steagall would not effect them.
> 
> Are you too dumb to figure that out?  Are you so blindly stupid, all you can do is repost other people's opinions?    Are you idiotic, that you think opinions are the same as facts??
> 
> Get off the forum.  You are too immature to be here.  Grow up, learn something, and maybe we'll bother listening to you again.
> 
> I'm done with you.   You have proven yourself incapable of reason, incapable of logic, you post opinion as fact, then demand proof.  You are an idiot.  You are waste of oxygen.   You couldn't argue your way out of a 4th grade debate club.  You and me... we're done.  I'm not wasting my time with such a pathetic idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if he realizes that calling you home school is not an insult. Home schooled kids consistently out score public school kids here in Alabama, as the AEA has consistently lowered education standards in the process of improving their own lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not.  This guy debates like he's STILL in a public middle school debate club.
> 
> It's people like him, that are perfect examples of what Thomas Sowell said years ago.
> 
> Sowell was set debate a well known economist I believe, and the night before the debate told his people he was going home to get rest.  When they thought he should prepare for the debate instead, Sowell explained:
> 
> I dont mind debating smart people.   They know the limitations of their position.  Its debating stupid people thats hard.
> 
> This guys is exactly who Sowell was talking about.  Too dumb to even know the limits of his own position.
Click to expand...

"On Friday, the city of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing it of pushing minority borrowers to take on risky home loans that would ultimately cost the city at least $1.7 billion in lost revenue and maintenance. 

"According to the city, these risky home loans triggered numerous foreclosures that disproportionately affected people of color. 

"The alleged predatory lending resulted in cratering property values, lost tax revenue and increased costs to the city as there are now no homeowners paying for the maintenance of those foreclosed properties.

"The Los Angeles Times reports that JPMorgan is charged with responsibility for some 200,000 foreclosures in the city between 2008 and 2012.

"Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer has already gone after Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and will argue that JPMorgan has continuously practiced mortgage discrimination since 2004."

*Feel free to continue making an ass out of your self, Bitch.*

L.A. Sues America?s Biggest Bank Alleging Predatory Lending - Truthdig


----------



## Doubletap

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" -Atlas Shrugged


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your first statement, dnsmith has consistently churned out terrible formats (not necessarily his fault--he's not a "techie" and USMB formatting is sub-par). Yet as a result of the poor formatting so that it appears who is saying what is false, he then accuses someone of malevolence.
> 
> 
> 
> I accuse someone of malevolence when and if they try to put words into my mouth. And I have noted that you, zombie and George have put names other than mine on comments I made, so don't claim success of formatting. I don't consider format or ritual important. The solution is, if you don't like my formatting, don't read my posts. *Yet, not one person on this thread has once, not even once, offered a better economic solution than Capitalism. *So, you can get off your high horse and recognize that the claims of the "progressives" on this thread have over looked the validity of empirical studies about economic situations and instead offer a pseudo intellectual discussion which means absolutely nothing in the real world.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I have never deliberately assigned another's name to any of your posts.
gnarlylove is exactly correct about USMB formatting.
The occurrence of such formatting errors of attribution may be random or not; however, I include the full "conversation" of almost every post I respond to.
We seem to have enough honest disagreement on this thread without blaming each other for manipulating what we've posted previously


----------



## georgephillip

Doubletap said:


> "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" -Atlas Shrugged


Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?


----------



## gnarlylove

dnsmith35 said:


> War is the result of power hungry humans, not capitalism, and not socialism. Communism maybe. But the pure fact is, capitalism is not at fault, people are; greedy people are; and no economic system eliminates greedy human beings.




And why would people be power hungry if it wasn't worthwhile? People become clever as a result of seeing what works--and capitalism rewards individuals who forsake the interests of communities for their own private pursuits. So they do coal mining and ruin aquifers but have little concern since they don't actually live in that community.

Capitalism provides the system by which power hungry individuals are rewarded for being hyper-focused on profit maximization. Those who make the biggest bucks are those on Wall St. and they are the most concentrated group of psychopaths among any profession. These are the men who are heralded on Fortune 500 and other magazines.
Is Wall Street Full of Psychopaths? - James Silver - The Atlantic
Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor - WSJ
The Shocking Stat About Psychos On Wall Street - Business Insider

And when a person disregards others and nature for his own benefit, we see the devastation of whole societies while a small minority benefit enormously. Amy Chua has written about this in "World on Fire" where she catalogs dozens of societies where the minority population control the society and the vast majority are under abject living conditions:
"In the Philippines, Chua explains, the Chinese Filipino is 1% of the population but controls 60% of the economy, with the result being envy and bitterness on the part of the majority against the Chinese minority&#8212;in other words, an ethnic conflict. Similarly, in Indonesia the Chinese Indonesians are 3% of the population but control 70% of the economy. There is a similar pattern in other Southeast Asia nations.

According to Chua, examples of what she calls ethnic market-dominant minorities include overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia; whites in Latin America; Jews in America; Croats in the former Yugoslavia; and Igbos, Kikuyus, Tutsis, Indians and Lebanese, among others, in Africa."

While capitalism is not the agent it is the mechanism by which agents stake claims (thereby denying access of the community who depend on resources like water, land) and have them defended by repressive governments, including in the US.


As I quoted Woodrow Wilson, there is urgency behind expanding formerly closed markets for the sake of private wealth even if it makes sovereign nations outraged by annexing their resources. By taking resources by force from sovereign nations, you are rewarded. Capitalism is the mechanism of wealth production for individual profit maximization which often takes little to no account of external costs. These costs range from infant mortality, pollution, destruction of culture and countless other costs that are not calculated as part of the profit.

Capitalism is the engine that churns out "bad people." Though I don't agree with your assessment; people are not bad and certainly not born bad. People learn how to behave and what works and the systems in place determine what works and what doesn't. Placing the individual over the community is the essence of capitalist enterprise and has helped wrought untold suffering and deceit for the sake of private gain.

I'm not saying capitalism only creates horrid circumstances. Those living where capital is concentrated are better in relative terms. However, that is no excuse for neglecting the facts about the horrid side of capitalism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> War is the result of power hungry humans, not capitalism, and not socialism. Communism maybe. But the pure fact is, capitalism is not at fault, people are; greedy people are; and no economic system eliminates greedy human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why would people be power hungry if it wasn't worthwhile? People become clever as a result of seeing what works--and capitalism rewards individuals who forsake the interests of communities for their own private pursuits. So they do coal mining and ruin aquifers but have little concern since they don't actually live in that community.
> 
> Capitalism provides the system by which power hungry individuals are rewarded for being hyper-focused on profit maximization. Those who make the biggest bucks are those on Wall St. and they are the most concentrated group of psychopaths among any profession. These are the men who are heralded on Fortune 500 and other magazines.
> Is Wall Street Full of Psychopaths? - James Silver - The Atlantic
> Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor - WSJ
> The Shocking Stat About Psychos On Wall Street - Business Insider
> 
> And when a person disregards others and nature for his own benefit, we see the devastation of whole societies while a small minority benefit enormously. Amy Chua has written about this in "World on Fire" where she catalogs dozens of societies where the minority population control the society and the vast majority are under abject living conditions:
> "In the Philippines, Chua explains, the Chinese Filipino is 1% of the population but controls 60% of the economy, with the result being envy and bitterness on the part of the majority against the Chinese minorityin other words, an ethnic conflict. Similarly, in Indonesia the Chinese Indonesians are 3% of the population but control 70% of the economy. There is a similar pattern in other Southeast Asia nations.
> 
> According to Chua, examples of what she calls ethnic market-dominant minorities include overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia; whites in Latin America; Jews in America; Croats in the former Yugoslavia; and Igbos, Kikuyus, Tutsis, Indians and Lebanese, among others, in Africa."
> 
> While capitalism is not the agent it is the mechanism by which agents stake claims (thereby denying access of the community who depend on resources like water, land) and have them defended by repressive governments, including in the US.
> 
> 
> As I quoted Woodrow Wilson, there is urgency behind expanding formerly closed markets for the sake of private wealth even if it makes sovereign nations outraged by annexing their resources. By taking resources by force from sovereign nations, you are rewarded. Capitalism is the mechanism of wealth production for individual profit maximization which often takes little to no account of external costs. These costs range from infant mortality, pollution, destruction of culture and countless other costs that are not calculated as part of the profit.
> 
> Capitalism is the engine that churns out "bad people." Though I don't agree with your assessment; people are not bad and certainly not born bad. People learn how to behave and what works and the systems in place determine what works and what doesn't. Placing the individual over the community is the essence of capitalist enterprise and has helped wrought untold suffering and deceit for the sake of private gain.
> 
> I'm not saying capitalism only creates horrid circumstances. Those living where capital is concentrated are better in relative terms. However, that is no excuse for neglecting the facts about the horrid side of capitalism.
Click to expand...


*Capitalism provides the system by which power hungry individuals are rewarded for being hyper-focused on profit maximization. *

It's a good thing there are no power hungry individuals under a system like Communism.

If there were, tens of millions might have been murdered in the name of not-capitalism in the 20th Century.

I'm just glad that the not-capitalism in Venezuela does such a good job of meeting the needs of the people, without pesky profits.
Unless you need things like food....or toilet paper.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's a left-wing view written in 1920 about Wall Street's influence in Haiti:*
> 
> "To know the reasons for the present political situation in Haiti, to understand why the United States landed and has for five years maintained military forces in that country, why some three thousand Haitian men, women, and children have been shot down by American rifles and machine guns, it is necessary, among other things, to know that the National City Bank of New York is very much interested in Haiti.
> 
> "It is necessary to know that the National City Bank controls the National Bank of Haiti and is the depository for all of the Haitian national funds that are being collected by American officials, and that Mr. R. L. Farnham, vice-president of the National City Bank, is virtually the representative of the State Department in matters relating to the island republic."
> 
> 
> 
> OK, now that you have said all that, can you explain why it is caused by capitalism? Or do you recognize that bad men from any system can and will do the same thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've provided the answer to that question numerous times.
> Capitalism is spectacularly successful at creating wealth (remember?)
Click to expand...

Yes I have, but you left out the part in which I say factually, "making a larger part of our population more prosperous.





> It is equally unsuccessful at distributing wealth equitably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You supposition fails here because it is not "capitalism" which is distributing wealth inequitably. Your cries of the income inequality gap fail when you actually examine how few actually get extraordinary income are now less of an issue than it was during the Vanderbilt/Rockefeller/Carnegie era. The gap is not from the poor or the middle class to the 1%, it is between the .99% and  the .01%. Certainly the recessions we have had; Recessions of 1969&#8211;70, 1973&#8211;75, 1980, July 1981&#8211;Nov 1982, March 2001&#8211;Nov 2001, Dec 2007&#8211;June 2009 have hurt the less wealthy more than the more wealthy, not in $$$s lost, but in the ability to maintain a dignified standard of living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since every government yet devised exists to serve its richest citizens at the expense of its majority,
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely disagree with that comment in its entirety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism produces "bad men" a spectacularly, and in direct proportion, to wealth itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you blaming the system when it is not the system at all? Capitalism has spread the money around to a larger proportion of its citizenry than any other system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: Married couples are disproportionately represented in the upper two quintiles, compared to the bottom three quintiles. That tends to represent two family incomes. To compare individual incomes of the top two quintiles to the bottom three, one must cut the mean income of the top two quintiles in half, which then reflects a much lower gap than many people claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if he realizes that calling you home school is not an insult. Home schooled kids consistently out score public school kids here in Alabama, as the AEA has consistently lowered education standards in the process of improving their own lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  This guy debates like he's STILL in a public middle school debate club.
> 
> It's people like him, that are perfect examples of what Thomas Sowell said years ago.
> 
> Sowell was set debate a well known economist I believe, and the night before the debate told his people he was going home to get rest.  When they thought he should prepare for the debate instead, Sowell explained:
> 
> I dont mind debating smart people.   They know the limitations of their position.  Its debating stupid people thats hard.
> 
> This guys is exactly who Sowell was talking about.  Too dumb to even know the limits of his own position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "On Friday, the city of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing it of pushing minority borrowers to take on risky home loans that would ultimately cost the city at least $1.7 billion in lost revenue and maintenance.
> 
> "According to the city, these risky home loans triggered numerous foreclosures that disproportionately affected people of color.
> 
> "The alleged predatory lending resulted in cratering property values, lost tax revenue and increased costs to the city as there are now no homeowners paying for the maintenance of those foreclosed properties.
> 
> "The Los Angeles Times reports that JPMorgan is charged with responsibility for some 200,000 foreclosures in the city between 2008 and 2012.
> 
> "Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer has already gone after Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and will argue that JPMorgan has continuously practiced mortgage discrimination since 2004."
> 
> *Feel free to continue making an ass out of your self, Bitch.*
> 
> L.A. Sues America?s Biggest Bank Alleging Predatory Lending - Truthdig
Click to expand...

OK, you have said it, but can you offer anything other than opinion (city officials et al) which proves that it was the bank pushing the loans in a predatory manner or was the bank simply following the federal insistence to finance at a lower interest rate to get more people to own their own homes and those people choosing to buy more than they could afford? All of the evidence, pro and con, when put together still suggests the federal government fiscal and monetary policies to be the primary cause of the housing balloon and the subsequent crash.

Not a single one of you on the far left has produced an iota of *believable evidence *to off set the responsibility of the government for their actions. IE, a lot of left wing propaganda as opposed to empirical data.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for your first statement, dnsmith has consistently churned out terrible formats (not necessarily his fault--he's not a "techie" and USMB formatting is sub-par). Yet as a result of the poor formatting so that it appears who is saying what is false, he then accuses someone of malevolence.
> 
> 
> 
> I accuse someone of malevolence when and if they try to put words into my mouth. And I have noted that you, zombie and George have put names other than mine on comments I made, so don't claim success of formatting. I don't consider format or ritual important. The solution is, if you don't like my formatting, don't read my posts. *Yet, not one person on this thread has once, not even once, offered a better economic solution than Capitalism. *So, you can get off your high horse and recognize that the claims of the "progressives" on this thread have over looked the validity of empirical studies about economic situations and instead offer a pseudo intellectual discussion which means absolutely nothing in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FWIW, I have never deliberately assigned another's name to any of your posts.
> gnarlylove is exactly correct about USMB formatting.
> The occurrence of such formatting errors of attribution may be random or not; however, I include the full "conversation" of almost every post I respond to.
> We seem to have enough honest disagreement on this thread without blaming each other for manipulating what we've posted previously
Click to expand...

Format, blowmat, when what I say is included under a quote with a different name specifying who said it, it is  not formatting, it is carelessness. I suspect I have overlooked such errors as well.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?


Politicians, all of whom follow their particular bias. I absolutely don't buy that Wall Street controls the government any more of even as much as POLITICAL MACHINES. All political machines tell us they are for the little guy, but in fact they are only out for themselves.


----------



## dnsmith35

gnarlylove said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> War is the result of power hungry humans, not capitalism, and not socialism. Communism maybe. But the pure fact is, capitalism is not at fault, people are; greedy people are; and no economic system eliminates greedy human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why would people be power hungry if it wasn't worthwhile? People become clever as a result of seeing what works--and capitalism rewards individuals who forsake the interests of communities for their own private pursuits. So they do coal mining and ruin aquifers but have little concern since they don't actually live in that community.
> 
> Capitalism provides the system by which power hungry individuals are rewarded for being hyper-focused on profit maximization. Those who make the biggest bucks are those on Wall St. and they are the most concentrated group of psychopaths among any profession. These are the men who are heralded on Fortune 500 and other magazines.
> Is Wall Street Full of Psychopaths? - James Silver - The Atlantic
> Lessons From The Brain-Damaged Investor - WSJ
> The Shocking Stat About Psychos On Wall Street - Business Insider
> 
> And when a person disregards others and nature for his own benefit, we see the devastation of whole societies while a small minority benefit enormously. Amy Chua has written about this in "World on Fire" where she catalogs dozens of societies where the minority population control the society and the vast majority are under abject living conditions:
> "In the Philippines, Chua explains, the Chinese Filipino is 1% of the population but controls 60% of the economy, with the result being envy and bitterness on the part of the majority against the Chinese minorityin other words, an ethnic conflict. Similarly, in Indonesia the Chinese Indonesians are 3% of the population but control 70% of the economy. There is a similar pattern in other Southeast Asia nations.
> 
> According to Chua, examples of what she calls ethnic market-dominant minorities include overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia; whites in Latin America; Jews in America; Croats in the former Yugoslavia; and Igbos, Kikuyus, Tutsis, Indians and Lebanese, among others, in Africa."
> 
> While capitalism is not the agent it is the mechanism by which agents stake claims (thereby denying access of the community who depend on resources like water, land) and have them defended by repressive governments, including in the US.
> 
> 
> As I quoted Woodrow Wilson, there is urgency behind expanding formerly closed markets for the sake of private wealth even if it makes sovereign nations outraged by annexing their resources. By taking resources by force from sovereign nations, you are rewarded. Capitalism is the mechanism of wealth production for individual profit maximization which often takes little to no account of external costs. These costs range from infant mortality, pollution, destruction of culture and countless other costs that are not calculated as part of the profit.
> 
> Capitalism is the engine that churns out "bad people." Though I don't agree with your assessment; people are not bad and certainly not born bad. People learn how to behave and what works and the systems in place determine what works and what doesn't. Placing the individual over the community is the essence of capitalist enterprise and has helped wrought untold suffering and deceit for the sake of private gain.
> 
> I'm not saying capitalism only creates horrid circumstances. Those living where capital is concentrated are better in relative terms. However, that is no excuse for neglecting the facts about the horrid side of capitalism.
Click to expand...

You sure do use a lot of words in your efforts to blame an economic system instead of the true culprits. Capitalism no more churns out "bad people" than does Socialism or any other form of Marxism. The point being, it is not the economic system which is causing the evil in the world no matter what you think.

So long as we have people in our country who are more concerned about or RELATIVELY POOR, instead of the TRULY POOR of the world, we can expect that the horrid side of any economic system will continue to breed horrid effects on the TRULY POOR. In my opinion we concern our selves with our relative poor who earn at or below the poverty line set by the government more than we do about the abject destitute of the world, that "income gap" you think about will continue to grow.

It appears like some of the more left persons on this thread only care about our own back yard. I care about the least wealthy all over the world. Our bottom quintile of wage earners have many times the wealth of the poor in the third world as translated into standards of living.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  This guy debates like he's STILL in a public middle school debate club.
> 
> It's people like him, that are perfect examples of what Thomas Sowell said years ago.
> 
> Sowell was set debate a well known economist I believe, and the night before the debate told his people he was going home to get rest.  When they thought he should prepare for the debate instead, Sowell explained:
> 
> I dont mind debating smart people.   They know the limitations of their position.  Its debating stupid people thats hard.
> 
> This guys is exactly who Sowell was talking about.  Too dumb to even know the limits of his own position.
> 
> 
> 
> "On Friday, the city of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing it of pushing minority borrowers to take on risky home loans that would ultimately cost the city at least $1.7 billion in lost revenue and maintenance.
> 
> "According to the city, these risky home loans triggered numerous foreclosures that disproportionately affected people of color.
> 
> "The alleged predatory lending resulted in cratering property values, lost tax revenue and increased costs to the city as there are now no homeowners paying for the maintenance of those foreclosed properties.
> 
> "The Los Angeles Times reports that JPMorgan is charged with responsibility for some 200,000 foreclosures in the city between 2008 and 2012.
> 
> "Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer has already gone after Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and will argue that JPMorgan has continuously practiced mortgage discrimination since 2004."
> 
> *Feel free to continue making an ass out of your self, Bitch.*
> 
> L.A. Sues America?s Biggest Bank Alleging Predatory Lending - Truthdig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, you have said it, but can you offer anything other than opinion (city officials et al) which proves that it was the bank pushing the loans in a predatory manner or was the bank simply following the federal insistence to finance at a lower interest rate to get more people to own their own homes and those people choosing to buy more than they could afford? All of the evidence, pro and con, when put together still suggests the federal government fiscal and monetary policies to be the primary cause of the housing balloon and the subsequent crash.
> 
> Not a single one of you on the far left has produced an iota of *believable evidence *to off set the responsibility of the government for their actions. IE, a lot of left wing propaganda as opposed to empirical data.
Click to expand...

" JPMorgan agreed to pay $20 bln in 2013 to clear up legal claims

"U.S. prosecutor in Manhattan has brought 8 mortgage-fraud suits..."

"WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co settled the latest in a string of legal claims on Tuesday when it agreed to pay $614 million to the U.S. government and admitted that it defrauded federal agencies by underwriting sub-standard mortgage loans.

"JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank by assets, said as part of the settlement that for more than a decade it approved thousands of insured loans that were not eligible for insurance by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to court papers."

UPDATE 2-JPMorgan to pay $614 mln in U.S. mortgage fraud case | Reuters

*Do you find this "believable evidence"?*


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians, all of whom follow their particular bias. I absolutely don't buy that Wall Street controls the government any more of even as much as POLITICAL MACHINES. All political machines tell us they are for the little guy, but in fact they are only out for themselves.
Click to expand...

All politicians depend on one percent of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The same one percent who earned about 9% of US income forty years ago and currently earns over 20% of US income.

The same one percent Wall Street serves by bribing politicians to privatize profit and socialize loss.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians, all of whom follow their particular bias. I absolutely don't buy that Wall Street controls the government any more of even as much as POLITICAL MACHINES. All political machines tell us they are for the little guy, but in fact they are only out for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All politicians depend on one percent of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The same one percent who earned about 9% of US income forty years ago and currently earns over 20% of US income.
> 
> The same one percent Wall Street serves by bribing politicians to privatize profit and socialize loss.
Click to expand...


If we didn't give our government the power to socialize loss they wouldn't be able to sell it.

When someone hires a hitman and the police catch wind of the plot, they don't only jail the guy who did the hiring and let the hitman go free.

All these transactions have buyers -AND- sellers.  Try to keep that in mind.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "On Friday, the city of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing it of pushing minority borrowers to take on risky home loans that would ultimately cost the city at least $1.7 billion in lost revenue and maintenance.
> 
> "According to the city, these risky home loans triggered numerous foreclosures that disproportionately affected people of color.
> 
> "The alleged predatory lending resulted in cratering property values, lost tax revenue and increased costs to the city as there are now no homeowners paying for the maintenance of those foreclosed properties.
> 
> "The Los Angeles Times reports that JPMorgan is charged with responsibility for some 200,000 foreclosures in the city between 2008 and 2012.
> 
> "Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer has already gone after Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and will argue that JPMorgan has continuously practiced mortgage discrimination since 2004."
> 
> *Feel free to continue making an ass out of your self, Bitch.*
> 
> L.A. Sues America?s Biggest Bank Alleging Predatory Lending - Truthdig
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you have said it, but can you offer anything other than opinion (city officials et al) which proves that it was the bank pushing the loans in a predatory manner or was the bank simply following the federal insistence to finance at a lower interest rate to get more people to own their own homes and those people choosing to buy more than they could afford? All of the evidence, pro and con, when put together still suggests the federal government fiscal and monetary policies to be the primary cause of the housing balloon and the subsequent crash.
> 
> Not a single one of you on the far left has produced an iota of *believable evidence *to off set the responsibility of the government for their actions. IE, a lot of left wing propaganda as opposed to empirical data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " JPMorgan agreed to pay $20 bln in 2013 to clear up legal claims
> 
> "U.S. prosecutor in Manhattan has brought 8 mortgage-fraud suits..."
> 
> "WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co settled the latest in a string of legal claims on Tuesday when it agreed to pay $614 million to the U.S. government and admitted that it defrauded federal agencies by underwriting sub-standard mortgage loans.
> 
> "JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank by assets, said as part of the settlement that for more than a decade it approved thousands of insured loans that were not eligible for insurance by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to court papers."
> 
> UPDATE 2-JPMorgan to pay $614 mln in U.S. mortgage fraud case | Reuters
> 
> *Do you find this "believable evidence"?*
Click to expand...

No, I do not! The fact that JPMorgan Chase and Co chose to pay off the suits instead of letting them go to trial is not proof that they caused any of the problem instead of the government being at fault for bad fiscal/monetary policies which include: excessively low interest rates, the push to put more people into homes they could not really afford, allowing ARMs to be used by people not savvy enough to understand that when the interest went way up, they could not pay that loan. Do I believe that the loan agencies were part to blame for allowing the government to brow beat them into offering those loans? Maybe some, but mostly not, because the government made it too clear what they wanted, and they got it in spades.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians, all of whom follow their particular bias. I absolutely don't buy that Wall Street controls the government any more of even as much as POLITICAL MACHINES. All political machines tell us they are for the little guy, but in fact they are only out for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All politicians depend on one percent of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The same one percent who earned about 9% of US income forty years ago and currently earns over 20% of US income.
> 
> The same one percent Wall Street serves by bribing politicians to privatize profit and socialize loss.
Click to expand...

The people who pay for campaigns cannot require quid pro quo from the politicians, thus the presumptive guilt of Wall Street is a lot of bull.


----------



## dnsmith35

I have asked several times for anyone who thinks they know something to tell us peons what economic system would be better than capitalism. No one has bothered to answer. *I presume they know there is no system which makes as many people prosperous as does capitalism.*

So for the moment, let us digress to a discussion relative to the OP. The truth is, it is not capitalism which has created such inequality.

When we get past the "pundits" who express lots of opinions without real proof, we can discuss what the REAL problem of inequality is. It can be summed up in two words, CHOICES & EDUCATION. Our education system in the US does not consider the child being educated the reason for the schools to exist. As a result kids are not adequately counseled to follow a path most relevant to the child's capability.  European education systems have one of the best ideas of education, as does Japan. Beginning in high school, early on, each kid is tested for what his best achievement can be. Those who are better with hands on trades are aimed in that direction. Those who are better of in Academia, are tailored for the University. Thus they do not waste billions of $$$$s grooming a kid who is not academically qualified toward a college education. Here is where the choices start to go wrong. TEACHERS AND COUNSELORS tend to push for academia, even if the kids are not really up to it. Then comes our political system which treats kids as if they are full grown adults, thus the apprentice programs that exist the world over causes the economy to pay more for their lack of experience than they are worth in production.

Capitalism has for many years told the designers of education for years that insisting on a kid receiving minimum wage, when in fact he should be paid IAW his abilities, which will in an apprentice system gradually improve until he reaches Journeyman status, at which time he is ready for adult wages, doing adult things, and living like an adult.

As it is, we have hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of kids who have not learned a trade, and who have had the school system fail them such that they are inadequately trained for a trade or to do any job, possibly beyond flipping hamburgers. That, of course, is a dead end job. 

So, do I blame the kids? No, I blame the failure of our public school system and the choices made for the kids by teachers and counselors. As these kids grow up, they are not sufficiently educated to know how to make good decisions, especially financial decisions.

One of the major issues why our schools fail the kids, is based on the school believing that all kids have parents who can or will assist them with lessons. Let us look at the 15% to 20% whose parents, for what ever reason, do not help their kids with homework. Homework is one of the most useful tools in education, PROVIDING the kid is smart enough to do it or a parent is smart enough to take over from the teacher and help the kid learn at home.

So how about the kids who ARE NOT smart enough, and whose PARENTS DO NOT/CAN'T help them learn? They go to school, and are frequently belittled for not doing the work and graded down such that the kids self esteem is wounded from the git go. Our public school teachers do not do enough to take the kids who did not learn and TEACH THEM instead of blaming the parent for not doing their part.

So what happens to those kids? THEY ARE THE ONES IN THE BOTTOM QUINTILE OF INCOME. They are the ones who were failed by society, not by any economic system. 

The answer is to put the priority back where it belongs, on the kids.

We have a system here in Alabama called "Alternative School." When the kids show signs of falling behind, or of disrupting the class room with bad behavior (usually brought on because the kids do not understand the work) they go to the Alternative School wherein they are immersed in the basics until they are capable of succeeding in main stream education.

Where there is a specific learning disorder, the kids are sent for a period of time to a private education system and helped until they are ready to go back. It usually is accomplished in 2 or 3 hour periods a week, most for less than a semester.


----------



## georgephillip

Not2BSubjugated said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians, all of whom follow their particular bias. I absolutely don't buy that Wall Street controls the government any more of even as much as POLITICAL MACHINES. All political machines tell us they are for the little guy, but in fact they are only out for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> All politicians depend on one percent of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The same one percent who earned about 9% of US income forty years ago and currently earns over 20% of US income.
> 
> The same one percent Wall Street serves by bribing politicians to privatize profit and socialize loss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we didn't give our government the power to socialize loss they wouldn't be able to sell it.
> 
> When someone hires a hitman and the police catch wind of the plot, they don't only jail the guy who did the hiring and let the hitman go free.
> 
> All these transactions have buyers -AND- sellers.  Try to keep that in mind.
Click to expand...

That's good advice. 
When you say "if we didn't give our government the power to socialize loss they wouldn't be able to sell it", I'm not clear about how you would limit that authority? US corporations hire lobbyists to petition government to privatize the commons, i.e., cheap land, unlimited air and water, abundant minerals, and expendable workers. The profits are reserved primarily for 1% to 10% of all Americans, and the costs are shared by the vast majority of US workers. Would you deny government the right to privatize the commons or insist government do a better job negotiating the trade-offs between costs and profits?


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you have said it, but can you offer anything other than opinion (city officials et al) which proves that it was the bank pushing the loans in a predatory manner or was the bank simply following the federal insistence to finance at a lower interest rate to get more people to own their own homes and those people choosing to buy more than they could afford? All of the evidence, pro and con, when put together still suggests the federal government fiscal and monetary policies to be the primary cause of the housing balloon and the subsequent crash.
> 
> Not a single one of you on the far left has produced an iota of *believable evidence *to off set the responsibility of the government for their actions. IE, a lot of left wing propaganda as opposed to empirical data.
> 
> 
> 
> " JPMorgan agreed to pay $20 bln in 2013 to clear up legal claims
> 
> "U.S. prosecutor in Manhattan has brought 8 mortgage-fraud suits..."
> 
> "WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co settled the latest in a string of legal claims on Tuesday when it agreed to pay $614 million to the U.S. government and admitted that it defrauded federal agencies by underwriting sub-standard mortgage loans.
> 
> "JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank by assets, said as part of the settlement that for more than a decade it approved thousands of insured loans that were not eligible for insurance by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to court papers."
> 
> UPDATE 2-JPMorgan to pay $614 mln in U.S. mortgage fraud case | Reuters
> 
> *Do you find this "believable evidence"?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I do not! The fact that JPMorgan Chase and Co chose to pay off the suits instead of letting them go to trial is not proof that they caused any of the problem instead of the government being at fault for bad fiscal/monetary policies which include: excessively low interest rates, the push to put more people into homes they could not really afford, allowing ARMs to be used by people not savvy enough to understand that when the interest went way up, they could not pay that loan. Do I believe that the loan agencies were part to blame for allowing the government to brow beat them into offering those loans? Maybe some, but mostly not, because the government made it too clear what they wanted, and they got it in spades.
Click to expand...

Do you blame "government" or the Federal Reserve for setting "excessively low interest rates?"


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" -Atlas Shrugged
> 
> 
> 
> Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?
Click to expand...


The question is what benefits are derived from controlling the government. I'm always a little surprised to realize that you recognize the problem, yet advocate for policies that only exacerbate it. 

You're right, that what pollutes our government the most is the efforts of those who would use government to enhance their wealth (increase their financial power). But you're wrong in assuming that they are advocates of a free market They are its staunchest opponents.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" -Atlas Shrugged
> 
> 
> 
> Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is what benefits are derived from controlling the government. I'm always a little surprised to realize that you recognize the problem, yet advocate for policies that only exacerbate it.
> 
> You're right, that what pollutes our government the most is the efforts of those who would use government to enhance their wealth (increase their financial power). But you're wrong in assuming that they are advocates of a free market They are its staunchest opponents.
Click to expand...

Can we get specific about what steps you would take to reduce the influence of financial elites on government?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> " JPMorgan agreed to pay $20 bln in 2013 to clear up legal claims
> 
> "U.S. prosecutor in Manhattan has brought 8 mortgage-fraud suits..."
> 
> "WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co settled the latest in a string of legal claims on Tuesday when it agreed to pay $614 million to the U.S. government and admitted that it defrauded federal agencies by underwriting sub-standard mortgage loans.
> 
> "JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank by assets, said as part of the settlement that for more than a decade it approved thousands of insured loans that were not eligible for insurance by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to court papers."
> 
> UPDATE 2-JPMorgan to pay $614 mln in U.S. mortgage fraud case | Reuters
> 
> *Do you find this "believable evidence"?*
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not! The fact that JPMorgan Chase and Co chose to pay off the suits instead of letting them go to trial is not proof that they caused any of the problem instead of the government being at fault for bad fiscal/monetary policies which include: excessively low interest rates, the push to put more people into homes they could not really afford, allowing ARMs to be used by people not savvy enough to understand that when the interest went way up, they could not pay that loan. Do I believe that the loan agencies were part to blame for allowing the government to brow beat them into offering those loans? Maybe some, but mostly not, because the government made it too clear what they wanted, and they got it in spades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you blame "government" or the Federal Reserve for setting "excessively low interest rates?"
Click to expand...


The Federal Reserve is the government.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Just a quick note on formatting, addressed to anyone for whom this might be a help...

First and foremost there is a button captioned "Preview Post".  This is a very useful feature to review how your post will appear before you hit the "Submit Reply" button.

The format tags specify the formatting.  Each format tag begins with an open tag
[format]
and a close tag
[/format]

I will give some examples and use "whitespace" to prevent the format tags from being interpreted.
Some format tags are relatively simple, such as italics
[ I ] 
[ / I ]

Quotes are an example of formatting with a few more rules and features.  Quotes can be nested.
[ quote ] [ quote ] [/ quote ] [/ quote ]
Quotes can be linked.  
[ quote= Zombie_Pundit; 9198478] 
Notice the little arrow that will navigate your browser to the original post.  The linked and nested properties are not exclusive.
There is a limiting to the nesting.  The forum will automatically delete quoted text if the nesting level is too "deep", meaning too many layers of nested quotes.

Format tag balancing...
If the format tags are unbalanced, the formatting will not take effect in the manner the author intended (unless for some reason the author intended unbalanced format tags).
Consider this unbalanced format tag which I am deliberately adding to make something
*BOLD

But the word bold won't be bold because the format tags are unbalanced.  Now when I do this again but balance the tags
BOLD
The first close tag corresponds to the most recent open tag, leaving the original incorrect.

Now, if I inadvertently delete (or break) a close and open tag
 I [/ B ]  could leave a large chunk of text [ B ] bold when only certain words were supposed to be bold.

It is difficult to quote someone when the original post contains unbalanced quotation format tags.*


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not! The fact that JPMorgan Chase and Co chose to pay off the suits instead of letting them go to trial is not proof that they caused any of the problem instead of the government being at fault for bad fiscal/monetary policies which include: excessively low interest rates, the push to put more people into homes they could not really afford, allowing ARMs to be used by people not savvy enough to understand that when the interest went way up, they could not pay that loan. Do I believe that the loan agencies were part to blame for allowing the government to brow beat them into offering those loans? Maybe some, but mostly not, because the government made it too clear what they wanted, and they got it in spades.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you blame "government" or the Federal Reserve for setting "excessively low interest rates?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve is the government.
Click to expand...



"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. 

"They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.

 "The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s"

Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you blame "government" or the Federal Reserve for setting "excessively low interest rates?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve is the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions.
> 
> "They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.
> 
>  "The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s"
> 
> Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research
Click to expand...


Good old Louis was nuttier than you.

Thanks for the link. Ellen Brown is a moron......an amusing moron.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve is the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions.
> 
> "They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.
> 
>  "The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s"
> 
> Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good old Louis was nuttier than you.
> 
> Thanks for the link. Ellen Brown is a moron......an amusing moron.
Click to expand...

How much of the Fed's stock is owned by the government?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately I conclude that laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable; regulated Capitalism is an economic system fit for actual use.
> 
> 
> 
> Snipped for brevity. I agree, laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable. Can you give me an example of where on exists today?
Click to expand...

Nowhere, of course.  At least as I think we both define "laissez-faire Capitalism".

I think the problem is that we have not begun with a set of definitions.  Is Capitalism understood to mean "laissez-faire" Capitalism?  Let us not pretend there is no one who considers "laissez-faire" an unadded and unnecessary qualifier.  It's been quite the talking point for a number of years.  Is Keynesianism synonymous with "Capitalism"?  Let us not pretend there is no one who considers Keynesianism to be akin to Socialism.  Arguments are abound on the internet over differences stemming from what people consider a _putative_ definition of terms like these.  And no one will stop, catch their breath, and ask "what did you mean by that" because they assume everyone defines things they way they do and cannot imagine the world any differently.

Let's take a look at Wikipedia
Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to this article, "Marxian" is an economic theory under the subject of Capitalism.  Of course, once one clicks on the link there is no easy navigation back except the browser back-page button.  That's rather poetic if you stop and think about it.

Contrast this with the wikipedia article on Market Economy
Market economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article lists several ideologies on economic systems including Capitalist and Laissez-faire as separate ideologies.

So even if we try to use wikipedia to provide a common set of definitions, wikipedia contradicts itself on the relationships between these systems and ideologies.  BTW, the ideology link "Capitalist" links to the article above on Capitalism.

We need to agree on what Capitalism entails.


----------



## bedowin62

inequality is rising faster under Progressive majority rule in this the EIGHT-STRAIGHT YEAR OF OVERALL DEM-MAJORITY GOVERNMENT; than it did at ANY point in the Bush years; even at the end

who woulds thunk it?
the richer are getting richer FASTER and the poor are getting POORER FASTER under Obama and Dems than they were under Bush and Republicans



but left-wing niutjobs have their talking points to regurgitate


idiots and hypocrites


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> I wonder if he realizes that calling you home school is not an insult. Home schooled kids consistently out score public school kids here in Alabama, as the AEA has consistently lowered education standards in the process of improving their own lot.



"Homeschooled" is an insult.  It is obviously pejorative, both in the intent demonstrated by the immediate context, and by the isolationism exhibited by homeschooling.  It is this isolation and the subsequently implied closed-mindedness that stigmatizes homeschooling as an activity for extremeists who want to teach their children that God put dinosaur  bones in the earth to test our faith in Creationism.
If one cannot cope with the existence of others who are not the same so much so that one must sequester oneself in ones house, then one might have some serious psychological problems.
An interesting point:
"However, Rudner has said that these same students in public school may have scored just as well because of the dedicated parents they had."
Homeschooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Which implies that comparing performance against all public school kids, including the demonstrably challenged ones from dysfunctional home, is an apples-to-oranges comparison.  If we cherry picked and compared against science olympiad kids, I don't think homeschoolers would do as well given too many think Jonah lived in a whale.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions.
> 
> "They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.
> 
>  "The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s"
> 
> Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good old Louis was nuttier than you.
> 
> Thanks for the link. Ellen Brown is a moron......an amusing moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much of the Fed's stock is owned by the government?
Click to expand...


None. And yet, the Treasury was getting around 50 times more earnings than the "stock holders" these last few years.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who controls US Government, Wall Street or Main Street?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is what benefits are derived from controlling the government. I'm always a little surprised to realize that you recognize the problem, yet advocate for policies that only exacerbate it.
> 
> You're right, that what pollutes our government the most is the efforts of those who would use government to enhance their wealth (increase their financial power). But you're wrong in assuming that they are advocates of a free market They are its staunchest opponents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can we get specific about what steps you would take to reduce the influence of financial elites on government?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't. I don't think it's their influence that's the problem. It's what that influence affords them. Instead, I'd work to prevent government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone, wealthy or otherwise.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> I have asked several times for anyone who thinks they know something to tell us peons what economic system would be better than capitalism. No one has bothered to answer. *I presume they know there is no system which makes as many people prosperous as does capitalism.*


Define Capitalism.  



dnsmith35 said:


> So for the moment, let us digress to a discussion relative to the OP. The truth is, it is not capitalism which has created such inequality.
> 
> When we get past the "pundits" who express lots of opinions without real proof, we can discuss what the REAL problem of inequality is. It can be summed up in two words, CHOICES & EDUCATION. Our education system in the US does not consider the child being educated the reason for the schools to exist. As a result kids are not adequately counseled to follow a path most relevant to the child's capability.  European education systems have one of the best ideas of education, as does Japan. Beginning in high school, early on, each kid is tested for what his best achievement can be. Those who are better with hands on trades are aimed in that direction. Those who are better of in Academia, are tailored for the University. Thus they do not waste billions of $$$$s grooming a kid who is not academically qualified toward a college education. Here is where the choices start to go wrong. TEACHERS AND COUNSELORS tend to push for academia, even if the kids are not really up to it.


I actually prefer to not designate paths for kids.  I was once right of center, until the center moved, you know?  I understand the logic behind designating students for college prep or vocational paths.  The problem is that our service-based economy too often requires college educations for even menial clerical jobs, which of course increases the demand for college education increasing the cost of college education.  I would be more amenable to a European style program if we had real career paths for vocational students and did not treat VoTech High School as holding pens.  But ultimately, I would prefer young people finding their own path.  



dnsmith35 said:


> Then comes our political system which treats kids as if they are full grown adults, thus the apprentice programs that exist the world over causes the economy to pay more for their lack of experience than they are worth in production.


I cannot discern what you mean by this.



dnsmith35 said:


> Capitalism has for many years told the designers of education for years that insisting on a kid receiving minimum wage, when in fact he should be paid IAW his abilities, which will in an apprentice system gradually improve until he reaches Journeyman status, at which time he is ready for adult wages, doing adult things, and living like an adult.


How many such programs remain?  Electricians?  Plumbers?  Are you suggesting there exists a demand for apprentices that can absorb millions of job seekers?  If so, why not offer post-secondary vocational training, to make up for the lack of vocational training in secondary education?



dnsmith35 said:


> As it is, we have hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of kids who have not learned a trade, and who have had the school system fail them such that they are inadequately trained for a trade or to do any job, possibly beyond flipping hamburgers. That, of course, is a dead end job.
> 
> So, do I blame the kids? No, I blame the failure of our public school system and the choices made for the kids by teachers and counselors. As these kids grow up, they are not sufficiently educated to know how to make good decisions, especially financial decisions.


Lots of people make bad financial decisions.  Perhaps the worst is to be a poor student getting a degree in a field without clear job prospects or further academic pursuits; doing so purely for the sake of having the degree, and then getting deep into student debt.



dnsmith35 said:


> One of the major issues why our schools fail the kids, is based on the school believing that all kids have parents who can or will assist them with lessons. Let us look at the 15% to 20% whose parents, for what ever reason, do not help their kids with homework. Homework is one of the most useful tools in education, PROVIDING the kid is smart enough to do it or a parent is smart enough to take over from the teacher and help the kid learn at home.
> 
> So how about the kids who ARE NOT smart enough, and whose PARENTS DO NOT/CAN'T help them learn? They go to school, and are frequently belittled for not doing the work and graded down such that the kids self esteem is wounded from the git go. Our public school teachers do not do enough to take the kids who did not learn and TEACH THEM instead of blaming the parent for not doing their part.


Uhm... What happened to the old critique that schools simply pass the problems onward to the next grade-level by not being strict enough?  And we do need more support from home.  I think a lack of involvement on the part of the parents, albeit parents tired from working two jobs, is a major factor in poor academic performance.  If the parents place no importance on academic performance, then the child emulating the parents will place no importance on academic performance.

There are things we as a society can do.  Let's not put all the pressure on teachers.  We could, as a society, give children in impoverished situations better role models than rappers and misbehaving athletes.  We could advance headstart programs.  We could end the policy of funding schools based solely on real estate taxes which keeps better funding in wealthier areas.  We could dismantle schools so bad that incoming teachers are told to allow the mainstay of the students behave in any manner they choose and focus only on a small subset of children actually paying attention.  There is no need to tolerate such failures.  If the school is so bad, then maybe those kids need to be sent to different school districts where they can benefit from the influence (and potentially, initially, scorn) of the students in their new school.  I actually know a teacher who, upon arrival at their first assignment, was told exactly what I said above and the class was as unthinkably chaotic as described above. The teacher was instructed to ignore the problem and only focus on the small handful of students that sat close to his desk and tried.

There is no need for this to continue.  Such a place needs to be dismantled and the students sent to the more affluent public schools.



dnsmith35 said:


> So what happens to those kids? THEY ARE THE ONES IN THE BOTTOM QUINTILE OF INCOME. They are the ones who were failed by society, not by any economic system.
> 
> The answer is to put the priority back where it belongs, on the kids.


Yes, that happens.  Do you know how few ladders of upward social mobility we have left as a society?  I strongly support programs that produce a workforce eager to seize opportunities and with the skills needed to do so.



dnsmith35 said:


> We have a system here in Alabama called "Alternative School." When the kids show signs of falling behind, or of disrupting the class room with bad behavior (usually brought on because the kids do not understand the work) they go to the Alternative School wherein they are immersed in the basics until they are capable of succeeding in main stream education.


Those schools, in my experience, are nothing but holding pens.  When a student falls into them, they can't get back out.  There are truly disturbed young people who do need to be isolated from the rest of the student body.  But if we applied that rule to the situation I described above, what you would have are people born and dying in an "alternative society".  There needs to be a distinction between the situation where the students are only behaving badly because the norm is so bad and the students who have real psychological problems.  And if we don't make that distinction early, I fear the destructive "norm" will condemn an older student into a minimum-wage life.



dnsmith35 said:


> Where there is a specific learning disorder, the kids are sent for a period of time to a private education system and helped until they are ready to go back. It usually is accomplished in 2 or 3 hour periods a week, most for less than a semester.


I imagine that depends on the severity of the learning disorder, but I see your point.

BTW, let's not pretend that there are those who would define public school as some exercise in Sociaslism and its failure thereby destined.  When I ask that we define Capitalism, it is in no small part such that the sophistry to which I alluded can be avoided.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> All politicians depend on one percent of the voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. The same one percent who earned about 9% of US income forty years ago and currently earns over 20% of US income.
> 
> The same one percent Wall Street serves by bribing politicians to privatize profit and socialize loss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we didn't give our government the power to socialize loss they wouldn't be able to sell it.
> 
> When someone hires a hitman and the police catch wind of the plot, they don't only jail the guy who did the hiring and let the hitman go free.
> 
> All these transactions have buyers -AND- sellers.  Try to keep that in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good advice.
> When you say "if we didn't give our government the power to socialize loss they wouldn't be able to sell it", I'm not clear about how you would limit that authority? US corporations hire lobbyists to petition government to privatize the commons, i.e., cheap land, unlimited air and water, abundant minerals, and expendable workers. The profits are reserved primarily for 1% to 10% of all Americans, and the costs are shared by the vast majority of US workers. Would you deny government the right to privatize the commons or insist government do a better job negotiating the trade-offs between costs and profits?
Click to expand...

How does the government negotiate the trade-offs between costs and profits? What gives you the idea the government does anything but see to the self interests of the politicians?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

gnarlylove said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi gnarly,
> 
> Thank you for your insight.  I snipped your quote because I think it would be best if we got this discussion back on track.
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdly, do you suspect a boom-bust pattern or the business cycle is sustainable? Hasn't government necessarily served as the safety valve for the normal processes of mass transfer of wealth upwards that capitalism succeeds in doing so well? The 40s-60s were egalitarian-ish but then free market ideology took over and we see the results. Wouldn't it make sense to investigate whether this boom-bust pattern is really beneficial for society in comparison to potential alternatives? I'm not advocating for anything in particular, merely an inquiry. I don't think regular crisis is appropriate for wealthiest and most free nation in history.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the boom and bust cycle occur naturally.  Let's consider Tulip bulbs in the Netherlands.  The reason Tulip bulbs became worth so much is because everyone wanted to have them.  People would invest in and then resell Tulip bulbs to cash in on the mania.  Then the price collapsed.
> First, do people have the right to be so inexplicably infatuated with some material thing?  I think they do.  Second, do other people have the right to observe this infatuation and begin making speculative investments to profit from this demand?  I think they do.
> What I'm describing is a speculative bubble not a boom-bust cycle, but these two concepts share some traits.  And at least for me visualizing the rise and fall of one commodity is easier than visualizing aggregate demand.  If we establish that people have the right to throw their money at tulip bulbs, and thus allow popular demand to determine worth, then I think the boom and bust cycle is a pattern that must be endured.  It is not that the boom and bust cycle is beneficial to the total output of a society, but rather the effect of having millions of individuals making individual decisions and sometimes not good ones.
> I think that the boom-bust cycle makes people happy overall.  They suffer in the bust, but they are so elated in the boom.  In order to take away boom and bust, the government would have to engage in significant economic planning.
> 
> I believe there is an alternative.  Keynes offered this alternative.  The boom and bust cycles can be mitigated by government policy.  The extensive literature of Keynesianism would offer a better explanation than I would.  Ultimately I conclude that laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable; regulated Capitalism is an economic system fit for actual use.
> 
> As for the accumulation of wealth in a few hands, there are concepts like Distributism, from where we get our anti-trust legislation.
> Distributism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> We have distributist influences in our modern laws.
> Distributism does not prevent boom-bust cycles, but it does seek to maximize the spread of property ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am familiar with Keynes. But capital accumulation can only be mitigated. And as we are seeing in our political arena, wars etc. which are fully subservient to capital and economic interests. Thus the safety valve known as regulation cannot work properly since the interests of the government and private sector align. So at our stage in history we are seeing the trend and it's obvious economic concerns rule the day, regardless of the divergence of the have and have nots, climate change and pollution in general. So as policy increasingly allows for capital accumulation, we can expect greater busts and catastrophes since the economy is global unlike the Tulip cycle you mentioned. So as speculators continue to amass huge sums of wealth, we are faced with a very concrete problem:
> 
> "The abstract possibility [of an inverted relation between real assets and speculative assets] lay in the fact, emphasized by both Marx and Keynes, that the capital accumulation process was twofold: involving the ownership of real assets and also the holding of paper claims to those real assets. Under these circumstances the possibility of a contradiction between real accumulation and financial speculation was intrinsic to the system from the start."
> 
> "There is no necessary direct connection between productive investment and the amassing of financial assets. It is thus possible for the two to be decoupled to a considerable degree. However, without a mature financial system this contradiction went no further than the speculative bubbles that dot the history of capitalism, normally signaling the end of a boom."
> 
> "It took the rise of monopoly capitalism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and the development of a market for industrial securities before finance could take center-stage, and before the contradiction between production and finance could mature."
> The Financialization of Capitalism
> 
> I think it's quite obvious such a system is unsustainable given sophistic politics, environmental degradation, and the endless goal and legal maxim of increasing profits each quarter without respect for the long term stability. It will reach a point at which the speculative nature will create a problem no government can counter. The paper/digital claims to assets will disappear since those assets didn't exist in reality to begin with thus drying up the alleged wealth of potentially billions. Ensuing thereafter will be the most lasting crisis to have ever tango-ed with mankind, especially if the climate is involved. I do not trust regulated capitalism to present a sustainable future.
Click to expand...


The government and private sector must have some alignment given that it is the duty of government to safeguard the private sector.  But I do understand that you meant that alignment as a term of opprobrium.  
When government is composed of representatives who honestly believe that their duty to the greater welfare of the nation involves belittling the most vulnerable in our society, we do have a problem.  But it is not a problem we cannot solve through democracy.  

You mention environmental problems.  I don't think any change we make to our system of government can in any way effect the very man-made damage to our environment.  The problem is that we Westerners consider ourselves all powerful.  We are not.  We have successfully empowered other societies to the point that these other sovereign nations now pollute more than us by leaps and bounds, and they show no interest in stopping.  You can shutdown every coal plant in North America and you won't stop the warming of the Globe.  No one will address this problem for the sake of addressing the problem until it becomes undeniable.  Example:
Deforestation ran rampant in China as part of the Man-Over-Nature policy
The Increasing Costs of Development: Threat's to China's Biodiversity: Deforestation
Once the negative effects of desertification became undeniable, afforestation began.​No I don't think it will be "too late" in the sense that I don't believe Hollywood movie depictions of rapid environmental changes. If we could somehow make it profitable to address the problem of climate change, then you'll see people climbing over each other to do so.

As for the accumulation of wealth, have you ever seen the equation
r>g


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> " JPMorgan agreed to pay $20 bln in 2013 to clear up legal claims
> 
> "U.S. prosecutor in Manhattan has brought 8 mortgage-fraud suits..."
> 
> "WASHINGTON, Feb 4 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co settled the latest in a string of legal claims on Tuesday when it agreed to pay $614 million to the U.S. government and admitted that it defrauded federal agencies by underwriting sub-standard mortgage loans.
> 
> "JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank by assets, said as part of the settlement that for more than a decade it approved thousands of insured loans that were not eligible for insurance by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to court papers."
> 
> UPDATE 2-JPMorgan to pay $614 mln in U.S. mortgage fraud case | Reuters
> 
> *Do you find this "believable evidence"?*
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not! The fact that JPMorgan Chase and Co chose to pay off the suits instead of letting them go to trial is not proof that they caused any of the problem instead of the government being at fault for bad fiscal/monetary policies which include: excessively low interest rates, the push to put more people into homes they could not really afford, allowing ARMs to be used by people not savvy enough to understand that when the interest went way up, they could not pay that loan. Do I believe that the loan agencies were part to blame for allowing the government to brow beat them into offering those loans? Maybe some, but mostly not, because the government made it too clear what they wanted, and they got it in spades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you blame "government" or the Federal Reserve for setting "excessively low interest rates?"
Click to expand...

How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Just a quick note on formatting, addressed to anyone for whom this might be a help...
> 
> First and foremost there is a button captioned "Preview Post".  This is a very useful feature to review how your post will appear before you hit the "Submit Reply" button.
> 
> The format tags specify the formatting.  Each format tag begins with an open tag
> [format]
> and a close tag
> [/format]
> 
> I will give some examples and use "whitespace" to prevent the format tags from being interpreted.
> Some format tags are relatively simple, such as italics
> [ I ]
> [ / I ]
> 
> Quotes are an example of formatting with a few more rules and features.  Quotes can be nested.
> [ quote ] [ quote ] [/ quote ] [/ quote ]
> Quotes can be linked.
> [ quote= Zombie_Pundit; 9198478]
> Notice the little arrow that will navigate your browser to the original post.  The linked and nested properties are not exclusive.
> There is a limiting to the nesting.  The forum will automatically delete quoted text if the nesting level is too "deep", meaning too many layers of nested quotes.
> 
> Format tag balancing...
> If the format tags are unbalanced, the formatting will not take effect in the manner the author intended (unless for some reason the author intended unbalanced format tags).
> Consider this unbalanced format tag which I am deliberately adding to make something
> *BOLD
> 
> But the word bold won't be bold because the format tags are unbalanced.  Now when I do this again but balance the tags
> BOLD
> The first close tag corresponds to the most recent open tag, leaving the original incorrect.
> 
> Now, if I inadvertently delete (or break) a close and open tag
> I [/ B ]  could leave a large chunk of text [ B ] bold when only certain words were supposed to be bold.
> 
> It is difficult to quote someone when the original post contains unbalanced quotation format tags.*


*If you want to be concerned with formatting, be my guest. I don't have that much patience. So gee, how do we make the sentence in italics? or to underline it?  If formatting helps you get your rocks off, be my guest. But when you quote my words, be damned sure it is my name within the quote. GOT THAT?*


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions.
> 
> "They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.
> 
>  "The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s"
> 
> Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good old Louis was nuttier than you.
> 
> Thanks for the link. Ellen Brown is a moron......an amusing moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much of the Fed's stock is owned by the government?
Click to expand...

THAT *is really *_irrelevant_, as the Fed will invariably do what the current administration wants them to do


----------



## SAYIT

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not! The fact that JPMorgan Chase and Co chose to pay off the suits instead of letting them go to trial is not proof that they caused any of the problem instead of the government being at fault for bad fiscal/monetary policies which include: excessively low interest rates, the push to put more people into homes they could not really afford, allowing ARMs to be used by people not savvy enough to understand that when the interest went way up, they could not pay that loan. Do I believe that the loan agencies were part to blame for allowing the government to brow beat them into offering those loans? Maybe some, but mostly not, because the government made it too clear what they wanted, and they got it in spades.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you blame "government" or the Federal Reserve for setting "excessively low interest rates?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.
Click to expand...


I realize gov't social engineering often fails but in this case we, as a nation, tried to include our least capable in the American dream. It was a noble idea that, other than a few exceptions, failed miserably.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately I conclude that laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable; regulated Capitalism is an economic system fit for actual use.
> 
> 
> 
> Snipped for brevity. I agree, laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable. Can you give me an example of where on exists today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere, of course.  At least as I think we both define "laissez-faire Capitalism".
> 
> I think the problem is that we have not begun with a set of definitions.  Is Capitalism understood to mean "laissez-faire" Capitalism?
Click to expand...

N0! 





> Let us not pretend there is no one who considers "laissez-faire" an unadded and unnecessary qualifier.


 Since no example exists, it is obvious that unless you add the "laissez-faire" it is not.





> It's been quite the talking point for a number of years.  Is Keynesianism synonymous


No! Keynesian is generally bad government actions as most issues whould have improved with out the "government meddling" in the economy. Reason being, "every nickle of Keynesian stimulation comes from the economy through taxation or borrowing, and just moved around but because that borrowing and taxing has overhead, the ampunt put back into the economy is never as much as is taken out. Keynesian policies are not synonymous with "Capitalism". 





> Let us not pretend there is no one who considers Keynesianism to be akin to Socialism.  Arguments are abound on the internet over differences stemming from what people consider a _putative_ definition of terms like these.  And no one will stop, catch their breath, and ask "what did you mean by that" because they assume everyone defines things they way they do and cannot imagine the world any differently.


 I don't assume any of you know what it means because so many of you are dumb as a post when it comes to economics. You may know (I am not really sure) how to FORMAT a post, but you have shown little understanding of economics.
Let's take a look at Wikipedia
Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to this article, "Marxian" is an economic theory under the subject of Capitalism.  Of course, once one clicks on the link there is no easy navigation back except the browser back-page button.  That's rather poetic if you stop and think about it.

Contrast this with the wikipedia article on Market Economy
Market economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article lists several ideologies on economic systems including Capitalist and Laissez-faire as separate ideologies.[/quote]Since laissez-faire is such a non existing system of capitalism I suppose considering it a separate ideology is fine.





> So even if we try to use wikipedia to provide a common set of definitions, wikipedia contradicts itself on the relationships between these systems and ideologies.  BTW, the ideology link "Capitalist" links to the article above on Capitalism.


Since Wikipedia is edited by the people who use it there is no doubt as to why it is not a very good source.





> We need to agree on what Capitalism entails.


How about using a valid reference book? Merriam-Webster says it well.

Full Definition of CAPITALISM

:  *an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods*, _by investments that are determined by private decision,_ and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market 

Most of us tend to modify that definition by adding that government regulation is most likely needed to mitigate an less than level playing field which exists between capital and consumption.

We then go further, by saying that capitalism is AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM to EVER DEVISE a means to distribute prosperity the highest % of the population.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> .....





dnsmith35 said:


> I wonder if he realizes that calling you home school is not an insult. Home schooled kids consistently out score public school kids here in Alabama, as the AEA has consistently lowered education standards in the process of improving their own lot.





> Zombie-"Homeschooled" is an insult. [It is obviously pejorative, both in the intent demonstrated by the immediate context, and by the isolationism exhibited by homeschooling.


Only to education snobs who are not aware that homeschooling tends to produce better intellectual students because the parents do what it takes to educate their children. Our home schooled children continuously out perform public school students in every subject. 





> It is this isolation and the subsequently implied closed-mindedness that stigmatizes homeschooling as an activity for extremeists who want to teach their children that God put dinosaur  bones in the earth to test our faith in Creationism.


You are not only ignorant, you are bigoted. So much for idiots like you.





> Zombie-If one cannot cope with the existence of others who are not the same so much so that one must sequester oneself in ones house, then one might have some serious psychological problems.


Sequestering oneself in a public school which does not treat the student as the important point certainly does not produce significantly better qualified students.





> An interesting point:
> "However, Rudner has said that these same students in public school may have scored just as well because of the dedicated parents they had."
> Homeschooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Which implies that comparing performance against all public school kids, including the demonstrably challenged ones from dysfunctional home, is an apples-to-oranges comparison.


Challenged students from dysfunctional home deserve as good an education as anyone else. It is a shame that our AEA run public schools do not take good care of their education. 





> If we cherry picked and compared against science olympiad kids, I don't think homeschoolers would do as well given too many think Jonah lived in a whale.


For your information, most homeschooling is not done to teach religion, it is done to better educate ones children. Many home schooled kids are very special kids with various learning disabilities and the parents know that the school will not do right by them.





> As to cherry picking and comparing, if the public schools continue to mainstream learning disabled, and special education kids, all we are doing is reducing the overall education experience for everyone.
> 
> But as usual, you have shown your ignorance. So now we know, you have no idea what makes for good education, nor do you know anything about economics.


----------



## Chris

SAYIT said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you blame "government" or the Federal Reserve for setting "excessively low interest rates?"
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize gov't social engineering often fails but in this case we, as a nation, tried to include our least capable in the American dream. It was a noble idea that, other than a few exceptions, failed miserably.
Click to expand...


Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
It wasn't the housing market.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> .....





dnsmith35 said:


> I have asked several times for anyone who thinks they know something to tell us peons what economic system would be better than capitalism. No one has bothered to answer. *I presume they know there is no system which makes as many people prosperous as does capitalism.*





> Define Capitalism.



Full Definition of CAPITALISM
:  an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market 


dnsmith35 said:


> So for the moment, let us digress to a discussion relative to the OP. The truth is, it is not capitalism which has created such inequality.
> 
> When we get past the "pundits" who express lots of opinions without real proof, we can discuss what the REAL problem of inequality is. It can be summed up in two words, CHOICES & EDUCATION. Our education system in the US does not consider the child being educated the reason for the schools to exist. As a result kids are not adequately counseled to follow a path most relevant to the child's capability.  European education systems have one of the best ideas of education, as does Japan. Beginning in high school, early on, each kid is tested for what his best achievement can be. Those who are better with hands on trades are aimed in that direction. Those who are better of in Academia, are tailored for the University. Thus they do not waste billions of $$$$s grooming a kid who is not academically qualified toward a college education. Here is where the choices start to go wrong. TEACHERS AND COUNSELORS tend to push for academia, even if the kids are not really up to it.





> Zombie - I actually prefer to not designate paths for kids.


Then you are part of the problem.





> I was once right of center,


Shame on you. 





> until the center moved, you know?


I do know. Everything shifted to the left. 





> Zombie - I understand the logic behind designating students for college prep or vocational paths.  The problem is that our service-based economy too often requires college educations for even menial clerical jobs, which of course increases the demand for college education increasing the cost of college education.  I would be more amenable to a European style program if we had real career paths for vocational students and did not treat VoTech High School as holding pens.  But ultimately, I would prefer young people finding their own path.


It does not  help the student to push him the wrong way. Our economy and society has swallowed the academia bit, but that doesn't mean its right, and it can be resolved.





> Z - I cannot discern what you mean by this.


I am not surprised.





> Z - How many such programs remain?  Electricians?  Plumbers?  Are you suggesting there exists a demand for apprentices that can absorb millions of job seekers?  If so, why not offer post-secondary vocational training, to make up for the lack of vocational training in secondary education?


I agree, but instead of a student paying for that post secondary education in a trade, why not he earn a stipend to do an apprenticeship? The list of tradesmen is very long.





> Z - Lots of people make bad financial decisions.  Perhaps the worst is to be a poor student getting a degree in a field without clear job prospects or further academic pursuits; doing so purely for the sake of having the degree, and then getting deep into student debt.


A large part of my point. Wouldn't it be better for the school through achievement and ability testing to help him choose something more in his favor?





> Z -Uhm... What happened to the old critique that schools simply pass the problems onward to the next grade-level by not being strict enough?  And we do need more support from home.  I think a lack of involvement on the part of the parents, albeit parents tired from working two jobs, is a major factor in poor academic performance.  If the parents place no importance on academic performance, then the child emulating the parents will place no importance on academic performance.


Ah, so you recognize that all parents either can't or won't help the kids. So don't you believe that the responsibility subsequently falls to the schools and the teachers?





> Z - There are things we as a society can do.  Let's not put all the pressure on teachers.  We could, as a society, give children in impoverished situations better role models than rappers and misbehaving athletes.  We could advance headstart programs.  We could end the policy of funding schools based solely on real estate taxes which keeps better funding in wealthier areas.  We could dismantle schools so bad that incoming teachers are told to allow the mainstay of the students behave in any manner they choose and focus only on a small subset of children actually paying attention.  There is no need to tolerate such failures.  If the school is so bad, then maybe those kids need to be sent to different school districts where they can benefit from the influence (and potentially, initially, scorn) of the students in their new school.  I actually know a teacher who, upon arrival at their first assignment, was told exactly what I said above and the class was as unthinkably chaotic as described above. The teacher was instructed to ignore the problem and only focus on the small handful of students that sat close to his desk and tried.


You are getting my point, little by little. We as a society need to ensure our school systems do the whole job, whether it is head start systems, better determining a students basic capabilities, seeing to it that we maximize their abilities, maybe by using alternative schools, contracting for specific needs education. What ever it takes. We can't just continue to blame parents, who may be at fault, but recognize that the school is more at fault for letting some students down, thus creating another generation low quintile income students.





> There is no need for this to continue.  Such a place needs to be dismantled and the students sent to the more affluent public schools.


All schools must be successful, or as you said, SHUT THEM DOWN AND FIRE ALL THE TEACHERS AND STAFF.





> Z - Yes, that happens.  Do you know how few ladders of upward social mobility we have left as a society?  I strongly support programs that produce a workforce eager to seize opportunities and with the skills needed to do so.


GOOD! That was the point of the post to which you responded. 





dnsmith35 said:


> We have a system here in Alabama called "Alternative School." When the kids show signs of falling behind, or of disrupting the class room with bad behavior (usually brought on because the kids do not understand the work) they go to the Alternative School wherein they are immersed in the basics until they are capable of succeeding in main stream education.





> Those schools, in my experience, are nothing but holding pens.


You must live in a viper pit of poverty. We take full usefulness of alternative schools to help the students. 





> When a student falls into them, they can't get back out.


In our small southern community that is not the case.





> There are truly disturbed young people who do need to be isolated from the rest of the student body.  But if we applied that rule to the situation I described above, what you would have are people born and dying in an "alternative society".


They are doing so now, and the mainstream school is not helping them. 





> There needs to be a distinction between the situation where the students are only behaving badly because the norm is so bad and the students who have real psychological problems.


The point is to help EACH student according to his needs.





> And if we don't make that distinction early, I fear the destructive "norm" will condemn an older student into a minimum-wage life.


That is exactly what our failing public schools are doing now.





> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where there is a specific learning disorder, the kids are sent for a period of time to a private education system and helped until they are ready to go back. It usually is accomplished in 2 or 3 hour periods a week, most for less than a semester.
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine that depends on the severity of the learning disorder, but I see your point.
> 
> BTW, let's not pretend that there are those who would define public school as some exercise in Sociaslism and its failure thereby destined.  When I ask that we define Capitalism, it is in no small part such that the sophistry to which I alluded can be avoided.
Click to expand...

School is not "socialism". It is really not a social program. It is an essential part of any healthy society. Until we DEMAND that our schools produce high quality education such that all of the kids learn how to live and become trained/educated to lead a successful economic life, we are destined to have even greater inequality in income than we have now. As you can see, it is not the 1% causing the problem of inequality, it is a complacent society.


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize gov't social engineering often fails but in this case we, as a nation, tried to include our least capable in the American dream. It was a noble idea that, other than a few exceptions, failed miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> It wasn't the housing market.
Click to expand...

Your harping on an incorrect cause of the recession proves your ignorance of the entire subject.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snipped for brevity. I agree, laissez-faire Capitalism is unworkable. Can you give me an example of where on exists today?
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere, of course.  At least as I think we both define "laissez-faire Capitalism".
> 
> I think the problem is that we have not begun with a set of definitions.  Is Capitalism understood to mean "laissez-faire" Capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> N0!  Since no example exists, it is obvious that unless you add the "laissez-faire" it is not.No! Keynesian is generally bad government actions as most issues whould have improved with out the "government meddling" in the economy. Reason being, "every nickle of Keynesian stimulation comes from the economy through taxation or borrowing, and just moved around but because that borrowing and taxing has overhead, the ampunt put back into the economy is never as much as is taken out. Keynesian policies are not synonymous with "Capitalism".
> I don't assume any of you know what it means because so many of you are dumb as a post when it comes to economics. You may know (I am not really sure) how to FORMAT a post, but you have shown little understanding of economics.
> Let's take a look at Wikipedia
> Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> According to this article, "Marxian" is an economic theory under the subject of Capitalism.  Of course, once one clicks on the link there is no easy navigation back except the browser back-page button.  That's rather poetic if you stop and think about it.
> 
> Contrast this with the wikipedia article on Market Economy
> Market economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> This article lists several ideologies on economic systems including Capitalist and Laissez-faire as separate ideologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since laissez-faire is such a non existing system of capitalism I suppose considering it a separate ideology is fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even if we try to use wikipedia to provide a common set of definitions, wikipedia contradicts itself on the relationships between these systems and ideologies.  BTW, the ideology link "Capitalist" links to the article above on Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since Wikipedia is edited by the people who use it there is no doubt as to why it is not a very good source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to agree on what Capitalism entails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about using a valid reference book? Merriam-Webster says it well.
> 
> Full Definition of CAPITALISM
> 
> :  *an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods*, _by investments that are determined by private decision,_ and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
> 
> Most of us tend to modify that definition by adding that government regulation is most likely needed to mitigate an less than level playing field which exists between capital and consumption.
> 
> We then go further, by saying that capitalism is AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM to EVER DEVISE a means to distribute prosperity the highest % of the population.
Click to expand...


Your treatment of Keynesian Economics is both woefully inadequate and simply wrong.  And just for the record, Keynes very much thought he was a Capitalist.
Keynes wanted to create a revolution in the way the world thought about economic problems, but he was more open-minded about capitalism than is commonly believed. He saw capitalism as essential to a societys well-being but also morally flawed, and he sought a corrective for its main defect: the failure to stabilize investment. Keyness nuanced views, the authors suggest, offer *an alternative to the polarized rhetoric often evoked by the word capitalism in todays political debates*.​Capitalist Revolutionary ? Roger E. Backhouse, Bradley W. Bateman | Harvard University Press

As for the rest of this post:
1) I'm not cleaning up this mess to correct the parts where dnsmith has, most inadvertently and probably not to his liking, taken credit for my words.
2) A set of definitions is a requirement for any productive dialogue.
3) When one person talks about the ambiguity of "putative definitions" and a second person counters with "Most of us tend to modify that definition" it is obvious the second person does not know what _putative_ means.
pu·ta·tive
adjective
generally considered or reputed to be.​4) "NO!" is not spelled with a zero.
5) Shouting is annoying.  

Come back when you have something other than belligerence to add to this discussion.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> School is not "socialism". It is really not a social program. It is an essential part of any healthy society. Until we DEMAND that our schools produce high quality education such that all of the kids learn how to live and become trained/educated to lead a successful economic life, we are destined to have even greater inequality in income than we have now.


I agree that school is not socialism, but it is most certainly a social program for the general welfare of our nation.  And I agree that education is the primary pathway to ladders of upward social mobility.



dnsmith35 said:


> As you can see, it is not the 1% causing the problem of inequality, it is a complacent society.



I don't think the 1% are evil, if that's what you mean.  I don't blame them for being the 1%.  I don't think they need to be worshiped either, like building a golden calf to their glory.






Charging Bull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



dnsmith35 said:


> Then comes our political system which treats kids as if they are full grown adults, thus the apprentice programs that exist the world over causes the economy to pay more for their lack of experience than they are worth in production.


I cannot discern what you mean by this.  Our political system has an age of majority precluding treating children as adults.  Juvenile workers are not necessarily eligible for the federal minimum wage.  



dnsmith35 said:


> It does not  help the student to push him the wrong way.


I do not share your enthusiasm for socialist programs which predetermine what each student will achieve in life, as is done in other education models.



dnsmith35 said:


> Our economy and society has swallowed the academia bit, but that doesn't mean its right, and it can be resolved...


I agree with some of what you said, sans the snark.



dnsmith35 said:


> You must live in a viper pit of poverty.


I don't live in southern fried homeschool praise the lord and pass the ammunition utopia, but we get by.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if he realizes that calling you home school is not an insult. Home schooled kids consistently out score public school kids here in Alabama, as the AEA has consistently lowered education standards in the process of improving their own lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  This guy debates like he's STILL in a public middle school debate club.
> 
> It's people like him, that are perfect examples of what Thomas Sowell said years ago.
> 
> Sowell was set debate a well known economist I believe, and the night before the debate told his people he was going home to get rest.  When they thought he should prepare for the debate instead, Sowell explained:
> 
> I dont mind debating smart people.   They know the limitations of their position.  Its debating stupid people thats hard.
> 
> This guys is exactly who Sowell was talking about.  Too dumb to even know the limits of his own position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "On Friday, the city of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing it of pushing minority borrowers to take on risky home loans that would ultimately cost the city at least $1.7 billion in lost revenue and maintenance.
> 
> "According to the city, these risky home loans triggered numerous foreclosures that disproportionately affected people of color.
> 
> "The alleged predatory lending resulted in cratering property values, lost tax revenue and increased costs to the city as there are now no homeowners paying for the maintenance of those foreclosed properties.
> 
> "The Los Angeles Times reports that JPMorgan is charged with responsibility for some 200,000 foreclosures in the city between 2008 and 2012.
> 
> "Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer has already gone after Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and will argue that JPMorgan has continuously practiced mortgage discrimination since 2004."
> 
> *Feel free to continue making an ass out of your self, Bitch.*
> 
> L.A. Sues America?s Biggest Bank Alleging Predatory Lending - Truthdig
Click to expand...


See what I mean?   You are so dumb, you don't even realize that what you just posted, contradicts absolutely nothing of what I said.   Nor did I ever suggest what is written here was wrong otherwise.

You are just simply too stupid to know what you don't know.

Thomas Sowell is right.
 I dont mind debating smart people.   They know the limitations of their position.  Its debating stupid people thats hard.


----------



## Andylusion

Chris said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize gov't social engineering often fails but in this case we, as a nation, tried to include our least capable in the American dream. It was a noble idea that, other than a few exceptions, failed miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> It wasn't the housing market.
Click to expand...


Again... we've covered this.   The only derivatives that were a problem, were those based on Sub-prime loans.

The rest of the derivatives market didn't have a problem.

And here's the key.... before sub-prime loans came along, we had a perfectly fine derivatives market for decades.

Furthermore, government came up with derivatives.  So if you really want to claim that derivatives are a Ponzi scheme, then government is still to blame.  They created it.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good old Louis was nuttier than you.
> 
> Thanks for the link. Ellen Brown is a moron......an amusing moron.
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the Fed's stock is owned by the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None. And yet, the Treasury was getting around 50 times more earnings than the "stock holders" these last few years.
Click to expand...

So who owns the Fed's stock?


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is what benefits are derived from controlling the government. I'm always a little surprised to realize that you recognize the problem, yet advocate for policies that only exacerbate it.
> 
> You're right, that what pollutes our government the most is the efforts of those who would use government to enhance their wealth (increase their financial power). But you're wrong in assuming that they are advocates of a free market They are its staunchest opponents.
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get specific about what steps you would take to reduce the influence of financial elites on government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't. I don't think it's their influence that's the problem. It's what that influence affords them. Instead, I'd work to prevent government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone, wealthy or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Does it sound reasonable to say preventing government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone would require a Second Constitutional Convention?


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we didn't give our government the power to socialize loss they wouldn't be able to sell it.
> 
> When someone hires a hitman and the police catch wind of the plot, they don't only jail the guy who did the hiring and let the hitman go free.
> 
> All these transactions have buyers -AND- sellers.  Try to keep that in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> That's good advice.
> When you say "if we didn't give our government the power to socialize loss they wouldn't be able to sell it", I'm not clear about how you would limit that authority? US corporations hire lobbyists to petition government to privatize the commons, i.e., cheap land, unlimited air and water, abundant minerals, and expendable workers. The profits are reserved primarily for 1% to 10% of all Americans, and the costs are shared by the vast majority of US workers. Would you deny government the right to privatize the commons or insist government do a better job negotiating the trade-offs between costs and profits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the government negotiate the trade-offs between costs and profits? What gives you the idea the government does anything but see to the self interests of the politicians?
Click to expand...

How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get specific about what steps you would take to reduce the influence of financial elites on government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't. I don't think it's their influence that's the problem. It's what that influence affords them. Instead, I'd work to prevent government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone, wealthy or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does it sound reasonable to say preventing government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone would require a Second Constitutional Convention?
Click to expand...


Given the polluted state of Constitutional case law and precedent - probably. At the very least a really solid amendment along those lines.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not! The fact that JPMorgan Chase and Co chose to pay off the suits instead of letting them go to trial is not proof that they caused any of the problem instead of the government being at fault for bad fiscal/monetary policies which include: excessively low interest rates, the push to put more people into homes they could not really afford, allowing ARMs to be used by people not savvy enough to understand that when the interest went way up, they could not pay that loan. Do I believe that the loan agencies were part to blame for allowing the government to brow beat them into offering those loans? Maybe some, but mostly not, because the government made it too clear what they wanted, and they got it in spades.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you blame "government" or the Federal Reserve for setting "excessively low interest rates?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.
Click to expand...

So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.


----------



## Londoner

georgephillip said:


> How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?



Exactly. 

Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank. 

Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.

*Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.*


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good old Louis was nuttier than you.
> 
> Thanks for the link. Ellen Brown is a moron......an amusing moron.
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the Fed's stock is owned by the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAT *is really *_irrelevant_, as the Fed will invariably do what the current administration wants them to do
Click to expand...

THAT is really *stupid.*
The Fed's mandate hasn't changed since 1913, to keep the private banking system intact.
This mean propping up the system's most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. If the Fed's money comes from taxpayers, that means taxpayers are paying interest to those banks on the banks' reserves--reserves maintained for their own *private* profit.

Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  This guy debates like he's STILL in a public middle school debate club.
> 
> It's people like him, that are perfect examples of what Thomas Sowell said years ago.
> 
> Sowell was set debate a well known economist I believe, and the night before the debate told his people he was going home to get rest.  When they thought he should prepare for the debate instead, Sowell explained:
> 
> I dont mind debating smart people.   They know the limitations of their position.  Its debating stupid people thats hard.
> 
> This guys is exactly who Sowell was talking about.  Too dumb to even know the limits of his own position.
> 
> 
> 
> "On Friday, the city of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing it of pushing minority borrowers to take on risky home loans that would ultimately cost the city at least $1.7 billion in lost revenue and maintenance.
> 
> "According to the city, these risky home loans triggered numerous foreclosures that disproportionately affected people of color.
> 
> "The alleged predatory lending resulted in cratering property values, lost tax revenue and increased costs to the city as there are now no homeowners paying for the maintenance of those foreclosed properties.
> 
> "The Los Angeles Times reports that JPMorgan is charged with responsibility for some 200,000 foreclosures in the city between 2008 and 2012.
> 
> "Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer has already gone after Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and will argue that JPMorgan has continuously practiced mortgage discrimination since 2004."
> 
> *Feel free to continue making an ass out of your self, Bitch.*
> 
> L.A. Sues America?s Biggest Bank Alleging Predatory Lending - Truthdig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See what I mean?   You are so dumb, you don't even realize that what you just posted, contradicts absolutely nothing of what I said.   Nor did I ever suggest what is written here was wrong otherwise.
> 
> You are just simply too stupid to know what you don't know.
> 
> Thomas Sowell is right.
> I dont mind debating smart people.   They know the limitations of their position.  Its debating stupid people thats hard.
Click to expand...

You're still no Thomas Sowell.
I guess you missed the irony of government suing private banksters to redress an epidemic of mortgage fraud, 80% of which was committed by private lenders?
Arrogance and ignorance are deadly.
Go to college.


----------



## georgephillip

Londoner said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank.
> 
> Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.
> 
> *Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.*
Click to expand...

*Wall Street locusts do very well today by financing public infrastructure:*

"Funding infrastructure through bonds doubles the price or worse. Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.

'The numbers are big. There is sticker shock,' said Jason Peltier, deputy manager of the Westlands Water District, describing Governor Jerry Browns plan to build two massive water tunnels through the California Delta. 'But consider your other scenarios. How much more groundwater can we pump?'

"Whether the tunnels are the best way to get water to the Delta is controversial, but the issue here is the cost. 

"The tunnels were billed to voters as a $25 billion project. 

"That estimate, however, omitted interest and fees. 

"Construction itself is estimated at a relatively modest $18 billion. 

"But financing through bonds issued at 5% for 30 years adds $24-40 billion to the tab. 

"Another $9 billion will go to wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs, bringing the grand total to $51-67 billion  three or four times the cost of construction."

Infrastructure Sticker Shock: Financing Costs More Than Construction


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Chris said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize gov't social engineering often fails but in this case we, as a nation, tried to include our least capable in the American dream. It was a noble idea that, other than a few exceptions, failed miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> It wasn't the housing market.
Click to expand...


^
Proof you don't understand derivatives or Ponzi schemes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the Fed's stock is owned by the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None. And yet, the Treasury was getting around 50 times more earnings than the "stock holders" these last few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who owns the Fed's stock?
Click to expand...


They shouldn't have called it stock. Causes confusion.
They should have called it a bond or a risk requirement?
Maybe a membership deposit?

_The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year. _


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the Fed's stock is owned by the government?
> 
> 
> 
> THAT *is really *_irrelevant_, as the Fed will invariably do what the current administration wants them to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAT is really *stupid.*
> The Fed's mandate hasn't changed since 1913, to keep the private banking system intact.
> This mean propping up the system's most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. If the Fed's money comes from taxpayers, that means taxpayers are paying interest to those banks on the banks' reserves--reserves maintained for their own *private* profit.
> 
> Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research
Click to expand...


* If the Fed's money comes from taxpayers, *

It doesn't. And Ellen is still a moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank.
> 
> Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.
> 
> *Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wall Street locusts do very well today by financing public infrastructure:*
> 
> "Funding infrastructure through bonds doubles the price or worse. Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.
> 
> 'The numbers are big. There is sticker shock,' said Jason Peltier, deputy manager of the Westlands Water District, describing Governor Jerry Browns plan to build two massive water tunnels through the California Delta. 'But consider your other scenarios. How much more groundwater can we pump?'
> 
> "Whether the tunnels are the best way to get water to the Delta is controversial, but the issue here is the cost.
> 
> "The tunnels were billed to voters as a $25 billion project.
> 
> "That estimate, however, omitted interest and fees.
> 
> "Construction itself is estimated at a relatively modest $18 billion.
> 
> "But financing through bonds issued at 5% for 30 years adds $24-40 billion to the tab.
> 
> "Another $9 billion will go to wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs, bringing the grand total to $51-67 billion  three or four times the cost of construction."
> 
> Infrastructure Sticker Shock: Financing Costs More Than Construction
Click to expand...


*Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.*

That is an excellent idea! 
The government can loan taxpayer funds to their cronies, what could go wrong? LOL!

Look at what happened last time the government did that.

Fannie and Freddie lost hundreds of billions. 

Look at the current government takeover of student loans.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. And yet, the Treasury was getting around 50 times more earnings than the "stock holders" these last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> So who owns the Fed's stock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They shouldn't have called it stock. Causes confusion.
> They should have called it a bond or a risk requirement?
> Maybe a membership deposit?
> 
> _The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year. _
Click to expand...

Who are "they"?
Anyone in your family?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank.
> 
> Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.
> 
> *Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Wall Street locusts do very well today by financing public infrastructure:*
> 
> "Funding infrastructure through bonds doubles the price or worse. Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.
> 
> 'The numbers are big. There is sticker shock,' said Jason Peltier, deputy manager of the Westlands Water District, describing Governor Jerry Browns plan to build two massive water tunnels through the California Delta. 'But consider your other scenarios. How much more groundwater can we pump?'
> 
> "Whether the tunnels are the best way to get water to the Delta is controversial, but the issue here is the cost.
> 
> "The tunnels were billed to voters as a $25 billion project.
> 
> "That estimate, however, omitted interest and fees.
> 
> "Construction itself is estimated at a relatively modest $18 billion.
> 
> "But financing through bonds issued at 5% for 30 years adds $24-40 billion to the tab.
> 
> "Another $9 billion will go to wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs, bringing the grand total to $51-67 billion  three or four times the cost of construction."
> 
> Infrastructure Sticker Shock: Financing Costs More Than Construction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.*
> 
> That is an excellent idea!
> The government can loan taxpayer funds to their cronies, what could go wrong? LOL!
> 
> Look at what happened last time the government did that.
> 
> Fannie and Freddie lost hundreds of billions.
> 
> Look at the current government takeover of student loans.
Click to expand...

Look at North Dakota, and you might discover not everyone is a greedy cocksucker, like you

"A number of other mineral-rich states were initially not affected by the economic downturn, but they lost revenues with the later decline in oil prices. North Dakota is the only state to be in continuous budget surplus since the banking crisis of 2008. Its balance sheet is so strong that it recently reduced individual income taxes and property taxes by a combined $400 million, and is debating further cuts. It also has the lowest foreclosure rate and lowest credit card default rate in the country, and it has had NO bank failures in at least the last decade."

North Dakota's Economic ?Miracle??It's Not Oil by Ellen Brown ? YES! Magazine


----------



## racewright

lets hope so would hate to see my neighbor have the same as me that lazy piece of shit.


----------



## crisismangement

(For someone who 'gives lessons' on formatting, you sure blow it) 



Zombie_Pundit said:


> Since no example exists, it is obvious that unless you add the "laissez-faire" it is not.


No! Keynesian is generally bad government actions as most issues would have improved with out the "government meddling" in the economy. Reason being, "every nickle of Keynesian stimulation comes from the economy through taxation or borrowing, and just moved around but because that borrowing and taxing has overhead, the amount put back into the economy is never as much as is taken out. Keynesian policies are not synonymous with "Capitalism".  I don't assume any of you know what it means because so many of you are dumb as a post when it comes to economics. You may know (I am not really sure) how to FORMAT a post, but you have shown little understanding of economics.





> Let's take a look at Wikipedia
> Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> According to this article, "Marxian" is an economic theory under the subject of Capitalism.  Of course, once one clicks on the link there is no easy navigation back except the browser back-page button.  That's rather poetic if you stop and think about it.


 Gosh, how loose a definition can one get.





> Contrast this with the wikipedia article on Market Economy
> Market economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> This article lists several ideologies on economic systems including Capitalist and Laissez-faire as separate ideologies. Since laissez-faire is such a non existing system of capitalism I suppose considering it a separate ideology is fine.


 Since Wikipedia is edited by the people who use it there is no doubt as to why it is not a very good source.





> We need to agree on what Capitalism entails.


How about using a valid reference book? Merriam-Webster says it well.

Full Definition of CAPITALISM

:  *an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods*, _by investments that are determined by private decision,_ and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market 

Most of us tend to modify that definition by adding that government regulation is most likely needed to mitigate an less than level playing field which exists between capital and consumption.

We then go further, by saying that capitalism is AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM to EVER DEVISE a means to distribute prosperity the highest % of the population.[/QUOTE] 





> Your treatment of Keynesian Economics is both woefully inadequate and simply wrong.  And just for the record, Keynes very much thought he was a Capitalist.    Actually he did not go far enough.


 Crisismanagement: What you think Keynes thought he was is not relevant. His concept of stimulation of a slow economy has done more damage to a capitalist system than any other stupid idea. 





> Keynes wanted to create a revolution in the way the world thought about economic problems, but he was more open-minded about capitalism than is commonly believed. He saw capitalism as essential to a society&#8217;s well-being but also morally flawed,​


Capitalism is neither moral or immoral. He was wrong about that too. The society is what one can define as either moral or immoral. That left alone and unregulated gave capitalism, just like any other system, the ability to create the haves and the have nots. In fact, when one chooses to discuss immorality in a society, don't even think about the economic system. If you do choose to think about an economic system, be sure you recognize the absolute evil of a Marxist state, which cannot function without a dictatorial government.





> and he sought a corrective for its main defect: the failure to stabilize investment. Keynes&#8217;s nuanced views, the authors suggest, offer *an alternative to the polarized rhetoric often evoked by the word &#8220;capitalism&#8221; in today&#8217;s political debates*.


I wish you people would stop throwing opinion in to the game. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, including elitist academics  like a Harvard Professor. As a matter of reality, Academics fall much to far to the left of every issue.





> Capitalist Revolutionary ? Roger E. Backhouse, Bradley W. Bateman | Harvard University Press


The rest of your post is personal ignorance, whining about what some individual did or did not do.


----------



## crisismangement

Zombie_Pundit said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> School is not "socialism". It is really not a social program. It is an essential part of any healthy society. Until we DEMAND that our schools produce high quality education such that all of the kids learn how to live and become trained/educated to lead a successful economic life, we are destined to have even greater inequality in income than we have now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit:
> I agree that school is not socialism, but it is most certainly a social program for the general welfare of our nation.  And I agree that education is the primary pathway to ladders of upward social mobility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, it is not the 1% causing the problem of inequality, it is a complacent society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the 1% are evil, if that's what you mean.  I don't blame them for being the 1%.  I don't think they need to be worshiped either, like building a golden calf to their glory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL   I don't think anyone worships the 1%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot discern what you mean by this.  Our political system has an age of majority precluding treating children as adults.  Juvenile workers are not necessarily eligible for the federal minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read what he said. I interpret it thusly: Young people are frequently put into positions to make decisions which are "above their pay grade."
> I agree with him that unless as young teen agers, kids need help making the right decisions about their future. It is well and good to give them the freedom to make some decisions, but at 13 (freshman in H. S.) kids are not known to understand what is best for them, and we as parents, or teachers and counselors, are in a much better position to help. It is my understanding that he believes the decisions as to a track of preparing for an eventual job, can be better made by what the aptitude of the kids are, not some "let them make up their own mind" attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not share your enthusiasm for socialist programs which predetermine what each student will achieve in life, as is done in other education models.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you would leave those decisions up to the immature mind?
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our economy and society has swallowed the academia bit, but that doesn't mean its right, and it can be resolved...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with some of what you said, sans the snark.
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must live in a viper pit of poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't live in southern fried homeschool praise the lord and pass the ammunition utopia, but we get by.
Click to expand...

What ever BS that means. I live in Toronto, and I quite agree with his comments as a matter of routine.


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's good advice.
> When you say "if we didn't give our government the power to socialize loss they wouldn't be able to sell it", I'm not clear about how you would limit that authority? US corporations hire lobbyists to petition government to privatize the commons, i.e., cheap land, unlimited air and water, abundant minerals, and expendable workers. The profits are reserved primarily for 1% to 10% of all Americans, and the costs are shared by the vast majority of US workers. Would you deny government the right to privatize the commons or insist government do a better job negotiating the trade-offs between costs and profits?
> 
> 
> 
> How does the government negotiate the trade-offs between costs and profits? What gives you the idea the government does anything but see to the self interests of the politicians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?
Click to expand...

Government had a vested interest in tying the east coast to the west coast for the betterment of our country. That includes moving people and freight. Government got a lot out of the deal as well as the entrepreneurs who built the railroad.

But none of that is relevant to TODAY. What was done over 100 years ago is not relevant to a current discussion of capitalism.


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you blame "government" or the Federal Reserve for setting "excessively low interest rates?"
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.
Click to expand...

It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse. The discussion about financial institutions did not in a single way suggest allowing fraud. Banks could see the "hand writing on the wall" as foreclosures started to rise. The MITIGATED their loses by selling loans. In other words, to protect what little profits there were in weak loans, they dumped them. Neither the loans themselves (forced on them by the Federal Government) were fraudulent, nor were the derivatives they used to stop losing money.


----------



## crisismangement

Londoner said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank.
> 
> Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.
> 
> *Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.*
Click to expand...

Talk about not understanding the value of capitalism and over blowing the negative issues involved! 

Government has always been and always will be responsible for infrastructure WHICH EVERYONE USES, including our socialist brethren who hate capitalism. Your whole  post proves the stupidity of your thinking; and you just threw  it out for the world to see.


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of the Fed's stock is owned by the government?
> 
> 
> 
> THAT *is really *_irrelevant_, as the Fed will invariably do what the current administration wants them to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAT is really *stupid.*
> The Fed's mandate hasn't changed since 1913, to keep the private banking system intact.
> This mean propping up the system's most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. If the Fed's money comes from taxpayers, that means taxpayers are paying interest to those banks on the banks' reserves--reserves maintained for their own *private* profit.
> 
> Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that horse puckey? It was created as a central bank, partly to keep some watch over bank actions, but mostly, using interest as a tool as a means to do the government's bidding. Now your post is what was stupid.


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "On Friday, the city of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing it of pushing minority borrowers to take on risky home loans that would ultimately cost the city at least $1.7 billion in lost revenue and maintenance.
> 
> "According to the city, these risky home loans triggered numerous foreclosures that disproportionately affected people of color.
> 
> "The alleged predatory lending resulted in cratering property values, lost tax revenue and increased costs to the city as there are now no homeowners paying for the maintenance of those foreclosed properties.
> 
> "The Los Angeles Times reports that JPMorgan is charged with responsibility for some 200,000 foreclosures in the city between 2008 and 2012.
> 
> "Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer has already gone after Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and will argue that JPMorgan has continuously practiced mortgage discrimination since 2004."
> 
> *Feel free to continue making an ass out of your self, Bitch.*
> 
> L.A. Sues America?s Biggest Bank Alleging Predatory Lending - Truthdig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean?   You are so dumb, you don't even realize that what you just posted, contradicts absolutely nothing of what I said.   Nor did I ever suggest what is written here was wrong otherwise.
> 
> You are just simply too stupid to know what you don't know.
> 
> Thomas Sowell is right.
> I dont mind debating smart people.   They know the limitations of their position.  Its debating stupid people thats hard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still no Thomas Sowell.
> I guess you missed the irony of government suing private banksters to redress an epidemic of mortgage fraud, 80% of which was committed by private lenders?
> Arrogance and ignorance are deadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct. Y*our ignorance and arrogance is deadly. *Just because someone sued the private bankers does not mean the bankers were wrong. The mortgage "fraud" as you call it was caused by the government.
Click to expand...


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank.
> 
> Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.
> 
> *Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Wall Street locusts do very well today by financing public infrastructure:*
> 
> "Funding infrastructure through bonds doubles the price or worse. Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.
> 
> 'The numbers are big. There is sticker shock,' said Jason Peltier, deputy manager of the Westlands Water District, describing Governor Jerry Browns plan to build two massive water tunnels through the California Delta. 'But consider your other scenarios. How much more groundwater can we pump?'
> 
> "Whether the tunnels are the best way to get water to the Delta is controversial, but the issue here is the cost.
> 
> "The tunnels were billed to voters as a $25 billion project.
> 
> "That estimate, however, omitted interest and fees.
> 
> "Construction itself is estimated at a relatively modest $18 billion.
> 
> "But financing through bonds issued at 5% for 30 years adds $24-40 billion to the tab.
> 
> "Another $9 billion will go to wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs, bringing the grand total to $51-67 billion  three or four times the cost of construction."
> 
> Infrastructure Sticker Shock: Financing Costs More Than Construction
Click to expand...

So, you are saying you are against financing infrastructure because of interest costs? Are you aware that by paying in less valuable dollars in the future may well eliminate the actual interest costs? Are aware that government borrows because they do not have the necessary capital to pay for big projects? Do you realize that taking "cash" capital reduces what is spent on our necessary social programs?

Also, that does not even address the important issues of the agenda of the site you linked.


----------



## SAYIT

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't. I don't think it's their influence that's the problem. It's what that influence affords them. Instead, I'd work to prevent government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone, wealthy or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Does it sound reasonable to say preventing government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone would require a Second Constitutional Convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the polluted state of Constitutional case law and precedent - probably. At the very least a really solid amendment along those lines.
Click to expand...


Clearly the Supreme Ct already has the authority to reign in the gov't meddling but not the will. It is the weakest of the 3 legs of our "checks and balances" system.


----------



## SAYIT

Londoner said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Consider the public investment in the Colorado River Basin, with things like the Hoover Dam - which is a sliver of a much larger investment, especially if you include the military investment required to expand to the Left coast. We're talking about a figure that is well into the trillions. This investment created the modern Southwest, vastly increasing its carrying capacity, allowing for the formation of thriving profit centers. We don't even need to talk about the roads, dams, bridges and massive government subsidies across different sectors (energy, agriculture, transportation) - all absolutely crucial to the formation of the modern industrial infrastructure required for capital accumulation, and all completely submerged from view. And let's also not talk about the expensive legal infrastructure that protects investments along with the larger property system. Ask your Republican opponents about these things and they will draw a complete blank.
> 
> Now imagine that you sit on the Board of Directors of a corporation in say Phoenix. Are you going to talk about the public investment made on your behalf, so that your lights turn on, and so that your electricity/water flows and roads bring your consumers/goods to market? Are you going to talk about the land that was acquired by the Government so you could be there in the first place? Absolutely not. You are going to describe government as a pure hindrance because doing so lowers your taxes. Your short term profits depend on the creation of an illiterate class of violent patriots who, by their strategically manipulated ignorance, do not see that you are bankrupting the nation for a small group of shareholders. Your job is to milk the cow dry, to convert government, with its infinite financial resources, into a bogus holding that supplies risk-free funding and every manner of technological, legal and regulatory aid but is also capable of absorbing your losses. [This] cannot be done absent a considerable investment into opinion management.
> 
> *Psst: and when the cow is dry, the owners of Capital moves on like a cloud of locusts to the next target.*
Click to expand...


As was intended. We were settling our west. Do the non-corp citizens of America not also use the roads, railroads, water supply and power grid? Do they not benefit from the American lifestyles available to them?


----------



## SAYIT

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize gov't social engineering often fails but in this case we, as a nation, tried to include our least capable in the American dream. It was a noble idea that, other than a few exceptions, failed miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^
> Proof you don't understand derivatives or Ponzi schemes.
Click to expand...


But he is up to speed on all the latest whiny socialist talking points.


----------



## SAYIT

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wall Street locusts do very well today by financing public infrastructure:*
> 
> "Funding infrastructure through bonds doubles the price or worse. Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.
> 
> 'The numbers are big. There is sticker shock,' said Jason Peltier, deputy manager of the Westlands Water District, describing Governor Jerry Browns plan to build two massive water tunnels through the California Delta. 'But consider your other scenarios. How much more groundwater can we pump?'
> 
> "Whether the tunnels are the best way to get water to the Delta is controversial, but the issue here is the cost.
> 
> "The tunnels were billed to voters as a $25 billion project.
> 
> "That estimate, however, omitted interest and fees.
> 
> "Construction itself is estimated at a relatively modest $18 billion.
> 
> "But financing through bonds issued at 5% for 30 years adds $24-40 billion to the tab.
> 
> "Another $9 billion will go to wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs, bringing the grand total to $51-67 billion  three or four times the cost of construction."
> 
> Infrastructure Sticker Shock: Financing Costs More Than Construction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.*
> 
> That is an excellent idea!
> The government can loan taxpayer funds to their cronies, what could go wrong? LOL!
> 
> Look at what happened last time the government did that.
> 
> Fannie and Freddie lost hundreds of billions.
> 
> Look at the current government takeover of student loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at North Dakota, and you might discover not everyone is a greedy cocksucker, like you
> 
> "A number of other mineral-rich states were initially not affected by the economic downturn, but they lost revenues with the later decline in oil prices. North Dakota is the only state to be in continuous budget surplus since the banking crisis of 2008. Its balance sheet is so strong that it recently reduced individual income taxes and property taxes by a combined $400 million, and is debating further cuts. It also has the lowest foreclosure rate and lowest credit card default rate in the country, and it has had NO bank failures in at least the last decade."
> 
> North Dakota's Economic ?Miracle??It's Not Oil by Ellen Brown ? YES! Magazine
Click to expand...


Are you certain there's no greedy peeps in N. Dakota?


----------



## SAYIT

crisismangement said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse.
Click to expand...


In GP's case, the two are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## dnsmith35

SAYIT said:


> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In GP's case, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

I have been very up front with discussions in this thread. Anyone who suggests they do not understand what I say or mean is being obtuse and showing only concern for their own personal agenda. That is the typical left wing manner of discussing an issue. I can't remember how many times I  have said things like, "the government's fiscal and monetary policy" is the primary cause of the housing balloon and crash. EXCESSIVELY LOW INTEREST AND LOW OR NO DOWN PAYMENT LOANS. That is followed by the policy to push CRA, well beyond the literal meaning of the law.

The continued insistence that loan fraud was involved in some way, as minor as that may be, is nothing but ignorance, and refusal to accept the facts of the studies performed by not government entities. Of course the government chooses inot to take responsibility for their own stupid policies. Of course left wing "pundits" try to deflect any blame from big government activities, of course academia, the majority of which are left wing, chooses to blame private enterprise, even though private enterprise was following government mandates.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who owns the Fed's stock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They shouldn't have called it stock. Causes confusion.
> They should have called it a bond or a risk requirement?
> Maybe a membership deposit?
> 
> _The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are "they"?
> Anyone in your family?
Click to expand...


*Who are "they"?*

The people who decided to call it stock, back in 1913.

*Anyone in your family?*

Not that I'm aware of. But it was over 100 years ago, anything is possible.


----------



## georgephillip

crisismangement said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the government negotiate the trade-offs between costs and profits? What gives you the idea the government does anything but see to the self interests of the politicians?
> 
> 
> 
> How about the one hundred million acres of public land given by the US government to private railroad capitalists during the 19th century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government had a vested interest in tying the east coast to the west coast for the betterment of our country. That includes moving people and freight. Government got a lot out of the deal as well as the entrepreneurs who built the railroad.
> 
> But none of that is relevant to TODAY. What was done over 100 years ago is not relevant to a current discussion of capitalism.
Click to expand...

*You're sadly ignorant of US History:*

"Jay Gould's reputation as one of the leading robber barons of the era was assured by his actions as a director of the Erie Railroad. In 1869, he worked with allies James Fisk and Daniel Drew to combat Cornelius Vanderbilt's acquisition of the railroad in the infamous Erie War. 

"Gould used every underhanded trick, from bribing public officials to massively watering stock.

"Later in 1869, Jay Gould and his partners attempted to corner the gold market, but their scheme fell apart on Black Friday. The public was enraged and thousands of investors were ruined. In 1872, following Fisk's death, Gould was forced out as a director of the Erie.

"Over the next few years, Jay Gould focused his attention on the West. 

"Using his extensive wealth, Gould bought his way into control of the Union Pacific and other smaller lines in the Southwest. By the early 1880s, Goulds empire comprised nearly 16,000 miles of track. 

"In 1882, he sold his interest in the Union Pacific. He turned his financial talents toward the Missouri Pacific Railroad, Western Union Telegraph Company, newspapers, and elevated trains in New York City.

Jay Gould: Financier in the Age of Robber Barons

*"Entrepreneurs" like Gould are as relevant to capitalism today as Gould was to US Grant's hopes for a third term. Wall Street parasites and the 1% of Americans  they feed  depend upon corporate entitlement to rights granted by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Railroads in the 19th century mounted challenge after challenge in the Supreme Court claiming that Amendment should grant them human rights, and eventually a corrupt court reporter's headnote gave them what they sought.

We are still paying the price for that deception today, whether you're aware of it, or not. *


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They shouldn't have called it stock. Causes confusion.
> They should have called it a bond or a risk requirement?
> Maybe a membership deposit?
> 
> _The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year. _
> 
> 
> 
> Who are "they"?
> Anyone in your family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Who are "they"?*
> 
> The people who decided to call it stock, back in 1913.
> 
> *Anyone in your family?*
> 
> Not that I'm aware of. But it was over 100 years ago, anything is possible.
Click to expand...

*People like Morgan, Aldrich, Rockefeller, and Warburg, you mean?*

"In 1910, Aldrich and executives representing the banks of J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., secluded themselves for ten days at Jekyll Island, Georgia.[5] The executives included Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, associated with the Rockefellers; Henry Davison, senior partner of J.P. Morgan Company; Charles D. Norton, president of the First National Bank of New York; and Col. Edward House, who would later become President Woodrow Wilson's closest adviser and founder of the Council on Foreign Relations.[6] There, Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb, & Co. directed the proceedings and wrote the primary features of what would be called the Aldrich Plan. 

History of the Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wall Street locusts do very well today by financing public infrastructure:*
> 
> "Funding infrastructure through bonds doubles the price or worse. Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.
> 
> 'The numbers are big. There is sticker shock,' said Jason Peltier, deputy manager of the Westlands Water District, describing Governor Jerry Browns plan to build two massive water tunnels through the California Delta. 'But consider your other scenarios. How much more groundwater can we pump?'
> 
> "Whether the tunnels are the best way to get water to the Delta is controversial, but the issue here is the cost.
> 
> "The tunnels were billed to voters as a $25 billion project.
> 
> "That estimate, however, omitted interest and fees.
> 
> "Construction itself is estimated at a relatively modest $18 billion.
> 
> "But financing through bonds issued at 5% for 30 years adds $24-40 billion to the tab.
> 
> "Another $9 billion will go to wetlands restoration, monitoring and other costs, bringing the grand total to $51-67 billion  three or four times the cost of construction."
> 
> Infrastructure Sticker Shock: Financing Costs More Than Construction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Costs can be cut in half by funding through the states own bank.*
> 
> That is an excellent idea!
> The government can loan taxpayer funds to their cronies, what could go wrong? LOL!
> 
> Look at what happened last time the government did that.
> 
> Fannie and Freddie lost hundreds of billions.
> 
> Look at the current government takeover of student loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at North Dakota, and you might discover not everyone is a greedy cocksucker, like you
> 
> "A number of other mineral-rich states were initially not affected by the economic downturn, but they lost revenues with the later decline in oil prices. North Dakota is the only state to be in continuous budget surplus since the banking crisis of 2008. Its balance sheet is so strong that it recently reduced individual income taxes and property taxes by a combined $400 million, and is debating further cuts. It also has the lowest foreclosure rate and lowest credit card default rate in the country, and it has had NO bank failures in at least the last decade."
> 
> North Dakota's Economic ?Miracle??It's Not Oil by Ellen Brown ? YES! Magazine
Click to expand...


*Look at North Dakota*

Okay. A state with a population less than 800,000. 90% white.
Conservatively governed with a very business friendly environment.
The highest income tax rate in the state is 5.54% and the state sales tax is 5%.
State unemployment rate has been below 5% since 1987.

But the reason they're doing so well is because there is a state owned bank. 

Like I said, Ellen is a moron.


----------



## dnsmith35

Every time I  hear or read of someone whining and crying about the rich preventing the less wealthy from getting ahead, I first laugh my self to the point of pain, about the ignorance of those who say it.

Even as a liberal, I can see the left wing extremists making wild and incorrect allegations mostly because of their agenda to (even if it is not their intent) to make everyone equally poor. Effectively that is what their rants about capitalism are, ignorance about how much prosperity capitalism actually spreads out. 

At this point in time there are only a few types of states and economic systems. There are the autocratic and dictatorial governments which tend to make everyone but the leaders poor. 

Under the guise of socialism, which on the surface is supposed to spread the wealth, more people are forced into poverty and only the leaders gain any wealth and prosperity.

And there is capitalism, an economic system which is a huge generator for wealth. At issue, does society, not the economic system, actually allow capitalism to spread that wealth? Certainly to more of our citizens than any alternative system. But human nature what it is, to prevent people from being left out, there must be regulation of that capitalism.

Any fault thrown at capitalism, those who blame capitalism for unequal distribution of wealth, is actually the fault of society, not the economic system.

Society does that spreading of the wealth through social programs. Some countries have more social programs than we do in the US. Scandinavia is one example. They have more social programs than we do, but their economic systems are still capitalistic.

Even so, our social programs lift the great bulk of our "have nots" to a higher standard of living than 80% or more of the worlds population. That does not mean we should stop monitoring our system, only that we should shift some of our thoughts to the truly poor in our world. That would include the few in our country who slip through our safety net social programs.

I will even go so far as to use a left wing extremist source to discuss the chronically homeless. More Than 600,000 Americans Are Homeless On Any Given Night | ThinkProgress


More than 600,000 Americans are homeless on a given night, according to the latest government data, which conducts a count on a specific night in January every year. Nearly a quarter are children and a third were living in unsheltered places like parks, cars, or abandoned buildings.

The number of people who are chronically homeless, or who have been continuously homeless for more than one year or experienced at least four episodes over the last three, is over 100,000, and two-thirds go unsheltered. There were more than 57,000 homeless veterans.

The good news is that the government says the numbers have been declining overall. Homelessness declined by 4 percent compared to last year and by 9 percent since the beginning of the recession in 2007. Chronic homelessness has dropped by 25 percent since 2007 and homelessness among veterans went down by 24 percent.​
It is obvious that the homeless are the people we need to target in the US. Most if not all of our other "poor" are relatively poor. IE, they have less wealth that those in the quintiles about them. The Homeless (truly poor in the US) equal to almost .6% of our population and it is a disgrace that society does not have a means to correct their problems. But it is still not the fault of capitalism.

30 or 40 years ago there was a very wealthy contractor who offered one of our major cities to build enough small efficiency type row apartments to accommodate all of the homeless people in that city, using some of his own land. The city turned him down because the "size" of each apartment was less than the city's standard for building. How sad! Capitalism was trying to mitigate the homeless and poverty problems of the city and the city refused to allow it. I read that in a magazine in a Dr's office, but I have never been able to get it out of my mind. I presume there are many other stories of a similar nature when the entire country is considered. So much more the shame!


----------



## georgephillip

crisismangement said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said for you to digest the fact that government fiscal and monetary policy, IE low interest rates with the expectation of homes being made "available" and "affordable" to people who could not afford them? Of course the government was wrong allowing excessively low interest rates and pushing home ownership to people without good credit and could not afford to pay the payments. Not only did homeowners lose big bucks, but so did the banks; so much so the government had to shore them up with more big bucks. So I guess you blame the banks for trying to mitigate their loses with bundled loans to be sold to keep their losses down.
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse. The discussion about financial institutions did not in a single way suggest allowing fraud. Banks could see the "hand writing on the wall" as foreclosures started to rise. The MITIGATED their loses by selling loans. In other words, to protect what little profits there were in weak loans, they dumped them. Neither the loans themselves (forced on them by the Federal Government) were fraudulent, nor were the derivatives they used to stop losing money.
Click to expand...

*I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?
Maybe this will help you grasp the significance of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud" that the FBI began warning about in 2004:*

"The FBI has been warning of an 'epidemic' of mortgage fraud since September 2004 . 

"It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds.1 

"When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a 'weapon' to defraud we categorize it as a 'control fraud...'" 

"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting. 

"Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined. 

"Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a 'criminogenic environment' (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)

"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence. 

"To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud."

William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse. The discussion about financial institutions did not in a single way suggest allowing fraud. Banks could see the "hand writing on the wall" as foreclosures started to rise. The MITIGATED their loses by selling loans. In other words, to protect what little profits there were in weak loans, they dumped them. Neither the loans themselves (forced on them by the Federal Government) were fraudulent, nor were the derivatives they used to stop losing money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?
> Maybe this will help you grasp the significance of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud" that the FBI began warning about in 2004:*
> 
> "The FBI has been warning of an 'epidemic' of mortgage fraud since September 2004 .
> 
> "It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds.1
> 
> "When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a 'weapon' to defraud we categorize it as a 'control fraud...'"
> 
> "Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.
> 
> "Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined.
> 
> "Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a 'criminogenic environment' (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)
> 
> "The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
> 
> "To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud."
> 
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
Click to expand...


*"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting. *

You're right, those liberal Democrat insiders who ran Fannie and Freddie should have done jail time for their accounting fraud.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse. The discussion about financial institutions did not in a single way suggest allowing fraud. Banks could see the "hand writing on the wall" as foreclosures started to rise. The MITIGATED their loses by selling loans. In other words, to protect what little profits there were in weak loans, they dumped them. Neither the loans themselves (forced on them by the Federal Government) were fraudulent, nor were the derivatives they used to stop losing money.
> 
> 
> 
> *I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?
> Maybe this will help you grasp the significance of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud" that the FBI began warning about in 2004:*
> 
> "The FBI has been warning of an 'epidemic' of mortgage fraud since September 2004 .
> 
> "It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds.1
> 
> "When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a 'weapon' to defraud we categorize it as a 'control fraud...'"
> 
> "Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.
> 
> "Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined.
> 
> "Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a 'criminogenic environment' (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)
> 
> "The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
> 
> "To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud."
> 
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting. *
> 
> You're right, those liberal Democrat insiders who ran Fannie and Freddie should have done jail time for their accounting fraud.
Click to expand...

Along with Hank Paulson.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?
> Maybe this will help you grasp the significance of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud" that the FBI began warning about in 2004:*
> 
> "The FBI has been warning of an 'epidemic' of mortgage fraud since September 2004 .
> 
> "It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds.1
> 
> "When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a 'weapon' to defraud we categorize it as a 'control fraud...'"
> 
> "Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.
> 
> "Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined.
> 
> "Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a 'criminogenic environment' (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)
> 
> "The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
> 
> "To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud."
> 
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting. *
> 
> You're right, those liberal Democrat insiders who ran Fannie and Freddie should have done jail time for their accounting fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Along with Hank Paulson.
Click to expand...


What was his accounting fraud?


----------



## georgephillip

crisismangement said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THAT *is really *_irrelevant_, as the Fed will invariably do what the current administration wants them to do
> 
> 
> 
> THAT is really *stupid.*
> The Fed's mandate hasn't changed since 1913, to keep the private banking system intact.
> This mean propping up the system's most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. If the Fed's money comes from taxpayers, that means taxpayers are paying interest to those banks on the banks' reserves--reserves maintained for their own *private* profit.
> 
> Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really believe that horse puckey? It was created as a central bank, partly to keep some watch over bank actions, but mostly, using interest as a tool as a means to do the government's bidding. Now your post is what was stupid.
Click to expand...

*Central banks can be created as public or private institutions.
Does this chart help you understand who owns the Fed?*

"Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence

Published 1976
Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. 

"The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914. 

"These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914. 

"In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. 

"Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control."

Who owns the Fed?


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't. I don't think it's their influence that's the problem. It's what that influence affords them. Instead, I'd work to prevent government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone, wealthy or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Does it sound reasonable to say preventing government from interfering in economic matters on behalf of anyone would require a Second Constitutional Convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the polluted state of Constitutional case law and precedent - probably. At the very least a really solid amendment along those lines.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many elected Democrats OR Republicans would support such an amendment?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> THAT is really *stupid.*
> The Fed's mandate hasn't changed since 1913, to keep the private banking system intact.
> This mean propping up the system's most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. If the Fed's money comes from taxpayers, that means taxpayers are paying interest to those banks on the banks' reserves--reserves maintained for their own *private* profit.
> 
> Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that horse puckey? It was created as a central bank, partly to keep some watch over bank actions, but mostly, using interest as a tool as a means to do the government's bidding. Now your post is what was stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Central banks can be created as public or private institutions.
> Does this chart help you understand who owns the Fed?*
> 
> "Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence
> 
> Published 1976
> Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.
> 
> "The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914.
> 
> "These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914.
> 
> "In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.
> 
> "Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control."
> 
> Who owns the Fed?
Click to expand...


*"In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. *

There are no "controlling shares".


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting. *
> 
> You're right, those liberal Democrat insiders who ran Fannie and Freddie should have done jail time for their accounting fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> Along with Hank Paulson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was his accounting fraud?
Click to expand...

TARP


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Along with Hank Paulson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was his accounting fraud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TARP
Click to expand...


How was TARP accounting fraud?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that horse puckey? It was created as a central bank, partly to keep some watch over bank actions, but mostly, using interest as a tool as a means to do the government's bidding. Now your post is what was stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> *Central banks can be created as public or private institutions.
> Does this chart help you understand who owns the Fed?*
> 
> "Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence
> 
> Published 1976
> Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.
> 
> "The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914.
> 
> "These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914.
> 
> "In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.
> 
> "Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control."
> 
> Who owns the Fed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. *
> 
> There are no "controlling shares".
Click to expand...

Got proof?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Capitalism guarantees jobs. Democrats guarantee picket lines & food stamps.


----------



## georgephillip

Grampa Murked U said:


> Capitalism guarantees jobs. Democrats guarantee picket lines & food stamps.


Lately capitalism has been guarantees jobs in China and India.
Democrats are just as responsible as Republicans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Central banks can be created as public or private institutions.
> Does this chart help you understand who owns the Fed?*
> 
> "Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence
> 
> Published 1976
> Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.
> 
> "The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914.
> 
> "These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914.
> 
> "In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.
> 
> "Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control."
> 
> Who owns the Fed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. *
> 
> There are no "controlling shares".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got proof?
Click to expand...


* This argument is faulty because each commercial bank receives one vote regardless of its size, unlike most corporate voting structures in which the number of votes is tied to the number of shares a person holds (Ibid). The New York Federal Reserve district contains over 1,000 member banks, so it is highly unlikely that even the largest and most powerful banks would be able to coerce so many smaller ones to vote in a particular manner. *

Who owns and controls the Federal Reserve


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism guarantees jobs. Democrats guarantee picket lines & food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> Lately capitalism has been guarantees jobs in China and India.
> Democrats are just as responsible as Republicans.
Click to expand...

So you would let those Indians live homeless or starve instead of letting them have those labor intensive jobs Americans tend not to want to do? Shame on you! You are a prime example of what I mean when I say "LIBERAL WITH BORDERS." What gives you reason to believe American relative poor are so much more than the truly poor of the 3rd world? I sure am glad you don't serve on the board of any charity I would to.


----------



## dnsmith35

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that horse puckey? It was created as a central bank, partly to keep some watch over bank actions, but mostly, using interest as a tool as a means to do the government's bidding. Now your post is what was stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> *Central banks can be created as public or private institutions.
> Does this chart help you understand who owns the Fed?*
> 
> "Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence
> 
> Published 1976
> Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.
> 
> "The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914.
> 
> "These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914.
> 
> "In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.
> 
> "Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control."
> 
> Who owns the Fed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. *
> 
> There are no "controlling shares".
Click to expand...

No matter all the crap he throws at you, or how the charter reads for the Fed, IT ALWAYS DOES WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS IT TO DO IN SO FAR AS  FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY.


----------



## dnsmith35

If there had actually been more fraud, there would have been more trials and convictions other than WorldCom and ENRON.

The point is, whether you want to believe it or not, what "mortgage fraud" which occurred was minor as part of the housing balloon and crash, and that "mortgage fraud" was mostly caused by unrealistic expectations of the government which pushed subprime loans and kept interest rates artificially low.

This article about Tilman's research is only part of the story about his ACTIVE OPINIONS AND IMAGINATION. The fact that you seem to believe it is MASSIVE FRAUD instead of a relatively few examples of criminal activity. It is not, and none of them related to the housing crisis, which was caused by the government's fiscal and monetary policy, NOT FRAUD. No matter how many links you have given us, you have yet to prove anything about the housing crash was caused by financial institutions except after the fact.

Robert Tillman

Published online: 3 October 2008
Abstract

Recent scandals at companies like Enron and WorldCom have pointed to the systemic origins of many corporate frauds. This paper advances the argument that behind those scandals were strategic political actions that changed the regulatory and legal environment in which those firms operated and created criminogenic institutional frameworks that facilitated acts of corporate corruption. Three case studies involving (1) the California energy crisis of the late 1990's, (2) the regulation of energy derivatives, and (3) accounting treatments of stock options, are presented to illustrate how markets and the rules that govern them *are the products of political processes *and how they can create motivations and opportunities for corporate fraud. The implications these case studies have for the study of corporate crime and corruption are discussed. Individual instances of white-collar crime, corporate executives who fix prices, bankers who embezzle, and investment bankers who trade on insider information are routine features of modern life, ones that most of us accept as the price of living in complex market societies. In recent years, however, we have witnessed *several periods *in which fraud and corruption have swept through a number of industries, leaving thousands of victims with massive financial losses, hundreds of indictments and calls for new legislation in their wake. The savings and loan crisis of the late1980's and the more recent corporate accounting scandals involving high-flying firms like WorldCom and Enron exemplify this pattern. These events *suggest* something at work that goes beyond the individual offender who has given into temptation and raise the possibility that large-scale institutional failures lie behind these epidemics of white-collar and corporate crime. A number of criminologists have come to realize that to understand these phenomena it is not enough to focus on individual white-collar employees or corporate executives, applying to them well-worn criminological theories that have been used to explain street crimes, but instead one must look at how the larger institutional environments in which they operate.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Nearly 4300 posts on a liberal drivel thread

Pathetic


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess "mitigate" to you means allowing banks to commit an epidemic of mortgage fraud in order to keep their losses down? You've also dodged the question about whether the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low at the behest of government or the shareholders of the private banks who own the Fed. Capitalism guarantees rising economic inequality precisely because it uses "government" as a convenient foil for the economic crimes of the richest one percent of the population; since the richest one percent own the US government.
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse. The discussion about financial institutions did not in a single way suggest allowing fraud. Banks could see the "hand writing on the wall" as foreclosures started to rise. The MITIGATED their loses by selling loans. In other words, to protect what little profits there were in weak loans, they dumped them. Neither the loans themselves (forced on them by the Federal Government) were fraudulent, nor were the derivatives they used to stop losing money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?
> Maybe this will help you grasp the significance of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud" that the FBI began warning about in 2004:*
> 
> "The FBI has been warning of an 'epidemic' of mortgage fraud since September 2004 .
> 
> "It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds.1
> 
> "When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a 'weapon' to defraud we categorize it as a 'control fraud...'"
> 
> "Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.
> 
> "Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined.
> 
> "Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a 'criminogenic environment' (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)
> 
> "The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
> 
> "To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud."
> 
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
Click to expand...

Yeah, all those words to mean nothing. Had there actually have been FRAUD OF CONSEQUENCE people would have been procecuted. I have read those allegations and that is all they are, allegations without proof. Do you intend to pass on incrimination without there being actual incrimination.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite obvious you either do not understand or you are being intentionally obtuse. The discussion about financial institutions did not in a single way suggest allowing fraud. Banks could see the "hand writing on the wall" as foreclosures started to rise. The MITIGATED their loses by selling loans. In other words, to protect what little profits there were in weak loans, they dumped them. Neither the loans themselves (forced on them by the Federal Government) were fraudulent, nor were the derivatives they used to stop losing money.
> 
> 
> 
> *I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?
> Maybe this will help you grasp the significance of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud" that the FBI began warning about in 2004:*
> 
> "The FBI has been warning of an 'epidemic' of mortgage fraud since September 2004 .
> 
> "It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds.1
> 
> "When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a 'weapon' to defraud we categorize it as a 'control fraud...'"
> 
> "Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.
> 
> "Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined.
> 
> "Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a 'criminogenic environment' (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)
> 
> "The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
> 
> "To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud."
> 
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, all those words to mean nothing. Had there actually have been FRAUD OF CONSEQUENCE people would have been procecuted. I have read those allegations and that is all they are, allegations without proof. Do you intend to pass on incrimination without there being actual incrimination.
Click to expand...

Bill Black has the opinion that thousands of bankers should have been prosecuted for their latest crimes. Possibly the 900,000 dollars that Goldman Sachs contributed to Obama's 2008 campaign explain why Obama picked Eric Holder for his Attorney General? The crimes are there; what's lacking is the political will to prosecute.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Along with Hank Paulson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was his accounting fraud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TARP
Click to expand...


So congress perpetrated the fraud?


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was his accounting fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> TARP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So congress perpetrated the fraud?
Click to expand...

Congress rubber-stamped the fraud.
Remember martial law?
That was Hank.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> TARP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So congress perpetrated the fraud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress rubber-stamped the fraud.
> Remember martial law?
> That was Hank.
Click to expand...


Congress created TARP, numskull.  If TARP was fraud, then Congress committed fraud.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So congress perpetrated the fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> Congress rubber-stamped the fraud.
> Remember martial law?
> That was Hank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress created TARP, numskull.  If TARP was fraud, then Congress committed fraud.
Click to expand...

*Are you sure?*

"In Bailout Nation, we discuss the possibility that The TARP was all a giant ruse, a Hank Paulson engineered scam to cover up the simple fact that CitiGroup (C) was teetering on the brink of implosion. 

"A loan just to Citi alone would have been problematic, went this line of brilliant reasoning, so instead, we gave money to all the big banks.

"Excerpt:

Shortly after the TARP was passed, Paulson added to its original intentto use the funds to buy toxic debt from the bankswith a mishmash of programs and schemes, including:

"- Injection of $250 billion into the nations banks..."

Ritholtz: TARP Was An Elaborate Hank Paulson Scam To Provide Cover For A Bailout Of*Citigroup - Home - The Daily Bail


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I wonder if you understand the meaning of "criminogenic environment"?
> Maybe this will help you grasp the significance of "an epidemic of mortgage fraud" that the FBI began warning about in 2004:*
> 
> "The FBI has been warning of an 'epidemic' of mortgage fraud since September 2004 .
> 
> "It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds.1
> 
> "When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a 'weapon' to defraud we categorize it as a 'control fraud...'"
> 
> "Financial control frauds' 'weapon of choice' is accounting.
> 
> "Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime -- combined.
> 
> "Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a 'criminogenic environment' (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)
> 
> "The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
> 
> "To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud."
> 
> William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, all those words to mean nothing. Had there actually have been FRAUD OF CONSEQUENCE people would have been procecuted. I have read those allegations and that is all they are, allegations without proof. Do you intend to pass on incrimination without there being actual incrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bill Black has the opinion that thousands of bankers should have been prosecuted for their latest crimes. Possibly the 900,000 dollars that Goldman Sachs contributed to Obama's 2008 campaign explain why Obama picked Eric Holder for his Attorney General? The crimes are there; what's lacking is the political will to prosecute.
Click to expand...

Bah humbug!


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> TARP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So congress perpetrated the fraud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress rubber-stamped the fraud.
> Remember martial law?
> That was Hank.
Click to expand...

*It is my opinion, that conspiracy theorists are all bonkers.*


----------



## Contumacious

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So congress perpetrated the fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> Congress rubber-stamped the fraud.
> Remember martial law?
> That was Hank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress created TARP, numskull.  If TARP was fraud,* then Congress committed fraud.*
Click to expand...


Of course they did. They operate the continuing criminal enterprise known as the US of A.

.


----------



## crisismangement

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So congress perpetrated the fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> Congress rubber-stamped the fraud.
> Remember martial law?
> That was Hank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It is my opinion, that conspiracy theorists are all bonkers.*
Click to expand...

Right on brother! Especially those who trust the government over private enterprise.


----------



## bripat9643

Contumacious said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress rubber-stamped the fraud.
> Remember martial law?
> That was Hank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress created TARP, numskull.  If TARP was fraud,* then Congress committed fraud.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they did. They operate the continuing criminal enterprise known as the US of A.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I wouldn't call the USA a criminal enterprise, but the US government certainly is.  Al Capone had more scruples than your typical member of Congress.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress created TARP, numskull.  If TARP was fraud,* then Congress committed fraud.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did. They operate the continuing criminal enterprise known as the US of A.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call the USA a criminal enterprise, but the US government certainly is.  Al Capone had more scruples than your typical member of Congress.
Click to expand...

Which 1% of US voters does the typical member of congress primarily serve?
Big Government serves Big Business.
Blame both and those who get rich from their crimes.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, all those words to mean nothing. Had there actually have been FRAUD OF CONSEQUENCE people would have been procecuted. I have read those allegations and that is all they are, allegations without proof. Do you intend to pass on incrimination without there being actual incrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Black has the opinion that thousands of bankers should have been prosecuted for their latest crimes. Possibly the 900,000 dollars that Goldman Sachs contributed to Obama's 2008 campaign explain why Obama picked Eric Holder for his Attorney General? The crimes are there; what's lacking is the political will to prosecute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bah humbug!
Click to expand...

*Did you feel the same way about the Savings and Loan Crisis?*

"(Bill) Black was a central figure in exposing Congressional corruption during the Savings and Loan Crisis. 

"He took the notes during the Keating Five meeting that were later published in the press, and brought the event to national attention and a congressional investigation.

"According to Bill Moyers,

"'The former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks. 

"'The senators got off with a slap on the wrist, but so enraged was one of those bankers, Charles Keating  after whom the senate's so-called 'Keating Five' were named  he sent a memo that read, in part, "get Black  kill him dead." Metaphorically, of course. Of course.'"[4]

William K. Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. Over a thousand bankers were charged after the S&L episode and over 800 were convicted.

Compare those numbers to 0 indicted and 0 conviction from the Great Recession.*


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> *Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. Over a thousand bankers were charged after the S&L episode and over 800 were convicted.
> 
> Compare those numbers to 0 indicted and 0 conviction from the Great Recession.*


*Like I said, if there were crimes, there would be trials and convictions. I still don't buy your "fraud conspiracy theory." What fraud there MIGHT HAVE BEEN was an after the fact attempt to mediate some losses incurred when GOVERNMENT FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY caused the housing balloon and subsequent crash.*


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. Over a thousand bankers were charged after the S&L episode and over 800 were convicted.
> 
> Compare those numbers to 0 indicted and 0 conviction from the Great Recession.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Like I said, if there were crimes, there would be trials and convictions. I still don't buy your "fraud conspiracy theory." What fraud there MIGHT HAVE BEEN was an after the fact attempt to mediate some losses incurred when GOVERNMENT FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY caused the housing balloon and subsequent crash.*
Click to expand...

*What caused a parallel bubble in commercial real estate at the same time as residential properties?
It's hard to see how the former can be blamed on government:*

"Two parallel real estate bubbles emerged in the United States between 2004 and 2008, one in residential real estate, the other in commercial real estate. The residential real estate bubble has received a great deal of popular, scholarly, and policy attention. 

"The commercial real estate bubble, in contrast, has largely been ignored.

"This Article shows that the commercial real estate price bubble was accompanied by a change in the source of commercial real estate financing. Starting around 1998, securitization became an increasingly significant part of commercial real estate financing. 

"The commercial mortgage securitization market underwent a major shift in 2004, however, as the traditional buyers of subordinated commercial real estate debt were outbid by collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). 

"Savvy, sophisticated, experienced commercial mortgage securitization investors were replaced by investors who merely wanted 'product' to securitize. 

"The result was a decline in underwriting standards in commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS).

"The commercial real estate bubble holds important lessons for understanding the residential real estate bubble. 

"Unlike the residential market, there is almost no government involvement in commercial real estate. 

"*The existence of the parallel commercial real estate bubble presents a strong challenge to explanations of the residential bubble that focus on government affordable housing policy, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
*
The Commercial Real Estate Bubble by Adam J. Levitin, Susan M. Wachter :: SSRN


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. Over a thousand bankers were charged after the S&L episode and over 800 were convicted.
> 
> Compare those numbers to 0 indicted and 0 conviction from the Great Recession.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Like I said, if there were crimes, there would be trials and convictions. I still don't buy your "fraud conspiracy theory." What fraud there MIGHT HAVE BEEN was an after the fact attempt to mediate some losses incurred when GOVERNMENT FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY caused the housing balloon and subsequent crash.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What caused a parallel bubble in commercial real estate at the same time as residential properties?
> It's hard to see how the former can be blamed on government:*
> 
> "Two parallel real estate bubbles emerged in the United States between 2004 and 2008, one in residential real estate, the other in commercial real estate. The residential real estate bubble has received a great deal of popular, scholarly, and policy attention.
> 
> "The commercial real estate bubble, in contrast, has largely been ignored.
> 
> "This Article shows that the commercial real estate price bubble was accompanied by a change in the source of commercial real estate financing. Starting around 1998, securitization became an increasingly significant part of commercial real estate financing.
> 
> "The commercial mortgage securitization market underwent a major shift in 2004, however, as the traditional buyers of subordinated commercial real estate debt were outbid by collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).
> 
> "Savvy, sophisticated, experienced commercial mortgage securitization investors were replaced by investors who merely wanted 'product' to securitize.
> 
> "The result was a decline in underwriting standards in commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS).
> 
> "The commercial real estate bubble holds important lessons for understanding the residential real estate bubble.
> 
> "Unlike the residential market, there is almost no government involvement in commercial real estate.
> 
> "*The existence of the parallel commercial real estate bubble presents a strong challenge to explanations of the residential bubble that focus on government affordable housing policy, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
> *
> The Commercial Real Estate Bubble by Adam J. Levitin, Susan M. Wachter :: SSRN
Click to expand...


We've already covered this.  You are like a broken record for failed arguments.

Both Commercial and Retail Real Estate are dependent on the same underlining resource, that being land.   When developers buy up land and make residential housing instead of commercial buildings.... the reduces the supply of commercial buildings.  Supply down, demand stays the same, price goes up.

Economics 101, that anyone intelligent should know.

Once again, in yet another of dozens of posts, you prove Thomas Sowell right.

I dont mind debating smart people. They know the limitations of their position. Its debating stupid people thats hard.

In fact, I'm going to make that quote my sig from now on, in memory of the biggest absolute fool on this forum.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Like I said, if there were crimes, there would be trials and convictions. I still don't buy your "fraud conspiracy theory." What fraud there MIGHT HAVE BEEN was an after the fact attempt to mediate some losses incurred when GOVERNMENT FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY caused the housing balloon and subsequent crash.*
> 
> 
> 
> *What caused a parallel bubble in commercial real estate at the same time as residential properties?
> It's hard to see how the former can be blamed on government:*
> 
> "Two parallel real estate bubbles emerged in the United States between 2004 and 2008, one in residential real estate, the other in commercial real estate. The residential real estate bubble has received a great deal of popular, scholarly, and policy attention.
> 
> "The commercial real estate bubble, in contrast, has largely been ignored.
> 
> "This Article shows that the commercial real estate price bubble was accompanied by a change in the source of commercial real estate financing. Starting around 1998, securitization became an increasingly significant part of commercial real estate financing.
> 
> "The commercial mortgage securitization market underwent a major shift in 2004, however, as the traditional buyers of subordinated commercial real estate debt were outbid by collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).
> 
> "Savvy, sophisticated, experienced commercial mortgage securitization investors were replaced by investors who merely wanted 'product' to securitize.
> 
> "The result was a decline in underwriting standards in commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS).
> 
> "The commercial real estate bubble holds important lessons for understanding the residential real estate bubble.
> 
> "Unlike the residential market, there is almost no government involvement in commercial real estate.
> 
> "*The existence of the parallel commercial real estate bubble presents a strong challenge to explanations of the residential bubble that focus on government affordable housing policy, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
> *
> The Commercial Real Estate Bubble by Adam J. Levitin, Susan M. Wachter :: SSRN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've already covered this.  You are like a broken record for failed arguments.
> 
> Both Commercial and Retail Real Estate are dependent on the same underlining resource, that being land.   When developers buy up land and make residential housing instead of commercial buildings.... the reduces the supply of commercial buildings.  Supply down, demand stays the same, price goes up.
> 
> Economics 101, that anyone intelligent should know.
> 
> Once again, in yet another of dozens of posts, you prove Thomas Sowell right.
> 
> I dont mind debating smart people. They know the limitations of their position. Its debating stupid people thats hard.
> 
> In fact, I'm going to make that quote my sig from now on, in memory of the biggest absolute fool on this forum.
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read my link, Uncle Tom?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Black has the opinion that thousands of bankers should have been prosecuted for their latest crimes. Possibly the 900,000 dollars that Goldman Sachs contributed to Obama's 2008 campaign explain why Obama picked Eric Holder for his Attorney General? The crimes are there; what's lacking is the political will to prosecute.
> 
> 
> 
> Bah humbug!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Did you feel the same way about the Savings and Loan Crisis?*
> 
> "(Bill) Black was a central figure in exposing Congressional corruption during the Savings and Loan Crisis.
> 
> "He took the notes during the Keating Five meeting that were later published in the press, and brought the event to national attention and a congressional investigation.
> 
> "According to Bill Moyers,
> 
> "'The former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks.
> 
> "'The senators got off with a slap on the wrist, but so enraged was one of those bankers, Charles Keating  after whom the senate's so-called 'Keating Five' were named  he sent a memo that read, in part, "get Black  kill him dead." Metaphorically, of course. Of course.'"[4]
> 
> William K. Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. Over a thousand bankers were charged after the S&L episode and over 800 were convicted.
> 
> Compare those numbers to 0 indicted and 0 conviction from the Great Recession.*
Click to expand...


*Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. *

Let's look back at the S&L looting. 
Idiots and crooks bought an S&L, accepted deposits and then borrowed the bank's money themselves or lent it to crooked, or stupid, family and friends. Huge losses occurred.
Remember Jim McDougal?

Was that what happened in the housing/credit fraud you're talking about?
Did bank insiders make self-dealing loans that led to huge losses for their banks.
Or did they, in part because of the CRA, make loans to less qualified buyers?
When prices fell, adjustables spiked and borrowers defaulted, banks took huge losses.

Thanks to Congressional orders to Fannie and Freddie, the taxpayer ended up on the hook for hundereds of billions of these losses.
So where is the jail-worthy fraud? I mean besides the cooking of the books at Fannie and Freddie?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bah humbug!
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you feel the same way about the Savings and Loan Crisis?*
> 
> "(Bill) Black was a central figure in exposing Congressional corruption during the Savings and Loan Crisis.
> 
> "He took the notes during the Keating Five meeting that were later published in the press, and brought the event to national attention and a congressional investigation.
> 
> "According to Bill Moyers,
> 
> "'The former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks.
> 
> "'The senators got off with a slap on the wrist, but so enraged was one of those bankers, Charles Keating  after whom the senate's so-called 'Keating Five' were named  he sent a memo that read, in part, "get Black  kill him dead." Metaphorically, of course. Of course.'"[4]
> 
> William K. Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. Over a thousand bankers were charged after the S&L episode and over 800 were convicted.
> 
> Compare those numbers to 0 indicted and 0 conviction from the Great Recession.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. *
> 
> Let's look back at the S&L looting.
> Idiots and crooks bought an S&L, accepted deposits and then borrowed the bank's money themselves or lent it to crooked, or stupid, family and friends. Huge losses occurred.
> Remember Jim McDougal?
> 
> Was that what happened in the housing/credit fraud you're talking about?
> Did bank insiders make self-dealing loans that led to huge losses for their banks.
> Or did they, in part because of the CRA, make loans to less qualified buyers?
> When prices fell, adjustables spiked and borrowers defaulted, banks took huge losses.
> 
> Thanks to Congressional orders to Fannie and Freddie, the taxpayer ended up on the hook for hundereds of billions of these losses.
> So where is the jail-worthy fraud? I mean besides the cooking of the books at Fannie and Freddie?
Click to expand...

*Angelo Mozilo seems like a good candidate:*

"The son of a butcher, Mozilo co-founded Countrywide in 1969 and built it into the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. Countrywide wasn't the first to offer exotic mortgages to borrowers with a questionable ability to repay them. 

"In its all-out embrace of such sales, however, it did legitimize the notion that practically any adult could handle a big fat mortgage. In the wake of the housing bust, which toppled Countrywide and IndyMac Bank (another company Mozilo started), the executive's lavish pay package was criticized by many, including Congress. 

"Mozilo left Countrywide last summer after its rescue-sale to Bank of America. 

"A few months later, BofA said it would spend up to $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges against Countrywide filed by 11 state attorneys general."

Angelo Mozilo - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you feel the same way about the Savings and Loan Crisis?*
> 
> "(Bill) Black was a central figure in exposing Congressional corruption during the Savings and Loan Crisis.
> 
> "He took the notes during the Keating Five meeting that were later published in the press, and brought the event to national attention and a congressional investigation.
> 
> "According to Bill Moyers,
> 
> "'The former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks.
> 
> "'The senators got off with a slap on the wrist, but so enraged was one of those bankers, Charles Keating  after whom the senate's so-called 'Keating Five' were named  he sent a memo that read, in part, "get Black  kill him dead." Metaphorically, of course. Of course.'"[4]
> 
> William K. Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. Over a thousand bankers were charged after the S&L episode and over 800 were convicted.
> 
> Compare those numbers to 0 indicted and 0 conviction from the Great Recession.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. *
> 
> Let's look back at the S&L looting.
> Idiots and crooks bought an S&L, accepted deposits and then borrowed the bank's money themselves or lent it to crooked, or stupid, family and friends. Huge losses occurred.
> Remember Jim McDougal?
> 
> Was that what happened in the housing/credit fraud you're talking about?
> Did bank insiders make self-dealing loans that led to huge losses for their banks.
> Or did they, in part because of the CRA, make loans to less qualified buyers?
> When prices fell, adjustables spiked and borrowers defaulted, banks took huge losses.
> 
> Thanks to Congressional orders to Fannie and Freddie, the taxpayer ended up on the hook for hundereds of billions of these losses.
> So where is the jail-worthy fraud? I mean besides the cooking of the books at Fannie and Freddie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Angelo Mozilo seems like a good candidate:*
> 
> "The son of a butcher, Mozilo co-founded Countrywide in 1969 and built it into the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. Countrywide wasn't the first to offer exotic mortgages to borrowers with a questionable ability to repay them.
> 
> "In its all-out embrace of such sales, however, it did legitimize the notion that practically any adult could handle a big fat mortgage. In the wake of the housing bust, which toppled Countrywide and IndyMac Bank (another company Mozilo started), the executive's lavish pay package was criticized by many, including Congress.
> 
> "Mozilo left Countrywide last summer after its rescue-sale to Bank of America.
> 
> "A few months later, BofA said it would spend up to $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges against Countrywide filed by 11 state attorneys general."
> 
> Angelo Mozilo - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME
Click to expand...


What is a predatory loan?

What did he do that was fraudulent?


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. *
> 
> Let's look back at the S&L looting.
> Idiots and crooks bought an S&L, accepted deposits and then borrowed the bank's money themselves or lent it to crooked, or stupid, family and friends. Huge losses occurred.
> Remember Jim McDougal?
> 
> Was that what happened in the housing/credit fraud you're talking about?
> Did bank insiders make self-dealing loans that led to huge losses for their banks.
> Or did they, in part because of the CRA, make loans to less qualified buyers?
> When prices fell, adjustables spiked and borrowers defaulted, banks took huge losses.
> 
> Thanks to Congressional orders to Fannie and Freddie, the taxpayer ended up on the hook for hundereds of billions of these losses.
> So where is the jail-worthy fraud? I mean besides the cooking of the books at Fannie and Freddie?
> 
> 
> 
> *Angelo Mozilo seems like a good candidate:*
> 
> "The son of a butcher, Mozilo co-founded Countrywide in 1969 and built it into the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. Countrywide wasn't the first to offer exotic mortgages to borrowers with a questionable ability to repay them.
> 
> "In its all-out embrace of such sales, however, it did legitimize the notion that practically any adult could handle a big fat mortgage. In the wake of the housing bust, which toppled Countrywide and IndyMac Bank (another company Mozilo started), the executive's lavish pay package was criticized by many, including Congress.
> 
> "Mozilo left Countrywide last summer after its rescue-sale to Bank of America.
> 
> "A few months later, BofA said it would spend up to $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges against Countrywide filed by 11 state attorneys general."
> 
> Angelo Mozilo - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a predatory loan?
> 
> What did he do that was fraudulent?
Click to expand...

Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.
Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.
Maybe that's what makes the rich different


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Angelo Mozilo seems like a good candidate:*
> 
> "The son of a butcher, Mozilo co-founded Countrywide in 1969 and built it into the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. Countrywide wasn't the first to offer exotic mortgages to borrowers with a questionable ability to repay them.
> 
> "In its all-out embrace of such sales, however, it did legitimize the notion that practically any adult could handle a big fat mortgage. In the wake of the housing bust, which toppled Countrywide and IndyMac Bank (another company Mozilo started), the executive's lavish pay package was criticized by many, including Congress.
> 
> "Mozilo left Countrywide last summer after its rescue-sale to Bank of America.
> 
> "A few months later, BofA said it would spend up to $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges against Countrywide filed by 11 state attorneys general."
> 
> Angelo Mozilo - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a predatory loan?
> 
> What did he do that was fraudulent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.
> Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.
> Maybe that's what makes the rich different
Click to expand...


*Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.*

There are laws which mandate the information that must be provided to borrowers.
So what is "unfair and abusive loan terms"? Any specifics?

Or is it whatever Jesse Jackson decides is wrong?

*Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.*

You made a claim and can't back it up? That's surprising.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a predatory loan?
> 
> What did he do that was fraudulent?
> 
> 
> 
> Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.
> Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.
> Maybe that's what makes the rich different
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.*
> 
> There are laws which mandate the information that must be provided to borrowers.
> So what is "unfair and abusive loan terms"? Any specifics?
> 
> Or is it whatever Jesse Jackson decides is wrong?
> 
> *Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.*
> 
> You made a claim and can't back it up? That's surprising.
Click to expand...

"In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.' 

"Last fall, he settled a lawsuit levied by the Securities and Exchange Commission over *allegations that he misled investors. Mozilo paid a fine of $67.5 million * the largest-ever financial penalty against a public companys senior executive, according to the SEC." 

*Rich people don't go to jail (or even trial)*

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/ex-countrywide-chairman-angelo-mozilo/


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What caused a parallel bubble in commercial real estate at the same time as residential properties?
> It's hard to see how the former can be blamed on government:*
> 
> "Two parallel real estate bubbles emerged in the United States between 2004 and 2008, one in residential real estate, the other in commercial real estate. The residential real estate bubble has received a great deal of popular, scholarly, and policy attention.
> 
> "The commercial real estate bubble, in contrast, has largely been ignored.
> 
> "This Article shows that the commercial real estate price bubble was accompanied by a change in the source of commercial real estate financing. Starting around 1998, securitization became an increasingly significant part of commercial real estate financing.
> 
> "The commercial mortgage securitization market underwent a major shift in 2004, however, as the traditional buyers of subordinated commercial real estate debt were outbid by collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).
> 
> "Savvy, sophisticated, experienced commercial mortgage securitization investors were replaced by investors who merely wanted 'product' to securitize.
> 
> "The result was a decline in underwriting standards in commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS).
> 
> "The commercial real estate bubble holds important lessons for understanding the residential real estate bubble.
> 
> "Unlike the residential market, there is almost no government involvement in commercial real estate.
> 
> "*The existence of the parallel commercial real estate bubble presents a strong challenge to explanations of the residential bubble that focus on government affordable housing policy, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
> *
> The Commercial Real Estate Bubble by Adam J. Levitin, Susan M. Wachter :: SSRN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've already covered this.  You are like a broken record for failed arguments.
> 
> Both Commercial and Retail Real Estate are dependent on the same underlining resource, that being land.   When developers buy up land and make residential housing instead of commercial buildings.... the reduces the supply of commercial buildings.  Supply down, demand stays the same, price goes up.
> 
> Economics 101, that anyone intelligent should know.
> 
> Once again, in yet another of dozens of posts, you prove Thomas Sowell right.
> 
> I dont mind debating smart people. They know the limitations of their position. Its debating stupid people thats hard.
> 
> In fact, I'm going to make that quote my sig from now on, in memory of the biggest absolute fool on this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you bother to read my link, Uncle Tom?
Click to expand...


Well see, I can actually think for myself.   I have the intellectual ability to consider the statements given, weight them against the facts, connect them to known fundamental laws of economics, and come to a logical rational conclusion.

Commercial real estate, is directly connected to residential real estate.

Both occupy the same underlining resource, called "land". 

If one of those two, starts taking larger and larger shares of the "land", then logically the other must be reduced relative to the first.

Further, it is also very logical that the bubble in the commercial real estate would be delayed behind that of the residential bubble, because of something know as "zoning law".   The process to have a commercial zoned land, rezoned for residential, takes years.   Beyond that, the zoning process of new land, also takes years.

Thus the move away from commercial property, towards residential, would have a delayed action of lowering supply and increasing value, over a period of years.    Much like exactly what we see in the data.

Lastly, it isn't surprising to me that lending standards were lowered across the board.    Remember, before 1997, sub-prime mortgages were considered risky, and where a niche market.

Fannie and Freddie convinced the entire industry, that these loans were safe, because they were willing to securitize them.

If they were safe for residential, why not commercial?   It's the same thing, a mortgage on a property that has increasing value.

Again, you just don't seem to know enough about this topic, to discuss it intelligently.    Why else to you routinely rely on someone else who wrote their opinion that you agree with?       All you do is post other people's opinion.

"The *existence of the parallel commercial real estate bubble* presents a strong challenge to explanations of the residential bubble that focus on government affordable housing policy, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"

That bold right there, is the fact.   There was a parallel commercial real estate bubble.

"The existence of the parallel commercial real estate bubble *presents a strong challenge to explanations* of the residential bubble that focus on government affordable housing policy, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"

That bold there, is opinion.    It is that authors opinion, that it presents a strong challenge to the explanation.

You posted this as if it was a fact.  It is not a fact.  That is an opinion.

You should know this.   The fact you don't seem to, is why I have that Thomas Sowell quote in my sig.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.
> Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.
> Maybe that's what makes the rich different
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.*
> 
> There are laws which mandate the information that must be provided to borrowers.
> So what is "unfair and abusive loan terms"? Any specifics?
> 
> Or is it whatever Jesse Jackson decides is wrong?
> 
> *Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.*
> 
> You made a claim and can't back it up? That's surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.'
> 
> "Last fall, he settled a lawsuit levied by the Securities and Exchange Commission over *allegations that he misled investors. Mozilo paid a fine of $67.5 million *&#8212; the largest-ever financial penalty against a public company&#8217;s senior executive, according to the SEC."
> 
> *Rich people don't go to jail (or even trial)*
> 
> https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/ex-countrywide-chairman-angelo-mozilo/
Click to expand...


Jeffrey Skilling.

Just proved you wrong, and required a massive 17 key strokes.  Idiot.   When you say stuff this dumb, you are just being an idiot.   Bernard Madoff.  Idiot.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. Over a thousand bankers were charged after the S&L episode and over 800 were convicted.
> 
> Compare those numbers to 0 indicted and 0 conviction from the Great Recession.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Like I said, if there were crimes, there would be trials and convictions. I still don't buy your "fraud conspiracy theory." What fraud there MIGHT HAVE BEEN was an after the fact attempt to mediate some losses incurred when GOVERNMENT FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY caused the housing balloon and subsequent crash.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *What caused a parallel bubble in commercial real estate at the same time as residential properties?
> It's hard to see how the former can be blamed on government:*
> 
> "Two parallel real estate bubbles emerged in the United States between 2004 and 2008, one in residential real estate, the other in commercial real estate. The residential real estate bubble has received a great deal of popular, scholarly, and policy attention.
> 
> "The commercial real estate bubble, in contrast, has largely been ignored.
> 
> "This Article shows that the commercial real estate price bubble was accompanied by a change in the source of commercial real estate financing. Starting around 1998, securitization became an increasingly significant part of commercial real estate financing.
> 
> "The commercial mortgage securitization market underwent a major shift in 2004, however, as the *traditional buyers of subordinated commercial real estate debt were outbid by collateralized debt obligations *(CDOs).
> 
> "Savvy, sophisticated, experienced commercial mortgage securitization investors were replaced by investors who merely wanted 'product' to securitize.
> 
> "The result was a decline in underwriting standards in commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS).
> 
> "The commercial real estate bubble holds important lessons for understanding the residential real estate bubble.
> 
> "Unlike the residential market, there is almost no government involvement in commercial real estate.
> 
> "*The existence of the parallel commercial real estate bubble presents a strong challenge to explanations of the residential bubble that focus on government affordable housing policy, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
> *
> The Commercial Real Estate Bubble by Adam J. Levitin, Susan M. Wachter :: SSRN
Click to expand...

So tell me again the relevance of this abstract? 

Isn't it obvious that when loans have poor securitization there is a tendency to more wildly invest?

The question really is, how bad was the commercial real estate bubble and what was the subsequent result of that bubble?

Real estate professionals were all interested in selling real estate, and investors were ready to buy. Which brings me to Androw's logical statement, when there is more competition to buy finite resources those resources tend to go up in price. In both RRE and CRE land was there was more competition for the land, there was inflation in both types of real estate, and we all know that government fiscal and monetary policies were the most important cause of the RRE balloon and crash.

Does it come to mind that when the financial business was inundated with paper, much of it bad, and that heating up both the residential and the commercial caused both to inflate?  Has it come to mind that when the Residential mortgage banks started buying up paper that it pushed commercial real estate buyers to other sources?

If you look at page 85 of the study you quoted, you will see that the commercial real estate bubble did not peak until Dec 2007/Jan 2008, almost 2 years after the residential bubble peaked. At about that time financial institutions were about to fall apart because of sub prime, low interest residential loans, and well into the great recession.

I would have found it strange had the commercial market not taken a nose dive. Both markets were severely inflated, even though the same identical issue many not have caused both deflations.

The closely synchronous parallels between the CRE and residential real
estate (RRE) bubbles present a conundrum.* Despite some shared fundamentals
(and market overlap in the area of multi-family residential housing),*
CRE and RRE have historically been separate markets.15 *Thus, theories of
the RRE bubble that point to government intervention in the housing market
as the source of the bubble, be it through the Community Reinvestment Act
or through affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the
government-sponsored enterprises or GSE)*,16 founder on the CRE bubble.
There is almost no government involvement in the CRE market, yet a parallel
bubble emerged.​
So what happened?

The most extensive exploration of the CRE bubble,
a Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) report, concluded that &#8220;faulty&#8221;
and &#8220;dramatically weakened&#8221; underwriting standards resulted in &#8220;riskier&#8221;
commercial real estate loans during the mid-2000s. 

*While there are many common characteristics to all real estate lending,
there are important distinctions between residential and commercial real estate
finance.* First, any financing must look at the source of repayment. This
varies significantly between RRE and CRE.

Thus, whereas voluntary payments on RRE loans come first from the
personal income and assets of the owner unrelated to the property, *a CRE
loan is typically financed based on the rents from the property.*

The option is only &#8220;in the money&#8221; if the property is worth less
than the amount owed on the loan (the LTV>100%), meaning that the property
is &#8220;upside down&#8221; or &#8220;underwater&#8221; or that there is &#8220;negative equity.&#8221;​
So here comes the next question, why would the rents from the property dry up? Has it come to mind that the RRE collapse led to a recession? Do you see the possibility that the CRE rents were no longer available to pay the mortgage? Has it occurred to you that if a property is no longer worth as much as the loan owed that a CRE customer is more likely to walk away from a property in which he only has an interest in that property as a profit maker?

So parallel bubble? Close, but not totally. Yet the one, the RRE bubble put lots of people out of work, *so consider that at least part of the CRE crash was caused by the RRE bubble which goes back to bad government fiscal and monetary policies*.

I could go on George, but look at the whole study, not just the abstract. Maybe if you try real hard you might be able to answer your own questions.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you feel the same way about the Savings and Loan Crisis?*
> 
> "(Bill) Black was a central figure in exposing Congressional corruption during the Savings and Loan Crisis.
> 
> "He took the notes during the Keating Five meeting that were later published in the press, and brought the event to national attention and a congressional investigation.
> 
> "According to Bill Moyers,
> 
> "'The former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks.
> 
> "'The senators got off with a slap on the wrist, but so enraged was one of those bankers, Charles Keating  after whom the senate's so-called 'Keating Five' were named  he sent a memo that read, in part, "get Black  kill him dead." Metaphorically, of course. Of course.'"[4]
> 
> William K. Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. Over a thousand bankers were charged after the S&L episode and over 800 were convicted.
> 
> Compare those numbers to 0 indicted and 0 conviction from the Great Recession.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Black often makes the claim the S&L looting was about 1/70th the size of the housing/ credit frauds. *
> 
> Let's look back at the S&L looting.
> Idiots and crooks bought an S&L, accepted deposits and then borrowed the bank's money themselves or lent it to crooked, or stupid, family and friends. Huge losses occurred.
> Remember Jim McDougal?
> 
> Was that what happened in the housing/credit fraud you're talking about?
> Did bank insiders make self-dealing loans that led to huge losses for their banks.
> Or did they, in part because of the CRA, make loans to less qualified buyers?
> When prices fell, adjustables spiked and borrowers defaulted, banks took huge losses.
> 
> Thanks to Congressional orders to Fannie and Freddie, the taxpayer ended up on the hook for hundereds of billions of these losses.
> So where is the jail-worthy fraud? I mean besides the cooking of the books at Fannie and Freddie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Angelo Mozilo seems like a good candidate:*
> 
> "The son of a butcher, Mozilo co-founded Countrywide in 1969 and built it into the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. Countrywide wasn't the first to offer exotic mortgages to borrowers with a questionable ability to repay them.
> 
> "In its all-out embrace of such sales, however, it did legitimize the notion that practically any adult could handle a big fat mortgage. In the wake of the housing bust, which toppled Countrywide and IndyMac Bank (another company Mozilo started), the executive's lavish pay package was criticized by many, including Congress.
> 
> "Mozilo left Countrywide last summer after its rescue-sale to Bank of America.
> 
> "A few months later, BofA said it would spend up to $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges against Countrywide filed by 11 state attorneys general."
> 
> Angelo Mozilo - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME
Click to expand...


Everyone criticizes big pay packages when an entity fails and leaves lots of people in the hole. The question is, DID HE BREAK THE LAW. And if he did, is he in jail? Does settling out of court automatically make one guilty? Or does it reduce the potential risk?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Angelo Mozilo seems like a good candidate:*
> 
> "The son of a butcher, Mozilo co-founded Countrywide in 1969 and built it into the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. Countrywide wasn't the first to offer exotic mortgages to borrowers with a questionable ability to repay them.
> 
> "In its all-out embrace of such sales, however, it did legitimize the notion that practically any adult could handle a big fat mortgage. In the wake of the housing bust, which toppled Countrywide and IndyMac Bank (another company Mozilo started), the executive's lavish pay package was criticized by many, including Congress.
> 
> "Mozilo left Countrywide last summer after its rescue-sale to Bank of America.
> 
> "A few months later, BofA said it would spend up to $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges against Countrywide filed by 11 state attorneys general."
> 
> Angelo Mozilo - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a predatory loan?
> 
> What did he do that was fraudulent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.
> Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.
> Maybe that's what makes the rich different
Click to expand...

So you are saying that lending money at artificially low rates abuses them? Are you saying that the contract on an ARM which specifies when the rates may be increased and how much is abusing them?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.
> Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.
> Maybe that's what makes the rich different
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.*
> 
> There are laws which mandate the information that must be provided to borrowers.
> So what is "unfair and abusive loan terms"? Any specifics?
> 
> Or is it whatever Jesse Jackson decides is wrong?
> 
> *Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.*
> 
> You made a claim and can't back it up? That's surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.'
> 
> "Last fall, he settled a lawsuit levied by the Securities and Exchange Commission over *allegations that he misled investors. Mozilo paid a fine of $67.5 million * the largest-ever financial penalty against a public companys senior executive, according to the SEC."
> 
> *Rich people don't go to jail (or even trial)*
Click to expand...

Tell that to Berny Madoff. I am sure he will have a big laugh at your expense. 





> https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/ex-countrywide-chairman-angelo-mozilo/


Like the man said, why make comments that on second though ever you know is incorrect.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.*
> 
> There are laws which mandate the information that must be provided to borrowers.
> So what is "unfair and abusive loan terms"? Any specifics?
> 
> Or is it whatever Jesse Jackson decides is wrong?
> 
> *Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.*
> 
> You made a claim and can't back it up? That's surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> "In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.'
> 
> "Last fall, he settled a lawsuit levied by the Securities and Exchange Commission over *allegations that he misled investors. Mozilo paid a fine of $67.5 million * the largest-ever financial penalty against a public companys senior executive, according to the SEC."
> 
> *Rich people don't go to jail (or even trial)*
> 
> https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/ex-countrywide-chairman-angelo-mozilo/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Skilling.
> 
> Just proved you wrong, and required a massive 17 key strokes.  Idiot.   When you say stuff this dumb, you are just being an idiot.   Bernard Madoff.  Idiot.
Click to expand...

Bernie stole from rich people, Moron.
Any fool knows that isn't allowed.
Skilling will be free and rich in less than five years.
Do you think your exceptions disprove the rule?
Do you think, at all?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've already covered this.  You are like a broken record for failed arguments.
> 
> Both Commercial and Retail Real Estate are dependent on the same underlining resource, that being land.   When developers buy up land and make residential housing instead of commercial buildings.... the reduces the supply of commercial buildings.  Supply down, demand stays the same, price goes up.
> 
> Economics 101, that anyone intelligent should know.
> 
> Once again, in yet another of dozens of posts, you prove Thomas Sowell right.
> 
> I dont mind debating smart people. They know the limitations of their position. Its debating stupid people thats hard.
> 
> In fact, I'm going to make that quote my sig from now on, in memory of the biggest absolute fool on this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to read my link, Uncle Tom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well see, I can actually think for myself.   I have the intellectual ability to consider the statements given, weight them against the facts, connect them to known fundamental laws of economics, and come to a logical rational conclusion.
> 
> Commercial real estate, is directly connected to residential real estate.
> 
> Both occupy the same underlining resource, called "land".
> 
> If one of those two, starts taking larger and larger shares of the "land", then logically the other must be reduced relative to the first.
> 
> Further, it is also very logical that the bubble in the commercial real estate would be delayed behind that of the residential bubble, because of something know as "zoning law".   The process to have a commercial zoned land, rezoned for residential, takes years.   Beyond that, the zoning process of new land, also takes years.
> 
> Thus the move away from commercial property, towards residential, would have a delayed action of lowering supply and increasing value, over a period of years.    Much like exactly what we see in the data.
> 
> Lastly, it isn't surprising to me that lending standards were lowered across the board.    Remember, before 1997, sub-prime mortgages were considered risky, and where a niche market.
> 
> Fannie and Freddie convinced the entire industry, that these loans were safe, because they were willing to securitize them.
> 
> If they were safe for residential, why not commercial?   It's the same thing, a mortgage on a property that has increasing value.
> 
> Again, you just don't seem to know enough about this topic, to discuss it intelligently.    Why else to you routinely rely on someone else who wrote their opinion that you agree with?       All you do is post other people's opinion.
> 
> "The *existence of the parallel commercial real estate bubble* presents a strong challenge to explanations of the residential bubble that focus on government affordable housing policy, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
> 
> That bold right there, is the fact.   There was a parallel commercial real estate bubble.
> 
> "The existence of the parallel commercial real estate bubble *presents a strong challenge to explanations* of the residential bubble that focus on government affordable housing policy, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
> 
> That bold there, is opinion.    It is that authors opinion, that it presents a strong challenge to the explanation.
> 
> You posted this as if it was a fact.  It is not a fact.  That is an opinion.
> 
> You should know this.   The fact you don't seem to, is why I have that Thomas Sowell quote in my sig.
Click to expand...

"Well see, I can actually think for myself.   I have the intellectual ability to consider the statements given, weight them against the facts, connect them to known fundamental laws of economics, and come to a logical rational conclusion."

*Actually, you can't think effectively.
You don't know enough.
You apparently think all opinions are created equal.
They're not.
Your opinions are not equal to those of:*

"Adam J. Levitin 
Georgetown University Law Center
*OR*
Susan M. Wachter 
University of Pennsylvania - Wharton School, Department of Real Estate"

*when it comes to explaining the relationships between CREMs and RREMs.

Try again?*

"This Article shows that the commercial real estate price bubble was accompanied by a change in the source of commercial real estate financing. Starting around 1998, securitization became an increasingly significant part of commercial real estate financing. 

"The commercial mortgage securitization market underwent a major shift in 2004, however, as the traditional buyers of subordinated commercial real estate debt were outbid by collateralized debt obligations (CDOs)."

*Try providing proof for your opinions, if you can find any and stop confusing yourself with anyone who's educated*

The Commercial Real Estate Bubble by Adam J. Levitin, Susan M. Wachter :: SSRN


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> "In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.'


Gee, some idiot had an opinion and made a claim, and you, like a typically left wing extremist believed him. When you believe propaganda, that makes you the idiot.





> "Last fall, he settled a lawsuit levied by the Securities and Exchange Commission over *allegations that he misled investors. Mozilo paid a fine of $67.5 million *&#8212; the largest-ever financial penalty against a public company&#8217;s senior executive, according to the SEC."


Are you suggesting that his settling our of court was anything more than his choosing to minimize his exposure? Are you that stupid?





> *Rich people don't go to jail (or even trial)*


Bah humbug!





> https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/ex-countrywide-chairman-angelo-mozilo/





> *Jeffrey Skilling.*


*Another good example that the rich do go to jail when they commit crimes.*


> Just proved you wrong, and required a massive 17 key strokes.  Idiot.   When you say stuff this dumb, you are just being an idiot.   Bernard Madoff.  Idiot.


Your proof is another stupid idiot voicing the same stupid opinion as your stupid ideas.  





> Bernie stole from rich people, Moron.
> Any fool knows that isn't allowed.
> Skilling will be free and rich in less than five years.
> Do you think your exceptions disprove the rule?
> Do you think, at all?


I don't believe there is a rule. *Your original assertion that the rich criminal does not go to trial or jail is moronic. **It is obvious you hate the rich, no matter how honest and civil they are. People like you are to be pitied for their lack of ability to think.*


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> ......





georgephillip said:


> Did you bother to read my link, Uncle Tom?


I not only read your link, I have the material on my computer and last night I explained it to you as you obviously did not understand it. If you really want to read the paper and at least TRY to understand it, here is a good link. http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/research/papers/full/747.pdf


> *Actually, you can't think effectively.
> You don't know enough.
> You apparently think all opinions are created equal.
> They're not.
> Your opinions are not equal to those of:*
> 
> "Adam J. Levitin
> Georgetown University Law Center
> *OR*
> Susan M. Wachter
> University of Pennsylvania - Wharton School, Department of Real Estate"
> 
> *when it comes to explaining the relationships between CREMs and RREMs.
> 
> Try again?*
> 
> "This Article shows that the commercial real estate price bubble was accompanied by a change in the source of commercial real estate financing. Starting around 1998, securitization became an increasingly significant part of commercial real estate financing.
> 
> "The commercial mortgage securitization market underwent a major shift in 2004, however, *as the traditional buyers of subordinated commercial real estate debt were outbid by collateralized debt obligations* (CDOs)."


The highlight is mine, but part of your post George. Do you understand the significance of that comment alone in Wachter's and Levitin's paper? 





> *Try providing proof for your opinions, if you can find any and stop confusing yourself with anyone who's educated*
> 
> The Commercial Real Estate Bubble by Adam J. Levitin, Susan M. Wachter :: SSRN


 *Now who is talking in confusion? You!*

So that you may learn something I shall repost last nights lesson in CRE and its balloon.

Isn't it obvious that when loans have poor securitization there is a tendency to more wildly invest?

The question really is, how bad was the commercial real estate bubble and what was the subsequent result of that bubble?

Real estate professionals were all interested in selling real estate, and investors were ready to buy. Which brings me to Androw's logical statement, when there is more competition to buy finite resources those resources tend to go up in price. In both RRE and CRE land was there was more competition for the land, there was inflation in both types of real estate, and we all know that government fiscal and monetary policies were the most important cause of the RRE balloon and crash.

Does it come to mind that when the financial business was inundated with paper, much of it bad, and that heating up both the residential and the commercial caused both to inflate? Has it come to mind that when the Residential mortgage banks started buying up paper that it pushed commercial real estate buyers to other sources?

*If you look at page 85 of the study you quoted, you will see that the  commercial real estate bubble did not peak until Dec 2007/Jan 2008, almost 2 years after the residential bubble peaked. At about that time financial institutions were about to fall apart because of sub prime, low interest residential loans, and well into the great recession.*

I would have found it strange had the commercial market not taken a nose dive. Both markets were severely inflated, even though the same identical issue may not have caused both deflations.

The closely synchronous parallels between the CRE and residential real
estate (RRE) bubbles present a conundrum. Despite some shared fundamentals
(and market overlap in the area of multi-family residential housing),
CRE and RRE have historically been separate markets.15 Thus, theories of
the RRE bubble that point to government intervention in the housing market
as the source of the bubble, be it through the Community Reinvestment Act
or through affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the
government-sponsored enterprises or GSE), founder on the CRE bubble.
There is almost no government involvement in the CRE market, yet a parallel
bubble emerged.​So what happened?

The most extensive exploration of the CRE bubble,
a Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) report, concluded that faulty
and dramatically weakened underwriting standards resulted in riskier
commercial real estate loans during the mid-2000s. 

While there are many common characteristics to all real estate lending,
there are important distinctions between residential and commercial real estate
finance. First, any financing must look at the source of repayment. This
varies significantly between RRE and CRE.

Whereas voluntary payments on RRE loans come first from the
personal income and assets of the owner unrelated to the property, a CRE
loan is typically financed based on the rents from the property.

The option is only in the money if the property is worth less
than the amount owed on the loan (the LTV>100%), meaning that the property
is upside down or underwater or that there is negative equity.​
*So here comes the next question, why would the rents from the property dry up? Has it come to mind that the RRE collapse led to a recession? Do you see the possibility that the CRE rents were no longer available to pay the mortgage? Has it occurred to you that if a property is no longer worth as much as the loan owed that a CRE customer is more likely to walk away from a property in which he only has an interest in that property as a profit maker?

So parallel bubble? Close, but not totally. Yet the one, the RRE bubble put lots of people out of work, so consider that at least part of the CRE crash was caused by the RRE bubble which goes back to bad government fiscal and monetary policies.*
I could go on George, but look at the whole study, not just the abstract. Maybe if you try real hard you might be able to answer your own questions.

*ONE OTHER THING, IT TICKLES ME WHEN IN YOUR ZEAL TO PROVE YOUR POINT, YOU POST LINKS TO AND QUOTE PASSAGES FROM A STUDY WHICH INCONTOVERTABLY PROOF YOU WRONG.*


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.'
> 
> "Last fall, he settled a lawsuit levied by the Securities and Exchange Commission over *allegations that he misled investors. Mozilo paid a fine of $67.5 million *&#8212; the largest-ever financial penalty against a public company&#8217;s senior executive, according to the SEC."
> 
> *Rich people don't go to jail (or even trial)*
> 
> https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/ex-countrywide-chairman-angelo-mozilo/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Skilling.
> 
> Just proved you wrong, and required a massive 17 key strokes.  Idiot.   When you say stuff this dumb, you are just being an idiot.   Bernard Madoff.  Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bernie stole from rich people, Moron.
> Any fool knows that isn't allowed.
> Skilling will be free and rich in less than five years.
> Do you think your exceptions disprove the rule?
> Do you think, at all?
Click to expand...


Martha Stewart
Michael Milken
Ivan Boesky
Bernie Ebbers
Dennis Kozlowski
John Rigas
Sanjay Kumar
Wesley Snipes
Leona Helmsley
Paris Hilton
Al Pacino
Charlie Sheen
Daniel Baldwin
George Michael
Jane Fonda
Keanue reeves
Kelsey Grammer
Lindsey Lohan
Nick Nolte
O.J. Simpson
Robert Downey Jr.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.'
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, some idiot had an opinion and made a claim, and you, like a typically left wing extremist believed him. When you believe propaganda, that makes you the idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Last fall, he settled a lawsuit levied by the Securities and Exchange Commission over *allegations that he misled investors. Mozilo paid a fine of $67.5 million * the largest-ever financial penalty against a public companys senior executive, according to the SEC."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting that his settling our of court was anything more than his choosing to minimize his exposure? Are you that stupid?Bah humbug!  Another good example that the rich do go to jail when they commit crimes.[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just proved you wrong, and required a massive 17 key strokes.  Idiot.   When you say stuff this dumb, you are just being an idiot.   Bernard Madoff.  Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your proof is another stupid idiot voicing the same stupid opinion as your stupid ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bernie stole from rich people, Moron.
> Any fool knows that isn't allowed.
> Skilling will be free and rich in less than five years.
> Do you think your exceptions disprove the rule?
> Do you think, at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe there is a rule. *Your original assertion that the rich criminal does not go to trial or jail is moronic. **It is obvious you hate the rich, no matter how honest and civil they are. People like you are to be pitied for their lack of ability to think.*
Click to expand...

*Are you a "Friend of Angelo"?
People like you often want to be.*

"Referred to as the 'VIP program' or the 'Friends of Angelo' program -- after former Countrywide founder and CEO Angelo Mozilo -- this preferential treatment varied with the importance and influence of the borrowers and included such perks as lower loan rates, expedited loan processing and less stringent underwriting standards, the report said..."

"The House Oversight Committee started its investigation into the program in 2009, and has since discovered that these loans were extended to thousands of people, including almost a dozen lawmakers and former executive branch officials. 

"In addition, thousands of Countrywide employees, as well as employees of Congress, the White House, Fannie Mae (FNM), Freddie Mac (FRE) and other government entities were also offered the special loans."

Countrywide issued VIP loans to buy influence, report says - Jul. 5, 2012

*BTW, I not only think that Angelo's settling out of court by paying a $67.5 million fine had something to do with limiting his exposure to prison showers, but I also suspect Bank of America paying $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges filed against Countrywide by 11 state attorneys general confirmed his crimes.

Of course, the rich really are different, aren't they?*


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.'
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, some idiot had an opinion and made a claim, and you, like a typically left wing extremist believed him. When you believe propaganda, that makes you the idiot.Are you suggesting that his settling our of court was anything more than his choosing to minimize his exposure? Are you that stupid?Bah humbug!  Another good example that the rich do go to jail when they commit crimes.[/B]Your proof is another stupid idiot voicing the same stupid opinion as your stupid ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bernie stole from rich people, Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So morons like you accept that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any fool knows that isn't allowed.
> Skilling will be free and rich in less than five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think they should execute him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think your exceptions disprove the rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What rule idiot? Your rule about hating the rich and assuming them guilty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your original assertion that the rich criminal does not go to trial or jail is moronic. **It is obvious you hate the rich, no matter how honest and civil they are. People like you are to be pitied for their lack of ability to think.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Are you a "Friend of Angelo"? People like you often want to be.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but people like me believe people are innocent until proved guilty. Not like slugs like you who blame without grounds and find guilt because you hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Referred to as the 'VIP program' or the 'Friends of Angelo' program -- after former Countrywide founder and CEO Angelo Mozilo -- this preferential treatment varied with the importance and influence of the borrowers and included such perks as lower loan rates, expedited loan processing and less stringent underwriting standards, the report said..."
> 
> "The House Oversight Committee started its investigation into the program in 2009, and has since discovered that these loans were extended to thousands of people, including almost a dozen lawmakers and former executive branch officials.
> 
> "In addition, thousands of Countrywide employees, as well as employees of Congress, the White House, Fannie Mae (FNM), Freddie Mac (FRE) and other government entities were also offered the special loans."
> 
> Countrywide issued VIP loans to buy influence, report says - Jul. 5, 2012
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was there a trial? Or was that our famously non corrupt congress? Like ISSA, Dodd, and Conrad? When was the trial? What was the verdict?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BTW, I not only think that Angelo's settling out of court by paying a $67.5 million fine had something to do with limiting his exposure to prison showers, but I also suspect Bank of America paying $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges filed against Countrywide by 11 state attorneys general confirmed his crimes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Where was the trial held?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the rich really are different, aren't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Some rich are different, some aren't, some are honest, and some or not, just like all people; but until they are convicted of a crime, they are not guilty, your claims not withstanding.
> 
> In spite of all your attempts to divert attention from the cause of the housing balloon and subsequent crash you have produced not a single iota of proof to the contrary. Government fiscal and monetary are still the primary cause of the crash.
> 
> BTW, why don't you address your screw up using the ADAM J. LEVITIN AND SUSAN M. WACHTER study to prove your point when it did exactly the opposite? Maybe that'll teach you to read am abstract instead of reading the whole study, right?
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

"Bank of America Corp.s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting..."

"The dispute goes back to 2011, when Bank of America BAC  agreed to pay $8.5 billion to investors who said they were ripped off by mortgage securities the bank sold them in the run-up to the financial crisis. 

"Bank of New York Mellon, BK  acting as a trustee for the investors, agreed to the deal. But other investors, led by AIG, stepped in and said it wasnt good enough. Nine weeks of court hearings, stretching from June to November last year, followed.

"Last month it appeared that the dispute was over, most of it anyway, when Justice Kapnick approved most of the deal. But then she got promoted, Justice Scarpulla took over the case, and AIG asked for another chance to air its grievances."

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> "Bank of America Corp.s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting..."
> 
> "The dispute goes back to 2011, when Bank of America BAC  agreed to pay $8.5 billion to investors who said they were ripped off by mortgage securities the bank sold them in the run-up to the financial crisis.
> 
> "Bank of New York Mellon, BK  acting as a trustee for the investors, agreed to the deal. But other investors, led by AIG, stepped in and said it wasnt good enough. Nine weeks of court hearings, stretching from June to November last year, followed.
> 
> "Last month it appeared that the dispute was over, most of it anyway, when Justice Kapnick approved most of the deal. But then she got promoted, Justice Scarpulla took over the case, and AIG asked for another chance to air its grievances."
> 
> Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch



Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said.   Didn't have anything to do with the topic.   Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point.   You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with.   The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Bank of America Corp.s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting..."
> 
> "The dispute goes back to 2011, when Bank of America BAC  agreed to pay $8.5 billion to investors who said they were ripped off by mortgage securities the bank sold them in the run-up to the financial crisis.
> 
> "Bank of New York Mellon, BK  acting as a trustee for the investors, agreed to the deal. But other investors, led by AIG, stepped in and said it wasnt good enough. Nine weeks of court hearings, stretching from June to November last year, followed.
> 
> "Last month it appeared that the dispute was over, most of it anyway, when Justice Kapnick approved most of the deal. But then she got promoted, Justice Scarpulla took over the case, and AIG asked for another chance to air its grievances."
> 
> Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said.   Didn't have anything to do with the topic.   Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.
> 
> You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point.   You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with.   The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.
> 
> You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.
Click to expand...

*Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?*

"Bank of America Corp.s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

*Learn to read.*


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Bank of America Corp.&#8217;s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting..."
> 
> "The dispute goes back to 2011, when Bank of America BAC  agreed to pay $8.5 billion to investors who said they were ripped off by mortgage securities the bank sold them in the run-up to the financial crisis.
> 
> "Bank of New York Mellon, BK  acting as a trustee for the investors, agreed to the deal. But other investors, led by AIG, stepped in and said it wasn&#8217;t good enough. Nine weeks of court hearings, stretching from June to November last year, followed.
> 
> "Last month it appeared that the dispute was over, most of it anyway, when Justice Kapnick approved most of the deal. But then she got promoted, Justice Scarpulla took over the case, and AIG asked for another chance to air its grievances."
> 
> Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said.   Didn't have anything to do with the topic.   Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.
> 
> You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point.   You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with.   The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.
> 
> You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?*
> 
> "Bank of America Corp.&#8217;s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.
> 
> Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch
> 
> *Learn to read.*
Click to expand...


No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.

I'm talking about the entire focus of the discussion.     We've come full circle back to BoA, and Countrywide.

Did you miss the fact that government pushed BoA to buy Countrywide?

If Countrywide had gone through normal bankruptcy proceedings, all of this crap you are complaining about, would have been taken care of in court.   But leftards, like you, push for a buyout paid for by government, and now you are b!tching about it?

And what does this have to do with sub-prime loans?  Nothing.  What does this have to do with the cause of the price bubble?  Nothing.   What does this have to do with capitalism or inequality?  Nothing.

What does this have to do with anything?

And worse, we've been over this already.  You don't even remember, this is like that 3rd time we've covered this topic in this thread.  You are like a broken record of bad arguments, repeated over and over, never realizing your own failure.

You want to talk about this, fine.

EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT GOVERNMENT GIVES OUT BUSINESS OR MONEY, PEOPLE WILL TRY TO INFLUENCE WHERE THAT MONEY GOES.

This is true in any social economic system.   When government announces it plans to increase 'green-energy spending', thousands of companies start spending money to influence where that money goes, so they can get some.

The Freedom Car, is a perfect example.  Dozens of company vying for a handout.

And you have failed to mention the most obvious examples, Fannie and Freddie both spent MILLIONS to influence government on their behalf.

The same is true in Pre-78 china and Soviet Russia.  Government corporations spent money all the time to get influence for preferable treatment by the Kremlin and the Central Politburo of China.

So here you have Countrywide, who had deep ties with Fannie Mae, got special treatment, and you are shocked and surprised that Countrywide greased the hands that fed them?

Really?   This is a surprise to whom?   Leftards too dumb to know how socialism works?

The rest of us on the right, know this is how socialism always works.  Government hands out goodies through Fannie and Freddie, and people will reciprocate.    It's normal.  Happens everywhere in the world.

You want to stop that, no amount of fines or trials, or legislation is going to do anything.    The only way to stop it, is to eliminate government involvement in mortgages.    Cut Fannie and Freddie off.  Break them up, and never bailout them, or anyone else, again.

When companies realize there is no money to be had from government, they'll stop wasting their money on lobbying.  End socialism.  That's the solution.


----------



## georgephillip

*As I'm sure many have noticed, I don't have a particularly well rounded understanding of the economics of inequality. As luck would have it, there's a test in the USMB Economy Forum that can provide all of us with a baseline for where we are starting from

I intend to take the test ASAP and will post my score when finished.

Anyone else?*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/357663-income-inequality-general-knowledge.html

*Me and my BIG MOUTH.
I got 0%
Can you beat that, Homeschool?*


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said.   Didn't have anything to do with the topic.   Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.
> 
> You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point.   You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with.   The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.
> 
> You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?*
> 
> "Bank of America Corp.s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.
> 
> Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch
> 
> *Learn to read.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.
> 
> I'm talking about the entire focus of the discussion.     We've come full circle back to BoA, and Countrywide.
> 
> Did you miss the fact that government pushed BoA to buy Countrywide?
> 
> If Countrywide had gone through normal bankruptcy proceedings, all of this crap you are complaining about, would have been taken care of in court.   But leftards, like you, push for a buyout paid for by government, and now you are b!tching about it?
> 
> And what does this have to do with sub-prime loans?  Nothing.  What does this have to do with the cause of the price bubble?  Nothing.   What does this have to do with capitalism or inequality?  Nothing.
> 
> What does this have to do with anything?
> 
> And worse, we've been over this already.  You don't even remember, this is like that 3rd time we've covered this topic in this thread.  You are like a broken record of bad arguments, repeated over and over, never realizing your own failure.
> 
> You want to talk about this, fine.
> 
> EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT GOVERNMENT GIVES OUT BUSINESS OR MONEY, PEOPLE WILL TRY TO INFLUENCE WHERE THAT MONEY GOES.
> 
> This is true in any social economic system.   When government announces it plans to increase 'green-energy spending', thousands of companies start spending money to influence where that money goes, so they can get some.
> 
> The Freedom Car, is a perfect example.  Dozens of company vying for a handout.
> 
> And you have failed to mention the most obvious examples, Fannie and Freddie both spent MILLIONS to influence government on their behalf.
> 
> The same is true in Pre-78 china and Soviet Russia.  Government corporations spent money all the time to get influence for preferable treatment by the Kremlin and the Central Politburo of China.
> 
> So here you have Countrywide, who had deep ties with Fannie Mae, got special treatment, and you are shocked and surprised that Countrywide greased the hands that fed them?
> 
> Really?   This is a surprise to whom?   Leftards too dumb to know how socialism works?
> 
> The rest of us on the right, know this is how socialism always works.  Government hands out goodies through Fannie and Freddie, and people will reciprocate.    It's normal.  Happens everywhere in the world.
> 
> You want to stop that, no amount of fines or trials, or legislation is going to do anything.    The only way to stop it, is to eliminate government involvement in mortgages.    Cut Fannie and Freddie off.  Break them up, and never bailout them, or anyone else, again.
> 
> When companies realize there is no money to be had from government, they'll stop wasting their money on lobbying.  End socialism.  That's the solution.
Click to expand...

When you say "eliminate government involvement in mortgages" are you including the Federal Reserve? Why or why not?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> "Bank of America Corp.s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting..."
> 
> "The dispute goes back to 2011, when Bank of America BAC  agreed to pay $8.5 billion to investors who said they were ripped off by mortgage securities the bank sold them in the run-up to the financial crisis.
> 
> "Bank of New York Mellon, BK  acting as a trustee for the investors, agreed to the deal. But other investors, led by AIG, stepped in and said it wasnt good enough. Nine weeks of court hearings, stretching from June to November last year, followed.
> 
> "Last month it appeared that the dispute was over, most of it anyway, when Justice Kapnick approved most of the deal. But then she got promoted, Justice Scarpulla took over the case, and AIG asked for another chance to air its grievances."
> 
> Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch



I wonder if you will ever tell us how all of that crap relates to:
1.The RRE collapse
2.The CRE collapse
3. Criminality


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Bank of America Corp.s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting..."
> 
> "The dispute goes back to 2011, when Bank of America BAC  agreed to pay $8.5 billion to investors who said they were ripped off by mortgage securities the bank sold them in the run-up to the financial crisis.
> 
> "Bank of New York Mellon, BK  acting as a trustee for the investors, agreed to the deal. But other investors, led by AIG, stepped in and said it wasnt good enough. Nine weeks of court hearings, stretching from June to November last year, followed.
> 
> "Last month it appeared that the dispute was over, most of it anyway, when Justice Kapnick approved most of the deal. But then she got promoted, Justice Scarpulla took over the case, and AIG asked for another chance to air its grievances."
> 
> Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said.   Didn't have anything to do with the topic.   Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.
> 
> You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point.   You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with.   The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.
> 
> You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?*
> 
> "Bank of America Corp.s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.
> 
> Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch
> 
> *Learn to read.*
Click to expand...

Still no tie in to my comments. There was no criminal trial, conviction and sentence.

Why don't you ever address the issues instead of going off on unrelated tangents.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?*
> 
> "Bank of America Corp.s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.
> 
> Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch
> 
> *Learn to read.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.
> 
> I'm talking about the entire focus of the discussion.     We've come full circle back to BoA, and Countrywide.
> 
> Did you miss the fact that government pushed BoA to buy Countrywide?
> 
> If Countrywide had gone through normal bankruptcy proceedings, all of this crap you are complaining about, would have been taken care of in court.   But leftards, like you, push for a buyout paid for by government, and now you are b!tching about it?
> 
> And what does this have to do with sub-prime loans?  Nothing.  What does this have to do with the cause of the price bubble?  Nothing.   What does this have to do with capitalism or inequality?  Nothing.
> 
> What does this have to do with anything?
> 
> And worse, we've been over this already.  You don't even remember, this is like that 3rd time we've covered this topic in this thread.  You are like a broken record of bad arguments, repeated over and over, never realizing your own failure.
> 
> You want to talk about this, fine.
> 
> EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT GOVERNMENT GIVES OUT BUSINESS OR MONEY, PEOPLE WILL TRY TO INFLUENCE WHERE THAT MONEY GOES.
> 
> This is true in any social economic system.   When government announces it plans to increase 'green-energy spending', thousands of companies start spending money to influence where that money goes, so they can get some.
> 
> The Freedom Car, is a perfect example.  Dozens of company vying for a handout.
> 
> And you have failed to mention the most obvious examples, Fannie and Freddie both spent MILLIONS to influence government on their behalf.
> 
> The same is true in Pre-78 china and Soviet Russia.  Government corporations spent money all the time to get influence for preferable treatment by the Kremlin and the Central Politburo of China.
> 
> So here you have Countrywide, who had deep ties with Fannie Mae, got special treatment, and you are shocked and surprised that Countrywide greased the hands that fed them?
> 
> Really?   This is a surprise to whom?   Leftards too dumb to know how socialism works?
> 
> The rest of us on the right, know this is how socialism always works.  Government hands out goodies through Fannie and Freddie, and people will reciprocate.    It's normal.  Happens everywhere in the world.
> 
> You want to stop that, no amount of fines or trials, or legislation is going to do anything.    The only way to stop it, is to eliminate government involvement in mortgages.    Cut Fannie and Freddie off.  Break them up, and never bailout them, or anyone else, again.
> 
> When companies realize there is no money to be had from government, they'll stop wasting their money on lobbying.  End socialism.  That's the solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you say "eliminate government involvement in mortgages" are you including the Federal Reserve? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

The government will always have to be involved or the number of people who buy houses will be limited only to those who have sterling credit records and sufficient income to justify a mortgage loan company to take the risk. It would completely eliminate any vestiges of CRA and the FHA and VA loan guarantees would not exist. Interest rates will fluctuate according to the profitability of the loan companies, and the 99%rs will be almost cut off from owning homes. 

The government causes housing balloons and crashes, but the government also gives more people the opportunity to buy homes.

What the government needs to do, is step back and stop delaying recession recoveries with their Keynesian failures. The reason Keynesian economics delays recovery is very simple; all of the money the government throws at the economy, even if they throw it the right direction for the conditions of the moment, the money ALWAYS COMES FROM THE ECONOMY either from Taxes or Borrowing. If there was no overhead in the process it may turn out to be  neutral, but the fact is, THERE ARE ALWAYS OVERHEAD EXPENSES IN ACQUIRING MONEY to throw at the economy, minus the overhead.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> What the government needs to do, is step back and stop delaying recession recoveries with their Keynesian failures. The reason Keynesian economics delays recovery is very simple; all of the money the government throws at the economy, even if they throw it the right direction for the conditions of the moment, the money ALWAYS COMES FROM THE ECONOMY either from Taxes or Borrowing. If there was no overhead in the process it may turn out to be  neutral, but the fact is, THERE ARE ALWAYS OVERHEAD EXPENSES IN ACQUIRING MONEY to throw at the economy, minus the overhead.



The government is not a business.  The government is incapable, by definition, of making a profit.  The government can only affect the money supply, instead of the concept of "_making a profit_".

If the government increases taxes such that it can create a new service which employs some otherwise unemployed people, your argument is that this is a net loss because some money collected by the government disappears into "overhead".

Where you suppose this "overhead" money goes, if not back into the national economy?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said.   Didn't have anything to do with the topic.   Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.
> 
> You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point.   You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with.   The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.
> 
> You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?*
> 
> 
> *Learn to read.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.
Click to expand...

_Again, Androw, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.​_


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said.   Didn't have anything to do with the topic.   Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.
> 
> You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point.   You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with.   The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.
> 
> You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?*
> 
> "Bank of America Corp.s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.
> 
> Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch
> 
> *Learn to read.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no tie in to my comments. There was no criminal trial, conviction and sentence.
> 
> Why don't you ever address the issues instead of going off on unrelated tangents.
Click to expand...

*There's nothing unrelated about my response to your question of "where was the trial?" Here's where the trial was held:*

"NEW YORK, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Bank of America Corp was found liable for fraud on Wednesday over defective mortgages sold by its Countrywide unit, a major win for the U.S. government in one of the few trials stemming from the financial crisis.

"After a four-week trial, a federal jury in New York found the bank liable on one civil fraud charge. Countrywide originated shoddy home loans in a process called 'Hustle' and sold them to government mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government said.

"The four men and six women on the jury also found former Countrywide executive Rebecca Mairone liable on the one fraud charge she faced.

"The U.S. Justice Department has said it would seek up to $848.2 million, the gross loss it said Fannie and Freddie suffered on the loans. But it will be up to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff to decide on the penalty. Arguments on how the judge will assess penalties are set for Dec. 5.

"Any penalty would add to the more than $40 billion Bank of America has spent on disputes stemming from the 2008 financial crisis."

Bank Of America Liable For Fraud In Countrywide Mortgage Case: Jury

*I wonder if you'll bitch about civil as opposed criminal conviction
Sure you will.
Bitch.*


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?*
> 
> "Bank of America Corp.s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.
> 
> Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch
> 
> *Learn to read.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.
> 
> I'm talking about the entire focus of the discussion.     We've come full circle back to BoA, and Countrywide.
> 
> Did you miss the fact that government pushed BoA to buy Countrywide?
> 
> If Countrywide had gone through normal bankruptcy proceedings, all of this crap you are complaining about, would have been taken care of in court.   But leftards, like you, push for a buyout paid for by government, and now you are b!tching about it?
> 
> And what does this have to do with sub-prime loans?  Nothing.  What does this have to do with the cause of the price bubble?  Nothing.   What does this have to do with capitalism or inequality?  Nothing.
> 
> What does this have to do with anything?
> 
> And worse, we've been over this already.  You don't even remember, this is like that 3rd time we've covered this topic in this thread.  You are like a broken record of bad arguments, repeated over and over, never realizing your own failure.
> 
> You want to talk about this, fine.
> 
> EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT GOVERNMENT GIVES OUT BUSINESS OR MONEY, PEOPLE WILL TRY TO INFLUENCE WHERE THAT MONEY GOES.
> 
> This is true in any social economic system.   When government announces it plans to increase 'green-energy spending', thousands of companies start spending money to influence where that money goes, so they can get some.
> 
> The Freedom Car, is a perfect example.  Dozens of company vying for a handout.
> 
> And you have failed to mention the most obvious examples, Fannie and Freddie both spent MILLIONS to influence government on their behalf.
> 
> The same is true in Pre-78 china and Soviet Russia.  Government corporations spent money all the time to get influence for preferable treatment by the Kremlin and the Central Politburo of China.
> 
> So here you have Countrywide, who had deep ties with Fannie Mae, got special treatment, and you are shocked and surprised that Countrywide greased the hands that fed them?
> 
> Really?   This is a surprise to whom?   Leftards too dumb to know how socialism works?
> 
> The rest of us on the right, know this is how socialism always works.  Government hands out goodies through Fannie and Freddie, and people will reciprocate.    It's normal.  Happens everywhere in the world.
> 
> You want to stop that, no amount of fines or trials, or legislation is going to do anything.    The only way to stop it, is to eliminate government involvement in mortgages.    Cut Fannie and Freddie off.  Break them up, and never bailout them, or anyone else, again.
> 
> When companies realize there is no money to be had from government, they'll stop wasting their money on lobbying.  End socialism.  That's the solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you say "eliminate government involvement in mortgages" are you including the Federal Reserve? Why or why not?
Click to expand...


The Federal Reserve is unfortunately unavoidable.   I'd much rather have a commodity backed currency, but that is simply not going to happen.

As long as we have a fiat currency, and there is no other practical option in today's economy, then we must have a Federal Reserve, or some other system.

Historically, the most free banking systems, are often the most stable.  But government, and socialists, like controlling the banks, and this is one form of control.   Spain is a perfect example, of government, and in this case literally socialists, love their control over banks for their own benefit, even to the destruction of their people and country.

That said, when I mean government out of mortgages, I means, exactly that.   Before 1932, if someone wanted to buy a home, they either saved up the money to buy the home, or they had to go to a private bank, to make a private loan, and the bank held that loan, or didn't make it.

People didn't borrow to buy homes.   Consequently homes were more reasonably priced, and people didn't get foreclosed on, or bankrupted.

Of course the politicians couldn't claim they were "sticking up for the little guy" like Fannie and Freddie allow them to today.   And of course, Fannie and Freddie didn't cause a country wide catastrophe, like they did in 2008, because they didn't exist before 1932.

Encouraging people to go into debt itself, is stupidity.  Debt is slavery. It might be slavery by voluntary contract, but once you sign, you are now a servant to the banks.

I'm not inherently against banks, because banks are offering what people want.  I'm against people wanting something stupid.   Debt, is stupid.   We should not be encouraging our citizens to be slaves to banks.  Fannie and Freddie should be completely eliminated.   The mortgage tax deduction, should be eliminated (along with all deductions).   We should encourage our citizens to act with fiscal responsibility, and bailout no one ever.   We should eliminate bankruptcy laws, that allow people out of their contractual debts, so that they don't get into contractual debts.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> .......





dnsmith35 said:


> What the government needs to do, is step back and stop delaying recession recoveries with their Keynesian failures. The reason Keynesian economics delays recovery is very simple; all of the money the government throws at the economy, even if they throw it the right direction for the conditions of the moment, the money ALWAYS COMES FROM THE ECONOMY either from Taxes or Borrowing. If there was no overhead in the process it may turn out to be  neutral, but the fact is, THERE ARE ALWAYS OVERHEAD EXPENSES IN ACQUIRING MONEY to throw at the economy, minus the overhead.





> Zombie: The government is not a business.


Of course its not. What gave you that silly thought?





> The government is incapable, by definition, of making a profit.


 Correct! But it can spend money and all of the wealth it PUTS IN THE ECONOMY in an attempt to stimulate it COMES OUT OF THE ECONOMY AND THERE IS OVERHEAD IN THE PROCESS.





> The government can only affect the money supply, instead of the concept of "_making a profit_".


Yes, it two primary ways, fiscal and monetary policy. IE printing money which tends to cause inflation and lower interest rates artificially which also tends to cause inflation. That is exactly what happened in the Housing Balloon and subsequent crash.





> If the government increases taxes such that it can create a new service which employs some otherwise unemployed people, your argument is that this is a net loss because some money collected by the government disappears into "overhead".


Yep!

Where you suppose this "overhead" money goes, if not back into the national economy?[/QUOTE]Wow! You don't realize that the government spends money off shore? Gives away money off shore in foreign aid? Where do you think that money comes from? Under the mattress? It comes out of our economy and is never replaced.

Going back to JFK's attempt at supply side economic theory of giving money to investors and corporations in the form of a 21% reduction to the marginal rate of the highest bracket while giving the lower bracket only 6% rate cuts, and on top of that he cut corporate income taxes hoping to help an economic recovery, which would have ended without his meddling. I was all for it at the time, but have since gotten a lot of economics education through a Masters degree. What could he have done to help more? Spent money directly on infrastructure programs starting immediately. As it was the rich got richer.

Keynesian economics sounds great, especially to the masses who may actually believe its going to help them But instead of giving money to people to spend, it stimulates job growth directly much more if you contract for big infrastructure jobs. TVA and Boulder/Hoover Dam come to mind.

As a liberal, I want the people to get the most benefit from our tax and borrowed dollars they possibly can get.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?*
> 
> 
> *Learn to read.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Again, Androw, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.
> 
> You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with.​_
Click to expand...

_ROTFLMAO! Do you read the ignorant crap you post?






			The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.
		
Click to expand...

Speaking of being too ignorant to debate, go look in the mirror and do some formatting.



			You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.
		
Click to expand...

_Yep, Zombie, you sure do.  The point was simple. I asked George a question. He didn't answer it, and chose to go off on a tangent. Then he chided Androw for not accepting his tangent, and you fell right into the dumbass pit right after George.


----------



## Chris

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, so 23% of total income goes to the top 1%. 

70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> *Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?*


I have noticeD you have not produced a criminal trial. :LOL:





> "Bank of America Corp.&#8217;s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.
> 
> Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch
> 
> *Learn to read.*


Still no tie in to my comments. There was no criminal trial, conviction and sentence.

Why don't you ever address the issues instead of going off on unrelated tangents.





> *There's nothing unrelated about my response to your question of "where was the trial?" Here's where the trial was held:*
> 
> "NEW YORK, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Bank of America Corp was found liable for fraud on Wednesday over defective mortgages sold by its Countrywide unit, a major win for the U.S. government in one of the few trials stemming from the financial crisis.
> 
> "After a four-week trial, a federal jury in New York found the bank liable on one *civil fraud *charge. Countrywide originated shoddy home loans in a process called 'Hustle' and sold them to government mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government said.


With government blessing!





> "The four men and six women on the jury also found former Countrywide executive Rebecca Mairone liable on the one fraud charge she faced.


Wowee! One lady! She was absolutely responsible for the housing crash Wake up and smell the coffee, Freddie and Fannie competed hard to buy those loans, they lost, and now they want someone else to pay.





> "The U.S. Justice Department has said it would seek up to $848.2 million, the gross loss it said Fannie and Freddie suffered on the loans. But it will be up to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff to decide on the penalty. Arguments on how the judge will assess penalties are set for Dec. 5.
> 
> "Any penalty would add to the more than $40 billion Bank of America has spent on disputes stemming from the 2008 financial crisis."
> 
> Bank Of America Liable For Fraud In Countrywide Mortgage Case: Jury
> 
> *I wonder if you'll bitch about civil as opposed criminal conviction
> Sure you will.
> Bitch.*


If you are not guilty in a criminal trial, IT IS NOT CRIMINAL FRAUD. One banking system chose to settle out of court and another banking system chose to object for what ever their reasons were and sued. Civil arguments are not crimes, and obviously you are not smart enough to figure that out. In fact you aren't smart enough to figure most everything out. 

When are you going to address the Wachter and Levitin bull crap you threw out the other day?


----------



## Andylusion

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no tie in to my comments. There was no criminal trial, conviction and sentence.
> 
> Why don't you ever address the issues instead of going off on unrelated tangents.With government blessing!Wowee! One lady! She was absolutely responsible for the housing crash Wake up and smell the coffee, Freddie and Fannie competed hard to buy those loans, they lost, and now they want someone else to pay.If you are not guilty in a criminal trial, IT IS NOT CRIMINAL FRAUD. One banking system chose to settle out of court and another banking system chose to object for what ever their reasons were and sued. Civil arguments are not crimes, and obviously you are not smart enough to figure that out. In fact you aren't smart enough to figure most everything out.
> 
> When are you going to address the Wachter and Levitin bull crap you threw out the other day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like arguing with a brick wall isn't it.  Oh wait, bricks give more intelligent responses.  Close though.... ever so close...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, so 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.
> 
> 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand.
> 
> Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.


Yet most of the left wingers on these forums blame Reagan, but IT WAS JFK that did the first big tax decrease on the highest marginal bracket, by 21% and he reduced corporate taxes as well while only reducing taxes on the lowest bracket by 6%.

When you say there is too much money in the hands of a few, do you think if that money was redistributed to the 2 or 3 lower quintiles they would invest that money to create jobs? You are totally economics challenged.


----------



## Chris

dnsmith35 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, so 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.
> 
> 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand.
> 
> Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet most of the left wingers on these forums blame Reagan, but IT WAS JFK that did the first big tax decrease on the highest marginal bracket, by 21% and he reduced corporate taxes as well while only reducing taxes on the lowest bracket by 6%.
> 
> When you say there is too much money in the hands of a few, do you think if that money was redistributed to the 2 or 3 lower quintiles they would invest that money to create jobs? You are totally economics challenged.
Click to expand...


A nice argument for slavery.

Good job.


----------



## Andylusion

Chris said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, so 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.
> 
> 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand.
> 
> Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet most of the left wingers on these forums blame Reagan, but IT WAS JFK that did the first big tax decrease on the highest marginal bracket, by 21% and he reduced corporate taxes as well while only reducing taxes on the lowest bracket by 6%.
> 
> When you say there is too much money in the hands of a few, do you think if that money was redistributed to the 2 or 3 lower quintiles they would invest that money to create jobs? You are totally economics challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nice argument for slavery.
> 
> Good job.
Click to expand...


Nice, non-argument.   Good job.

The moment some idiot brings up slavery, he's lost the argument.


----------



## Chris

Androw said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet most of the left wingers on these forums blame Reagan, but IT WAS JFK that did the first big tax decrease on the highest marginal bracket, by 21% and he reduced corporate taxes as well while only reducing taxes on the lowest bracket by 6%.
> 
> When you say there is too much money in the hands of a few, do you think if that money was redistributed to the 2 or 3 lower quintiles they would invest that money to create jobs? You are totally economics challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A nice argument for slavery.
> 
> Good job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice, non-argument.   Good job.
> 
> The moment some idiot brings up slavery, he's lost the argument.
Click to expand...


You are arguing that paying people at the bottom does nothing to create jobs.

Apology accepted, Captain Needa.


----------



## Chris

The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government can only affect the money supply, instead of the concept of "_making a profit_".
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it two primary ways, fiscal and monetary policy. IE printing money which tends to cause inflation and lower interest rates artificially which also tends to cause inflation. That is exactly what happened in the Housing Balloon and subsequent crash.
Click to expand...

Increasing the money supply will most likely increase prices, that's basic monetary theory, equation of exchange
MV=PQ


dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the government increases taxes such that it can create a new service which employs some otherwise unemployed people, your argument is that this is a net loss because some money collected by the government disappears into "overhead".
> 
> 
> 
> Yep!
Click to expand...

Agreed as to what your claim is.



dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where you suppose this "overhead" money goes, if not back into the national economy?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! You don't realize that the government spends money off shore? Gives away money off shore in foreign aid? Where do you think that money comes from? Under the mattress? It comes out of our economy and is never replaced.
Click to expand...


That's not "overhead", that's foreign aid.  Overhead is a government clerk pegging away at a calculator and filing forms, as opposed to the paychecks received by the hypothetical workers who were the intended beneficiaries of the hypothetical government program.  Overhead is what I need to tack on to billing in order to account for my electric bill, licenses, keeping my lawyer on retainer, etc.  

Is it your contention that Keynes was wrong because of foreign aid?
If you want to give me a lecture on stagflation that's one thing; but let's leave the starving kids in poor countries out of this.



dnsmith35 said:


> Going back to JFK's attempt at supply side economic theory of giving money to investors and corporations in the form of a 21% reduction to the marginal rate of the highest bracket while giving the lower bracket only 6% rate cuts, and on top of that he cut corporate income taxes hoping to help an economic recovery, which would have ended without his meddling. I was all for it at the time, but have since gotten a lot of economics education through a Masters degree. What could he have done to help more? Spent money directly on infrastructure programs starting immediately. As it was the rich got richer.
> Keynesian economics sounds great, especially to the masses who may actually believe its going to help them But instead of giving money to people to spend, it stimulates job growth directly much more if you contract for big infrastructure jobs. TVA and Boulder/Hoover Dam come to mind.


You're talking about Kennedy's Tax Cuts.  You would prefer infrastructure programs.
Okay... How is that not Keynesian economics?
Was it not Keynes who said:
_It is also obvious from the above that the employment of a given number of men on public works will (on the assumptions made) have a much larger effect on aggregate employment at a time when there is severe unemployment, than it will have later on when full employment is approached. In the above example, if, at a time when employment has fallen to 5,200,000, an additional 100,000 men are employed on public works, total employment will rise to 6,400,000. But if employment is already 9,000,000 when the additional 100,000 men are taken on for public works, total employment will only rise to 9,200,000. Thus public works even of doubtful utility may pay for themselves over and over again at a time of severe unemployment, if only from the diminished cost of relief expenditure, provided that we can assume that a smaller proportion of income is saved when unemployment is greater; but they may become a more doubtful proposition as a state of full employment is approached.
_​


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said.   Didn't have anything to do with the topic.   Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.
> 
> You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point.   You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with.   The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.
> 
> You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Learn to read.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Again, Androw, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.
> 
> You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.
> 
> You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.​_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rotflmao! Do you read the ignorant crap you post?
> speaking of being too ignorant to debate, go look in the mirror and do some formatting.
> yep, zombie, you sure do.  The point was simple. I asked george a question. He didn't answer it, and chose to go off on a tangent. Then he chided androw for not accepting his tangent, and you fell right into the dumbass pit right after george.
Click to expand...

Those were Androw's exact words, hence in italics, fed back to him for saying something stupid.  You obviously missed that, and then went on to crow over something stupid.  

Good Job!  When does your puppet show commence?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet most of the left wingers on these forums blame Reagan, but IT WAS JFK that did the first big tax decrease on the highest marginal bracket, by 21% and he reduced corporate taxes as well while only reducing taxes on the lowest bracket by 6%.
> 
> When you say there is too much money in the hands of a few, do you think if that money was redistributed to the 2 or 3 lower quintiles they would invest that money to create jobs? You are totally economics challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A nice argument for slavery.
> 
> Good job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice, non-argument.   Good job.
> 
> The moment some idiot brings up slavery, he's lost the argument.
Click to expand...


The moment some idiot claims the other guy lost the argument on the grounds of rules he just made up, he admits he didn't know what the argument was in the first place.


----------



## Chris

dnsmith35 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize gov't social engineering often fails but in this case we, as a nation, tried to include our least capable in the American dream. It was a noble idea that, other than a few exceptions, failed miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your harping on an incorrect cause of the recession proves your ignorance of the entire subject.
Click to expand...


How did 4% of American homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of Iceland?


----------



## Andylusion

Chris said:


> The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).



Um.... fail?    Bloomberg is wrong.    Go look it up.   Denmark has no minimum wage at all.

Denmark does have unions.   The average wage for Unions is $20/hr.   That's not too far off from the US actually.

Those that are not members of the union, have no minimum wage.

And even those that are in the Unions, $20/hr is the AVERAGE.  Not the minimum.   That's the average.   Meaning some are higher, for jobs that have a higher value, and others are lower, for jobs with lower value.

So, no, sorry.  Wrong.


----------



## Andylusion

Chris said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> 
> 
> Your harping on an incorrect cause of the recession proves your ignorance of the entire subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did 4% of American homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of Iceland?
Click to expand...


It didn't.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.... fail?    Bloomberg is wrong.    Go look it up.   Denmark has no minimum wage at all.
> 
> Denmark does have unions.   The average wage for Unions is $20/hr.   That's not too far off from the US actually.
> 
> Those that are not members of the union, have no minimum wage.
> 
> And even those that are in the Unions, $20/hr is the AVERAGE.  Not the minimum.   That's the average.   Meaning some are higher, for jobs that have a higher value, and others are lower, for jobs with lower value.
> 
> So, no, sorry.  Wrong.
Click to expand...

*As usual, a simplistic assessment of reality. The Danish minimum wage is effective in the sense it is negotiated with unions and is approximately equal to $20/hour in the US.

How does that effective minimum wage affect workers and consumers at McDonalds in Denmark?*

"The average full-time equivalent McDonalds employee in Denmark makes about $45,000 a year in total compensation. 

"Forty-five thousand dollars! 

"Even after high Danish taxes, that average worker will take home some $28,000 a year, roughly double what a full-time American McDonalds worker will. 

"To add insult to injury, the Dane gets at least five weeks of paid vacation while the American is lucky to get off (unpaid, of course) when her daughter is home sick with the flu.

"And so at the Aalborg McDonalds, for instance, a Big Mac extra value meal costs 58 kroner, or $10.25, while the Dollar Menu is the 10 kroner menu, which means its the dollar-seventy-seven menu here. 

"In Denmark, taxes are included in list prices, unlike in the US, so backing out the 25 percent VAT gives us $8.20 for a Big Mac meal and $1.41 for the 'dollar' menu. 

"That compares to $6 and $1 in Seattle.

"According to Bloomberg Views Caroline Baum, such a high minimum wage should mean that scads of Danes cant find work because it 'violates the most basic principle of economics': the law of supply and demand.

"Of course, Baum is empirically wrong. 

"Denmarks unemployment rate is 6.8 percent, despite its close ties to the depressed eurozone. Thats well below the 7.4 percent rate in the US, where the minimum wage is $7.25.

The minimum wage and the Danish Big Mac : Columbia Journalism Review


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.
> 
> I'm talking about the entire focus of the discussion.     We've come full circle back to BoA, and Countrywide.
> 
> Did you miss the fact that government pushed BoA to buy Countrywide?
> 
> If Countrywide had gone through normal bankruptcy proceedings, all of this crap you are complaining about, would have been taken care of in court.   But leftards, like you, push for a buyout paid for by government, and now you are b!tching about it?
> 
> And what does this have to do with sub-prime loans?  Nothing.  What does this have to do with the cause of the price bubble?  Nothing.   What does this have to do with capitalism or inequality?  Nothing.
> 
> What does this have to do with anything?
> 
> And worse, we've been over this already.  You don't even remember, this is like that 3rd time we've covered this topic in this thread.  You are like a broken record of bad arguments, repeated over and over, never realizing your own failure.
> 
> You want to talk about this, fine.
> 
> EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT GOVERNMENT GIVES OUT BUSINESS OR MONEY, PEOPLE WILL TRY TO INFLUENCE WHERE THAT MONEY GOES.
> 
> This is true in any social economic system.   When government announces it plans to increase 'green-energy spending', thousands of companies start spending money to influence where that money goes, so they can get some.
> 
> The Freedom Car, is a perfect example.  Dozens of company vying for a handout.
> 
> And you have failed to mention the most obvious examples, Fannie and Freddie both spent MILLIONS to influence government on their behalf.
> 
> The same is true in Pre-78 china and Soviet Russia.  Government corporations spent money all the time to get influence for preferable treatment by the Kremlin and the Central Politburo of China.
> 
> So here you have Countrywide, who had deep ties with Fannie Mae, got special treatment, and you are shocked and surprised that Countrywide greased the hands that fed them?
> 
> Really?   This is a surprise to whom?   Leftards too dumb to know how socialism works?
> 
> The rest of us on the right, know this is how socialism always works.  Government hands out goodies through Fannie and Freddie, and people will reciprocate.    It's normal.  Happens everywhere in the world.
> 
> You want to stop that, no amount of fines or trials, or legislation is going to do anything.    The only way to stop it, is to eliminate government involvement in mortgages.    Cut Fannie and Freddie off.  Break them up, and never bailout them, or anyone else, again.
> 
> When companies realize there is no money to be had from government, they'll stop wasting their money on lobbying.  End socialism.  That's the solution.
> 
> 
> 
> When you say "eliminate government involvement in mortgages" are you including the Federal Reserve? Why or why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federal Reserve is unfortunately unavoidable.   I'd much rather have a commodity backed currency, but that is simply not going to happen.
> 
> As long as we have a fiat currency, and there is no other practical option in today's economy, then we must have a Federal Reserve, or some other system.
> 
> Historically, the most free banking systems, are often the most stable.  But government, and socialists, like controlling the banks, and this is one form of control.   Spain is a perfect example, of government, and in this case literally socialists, love their control over banks for their own benefit, even to the destruction of their people and country.
> 
> That said, when I mean government out of mortgages, I means, exactly that.   Before 1932, if someone wanted to buy a home, they either saved up the money to buy the home, or they had to go to a private bank, to make a private loan, and the bank held that loan, or didn't make it.
> 
> People didn't borrow to buy homes.   Consequently homes were more reasonably priced, and people didn't get foreclosed on, or bankrupted.
> 
> Of course the politicians couldn't claim they were "sticking up for the little guy" like Fannie and Freddie allow them to today.   And of course, Fannie and Freddie didn't cause a country wide catastrophe, like they did in 2008, because they didn't exist before 1932.
> 
> Encouraging people to go into debt itself, is stupidity.  Debt is slavery. It might be slavery by voluntary contract, but once you sign, you are now a servant to the banks.
> 
> I'm not inherently against banks, because banks are offering what people want.  I'm against people wanting something stupid.   Debt, is stupid.   We should not be encouraging our citizens to be slaves to banks.  Fannie and Freddie should be completely eliminated.   The mortgage tax deduction, should be eliminated (along with all deductions).   We should encourage our citizens to act with fiscal responsibility, and bailout no one ever.   We should eliminate bankruptcy laws, that allow people out of their contractual debts, so that they don't get into contractual debts.
Click to expand...

*When you claimed governments and socialists like to control banks, did you mean to imply that capitalists do not or that the Rothschild brothers were socialists?*

"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, *the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system*, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests. The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863."

*I'm not clear on what advantage central banking bestows upon capital, are you?*

Famous Quotations on Banking


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?*
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticeD you have not produced a criminal trial. :LOL:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Bank of America Corp.s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.
> 
> Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch
> 
> *Learn to read.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no tie in to my comments. There was no criminal trial, conviction and sentence.
> 
> Why don't you ever address the issues instead of going off on unrelated tangents.With government blessing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The four men and six women on the jury also found former Countrywide executive Rebecca Mairone liable on the one fraud charge she faced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wowee! One lady! She was absolutely responsible for the housing crash Wake up and smell the coffee, Freddie and Fannie competed hard to buy those loans, they lost, and now they want someone else to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The U.S. Justice Department has said it would seek up to $848.2 million, the gross loss it said Fannie and Freddie suffered on the loans. But it will be up to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff to decide on the penalty. Arguments on how the judge will assess penalties are set for Dec. 5.
> 
> "Any penalty would add to the more than $40 billion Bank of America has spent on disputes stemming from the 2008 financial crisis."
> 
> Bank Of America Liable For Fraud In Countrywide Mortgage Case: Jury
> 
> *I wonder if you'll bitch about civil as opposed criminal conviction
> Sure you will.
> Bitch.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are not guilty in a criminal trial, IT IS NOT CRIMINAL FRAUD. One banking system chose to settle out of court and another banking system chose to object for what ever their reasons were and sued. Civil arguments are not crimes, and obviously you are not smart enough to figure that out. In fact you aren't smart enough to figure most everything out.
> 
> When are you going to address the Wachter and Levitin bull crap you threw out the other day?
Click to expand...

*When you get around to explaining why the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission used a variant of the word "fraud" 157 times to explain the origin of the crisis.*

"As the commission found, the signs of fraud were everywhere to be seen, with the number of reports of suspected mortgage fraud rising twenty-fold between 1996 and 2005 and then doubling again in the next four years. As early as 2004, FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker was publicly warning of the 'pervasive problem' of mortgage fraud, driven by the voracious demand for mortgage-backed securities. 

"Similar warnings, many from within the financial community, were disregarded, not because they were viewed as inaccurate, but because, as one high-level banker put it, 'A decision was made that "Were going to have to hold our nose and start buying the stated product if we want to stay in business.

*The reason there have been no convictions for criminal fraud in this latest looting is exactly the same as the reason why the looting occurred in the first place. Rich parasites funding the election campaigns and retirements of legislators and regulators who were empowered to prevent the epidemic of fraud.*

The Financial Crisis: Why Have No High-Level Executives Been Prosecuted? by Jed S. Rakoff | The New York Review of Books


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, so 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.
> 
> 70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand.
> 
> Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet most of the left wingers on these forums blame Reagan, *but IT WAS JFK that did the first big tax decrease on the highest marginal bracket, by 21% and he reduced corporate taxes as well while only reducing taxes on the lowest bracket by 6%. Major Supply Side economic move. I'll bet you call it trickle down.*
> When you say there is too much money in the hands of a few, do you think if that money was redistributed to the 2 or 3 lower quintiles they would invest that money to create jobs? You are totally economics challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A nice argument for slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree! Your left wing intentions have made 2 whole generations slaves to excessive welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always do a good job. Sorry about your inability.
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nice argument for slavery.
> 
> Good job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, non-argument.   Good job.
> 
> The moment some idiot brings up slavery, he's lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that paying people at the bottom does nothing to create jobs.
> 
> Apology accepted, Captain Needa.
Click to expand...

If in fact that had been the premise to which you responded you may have had a point. But the post to which you responded did not say that at all. I said, "THE BOTTOM 2 OR 3 QUINTILES DON'T CREATE JOBS," dumb ass.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government can only affect the money supply, instead of the concept of "_making a profit_".
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it two primary ways, fiscal and monetary policy. IE printing money which tends to cause inflation and lower interest rates artificially which also tends to cause inflation. That is exactly what happened in the Housing Balloon and subsequent crash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Increasing the money supply will most likely increase prices, that's basic monetary theory, equation of exchange
> MV=PQ
> 
> Agreed as to what your claim is.
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! You don't realize that the government spends money off shore? Gives away money off shore in foreign aid? Where do you think that money comes from? Under the mattress? It comes out of our economy and is never replaced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie - That's not "overhead", that's foreign aid.  Overhead is a government clerk pegging away at a calculator and filing forms, as opposed to the paychecks received by the hypothetical workers who were the intended beneficiaries of the hypothetical government program.  Overhead is what I need to tack on to billing in order to account for my electric bill, licenses, keeping my lawyer on retainer, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can call it what you wish, but overhead in the description you give DOES GO BACK INTO THE ECONOMY. Foreign aid and expenditures over seas does not. It is lost to the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your contention that Keynes was wrong because of foreign aid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope! That is not what I said dumbass. Learn to read. I said Keynesian attempts to stimulate the economy tend to drag out the recovery rather than bring it to an end because all the money used to stimulate the economy came out of the economy minus what you don't want to call overhead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to give me a lecture on stagflation that's one thing; but let's leave the starving kids in poor countries out of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stagflation? Like Jimmy Carter caused? I am not talking about that. And the starving kids in poor countries need help before our "relatively poor" in this country does. You sure are a greedy ass.
> 
> Going back to JFK's attempt at supply side economic theory of giving money to investors and corporations in the form of a 21% reduction to the marginal rate of the highest bracket while giving the lower bracket only 6% rate cuts, and on top of that he cut corporate income taxes hoping to help an economic recovery, which would have ended without his meddling. I was all for it at the time, but have since gotten a lot of economics education through a Masters degree. What could he have done to help more? Spent money directly on infrastructure programs starting immediately. As it was the rich got richer.
> 
> Keynesian economics sounds great, especially to the masses who may actually believe its going to help them But instead of giving money to people to spend, spending on infrastructure  it stimulates job growth directly much more if you contract for big infrastructure jobs. TVA and Boulder/Hoover Dam come to mind.
Click to expand...

You're talking about Kennedy's Tax Cuts.  You would prefer infrastructure programs.





> Okay... How is that not Keynesian economics?
> Was it not Keynes who said:
> _It is also obvious from the above that the employment of a given number of men on public works will (on the assumptions made) have a much larger effect on aggregate employment at a time when there is severe unemployment, than it will have later on when full employment is approached. In the above example, if, at a time when employment has fallen to 5,200,000, an additional 100,000 men are employed on public works, total employment will rise to 6,400,000. But if employment is already 9,000,000 when the additional 100,000 men are taken on for public works, total employment will only rise to 9,200,000. Thus public works even of doubtful utility may pay for themselves over and over again at a time of severe unemployment, if only from the diminished cost of relief expenditure, provided that we can assume that a smaller proportion of income is saved when unemployment is greater; but they may become a more doubtful proposition as a state of full employment is approached.
> _​


If Keynes actually said that he was more stupid than I previously thought he was. A proper approach to contracting infrastructure using all of the dollars you idiots what to throw at the less wealth will create as much spending with multiplier effect as giving the money, further habituating the poor as a class, and would give that same number of people jobs. Simple math, which apparently challenges your thinking as much as economics.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Again, Androw, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.
> 
> You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.
> 
> You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.​_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rotflmao! Do you read the ignorant crap you post?
> speaking of being too ignorant to debate, go look in the mirror and do some formatting.
> yep, zombie, you sure do.  The point was simple. I asked george a question. He didn't answer it, and chose to go off on a tangent. Then he chided androw for not accepting his tangent, and you fell right into the dumbass pit right after george.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were Androw's exact words, hence in italics, fed back to him for saying something stupid.  You obviously missed that, and then went on to crow over something stupid.
> 
> Good Job!  When does your puppet show commence?
Click to expand...

I miss nothing you say, but I note your are as stupid as a fence post, and you seem to be proud of it.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nice argument for slavery.
> 
> Good job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, non-argument.   Good job.
> 
> The moment some idiot brings up slavery, he's lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The moment some idiot claims the other guy lost the argument on the grounds of rules he just made up, he admits he didn't know what the argument was in the first place.
Click to expand...

You lose again dumb ass. It has been established since before you can't onto the forum, that suggesting any modern US issue resembles slavery is posted only by idiots and that is an automatic loss of the argument. You want to join the dumber dumb ass club with you and Chris as members.


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
> It wasn't the housing market.
> 
> 
> 
> Your harping on an incorrect cause of the recession proves your ignorance of the entire subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did 4% of American homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of Iceland?
Click to expand...

Who the hell says it did? Not I. What may have brought down the economy of Iceland, and I have not seen any studies on the issue, would be the US Recession and economic slowdown the world over.

There was no Ponzi scheme, the government fiscal and monetary policy caused our  housing balloon and crash. That caused the recession.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?*
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticeD you have not produced a criminal trial. :LOL:Still no tie in to my comments. There was no criminal trial, conviction and sentence.
> 
> Why don't you ever address the issues instead of going off on unrelated tangents.With government blessing!Wowee! One lady! She was absolutely responsible for the housing crash Wake up and smell the coffee, Freddie and Fannie competed hard to buy those loans, they lost, and now they want someone else to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The U.S. Justice Department has said it would seek up to $848.2 million, the gross loss it said Fannie and Freddie suffered on the loans. But it will be up to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff to decide on the penalty. Arguments on how the judge will assess penalties are set for Dec. 5.
> 
> "Any penalty would add to the more than $40 billion Bank of America has spent on disputes stemming from the 2008 financial crisis."
> 
> Bank Of America Liable For Fraud In Countrywide Mortgage Case: Jury
> 
> *I wonder if you'll bitch about civil as opposed criminal conviction
> Sure you will.
> Bitch.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are not guilty in a criminal trial, IT IS NOT CRIMINAL FRAUD. One banking system chose to settle out of court and another banking system chose to object for what ever their reasons were and sued. Civil arguments are not crimes, and obviously you are not smart enough to figure that out. In fact you aren't smart enough to figure most everything out.
> 
> When are you going to address the Wachter and Levitin bull crap you threw out the other day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When you get around to explaining why the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission used a variant of the word "fraud" 157 times to explain the origin of the crisis.*
> 
> "As the commission found, the signs of fraud were everywhere to be seen, with the number of reports of suspected mortgage fraud rising twenty-fold between 1996 and 2005 and then doubling again in the next four years. As early as 2004, FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker was publicly warning of the 'pervasive problem' of mortgage fraud, driven by the voracious demand for mortgage-backed securities.
> 
> "Similar warnings, many from within the financial community, were disregarded, not because they were viewed as inaccurate, but because, as one high-level banker put it, 'A decision was made that "We&#8217;re going to have to hold our nose and start buying the stated product if we want to stay in business.&#8217;&#8221;
> 
> *The reason there have been no convictions for criminal fraud in this latest looting is exactly the same as the reason why the looting occurred in the first place. Rich parasites funding the election campaigns and retirements of legislators and regulators who were empowered to prevent the epidemic of fraud.*
> 
> The Financial Crisis: Why Have No High-Level Executives Been Prosecuted? by Jed S. Rakoff | The New York Review of Books
Click to expand...

Actually I don't have to EXPLAIN DIDLY CRAP. Until there is a criminal conviction, the number of times a variant of fraud is stated means nothing. Fraud is a crime. The people in that CIVIL COURT did not try anyone for a crime. Companies frequently settle out of court to save the risk of losing more money. Thus far you have failed to prove your case about fraud.

I have no doubt that across this vast nation there were individuals who did commit fraud in some transactions, either a loan officer or a consumer, but the mass fraud you keep harping on has not been proved. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, but you are stretching your excremental orifice out of shape.


----------



## georgephillip

"When it comes to income inequality, no other developed economy does it quite like the U.S.A. If you need some proof, here it is:"

The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

dnsmith35 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it not Keynes who said:
> _It is also obvious from the above that the employment of a given number of men on public works will (on the assumptions made) have a much larger effect on aggregate employment at a time when there is severe unemployment, than it will have later on when full employment is approached. In the above example, if, at a time when employment has fallen to 5,200,000, an additional 100,000 men are employed on public works, total employment will rise to 6,400,000. But if employment is already 9,000,000 when the additional 100,000 men are taken on for public works, total employment will only rise to 9,200,000. Thus public works even of doubtful utility may pay for themselves over and over again at a time of severe unemployment, if only from the diminished cost of relief expenditure, provided that we can assume that a smaller proportion of income is saved when unemployment is greater; but they may become a more doubtful proposition as a state of full employment is approached.
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> If Keynes actually said that he was more stupid than I previously thought he was. A proper approach to contracting infrastructure using all of the dollars you idiots what to throw at the less wealth will create as much spending with multiplier effect as giving the money, further habituating the poor as a class, and would give that same number of people jobs. Simple math, which apparently challenges your thinking as much as economics.
Click to expand...


Holy shit!  You have no idea what you're talking about!  I have never heard such idiotic drivel.  Not only are you too stupid to understand anything Keynes said; you have just contradicted everything you said prior to this post in this exchange.
Where did you do your supposed graduate studies in economics, _Glenn Beck University_?

So let's summarize:
1) You are both too stupid and lazy to go look things up in a google search.  That means you don't know how the internet works.
2) You oppose Keynesianism, primarily, because you don't really know what it is and cannot recognize anything written by Keynes.  See item #1
3) You oppose Keynesianism because Keynesianism "allocates money to foreign aid", which Keynesianism doesn't, and only goes to show you're a moron.  
4) You oppose Keynesianism because you don't understand the math Keynes presented in that passage and that means you don't understand how the Keynesian multiplier works.  This makes your claim to graduate work in economics rather dubious.


----------



## georgephillip

*Here's an 11 question exam on the basics of economic inequality in the US today.
There's a five minute time limit.
Average USMB score is around 4/11
My score was 0*


Income Inequality 101

*It opened my eyes to where I need to start in order to understand this subject*


----------



## dblack

Poverty and income inequality aren't the same thing.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> Poverty and income inequality aren't the same thing.


True, but what is their relationship?
Beyond a certain level, can we say income inequality becomes a necessary but not a sufficient condition for poverty?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> "When it comes to income inequality, no other developed economy does it quite like the U.S.A. If you need some proof, here it is:"
> 
> The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized


I don't question IF there is income equality. I don't agree with the left wing extremists as to WHY there is income inequality. As has been posted with links, the disparity is directly correlated to education, marital status, ambition and motivation, common human traits which are relevant to how much a person can earn. 

It is obvious that some have quit school, stopped having ambition and motivation because they had been oppressed to some degree. What is equally obvious is, even with oppression, many of the same "oppressed" people have made the choice to succeed in spite of that oppression. 

Also obvious is the fact that people who are referred to as "poor white" suffer from that problem as minorities.

Where does all of this start? In school, where the teacher and staff don't do enough to overcome the "failure syndrome" which is perpetrated in some groups of students. Teachers in particular cause many poor people to lose self esteem when they choose to castigate who do poorly on home work and class work instead of giving them the help they need. Most kids respond negatively to that castigation, and most kids who perform poorly can be helped if the schools give them the attention and positive help they need.

But you can take your Huffington article and stick it in with all the other* left wing and right wing biased sources *and blow them out of existence. 

Don't believe opinions of so called "experts," instead look for the studies, skip past the author's conclusions and work to understand the data without being told how to think.


----------



## dnsmith35

Zombie_Pundit said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it not Keynes who said:
> _It is also obvious from the above that the employment of a given number of men on public works will (on the assumptions made) have a much larger effect on aggregate employment at a time when there is severe unemployment, than it will have later on when full employment is approached. In the above example, if, at a time when employment has fallen to 5,200,000, an additional 100,000 men are employed on public works, total employment will rise to 6,400,000. But if employment is already 9,000,000 when the additional 100,000 men are taken on for public works, total employment will only rise to 9,200,000. Thus public works even of doubtful utility may pay for themselves over and over again at a time of severe unemployment, if only from the diminished cost of relief expenditure, provided that we can assume that a smaller proportion of income is saved when unemployment is greater; but they may become a more doubtful proposition as a state of full employment is approached.
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> If Keynes actually said that he was more stupid than I previously thought he was. A proper approach to contracting infrastructure using all of the dollars you idiots what to throw at the less wealth will create as much spending with multiplier effect as giving the money, further habituating the poor as a class, and would give that same number of people jobs. Simple math, which apparently challenges your thinking as much as economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie -
> 
> Holy shit!  You have no idea what you're talking about!  I have never heard such idiotic drivel.  Not only are you too stupid to understand anything Keynes said; you have just contradicted everything you said prior to this post in this exchange.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I did not. You are just too stupid to understand what I said. Where did you do your supposed graduate studies in economics, _Glenn Beck University_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USC!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's summarize:
> 1) You are both too stupid and lazy to go look things up in a google search.  That means you don't know how the internet works.
> 2) You oppose Keynesianism, primarily, because you don't really know what it is and cannot recognize anything written by Keynes.  See item #1
> 3) You oppose Keynesianism because Keynesianism "allocates money to foreign aid", which Keynesianism doesn't, and only goes to show you're a moron.
> 4) You oppose Keynesianism because you don't understand the math Keynes presented in that passage and that means you don't understand how the Keynesian multiplier works.  This makes your claim to graduate work in economics rather dubious.
Click to expand...


1. I have every bit as much capability to use Google as you and George combined.
2. I oppose that part of Keynesianism which simply gives people money, either directly or through tax cuts because it tends not to work in ending a low business cycle. That includes JFK's concept of Supply side economics and all other trickle down economic theory.
3. I have never said that Keynesianism allocates money to foreign aid. That is an outright lie on your part. I did say that, and I consider that, when money is taken out of the economy and spent in ways that do not put every penny back into the economy is effectively "overhead."
4. I understand Keynesian better than you will ever understand. I reject some parts of Keynesianism because it serves no valid purpose in ending a recession. Multipliers are easy enough even for a monkey intelligence like you to understand. The point being that when a dollar is spent, it goes through many hands in the process of aiding the economy.

What is equally obvious is your 3rd grade economics understanding is reflected in every ignorant attempt to discuss an economic subject.

What is obvious as well is, the $500 billion spent in an attempt to use Keynesian theory to jump start the economy in recent years failed miserably. The main reason is because the $$$$s went to the same people targeted in our traditional safety net programs target, thus limiting what the money could have done.

Contrary to the ignorance of some socialist paradigm economists, the fastest way put money to work in the economy is to have VALID SHOVEL READY infrastructure needs which creates jobs IMMEDIATELY without having to wait for the "safety net people" to spend their money and hope it is spent to someone who is in saving mode instead of spending mode. During a recession, those who have money or can get enough to get by on other than the "safety net" people thus we lose the multiplier effect which generally occurs when $$$$s are spent. That also applies to big business who chose to save their cash until the economy is rising. 

When you put millions to work in jobs building infrastructure (not the paltry few thousand Keynes suggested) that money goes into the economy with multiplier effect far in excess than GIVING IT TO OUR "SAFETY NET" PEOPLE.

What you have done, because you did understand what I really said, and what it really means, is come up with phony excuses and faulty implications.

Like I said before, you absorb the OPINIONS of left wing sites, (just like others absorb the opinions of right wing sites) instead of looking at the myriad studies which have published studies which has empirical data. If you do that, and analyze the data yourself (if you are smart enough which is questionable) you may come to a reasonable conclusion. Your parroting left wing talking points, which true liberals do not accept, wastes your time, the readers time, and the bandwidth of the internet connections.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When it comes to income inequality, no other developed economy does it quite like the U.S.A. If you need some proof, here it is:"
> 
> The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized
> 
> 
> 
> I don't question IF there is income equality. I don't agree with the left wing extremists as to WHY there is income inequality. As has been posted with links, the disparity is directly correlated to education, marital status, ambition and motivation, common human traits which are relevant to how much a person can earn.
> 
> It is obvious that some have quit school, stopped having ambition and motivation because they had been oppressed to some degree. What is equally obvious is, even with oppression, many of the same "oppressed" people have made the choice to succeed in spite of that oppression.
> 
> Also obvious is the fact that people who are referred to as "poor white" suffer from that problem as minorities.
> 
> Where does all of this start? In school, where the teacher and staff don't do enough to overcome the "failure syndrome" which is perpetrated in some groups of students. Teachers in particular cause many poor people to lose self esteem when they choose to castigate who do poorly on home work and class work instead of giving them the help they need. Most kids respond negatively to that castigation, and most kids who perform poorly can be helped if the schools give them the attention and positive help they need.
> 
> But you can take your Huffington article and stick it in with all the other* left wing and right wing biased sources *and blow them out of existence.
> 
> Don't believe opinions of so called "experts," instead look for the studies, skip past the author's conclusions and work to understand the data without being told how to think.
Click to expand...

*Let's look at the OECD study that Huffington drew from. The claim is made that income gains from 18 countries between 1975 and 2007 show the US 1% gained more than any other state in the survey.

Do you want to dispute that or the following?*

"Americas top 1 percent of earners accounted for 47 percent of all pre-tax income growth over that time period. And thats excluding capital gains, for God's sake. 

"Throw in the rest of the top 10 percent, and youre looking at a group that got four-fifths of all income growth between the Ford and George W. Bush administrations. 

"The rest of us were left to scramble for the last one-fifth of extra income. 

"If you add in capital gains, which typically accrue to the highest earners anyway, the picture is probably a lot worse."

The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> *Here's an 11 question exam on the basics of economic inequality in the US today.
> There's a five minute time limit.
> Average USMB score is around 4/11
> 
> 
> 
> Income Inequality 101
> 
> It opened my eyes to where I need to start in order to understand this subject*


*

I was amazed that I missed 4 of the 11 for 72.7% I tended to estimate a little low on those answers. I guess I  need to start relooking at some of my opinions as well. And people wonder why I don't accept opinions unsupported by data, not even my own.*


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's an 11 question exam on the basics of economic inequality in the US today.
> There's a five minute time limit.
> Average USMB score is around 4/11
> 
> 
> 
> Income Inequality 101
> 
> It opened my eyes to where I need to start in order to understand this subject*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> I was amazed that I missed 4 of the 11 for 72.7% I tended to estimate a little low on those answers. I guess I  need to start relooking at some of my opinions as well. And people wonder why I don't accept opinions unsupported by data, not even my own.*
Click to expand...

*
Congrats.
The last time I looked that placed you second on the USMB board.
Kimura missed one question.
You can find the thread in the Economy Forum, if you're interested.*


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When it comes to income inequality, no other developed economy does it quite like the U.S.A. If you need some proof, here it is:"
> 
> The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized
> 
> 
> 
> I don't question IF there is income equality. I don't agree with the left wing extremists as to WHY there is income inequality. As has been posted with links, the disparity is directly correlated to education, marital status, ambition and motivation, common human traits which are relevant to how much a person can earn.
> 
> It is obvious that some have quit school, stopped having ambition and motivation because they had been oppressed to some degree. What is equally obvious is, even with oppression, many of the same "oppressed" people have made the choice to succeed in spite of that oppression.
> 
> Also obvious is the fact that people who are referred to as "poor white" suffer from that problem as minorities.
> 
> Where does all of this start? In school, where the teacher and staff don't do enough to overcome the "failure syndrome" which is perpetrated in some groups of students. Teachers in particular cause many poor people to lose self esteem when they choose to castigate who do poorly on home work and class work instead of giving them the help they need. Most kids respond negatively to that castigation, and most kids who perform poorly can be helped if the schools give them the attention and positive help they need.
> 
> But you can take your Huffington article and stick it in with all the other* left wing and right wing biased sources *and blow them out of existence.
> 
> Don't believe opinions of so called "experts," instead look for the studies, skip past the author's conclusions and work to understand the data without being told how to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George - *Let's look at the OECD study that Huffington drew from. The claim is made that income gains from 18 countries between 1975 and 2007 show the US 1% gained more than any other state in the survey. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to dispute that or the following?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> "America&#8217;s top 1 percent of earners accounted for 47 percent of all pre-tax income growth over that time period. And that&#8217;s excluding capital gains, for God's sake.
> 
> "Throw in the rest of the top 10 percent, and you&#8217;re looking at a group that got four-fifths of all income growth between the Ford and George W. Bush administrations.
> 
> "The rest of us were left to scramble for the last one-fifth of extra income.
> 
> "If you add in capital gains, which typically accrue to the highest earners anyway, the picture is probably a lot worse."
> 
> The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we extended that out a few years that income spike went way down with the recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 1% get 20% of all income in the US. Their income growth more than doubled in that time period.
> 
> Yet when you look at even smaller segments the major income inequality occurred between the top .99% and the top.01% such that only a very small number of Americans participated in that high income inequality growth.
> 
> When extrapolating that high % of growth to the top .01% of the people, the TOTAL is not as large as imagined.
> 
> I think it is important to take into consideration how much the total is as related to the % of increase of their wealth. Only the top .01% have gotten the lions share of the growth, not unlike the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, the Vanderbilts et al, in their day. That will not stop. That is one reason people look at the US's economic situation as a giant. People can aspire to grow wealth in an unlimited fashion if they have sufficient intelligence, education, motivation, and ambition plus the get up and go many steps further than the average Joe. Basically trying to compare our prosperity and growth to other countries, ESPECIALLY those that are smaller, is a futile endeavor.
Click to expand...


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poverty and income inequality aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but what is their relationship?
> Beyond a certain level, can we say income inequality becomes a necessary but not a sufficient condition for poverty?
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that, if income inequality wasn't allowed, there would be no poverty?


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poverty and income inequality aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but what is their relationship?
> Beyond a certain level, can we say income inequality becomes a necessary but not a sufficient condition for poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that, if income inequality wasn't allowed, there would be no poverty?
Click to expand...

I don' think so.
Maybe if income inequality was reduced poverty would follow?
There will always be some inequality of incomes; however, what we've seen over the past forty years, I believe, has more to do with government tax and trade policies which have been implemented to benefit one percent of workers at the expense of the middle class.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but what is their relationship?
> Beyond a certain level, can we say income inequality becomes a necessary but not a sufficient condition for poverty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that, if income inequality wasn't allowed, there would be no poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don' think so.
> Maybe if income inequality was reduced poverty would follow?
> There will always be some inequality of incomes; however, what we've seen over the past forty years, I believe, has more to do with government tax and trade policies which have been implemented to benefit one percent of workers at the expense of the middle class.
Click to expand...


I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't question IF there is income equality. I don't agree with the left wing extremists as to WHY there is income inequality. As has been posted with links, the disparity is directly correlated to education, marital status, ambition and motivation, common human traits which are relevant to how much a person can earn.
> 
> It is obvious that some have quit school, stopped having ambition and motivation because they had been oppressed to some degree. What is equally obvious is, even with oppression, many of the same "oppressed" people have made the choice to succeed in spite of that oppression.
> 
> Also obvious is the fact that people who are referred to as "poor white" suffer from that problem as minorities.
> 
> Where does all of this start? In school, where the teacher and staff don't do enough to overcome the "failure syndrome" which is perpetrated in some groups of students. Teachers in particular cause many poor people to lose self esteem when they choose to castigate who do poorly on home work and class work instead of giving them the help they need. Most kids respond negatively to that castigation, and most kids who perform poorly can be helped if the schools give them the attention and positive help they need.
> 
> But you can take your Huffington article and stick it in with all the other* left wing and right wing biased sources *and blow them out of existence.
> 
> Don't believe opinions of so called "experts," instead look for the studies, skip past the author's conclusions and work to understand the data without being told how to think.
> 
> 
> 
> I accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to dispute that or the following?[/B]
> 
> "America&#8217;s top 1 percent of earners accounted for 47 percent of all pre-tax income growth over that time period. And that&#8217;s excluding capital gains, for God's sake.
> 
> "Throw in the rest of the top 10 percent, and you&#8217;re looking at a group that got four-fifths of all income growth between the Ford and George W. Bush administrations.
> 
> "The rest of us were left to scramble for the last one-fifth of extra income.
> 
> "If you add in capital gains, which typically accrue to the highest earners anyway, the picture is probably a lot worse."
> 
> The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we extended that out a few years that income spike went way down with the recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 1% get 20% of all income in the US. Their income growth more than doubled in that time period.
> 
> Yet when you look at even smaller segments the major income inequality occurred between the top .99% and the top.01% such that only a very small number of Americans participated in that high income inequality growth.
> 
> When extrapolating that high % of growth to the top .01% of the people, the TOTAL is not as large as imagined.
> 
> I think it is important to take into consideration how much the total is as related to the % of increase of their wealth. Only the top .01% have gotten the lions share of the growth, not unlike the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, the Vanderbilts et al, in their day. That will not stop. That is one reason people look at the US's economic situation as a giant. People can aspire to grow wealth in an unlimited fashion if they have sufficient intelligence, education, motivation, and ambition plus the get up and go many steps further than the average Joe. Basically trying to compare our prosperity and growth to other countries, ESPECIALLY those that are smaller, is a futile endeavor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your point about the role played by the top 0.1% and 0.01% of US incomes and how that has skewed the trend between 1981 and 2012 of the top one percent doubling their share of total pre-tax income. I certainly don't expect to be around 31 years from now, but I can't help wondering how another doubling of one percent incomes will influence the standard of living in the US for 99% of the  population in 2045?
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that, if income inequality wasn't allowed, there would be no poverty?
> 
> 
> 
> I don' think so.
> Maybe if income inequality was reduced poverty would follow?
> There will always be some inequality of incomes; however, what we've seen over the past forty years, I believe, has more to do with government tax and trade policies which have been implemented to benefit one percent of workers at the expense of the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.
Click to expand...

So if the top 1% of US earners hadn't doubled their share of total pre-tax earnings over the past four decades, poverty levels in the US today would not be any different from what we see now?


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that, if income inequality wasn't allowed, there would be no poverty?
> 
> 
> 
> I don' think so.
> Maybe if income inequality was reduced poverty would follow?
> There will always be some inequality of incomes; however, what we've seen over the past forty years, I believe, has more to do with government tax and trade policies which have been implemented to benefit one percent of workers at the expense of the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.
Click to expand...


In fact it's a tide rising all boats.  The more the rich have, the more then invest and spend which provides jobs for everyone else.


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don' think so.
> Maybe if income inequality was reduced poverty would follow?
> There will always be some inequality of incomes; however, what we've seen over the past forty years, I believe, has more to do with government tax and trade policies which have been implemented to benefit one percent of workers at the expense of the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In fact it's a tide rising all boats.  The more the rich have, the more then invest and spend which provides jobs for everyone else.
Click to expand...

Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don' think so.
> Maybe if income inequality was reduced poverty would follow?
> There will always be some inequality of incomes; however, what we've seen over the past forty years, I believe, has more to do with government tax and trade policies which have been implemented to benefit one percent of workers at the expense of the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the top 1% of US earners hadn't doubled their share of total pre-tax earnings over the past four decades, poverty levels in the US today would not be any different from what we see now?
Click to expand...


They might be higher.  Neither you nor any other libturd in this forum has ever demonstrated that the income of the wealth causes anyone to be poor.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> So if the top 1% of US earners hadn't doubled their share of total pre-tax earnings over the past four decades, poverty levels in the US today would not be any different from what we see now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They might be higher.  Neither you nor any other libturd in this forum has ever demonstrated that the income of the wealth causes anyone to be poor.
Click to expand...







"Prior to the 1970s, the poverty rate was falling as economic growth improved&#8212;until that relationship frayed, too.

"The EPI produced a projection of what would have happened to poverty if growth continued to reduce poverty as quickly as it did from 1959 to 1973.

"Their conclusion: poverty was on track to being eliminated by the mid-1980s."

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/06/04/what-if-the-rise-in-income-inequality-had-never-happened/


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the top 1% of US earners hadn't doubled their share of total pre-tax earnings over the past four decades, poverty levels in the US today would not be any different from what we see now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They might be higher.  Neither you nor any other libturd in this forum has ever demonstrated that the income of the wealth causes anyone to be poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Prior to the 1970s, the poverty rate was falling as economic growth improveduntil that relationship frayed, too.
> 
> "The EPI produced a projection of what would have happened to poverty if growth continued to reduce poverty as quickly as it did from 1959 to 1973.
> 
> "Their conclusion: poverty was on track to being eliminated by the mid-1980s."
> 
> What If the Rise in Income Inequality Had Never Happened? - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Click to expand...


The poverty rate declined until LBJ's Great Society programs kicked in.  It has nothing to do with "income inequality."


----------



## Chris

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure, and the high wages created consumer demand.

Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, and 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.
70% of our economy is consumer demand, so too much money in too few hands is starving our economy of demand. 

We need to raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact it's a tide rising all boats.  The more the rich have, the more then invest and spend which provides jobs for everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.
Click to expand...


Marxist talking points, nothing more


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we extended that out a few years that income spike went way down with the recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top 1% get 20% of all income in the US. Their income growth more than doubled in that time period.
> 
> Yet when you look at even smaller segments the major income inequality occurred between the top .99% and the top.01% such that only a very small number of Americans participated in that high income inequality growth.
> 
> When extrapolating that high % of growth to the top .01% of the people, the TOTAL is not as large as imagined.
> 
> I think it is important to take into consideration how much the total is as related to the % of increase of their wealth. Only the top .01% have gotten the lions share of the growth, not unlike the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, the Vanderbilts et al, in their day. That will not stop. That is one reason people look at the US's economic situation as a giant. People can aspire to grow wealth in an unlimited fashion if they have sufficient intelligence, education, motivation, and ambition plus the get up and go many steps further than the average Joe. Basically trying to compare our prosperity and growth to other countries, ESPECIALLY those that are smaller, is a futile endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> I see your point about the role played by the top 0.1% and 0.01% of US incomes and how that has skewed the trend between 1981 and 2012 of the top one percent doubling their share of total pre-tax income. I certainly don't expect to be around 31 years from now, but I can't help wondering how another doubling of one percent incomes will influence the standard of living in the US for 99% of the  population in 2045?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I personally don't believe that altering the growth of income in the top .01% will affect the standard of living of the majority of our people one iota. What is important to remember is, the tip 20% include people who are not outlandishly wealthy, and that no matter what you do, there will always be the top 20% and the bottom 20%, and those in between as well. Will there be a tightening of the spread help the poor? Or will it simply mean that the bottom 20% are still the bottom quintile and effectively the relatively poor of our population?
> 
> What I see as more important is addressing the 600,000 of our citizenry who are living in abject poverty. How do we help them? Many of them, if not most of them have mental issues and they choose not to live like we believe they should. I have personal experience with several. At issue is his inability to hold a job. He is in constant battle with himself and it has an effect on his work and his life. Yet he does not fit the description of disabled that is recognized as a reason to get assistance. He will wander off from his apartment which has been prepaid for long periods of time and his family has to go to the city in which he wants to live, and find him on the street and do one more intervention. They get him back to his apartment, they clean him and his space so as not to have it look like a trash dump, feed him, buy him clothes and work to find him a job. This is a repeat issue several times a year. The family is not wealthy by any means but this one  young man takes almost half of their family income. It is a sad affair, but the extended family does its best and they are unable to get public assistance because he does not comply with the regulations.
> 
> It is people like him in this country, and those in the 3rd world who have even less than he who need our help the most. It is the care for "the least of his people" that is important.
Click to expand...


----------



## Indeependent

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact it's a tide rising all boats.  The more the rich have, the more then invest and spend which provides jobs for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marxist talking points, nothing more
Click to expand...


You know people who ensure their assets are invested in the continental US?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really see how income inequality and poverty are related at all. It's like claiming the cause of shortness is height inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact it's a tide rising all boats.  The more the rich have, the more then invest and spend which provides jobs for everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.
Click to expand...

The interesting part of my work the last 20 years of my working life was as a business consultant to firms trying to create a stable work force and keep their employees happy. Wage and benefits were important but there are other considerations as well.

In the process I have met with many wealthy people who search for investments and have asked me to do the research to help them process the direction they go. 

One of the things I observed was how many of them feel they are being unfairly castigated and have chosen to venture outside of the US for no other reason than the nagging and constant criticisms aimed at them as part of the wealthy of our country and simply want to escape. In many cases it is simple stubbornness, but in some cases seeing a true picture of life in a poverty stricken part of the world, to include some pockets of destitution in the US and in third world countries as well.

Human behavior drives economics, and if an individual gets to see and become a part of a more positive and life enhancing activity they learn to love it.

The school from which I graduated high school in 1952 was instrumental in assisting the Dalai Lama in settling in India after he left Tibet. My school helped him and his entourage set up living spaces and schools in what is called Happy Valley, Mussoorie,  Uttarakhand, India. He lived there until the government of India offered him a place of his own, where he and his people built their own village. Though many remained in Happy Valley, he and his staff and families have moved to Dharamsala, India. (The 23-year-old Dalai Lama fled Tibet in March 1959  and reached Mussoorie  where he began staying at the Birla House  in Happy Valley which had been requisitioned for his use by the Indian Government.)

http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/dehradun/mussoorie-dalai-lamas-first-home-in-india.html

When I look up to someone who puts his "money" where his mouth is, it is the Dalai Lama.

News | The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama 

I am not Buddhist, but I believe sincerely of the goodness of practicing adherents, like the Dalai Lama and is another reason why my personal motto is, "A champion for the rights of people should be a champion for the rights of ALL PEOPLE," not for a select few based on boundaries.


----------



## kaz

Indeependent said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist talking points, nothing more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know people who ensure their assets are invested in the continental US?
Click to expand...


So our economy should be banned from feriners, companies should be forced to stay here and keep their organization production here and Americans should keep their investments here because we don't want some feriner to get a job, screw them.  America for Americans.

But our borders should be open and we should confiscate our money from our economy and give it to feriners.



When you buy a clue, let me know.


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact it's a tide rising all boats.  The more the rich have, the more then invest and spend which provides jobs for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marxist talking points, nothing more
Click to expand...

Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist talking points, nothing more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know people who ensure their assets are invested in the continental US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So our economy should be banned from feriners, companies should be forced to stay here and keep their organization production here and Americans should keep their investments here because we don't want some feriner to get a job, screw them.  America for Americans.
> 
> But our borders should be open and we should confiscate our money from our economy and give it to feriners.
> 
> 
> 
> When you buy a clue, let me know.
Click to expand...

Currently, borders are open to capital and closed to labor; does that explain why 90% of economic gains since the "end" of the Great Recession have gone to one percent of workers in the US?


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist talking points, nothing more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?
Click to expand...


First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place.  Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.

Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then.  Government spending is out of control.  We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently.  What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results.  Well, think about it...


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know people who ensure their assets are invested in the continental US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So our economy should be banned from feriners, companies should be forced to stay here and keep their organization production here and Americans should keep their investments here because we don't want some feriner to get a job, screw them.  America for Americans.
> 
> But our borders should be open and we should confiscate our money from our economy and give it to feriners.
> 
> 
> 
> When you buy a clue, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Currently, borders are open to capital and closed to labor; does that explain why 90% of economic gains since the "end" of the Great Recession have gone to one percent of workers in the US?
Click to expand...


Your statement is preposterous


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Currently, borders are open to capital and closed to labor; does that explain why 90% of economic gains since the "end" of the Great Recession have gone to one percent of workers in the US?


That is not a factual statement. I have read that propaganda. 

More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. *Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment*.    Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says​


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist talking points, nothing more
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place.  Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.
> 
> Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then.  Government spending is out of control.  We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently.  What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results.  Well, think about it...
Click to expand...

I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, borders are open to capital and closed to labor; does that explain why 90% of economic gains since the "end" of the Great Recession have gone to one percent of workers in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a factual statement. I have read that propaganda.
> 
> More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. *Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment*.    Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says​
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make is this: currently it is easier for capital to migrate from one country to another than it is for labor. NAFTA in Mexico is an example I see every day when I step outside my apartment. Do you see any possibility of capital controls being reimposed in the western economies?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place.  Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.
> 
> Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then.  Government spending is out of control.  We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently.  What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results.  Well, think about it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?
Click to expand...

When one wants to check on relative income from 1 year compared to another year the use an inflation calculator.Inflation Calculator 2014

The $1.60 per hour minimum wage in 1972 in 2014 $$$$s is $7.15; making today's minimum wage just a tiny bit better today than in 1972. Since most young married couples both work the $14.70 per hour times 40 hours is still only $2,548 per money before taxes or $30,576 annually. But, only a very small % of our labor force works at minimum wage. According to the BLS only .01% of our labor force work for minimum wage. Most people other than teenage students and totally unskilled labor earn more than minimum wage, in many cases not sufficiently productive to justify a larger income. Our educated and skilled workers earn much more per hour/week/month, which is almost double the poverty line for two in the US in 2014. http://http://aspe.hhs.gov/POVERTY/14poverty.cfm


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, borders are open to capital and closed to labor; does that explain why 90% of economic gains since the "end" of the Great Recession have gone to one percent of workers in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a factual statement. I have read that propaganda.
> 
> More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. *Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment*.    Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point I was trying to make is this: currently it is easier for capital to migrate from one country to another than it is for labor. NAFTA in Mexico is an example I see every day when I step outside my apartment. Do you see any possibility of capital controls being reimposed in the western economies?
Click to expand...


In fact Capital has never been restrained from moving and is characteristically mobile with Tax incidence one of the major causes. Up to the last 30 to 40 years the costs of moving goods were too high to justify outsourcing. NAFTA may have costs SOME jobs, but just like all other outsourcing, for every job exported we created new and usually more complex labor jobs here in the US. There are variations in individual industries, but as an average off shoring has benefited US labor. The "migration" of labor is done by shifting the jobs, not the people. An exception to that rule is the importing people who have skills not readily available in the US for the relative wage that can be paid.

No company can survive paying a wage which makes the product too high for the majority of people to purchase. The most important divide in our wage structure is not the ultra rich who will buy what they want when they want, but the difference between the 12% elite labor force which drive the cost/price of the items they manufacture/service to a point the other 88% have difficulty buying new products from the companies for which they work. Thus the huge USED AUTOMOBILE market in the US.

There will always be extreme income disparity between the top .01% and the .99% and below, but that is not what hurts the average family survive comfortably. Income is not a zero sum game and it is not a finite quantity of money in our economy. There are ways and means for low wage earners to increase their income and the very top earners do not have an effect on the very low earners.

It turns out that wealth inequality isn't about the 1 percent v. the 99 percent at all. It's about the 0.1 percent v. the 99.9 percent (or, really, the 0.01 percent vs. the 99.99 percent, if you like). Long-story-short is that this group, comprised mostly of bankers and CEOs, is riding the stock market to pick up extraordinary investment income. And it's this investment income, rather than ordinary earned income, that's creating this extraordinary wealth gap. 

The 0.1 percent isn't the same group of people every year. There's considerable churn at the tippy-top. For example, consider the "Fortunate 400," the IRS's annual list of the 400 richest tax returns in the country. *Between 1992 and 2008, 3,672 different taxpayers appeared on the Fortunate 400 list. Just one percent of the Fortunate 400four householdsappeared on the list all 17 years. * How You, I, and Everyone Got the Top 1 Percent All Wrong - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic​
Like I said before, the OWS crowd protested the wrong group.

AND ABSOLUTELY NO, there will never be a restriction on Capital mobility in any country which wants their economy to continue to be prosperous. Capital mobility either inter or intra country is one of the things that gives us the prosperity distributed over a larger % of the population. An example of that is the building of foreign automobiles here in the US. Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Mercedes and others are building here because to build overseas and ship here costs more money. They now compete very favorably with US companies and our labor force has more new high paying jobs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist talking points, nothing more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?
Click to expand...


*Can you explain why US average wages *

You wouldn't be leaving non-wage benefits out of your calculation, would you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place.  Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.
> 
> Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then.  Government spending is out of control.  We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently.  What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results.  Well, think about it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?
Click to expand...


To support low skill American workers, deport 20 million illegals.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today the rich seem to speculate with their money or invest in productive enterprises outside the US which could partially explain why rising income inequality shows no signs of slowing down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist talking points, nothing more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?
Click to expand...


I don't think that's even true.

For example, when you talk about 'non-supervisory' workers, what all is included in that, and how does one calculate labor productivity?

Because quite frankly, I know some people who flipped burgers back in the 1970s, and I worked at Wendy's flipping burgers.     From what I have heard, the 'productivity' of flipping burgers hasn't changed much.

You think the average Whooper Flopper at Burger King, is Flopping twice as many Whoopers today as back in the 1970s?

Prove that.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist talking points, nothing more
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that's even true.
> 
> For example, when you talk about 'non-supervisory' workers, what all is included in that, and how does one calculate labor productivity?
> 
> Because quite frankly, I know some people who flipped burgers back in the 1970s, and I worked at Wendy's flipping burgers.     From what I have heard, the 'productivity' of flipping burgers hasn't changed much.
> 
> You think the average Whooper Flopper at Burger King, is Flopping twice as many Whoopers today as back in the 1970s?
> 
> Prove that.
Click to expand...

Flipping burgers is one menial job I somehow managed to miss, but I suspect the technology in Wendy's and elsewhere has improved productivity over that time. Whether that allows for a single worker to flip twice as many burgers, I couldn't say.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place.  Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.
> 
> Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then.  Government spending is out of control.  We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently.  What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results.  Well, think about it...
> 
> 
> 
> I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To support low skill American workers, deport 20 million illegals.
Click to expand...

Where are you planning to deport them to, Chicago


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place.  Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.
> 
> Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then.  Government spending is out of control.  We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently.  What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results.  Well, think about it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?
Click to expand...


1972 minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, or $256 a month.  Average rent in 1972 was $165.  

Leaving you with $100 to live off for a month?

But even then, let's pretend your assertion is correct.   Are you accounting for the differences in quality between the 1966 Chevy, and a modern car?

How about the difference in the size of the apartment?  The size of an apartment today, is much larger than an apartment in the 1970s.  How about Air Conditioning?

On the wage side, are you accounting for the difference in benefits of jobs in the 1970s verses today? 

I highly doubt these are apples to apples comparisons, and I have yet to meet anyone that says they wished they could go back to the 70s.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain why US average wages for non-supervisory workers are about where they were in 1972, when Nixon was in the White House, while average labor productivity has doubled since that time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's even true.
> 
> For example, when you talk about 'non-supervisory' workers, what all is included in that, and how does one calculate labor productivity?
> 
> Because quite frankly, I know some people who flipped burgers back in the 1970s, and I worked at Wendy's flipping burgers.     From what I have heard, the 'productivity' of flipping burgers hasn't changed much.
> 
> You think the average Whooper Flopper at Burger King, is Flopping twice as many Whoopers today as back in the 1970s?
> 
> Prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flipping burgers is one menial job I somehow managed to miss, but I suspect the technology in Wendy's and elsewhere has improved productivity over that time. Whether that allows for a single worker to flip twice as many burgers, I couldn't say.
Click to expand...


One of the rather boring requirements of being a McDonald's employee, was watching corporate videos of the history of McDonald's.  In those videos, they show guys back in the 1960s flipping burgers on the grill.   The grill is nearly identical to the grills currently used, and flipping them over is of the exact same skill requirement as before.

Now there are advancements in technology, namely in the invention of robots that can cook food.

Currently they are not used, because the cost of labor is still low enough that human employees, are still of higher value.   When that changes, when leftist idiots drive up the price of labor high enough, robots will replace the people.... just as McDonald's has replaced all their cashiers with Kiosks in Europe.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, that's hard to believe if you were around in 1972 and you saw what typical people owned then and what they own now that they are in the same place.  Everything keeps getting cheaper because of those productivity raises.
> 
> Second, we have pursued your policies of taxing and redistribution since then.  Government spending is out of control.  We are punishing companies that try to operate efficiently.  What you are asking me is why when we've pursued your policies we haven't achieved my results.  Well, think about it...
> 
> 
> 
> I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1972 minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, or $256 a month.  Average rent in 1972 was $165.
> 
> Leaving you with $100 to live off for a month?
> 
> But even then, let's pretend your assertion is correct.   Are you accounting for the differences in quality between the 1966 Chevy, and a modern car?
> 
> How about the difference in the size of the apartment?  The size of an apartment today, is much larger than an apartment in the 1970s.  How about Air Conditioning?
> 
> On the wage side, are you accounting for the difference in benefits of jobs in the 1970s verses today?
> 
> I highly doubt these are apples to apples comparisons, and I have yet to meet anyone that says they wished they could go back to the 70s.
Click to expand...

Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime. 

The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.

I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To support low skill American workers, deport 20 million illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are you planning to deport them to, Chicago
Click to expand...


LA. They'll fit right in.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1972 minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, or $256 a month.  Average rent in 1972 was $165.
> 
> Leaving you with $100 to live off for a month?
> 
> But even then, let's pretend your assertion is correct.   Are you accounting for the differences in quality between the 1966 Chevy, and a modern car?
> 
> How about the difference in the size of the apartment?  The size of an apartment today, is much larger than an apartment in the 1970s.  How about Air Conditioning?
> 
> On the wage side, are you accounting for the difference in benefits of jobs in the 1970s verses today?
> 
> I highly doubt these are apples to apples comparisons, and I have yet to meet anyone that says they wished they could go back to the 70s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.
> 
> The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.
> 
> I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.
Click to expand...

It is not the 1% running that up, it is the .01% and they are not having any effect on the income of the less wealthy as wages are not a zero sum game.

$900+ for an efficiency? High cost area for sure. Unless you make big bucks you should move.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not only around, I remember how a single minimum wage job paid enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with a surplus sufficient to pay-off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Think that could happen today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1972 minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, or $256 a month.  Average rent in 1972 was $165.
> 
> Leaving you with $100 to live off for a month?
> 
> But even then, let's pretend your assertion is correct.   Are you accounting for the differences in quality between the 1966 Chevy, and a modern car?
> 
> How about the difference in the size of the apartment?  The size of an apartment today, is much larger than an apartment in the 1970s.  How about Air Conditioning?
> 
> On the wage side, are you accounting for the difference in benefits of jobs in the 1970s verses today?
> 
> I highly doubt these are apples to apples comparisons, and I have yet to meet anyone that says they wished they could go back to the 70s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.
> 
> The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.
> 
> I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.
Click to expand...


*Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today. *

That's a great way to increase productivity, replace all those low skilled workers with automation. 

Imagine how productive our agricultural sector would be if we deported all the illegals hand picking our crops. 

We'd build machines to do it and one worker would pick as much as 20 illegals.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1972 minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, or $256 a month.  Average rent in 1972 was $165.
> 
> Leaving you with $100 to live off for a month?
> 
> But even then, let's pretend your assertion is correct.   Are you accounting for the differences in quality between the 1966 Chevy, and a modern car?
> 
> How about the difference in the size of the apartment?  The size of an apartment today, is much larger than an apartment in the 1970s.  How about Air Conditioning?
> 
> On the wage side, are you accounting for the difference in benefits of jobs in the 1970s verses today?
> 
> I highly doubt these are apples to apples comparisons, and I have yet to meet anyone that says they wished they could go back to the 70s.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.
> 
> The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.
> 
> I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not the 1% running that up, it is the .01% and they are not having any effect on the income of the less wealthy as wages are not a zero sum game.
> 
> $900+ for an efficiency? High cost area for sure. Unless you make big bucks you should move.
Click to expand...

Is it accurate to say that someone earning $360,000 a year is in the same tax bracket as someone earning $36,000,000 or even $360,000,000 a year?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.
> 
> The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.
> 
> I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the 1% running that up, it is the .01% and they are not having any effect on the income of the less wealthy as wages are not a zero sum game.
> 
> $900+ for an efficiency? High cost area for sure. Unless you make big bucks you should move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it accurate to say that someone earning $360,000 a year is in the same tax bracket as someone earning $36,000,000 or even $360,000,000 a year?
Click to expand...

No, it is not. The top marginal rate of 39.6% Bracket is shown below:
$406,751 single
$457,601 married filing joint
$432,201 head of houshold 

All income above those thresholds based on the type of filing pay the same % over the amounts shown.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1972 minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, or $256 a month.  Average rent in 1972 was $165.
> 
> Leaving you with $100 to live off for a month?
> 
> But even then, let's pretend your assertion is correct.   Are you accounting for the differences in quality between the 1966 Chevy, and a modern car?
> 
> How about the difference in the size of the apartment?  The size of an apartment today, is much larger than an apartment in the 1970s.  How about Air Conditioning?
> 
> On the wage side, are you accounting for the difference in benefits of jobs in the 1970s verses today?
> 
> I highly doubt these are apples to apples comparisons, and I have yet to meet anyone that says they wished they could go back to the 70s.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.
> 
> The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.
> 
> I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today. *
> 
> That's a great way to increase productivity, replace all those low skilled workers with automation.
> 
> Imagine how productive our agricultural sector would be if we deported all the illegals hand picking our crops.
> 
> We'd build machines to do it and one worker would pick as much as 20 illegals.
Click to expand...

Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.
> 
> The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.
> 
> I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today. *
> 
> That's a great way to increase productivity, replace all those low skilled workers with automation.
> 
> Imagine how productive our agricultural sector would be if we deported all the illegals hand picking our crops.
> 
> We'd build machines to do it and one worker would pick as much as 20 illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?
Click to expand...

If you had paid attention to what was said you would know that the increase in productivity was not necessarily an issue of the labor, but rather the machines now doing the work better and faster. So by your standards we should put more money in the machines account. What you and your left wing extremists will never accept is, labor is not responsible for the increase in productivity and the extra profits are put into better machines. Many like you object to machines and want people to do the work instead. Maybe you would prefer that we revert to our agrarian roots where capital was the excess production of the individual. The problem with that is, the majority of us want more prosperity than that, and capitalism as regulated has improved the lot of 99% of the people.

As a liberal, not a left wing extremist, I want what is best FOR ALL PEOPLE not just an elitist work force.

How is productivity measured by BLS?

*Productivity is measured by comparing the amount of goods and services produced with the inputs which were used in production. Labor productivity is the ratio of the output of goods and services to the labor hours devoted to the production of that output.*

What is the most commonly used productivity measure?

Output per hour of all persons&#8212;labor productivity&#8212;is the most commonly used productivity measure. Labor is an easily-identified input to virtually every production process. *In the U.S. nonfarm business sector, labor cost represents more than sixty percent of the value of output produced.* Output per hour in the nonfarm business sector is the productivity statistic most often cited by the press.​
When will the left wing recognize it is not the individual worker, but rather the *COMBINATION OF THE WORKER AND THE MACHINES HE USES *to produce the goods manufactured (or services) proportionately.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?



Yes, comrade, the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeoisie.  Workers of the world unite!

The workers had nothing to do with the productivity gains, BTW.  The people who create value should be compensated for it.  And that extends far beyond the "CEO."


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, comrade, the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeoisie.  Workers of the world unite!
> 
> The workers had nothing to do with the productivity gains, BTW.  The people who create value should be compensated for it.  And that extends far beyond the "CEO."
Click to expand...

All workers have everything to do with productivity gains, and not just parasites earning 354 times what the average worker does even if the parasites toss table scraps to loyal stooges like you.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today. *
> 
> That's a great way to increase productivity, replace all those low skilled workers with automation.
> 
> Imagine how productive our agricultural sector would be if we deported all the illegals hand picking our crops.
> 
> We'd build machines to do it and one worker would pick as much as 20 illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you had paid attention to what was said you would know that the increase in productivity was not necessarily an issue of the labor, but rather the machines now doing the work better and faster. So by your standards we should put more money in the machines account. What you and your left wing extremists will never accept is, labor is not responsible for the increase in productivity and the extra profits are put into better machines. Many like you object to machines and want people to do the work instead. Maybe you would prefer that we revert to our agrarian roots where capital was the excess production of the individual. The problem with that is, the majority of us want more prosperity than that, and capitalism as regulated has improved the lot of 99% of the people.
> 
> As a liberal, not a left wing extremist, I want what is best FOR ALL PEOPLE not just an elitist work force.
> 
> How is productivity measured by BLS?
> 
> *Productivity is measured by comparing the amount of goods and services produced with the inputs which were used in production. Labor productivity is the ratio of the output of goods and services to the labor hours devoted to the production of that output.*
> 
> What is the most commonly used productivity measure?
> 
> Output per hour of all personslabor productivityis the most commonly used productivity measure. Labor is an easily-identified input to virtually every production process. *In the U.S. nonfarm business sector, labor cost represents more than sixty percent of the value of output produced.* Output per hour in the nonfarm business sector is the productivity statistic most often cited by the press.​
> When will the left wing recognize it is not the individual worker, but rather the *COMBINATION OF THE WORKER AND THE MACHINES HE USES *to produce the goods manufactured (or services) proportionately.
Click to expand...

What happens when the machine replaces enough workers that capitalism can no longer provide enough US jobs that pay a living wage, Guaranteed Annual Wage or bigger prisons and more wars?


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, comrade, the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeoisie.  Workers of the world unite!
> 
> The workers had nothing to do with the productivity gains, BTW.  The people who create value should be compensated for it.  And that extends far beyond the "CEO."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All workers have everything to do with productivity gains, and not just parasites earning 354 times what the average worker does even if the parasites toss table scraps to loyal stooges like you.
Click to expand...


Maybe the reason you earn such a crappy living isn't because anyone is greedy, it's because you're butt lazy and you don't give a shit about your job or your employer.

BTW, I'd be the one dishing out the table scraps, not the ones getting them...


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.
> 
> The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.
> 
> I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today. *
> 
> That's a great way to increase productivity, replace all those low skilled workers with automation.
> 
> Imagine how productive our agricultural sector would be if we deported all the illegals hand picking our crops.
> 
> We'd build machines to do it and one worker would pick as much as 20 illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?
Click to expand...


No CEO, no jobs at all.   No CEO no gains of productivity.    No CEO, no employment for anyone.

You are making many assumptions, about economic systems you know nothing about.  The Soviet Union failed.  Human kind has tried it your way, with far more natural resources than even the US has, and the result was economic destruction.  No CEO..... but people starved.   

Apparently diverting all those resources away from the people who know hot to create wealth, wasn't a win for the Soviet people.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today. *
> 
> That's a great way to increase productivity, replace all those low skilled workers with automation.
> 
> Imagine how productive our agricultural sector would be if we deported all the illegals hand picking our crops.
> 
> We'd build machines to do it and one worker would pick as much as 20 illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No CEO, no jobs at all.   No CEO no gains of productivity.    No CEO, no employment for anyone.
> 
> You are making many assumptions, about economic systems you know nothing about.  The Soviet Union failed.  Human kind has tried it your way, with far more natural resources than even the US has, and the result was economic destruction.  No CEO..... but people starved.
> 
> Apparently diverting all those resources away from the people who know hot to create wealth, wasn't a win for the Soviet people.
Click to expand...

*Let's see how much we know about the USSR and its dependence on western capitalism.

Anthony C. Sutton worked for a time at the same place as Thomas Sowell.

Do you find his views on Soviet technology believable?*

"In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all  perhaps 90-95 percent  came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. 

"This massive construction job has taken 50 years. 

"Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2]	

"Sutton's next three major published books  Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR  detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into 'a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control'[3]) as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same, namely 'corporate socialism' planned by the big corporations.[4] 

"Sutton concluded that this was all part of the economic power elites' 'long-range program of nurturing collectivism'[1] and fostering 'corporate socialism' in order to ensure 'monopoly acquisition of wealth', because it 'would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market'".[5] 

Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> All workers have everything to do with productivity gains, and not just parasites earning 354 times what the average worker does even if the parasites toss table scraps to loyal stooges like you.



You have it backwards. The workers get 60% of the cost of manufacturing or providing a service. The MACHINES have been the KEY TO HIGHER PRODUCTIVITY, not the workers. Most CEOs don't earn 354 or 154 or even 50 times the workers in his plants. That is true only of the super rich who don't make their money off of production but  instead they get it from gains from capital investment. 

Since the productivity gains are from investment in automated machines, whoever pays for the machines deserve the gain in profits from that productivity.

I think really that the basic issue is that left wing extremists cry about labor because of their lack of economics understanding.  There is no inherent fairness in compensation other than for what that labor does to increase productivity. There is no inherent fairness of paying any one for more than their PERSONAL productivity. Now, I have said it two ways. Do you think you possibly understand the economic issues relative to compensation?

I suspect that much of the mechanical contributions to productivity is greatly responsible for wage stagnation, and I further believe it was the attempts by labor to gain a larger share of the profits which have brought about the development of auto-machinery. That is especially true in the Automobile manufacturing industry. Effectively labor caused their own problems.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?
> 
> 
> 
> If you had paid attention to what was said you would know that the increase in productivity was not necessarily an issue of the labor, but rather the machines now doing the work better and faster. So by your standards we should put more money in the machines account. What you and your left wing extremists will never accept is, labor is not responsible for the increase in productivity and the extra profits are put into better machines. Many like you object to machines and want people to do the work instead. Maybe you would prefer that we revert to our agrarian roots where capital was the excess production of the individual. The problem with that is, the majority of us want more prosperity than that, and capitalism as regulated has improved the lot of 99% of the people.
> 
> As a liberal, not a left wing extremist, I want what is best FOR ALL PEOPLE not just an elitist work force.
> 
> How is productivity measured by BLS?
> 
> *Productivity is measured by comparing the amount of goods and services produced with the inputs which were used in production. Labor productivity is the ratio of the output of goods and services to the labor hours devoted to the production of that output.*
> 
> What is the most commonly used productivity measure?
> 
> Output per hour of all personslabor productivityis the most commonly used productivity measure. Labor is an easily-identified input to virtually every production process. *In the U.S. nonfarm business sector, labor cost represents more than sixty percent of the value of output produced.* Output per hour in the nonfarm business sector is the productivity statistic most often cited by the press.​
> When will the left wing recognize it is not the individual worker, but rather the *COMBINATION OF THE WORKER AND THE MACHINES HE USES *to produce the goods manufactured (or services) proportionately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happens when the machine replaces enough workers that capitalism can no longer provide enough US jobs that pay a living wage, Guaranteed Annual Wage or bigger prisons and more wars?
Click to expand...


It is up to the workers to make themselves useful or they will not have jobs. There will always be a need for someone to operate and repair the machines, program them to do the job, and verify it is done correctly. In my original career it was considered the ideal performance if a person did his job to the point it was no longer needed, THEN we retrained and did something new. That is especially imperative that workers continue to do that.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No CEO, no jobs at all.   No CEO no gains of productivity.    No CEO, no employment for anyone.
> 
> You are making many assumptions, about economic systems you know nothing about.  The Soviet Union failed.  Human kind has tried it your way, with far more natural resources than even the US has, and the result was economic destruction.  No CEO..... but people starved.
> 
> Apparently diverting all those resources away from the people who know hot to create wealth, wasn't a win for the Soviet people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Let's see how much we know about the USSR and its dependence on western capitalism.
> 
> Anthony C. Sutton worked for a time at the same place as Thomas Sowell.
> 
> Do you find his views on Soviet technology believable?*
> 
> "In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all  perhaps 90-95 percent  came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities.
> 
> "This massive construction job has taken 50 years.
> 
> "Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2]
> 
> "Sutton's next three major published books  Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR  detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into 'a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control'[3]) as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same, namely 'corporate socialism' planned by the big corporations.[4]
> 
> "Sutton concluded that this was all part of the economic power elites' 'long-range program of nurturing collectivism'[1] and fostering 'corporate socialism' in order to ensure 'monopoly acquisition of wealth', because it 'would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market'".[5]
> 
> Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.

He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.


----------



## dnsmith35

It all comes down to, "what comes first, the chicken or the egg." If we want an agrarian economy by which most people produce their own needs and what ever is in excess of their own needs can be traded for someone else's excess production for the better of both.

Or we want an industrial economy by which in which many people work to produce goods such that they can be paid a wage and the goods can be marketed to others such that the economy has the money to pay the wages. 

If we choose the industrial economy, then we have to recognize that capital is nothing more than the profits made by marketing the goods and services produce by labor (with major assistance from automation) such that those who created and run the industry make sufficient to justify their continued investment based on their own interpretation as to how much that profit must be. You cannot justify my income, nor can I justify yours. We much each determine what we want, to continue the investment.

It goes back to the old Law of Marginal Utility. When applied to goods or services the law tends to suggest there is a diminishing marginal utility since after we have sufficient quantity of one product, additional product is not as satisfying. 

An example would be water; a gallon available in the now will satisfy our thirst. To have 50 gallons in the now is less satisfying. 

But with money, it is different. If we increase the size of the marginal unit at ever step, we can continue to get an increased satisfaction from those larger amounts such that the marginal utility continues to increase; and since man has an  unlimited desire for wealth, increasing the size of the marginal unit creates an INCREASING MARGINAL UTILITY.

That holds true when talking about business owners and managers. Most business enterprises are small businesses and the owner is basically the CEO, the COO, the CFO all rolled into one. When one thinks of CEOs strictly in the sense of large corporations, or the stock holders of a larger corporation you tend to attribute higher earnings to all CEOs that is factual.

*In our industrial economy capital is no longer the "excess production" of a worker, but rather the profits of the industry after the cost of all production and distribution is paid.*


----------



## dnsmith35

When you think of very highly paid CEOs, think of the fortune 500, and even many of them are not paid 354 times what their non supervisory labor is paid.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had paid attention to what was said you would know that the increase in productivity was not necessarily an issue of the labor, but rather the machines now doing the work better and faster. So by your standards we should put more money in the machines account. What you and your left wing extremists will never accept is, labor is not responsible for the increase in productivity and the extra profits are put into better machines. Many like you object to machines and want people to do the work instead. Maybe you would prefer that we revert to our agrarian roots where capital was the excess production of the individual. The problem with that is, the majority of us want more prosperity than that, and capitalism as regulated has improved the lot of 99% of the people.
> 
> As a liberal, not a left wing extremist, I want what is best FOR ALL PEOPLE not just an elitist work force.
> 
> How is productivity measured by BLS?
> 
> *Productivity is measured by comparing the amount of goods and services produced with the inputs which were used in production. Labor productivity is the ratio of the output of goods and services to the labor hours devoted to the production of that output.*
> 
> What is the most commonly used productivity measure?
> 
> Output per hour of all personslabor productivityis the most commonly used productivity measure. Labor is an easily-identified input to virtually every production process. *In the U.S. nonfarm business sector, labor cost represents more than sixty percent of the value of output produced.* Output per hour in the nonfarm business sector is the productivity statistic most often cited by the press.​
> When will the left wing recognize it is not the individual worker, but rather the *COMBINATION OF THE WORKER AND THE MACHINES HE USES *to produce the goods manufactured (or services) proportionately.
> 
> 
> 
> What happens when the machine replaces enough workers that capitalism can no longer provide enough US jobs that pay a living wage, Guaranteed Annual Wage or bigger prisons and more wars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is up to the workers to make themselves useful or they will not have jobs. There will always be a need for someone to operate and repair the machines, program them to do the job, and verify it is done correctly. In my original career it was considered the ideal performance if a person did his job to the point it was no longer needed, THEN we retrained and did something new. That is especially imperative that workers continue to do that.
Click to expand...

Who payed for the retraining?
Did you expect to find a new job at a similar rate of pay or at McDonald's?
If we've reached a point where the private sector finds better returns creating jobs outside the US, what chance do individuals here have of making themselves useful to an economic system that has moved on to greener pastures?


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No CEO, no jobs at all.   No CEO no gains of productivity.    No CEO, no employment for anyone.
> 
> You are making many assumptions, about economic systems you know nothing about.  The Soviet Union failed.  Human kind has tried it your way, with far more natural resources than even the US has, and the result was economic destruction.  No CEO..... but people starved.
> 
> Apparently diverting all those resources away from the people who know hot to create wealth, wasn't a win for the Soviet people.
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's see how much we know about the USSR and its dependence on western capitalism.
> 
> Anthony C. Sutton worked for a time at the same place as Thomas Sowell.
> 
> Do you find his views on Soviet technology believable?*
> 
> "In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all  perhaps 90-95 percent  came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities.
> 
> "This massive construction job has taken 50 years.
> 
> "Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2]
> 
> "Sutton's next three major published books  Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR  detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into 'a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control'[3]) as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same, namely 'corporate socialism' planned by the big corporations.[4]
> 
> "Sutton concluded that this was all part of the economic power elites' 'long-range program of nurturing collectivism'[1] and fostering 'corporate socialism' in order to ensure 'monopoly acquisition of wealth', because it 'would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market'".[5]
> 
> Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.
> 
> He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.
Click to expand...

Do you think Lenin relied on Wall Street to feed the Russian people when the Bolsheveks came to power?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens when the machine replaces enough workers that capitalism can no longer provide enough US jobs that pay a living wage, Guaranteed Annual Wage or bigger prisons and more wars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is up to the workers to make themselves useful or they will not have jobs. There will always be a need for someone to operate and repair the machines, program them to do the job, and verify it is done correctly. In my original career it was considered the ideal performance if a person did his job to the point it was no longer needed, THEN we retrained and did something new. That is especially imperative that workers continue to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who payed for the retraining?
Click to expand...

People who want jobs and have motivation and ambition. In some cases the government does. 





> Did you expect to find a new job at a similar rate of pay or at McDonald's?


People on average will find a job in their own industry and not lose much pay as a newbie in the job.





> If we've reached a point where the private sector finds better returns creating jobs outside the US, what chance do individuals here have of making themselves useful to an economic system that has moved on to greener pastures?


How many times does someone have to pound a truism into your head? For every job off shored between 1 and 1.7 jobs are created in the US. Are you that unable to understand English? If so, why do you join a thread which requires not only English, but knowledge of economics, which you do not have.

Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says - The Washington Post

The researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment.

The paper also examined the impact of immigrants and found that immigration had an even more positive effect on jobs for native-born U.S. workers: Every 1 percent increase in immigrant jobs boosted aggregate employment for American-born workers by 3.9 percent.​


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's see how much we know about the USSR and its dependence on western capitalism.
> 
> Anthony C. Sutton worked for a time at the same place as Thomas Sowell.
> 
> Do you find his views on Soviet technology believable?*
> 
> "In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all  perhaps 90-95 percent  came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities.
> 
> "This massive construction job has taken 50 years.
> 
> "Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2]
> 
> "Sutton's next three major published books  Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR  detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into 'a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control'[3]) as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same, namely 'corporate socialism' planned by the big corporations.[4]
> 
> "Sutton concluded that this was all part of the economic power elites' 'long-range program of nurturing collectivism'[1] and fostering 'corporate socialism' in order to ensure 'monopoly acquisition of wealth', because it 'would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market'".[5]
> 
> Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.
> 
> He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think Lenin relied on Wall Street to feed the Russian people when the Bolsheveks came to power?
Click to expand...

The facts are neither Lenin or anyone else did much of a job feeding the hungry Russians. The system failed miserably from beginning to end in spite of using US technology.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.
> 
> He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Lenin relied on Wall Street to feed the Russian people when the Bolsheveks came to power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are neither Lenin or anyone else did much of a job feeding the hungry Russians. The system failed miserably from beginning to end in spite of using US technology.
Click to expand...

Wall Street used the Red Cross in Russia in 1917 to supply Lenin with food and other essentials. John Foster Dulles alleged that New York bankers "viewed the American Red Cross as a virtual arm of government..."


----------



## Andylusion

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No CEO, no jobs at all.   No CEO no gains of productivity.    No CEO, no employment for anyone.
> 
> You are making many assumptions, about economic systems you know nothing about.  The Soviet Union failed.  Human kind has tried it your way, with far more natural resources than even the US has, and the result was economic destruction.  No CEO..... but people starved.
> 
> Apparently diverting all those resources away from the people who know hot to create wealth, wasn't a win for the Soviet people.
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's see how much we know about the USSR and its dependence on western capitalism.
> 
> Anthony C. Sutton worked for a time at the same place as Thomas Sowell.
> 
> Do you find his views on Soviet technology believable?*
> 
> "In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all  perhaps 90-95 percent  came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities.
> 
> "This massive construction job has taken 50 years.
> 
> "Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2]
> 
> "Sutton's next three major published books  Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR  detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into 'a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control'[3]) as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same, namely 'corporate socialism' planned by the big corporations.[4]
> 
> "Sutton concluded that this was all part of the economic power elites' 'long-range program of nurturing collectivism'[1] and fostering 'corporate socialism' in order to ensure 'monopoly acquisition of wealth', because it 'would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market'".[5]
> 
> Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.
> 
> He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.
Click to expand...


I was going to say....  doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?

After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system.  When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.

I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs.    And why did the company do this?   Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.

In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology.  That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it.    Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Lenin relied on Wall Street to feed the Russian people when the Bolsheveks came to power?
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are neither Lenin or anyone else did much of a job feeding the hungry Russians. The system failed miserably from beginning to end in spite of using US technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wall Street used the Red Cross in Russia in 1917 to supply Lenin with food and other essentials. John Foster Dulles alleged that New York bankers "viewed the American Red Cross as a virtual arm of government..."
Click to expand...

Wow! So what other irrelevant and useless information do you want to share. OF COURSE OUR GOVERNMENT CHOOSE TO INTERFERE IN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION. What else is old?

Regardless, the Russian people went hungry, even with the FOOD AID TO RUSSIA.

BTW, what part of ALLEGE is fact?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's see how much we know about the USSR and its dependence on western capitalism.
> 
> Anthony C. Sutton worked for a time at the same place as Thomas Sowell.
> 
> Do you find his views on Soviet technology believable?*
> 
> "In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all  perhaps 90-95 percent  came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities.
> 
> "This massive construction job has taken 50 years.
> 
> "Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2]
> 
> "Sutton's next three major published books  Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR  detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into 'a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control'[3]) as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same, namely 'corporate socialism' planned by the big corporations.[4]
> 
> "Sutton concluded that this was all part of the economic power elites' 'long-range program of nurturing collectivism'[1] and fostering 'corporate socialism' in order to ensure 'monopoly acquisition of wealth', because it 'would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market'".[5]
> 
> Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.
> 
> He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was going to say....  doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?
> 
> After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system.  When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.
> 
> I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs.    And why did the company do this?   Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.
> 
> In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology.  That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it.    Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.
Click to expand...

The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are neither Lenin or anyone else did much of a job feeding the hungry Russians. The system failed miserably from beginning to end in spite of using US technology.
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street used the Red Cross in Russia in 1917 to supply Lenin with food and other essentials. John Foster Dulles alleged that New York bankers "viewed the American Red Cross as a virtual arm of government..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow! So what other irrelevant and useless information do you want to share. OF COURSE OUR GOVERNMENT CHOOSE TO INTERFERE IN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION. What else is old?
> 
> Regardless, the Russian people went hungry, even with the FOOD AID TO RUSSIA.
> 
> BTW, what part of ALLEGE is fact?
Click to expand...

Do you think Lenin's revolution would have been successful without Wall Street's help?
Note the question says nothing about OUR GOVERNMENT.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.
> 
> He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to say....  doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?
> 
> After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system.  When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.
> 
> I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs.    And why did the company do this?   Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.
> 
> In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology.  That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it.    Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.
Click to expand...

Wow, another loser. Noam Chomsky, a linguist who made many comments he knew little about. I will agree that, as is the only road in any socialist state, became a dictatorship with little resemblance of the socialist utopia it was supposed to be. That is the only way a socialist state can survive for any length of time, by autocratic/dictatorial leadership with only the commissars having any prosperity. But then, I have said that numerous time on this thread, and only now you are recognizing it because a linguist said its so? ROTFLMAO


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wall Street used the Red Cross in Russia in 1917 to supply Lenin with food and other essentials. John Foster Dulles alleged that New York bankers "viewed the American Red Cross as a virtual arm of government..."
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! So what other irrelevant and useless information do you want to share. OF COURSE OUR GOVERNMENT CHOOSE TO INTERFERE IN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION. What else is old?
> 
> Regardless, the Russian people went hungry, even with the FOOD AID TO RUSSIA.
> 
> BTW, what part of ALLEGE is fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think Lenin's revolution would have been successful without Wall Street's help?
> Note the question says nothing about OUR GOVERNMENT.
Click to expand...

Oh? So when you alluded to the Red Cross helping feed some people in Russia happened without our government involved? 

What was it the Sec of State at the time said? Wall street thought what about the Red Cross?

As to whether the revolution would win or not, I think that was a foregone conclusion, since the masses were starving under Czarist Russia.


----------



## Chris




----------



## bripat9643

Chris said:


>



Your poster has already been debunked, asshole.


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.
> 
> He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to say....  doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?
> 
> After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system.  When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.
> 
> I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs.    And why did the company do this?   Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.
> 
> In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology.  That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it.    Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.
Click to expand...


Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.

Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same.   Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?

It's part of the system.   It's how socialism works.

See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.

That's simply not true.   During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.

Victor Chernov: Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.

Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14

See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism.  They don't.   You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists.  We're not.

It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).

I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union.     The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.

When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks.   The German workers are PRO-Company.  Not anti-company.

Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
 By Jonathan Aves
On sale today on Amazon!
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Workers-Against-Lenin-Dictatorship-International/dp/1860640672#]Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.

Paraphrase from Page 179.
Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group.   The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.

Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit.  Sounds like Free-market Capitalism.    Well of course Lenin was against that.  He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.

Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people.  The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system.  The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.

This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later.   The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will.   You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to say....  doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?
> 
> After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system.  When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.
> 
> I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs.    And why did the company do this?   Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.
> 
> In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology.  That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it.    Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.
> 
> 
> 
> The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.
> 
> Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same.   Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?
> 
> It's part of the system.   It's how socialism works.
> 
> See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.
> 
> That's simply not true.   During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.
> 
> Victor Chernov: Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.
> 
> Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
> Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14
> 
> See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism.  They don't.   You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists.  We're not.
> 
> It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).
> 
> I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union.     The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.
> 
> When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks.   The German workers are PRO-Company.  Not anti-company.
> 
> Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
> By Jonathan Aves
> On sale today on Amazon!
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Workers-Against-Lenin-Dictatorship-International/dp/1860640672#]Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.
> 
> Paraphrase from Page 179.
> Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group.   The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.
> 
> Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit.  Sounds like Free-market Capitalism.    Well of course Lenin was against that.  He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.
> 
> Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people.  The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system.  The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.
> 
> This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later.   The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will.   You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.
Click to expand...

"Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."

*First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky*

"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. 

"One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. 

"In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction."

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to say....  doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?
> 
> After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system.  When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.
> 
> I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs.    And why did the company do this?   Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.
> 
> In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology.  That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it.    Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.
> 
> 
> 
> The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, another loser. Noam Chomsky, a linguist who made many comments he knew little about. I will agree that, as is the only road in any socialist state, became a dictatorship with little resemblance of the socialist utopia it was supposed to be. That is the only way a socialist state can survive for any length of time, by autocratic/dictatorial leadership with only the commissars having any prosperity. But then, I have said that numerous time on this thread, and only now you are recognizing it because a linguist said its so? ROTFLMAO
Click to expand...

*Convince me you know more than Chomsky:*

"Avram Noam Chomsky (/&#712;no&#650;m &#712;t&#643;&#594;mski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[20][21] cognitive scientist, logician,[22][23][24] political commentator and activist. Sometimes described as the 'father of modern linguistics',[25][26] 

"Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy.[20] He has spent most of his career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he is currently Professor Emeritus, and *has authored over 100 books*. 

"He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in a 2005 poll.[27]"

*Start with your Wiki and don't forget to mention how many books you've published.

Chomsky spent much of his youth absorbing socialism in New York during the politics of the Depression era at his uncle's kiosk at 72nd and Broadway. All the various Marxist sectarian politics were discussed during the greatest crisis capitalism has produced so far. You're probably arrogant enough to believe anything you've said rivals Chomsky, but all you've really accomplished is to reestablish the dangers of mixing ignorance with arrogance. *

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Andylusion

georgephillip said:


> "Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."
> 
> *First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky*



Well apparently I don't have to, because you take the word of a linguist on social economic systems.

If you are that dumb.... then I don't have to convince you of anything.

Further, you just eliminated all credibility that you have.  So why would I bother trying to convince someone who takes the word of a linguist on social economic systems?

That's like Forest Gump demanding I convince him on quantum physics.  Why would I care if I convinced him of anything?  Same goes for you.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.
> 
> Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same.   Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?
> 
> It's part of the system.   It's how socialism works.
> 
> See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.
> 
> That's simply not true.   During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.
> 
> Victor Chernov: Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.
> 
> Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
> Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14
> 
> See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism.  They don't.   You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists.  We're not.
> 
> It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).
> 
> I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union.     The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.
> 
> When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks.   The German workers are PRO-Company.  Not anti-company.
> 
> Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
> By Jonathan Aves
> On sale today on Amazon!
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Workers-Against-Lenin-Dictatorship-International/dp/1860640672#]Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.
> 
> Paraphrase from Page 179.
> Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group.   The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.
> 
> Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit.  Sounds like Free-market Capitalism.    Well of course Lenin was against that.  He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.
> 
> Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people.  The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system.  The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.
> 
> This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later.   The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will.   You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."
> 
> *First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky*
Click to expand...


ROFL!  Chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge.  That's all you need to know to understand what an incredible dumbass Chomsky is.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, another loser. Noam Chomsky, a linguist who made many comments he knew little about. I will agree that, as is the only road in any socialist state, became a dictatorship with little resemblance of the socialist utopia it was supposed to be. That is the only way a socialist state can survive for any length of time, by autocratic/dictatorial leadership with only the commissars having any prosperity. But then, I have said that numerous time on this thread, and only now you are recognizing it because a linguist said its so? ROTFLMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Convince me you know more than Chomsky:*
> 
> "Avram Noam Chomsky (/&#712;no&#650;m &#712;t&#643;&#594;mski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[20][21] cognitive scientist, logician,[22][23][24] political commentator and activist. Sometimes described as the 'father of modern linguistics',[25][26]
> 
> "Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy.[20] He has spent most of his career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he is currently Professor Emeritus, and *has authored over 100 books*.
> 
> "He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in a 2005 poll.[27]"
> 
> *Start with your Wiki and don't forget to mention how many books you've published.
> 
> Chomsky spent much of his youth absorbing socialism in New York during the politics of the Depression era at his uncle's kiosk at 72nd and Broadway. All the various Marxist sectarian politics were discussed during the greatest crisis capitalism has produced so far. You're probably arrogant enough to believe anything you've said rivals Chomsky, but all you've really accomplished is to reestablish the dangers of mixing ignorance with arrogance. *
> 
> Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


The number of books you publish doesn't make you correct about anything.  Karl Marx published one book.  Is he dead wrong?


----------



## Andylusion

Chris said:


>



But it's not true....  so.... why post something over and over that isn't true?


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."
> 
> *First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well apparently I don't have to, because you take the word of a linguist on social economic systems.
> 
> If you are that dumb.... then I don't have to convince you of anything.
> 
> Further, you just eliminated all credibility that you have.  So why would I bother trying to convince someone who takes the word of a linguist on social economic systems?
> 
> That's like Forest Gump demanding I convince him on quantum physics.  Why would I care if I convinced him of anything?  Same goes for you.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Chomsky has an opinion of socialism that is far more grounded in reality than yours.

Feel free to disabuse me of that belief if you can.

Start with his contention that any relation between socialism and the system created by Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin is one of contradiction.


----------



## georgephillip

Androw said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to say....  doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?
> 
> After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system.  When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.
> 
> I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs.    And why did the company do this?   Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.
> 
> In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology.  That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it.    Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.
> 
> 
> 
> The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.
> 
> Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same.   Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?
> 
> It's part of the system.   It's how socialism works.
> 
> See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.
> 
> That's simply not true.   During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.
> 
> Victor Chernov: Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.
> 
> Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
> Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14
> 
> See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism.  They don't.   You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists.  We're not.
> 
> It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).
> 
> I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union.     The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.
> 
> When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks.   The German workers are PRO-Company.  Not anti-company.
> 
> Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
> By Jonathan Aves
> On sale today on Amazon!
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Workers-Against-Lenin-Dictatorship-International/dp/1860640672#]Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.
> 
> Paraphrase from Page 179.
> Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group.   The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.
> 
> Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit.  Sounds like Free-market Capitalism.    Well of course Lenin was against that.  He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.
> 
> Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people.  The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system.  The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.
> 
> This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later.   The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will.   You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.
Click to expand...

"I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union.     The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.

"When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks.   The German workers are PRO-Company.  Not anti-company."

*Do you know why those Germans were PRO-company, Forrest?

Because in Germany workers have voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the companies they work for. When greedy, German capitalists wanted to move "their" factories to China, their workers voted against the move.

Think of it as an example of socialism bringing democracy to the work place.*


----------



## dnsmith35

Chris said:


>


Great! One more Capitalist economy, which simply has more social programs than the US. It doesn't make it better, only different. In our little southern state The average teacher salary is $47,803. I have one daughter, single mother, who works in that field and she does very well on her salary and she relishes that she only has to work an average of 180 days a year to earn it. She makes more than then the average person in Alabama and with our cost of living is saving for a great retirement.

If you want to whine about what people earn in other countries, you need to research HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO LIVE IN THAT COUNTRY. Prices in Denmark are VERY HIGH and it is very likely my daughter has more left over at the end of the month than that Danish teacher. You don't have to go beyond our shores to see disparities in income. The average teacher in Alabama makes less than the average teacher in California or New York, yet our teachers can afford a better living here than there. One can buy a decent 3 BR 2 Bath brick home here for around $100,000. Can you do that in L.A. or NYC.

If you want to concern yourself with other economies, look at India, where at the school where I graduated from in 1952 are not allowed by the Indian government to pay more than the $400 a month, which exceeds the national average for teachers. Yet those teachers do very well with the cost of living in India.

That being the case, your arbitrary choice to tell us about Danish teachers means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.
> 
> Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same.   Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?
> 
> It's part of the system.   It's how socialism works.
> 
> See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.
> 
> That's simply not true.   During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.
> 
> Victor Chernov: Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.
> 
> Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
> Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14
> 
> See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism.  They don't.   You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists.  We're not.
> 
> It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).
> 
> I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union.     The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.
> 
> When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks.   The German workers are PRO-Company.  Not anti-company.
> 
> Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
> By Jonathan Aves
> On sale today on Amazon!
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Workers-Against-Lenin-Dictatorship-International/dp/1860640672#]Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.
> 
> Paraphrase from Page 179.
> Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group.   The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.
> 
> Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit.  Sounds like Free-market Capitalism.    Well of course Lenin was against that.  He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.
> 
> Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people.  The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system.  The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.
> 
> This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later.   The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will.   You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."
> 
> *First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky*
> 
> "When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.
> 
> "One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.
> 
> "In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
Click to expand...

When you quote Noam Chomsky, the linguist who believes he knows everything about everything, you need to recognize that he as a linguist really knows little about anything besides linguistics.

I over looked one reference to Sutton, who once worked at the same place as Sowell. It is a shame what Sowell understood did not rub off on Sutton. If it had, Sutton would not be making such sweeping comments of which he in completely incomparable to Sowell.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, another loser. Noam Chomsky, a linguist who made many comments he knew little about. I will agree that, as is the only road in any socialist state, became a dictatorship with little resemblance of the socialist utopia it was supposed to be. That is the only way a socialist state can survive for any length of time, by autocratic/dictatorial leadership with only the commissars having any prosperity. But then, I have said that numerous time on this thread, and only now you are recognizing it because a linguist said its so? ROTFLMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Convince me you know more than Chomsky:*
> 
> "Avram Noam Chomsky (/&#712;no&#650;m &#712;t&#643;&#594;mski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[20][21] cognitive scientist, logician,[22][23][24] political commentator and activist. Sometimes described as the 'father of modern linguistics',[25][26]
> 
> "Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy.[20] He has spent most of his career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he is currently Professor Emeritus, and *has authored over 100 books*.
> 
> "He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in a 2005 poll.[27]"
> 
> *Start with your Wiki and don't forget to mention how many books you've published.
> 
> Chomsky spent much of his youth absorbing socialism in New York during the politics of the Depression era at his uncle's kiosk at 72nd and Broadway. All the various Marxist sectarian politics were discussed during the greatest crisis capitalism has produced so far. You're probably arrogant enough to believe anything you've said rivals Chomsky, but all you've really accomplished is to reestablish the dangers of mixing ignorance with arrogance. *
> 
> Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


1. Publishing a book does not prove your competence in a subject other than your specialty.
2. I would accept much of what Chomsky says about Linguistics.
3. I don't need to prove crap about what I know beyond what socialists believe is good for the state.
4. There has never been a successful socialist economy, and there never will be.
5. Marxism is the epitome of dictatorial statism.
6. Marxism/Socialism/Communism needs an autocratic/dictatorial government to function even for a few years and only the leaders/commissars ever acquire any level of prosperity.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."
> 
> *First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well apparently I don't have to, because you take the word of a linguist on social economic systems.
> 
> If you are that dumb.... then I don't have to convince you of anything.
> 
> Further, you just eliminated all credibility that you have.  So why would I bother trying to convince someone who takes the word of a linguist on social economic systems?
> 
> That's like Forest Gump demanding I convince him on quantum physics.  Why would I care if I convinced him of anything?  Same goes for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure Chomsky has an opinion of socialism that is far more grounded in reality than yours.
> 
> Feel free to disabuse me of that belief if you can.
> 
> Start with his contention that any relation between socialism and the system created by Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin is one of contradiction.
Click to expand...

Actually, he doesn't. Chomsky is enamored with socialism without reason. Like you, he has wasted his credibility by discussing subjects relative to economics without understanding economics. One will find it difficult or impossible to prove a negative; and since Chomsky is not economics knowledgeable you will just have to accept the many stupid things he says about many things, including socialism, without further ado.

Knowing what socialism is does not in any make one an expert on socialism in practice. When I see the "Chomsky" reference outside of linguistics, I know the referee is not familiar of the subject or Chomsky. I also know that even when confronting you with data from a study, you still don't accept the data unless it is one of your skewed left wing extremist sites.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.
> 
> Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same.   Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?
> 
> It's part of the system.   It's how socialism works.
> 
> See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.
> 
> That's simply not true.   During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.
> 
> Victor Chernov: Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.
> 
> Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
> Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14
> 
> See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism.  They don't.   You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists.  We're not.
> 
> It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).
> 
> I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union.     The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.
> 
> When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks.   The German workers are PRO-Company.  Not anti-company.
> 
> Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
> By Jonathan Aves
> On sale today on Amazon!
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Workers-Against-Lenin-Dictatorship-International/dp/1860640672#]Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.
> 
> Paraphrase from Page 179.
> Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group.   The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.
> 
> Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit.  Sounds like Free-market Capitalism.    Well of course Lenin was against that.  He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.
> 
> Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people.  The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system.  The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.
> 
> This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later.   The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will.   You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union.     The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.
> 
> "When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks.   The German workers are PRO-Company.  Not anti-company."
> 
> *Do you know why those Germans were PRO-company, Forrest?
> 
> Because in Germany workers have voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the companies they work for. When greedy, German capitalists wanted to move "their" factories to China, their workers voted against the move.
> 
> Think of it as an example of socialism bringing democracy to the work place.*
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO! And of course you have lots of experience with German Unions, right? ROTFLMAO!. I spent 13 years in Germany, and in 8 of those years worked with German Union workers. In 3 of those 8 years, as the Materiel Officer for an industrial operation I was constantly in discussion with the unions. German unions cannot stop German companies from out sourcing, especially for components which are imported into Germany for installation in the end product.

When the German company Mercedes opened its doors in ALABAMA, the company let the UAW reps come in and discuss the union with all the labor, which unequivocally told the union NO. Just one example of Mercedes outsourcing for costs.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.
> 
> Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same.   Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?
> 
> It's part of the system.   It's how socialism works.
> 
> See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.
> 
> That's simply not true.   During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.
> 
> Victor Chernov: Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.
> 
> Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
> Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14
> 
> See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism.  They don't.   You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists.  We're not.
> 
> It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).
> 
> I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union.     The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.
> 
> When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks.   The German workers are PRO-Company.  Not anti-company.
> 
> Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
> By Jonathan Aves
> On sale today on Amazon!
> Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.
> 
> Paraphrase from Page 179.
> Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group.   The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.
> 
> Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit.  Sounds like Free-market Capitalism.    Well of course Lenin was against that.  He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.
> 
> Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people.  The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system.  The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.
> 
> This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later.   The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will.   You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.
> 
> 
> 
> "Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."
> 
> *First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky*
> 
> "When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.
> 
> "One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.
> 
> "In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you quote Noam Chomsky, the linguist who believes he knows everything about everything, you need to recognize that he as a linguist really knows little about anything besides linguistics.
> 
> I over looked one reference to Sutton, who once worked at the same place as Sowell. It is a shame what Sowell understood did not rub off on Sutton. If it had, Sutton would not be making such sweeping comments of which he in completely incomparable to Sowell.
Click to expand...

It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED.

You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."
> 
> *First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky*
> 
> "When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.
> 
> "One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.
> 
> "In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
> 
> 
> 
> When you quote Noam Chomsky, the linguist who believes he knows everything about everything, you need to recognize that he as a linguist really knows little about anything besides linguistics.
> 
> I over looked one reference to Sutton, who once worked at the same place as Sowell. It is a shame what Sowell understood did not rub off on Sutton. If it had, Sutton would not be making such sweeping comments of which he in completely incomparable to Sowell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED.
> 
> You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?
Click to expand...

Not at all.. But you prove conclusively you are not a legend in anyone's mind by quoting people who lean socialist to justify your personal attraction to socialism. My only call to fame is, I don't address areas about which I am not personally aware. Economics and economic systems are my forte. It appears you don't have any forte at all but making stupid statements and calling on people to support you who are no more an expert in the field than you are. You are totally economics challenged. Chomsky LIKES socialism, he doesn't understand the ramifications of the system.

In fact the conversation was about Chomsky NOT KNOWING MUCH ABOUT SOCIALISM. What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?

But why not answer a couple of questions:

Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?

What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?

Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR?


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you quote Noam Chomsky, the linguist who believes he knows everything about everything, you need to recognize that he as a linguist really knows little about anything besides linguistics.
> 
> I over looked one reference to Sutton, who once worked at the same place as Sowell. It is a shame what Sowell understood did not rub off on Sutton. If it had, Sutton would not be making such sweeping comments of which he in completely incomparable to Sowell.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED.
> 
> You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.. But you prove conclusively you are not a legend in anyone's mind by quoting people who lean socialist to justify your personal attraction to socialism. My only call to fame is, I don't address areas about which I am not personally aware. Economics and economic systems are my forte. It appears you don't have any forte at all but making stupid statements and calling on people to support you who are no more an expert in the field than you are. You are totally economics challenged. Chomsky LIKES socialism, he doesn't understand the ramifications of the system.
> 
> In fact the conversation was about Chomsky NOT KNOWING MUCH ABOUT SOCIALISM. What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
> 
> But why not answer a couple of questions:
> 
> Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?
> 
> What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
> 
> Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR?
Click to expand...

"Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation. 

"As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, 'this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,' but can only be 'realized by the workers themselves being master over production.' 

"Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances. 

"But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.

"The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda. 

"They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who 'pre-empt the developing revolutionary process' and distort it to their ends of domination; 'Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests,' which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life. 

"For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx). 

"Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.

"The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. 

"In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. 

"Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. 

"Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED.
> 
> You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.. But you prove conclusively you are not a legend in anyone's mind by quoting people who lean socialist to justify your personal attraction to socialism. My only call to fame is, I don't address areas about which I am not personally aware. Economics and economic systems are my forte. It appears you don't have any forte at all but making stupid statements and calling on people to support you who are no more an expert in the field than you are. You are totally economics challenged. Chomsky LIKES socialism, he doesn't understand the ramifications of the system.
> 
> In fact the conversation was about Chomsky NOT KNOWING MUCH ABOUT SOCIALISM. What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
> 
> But why not answer a couple of questions:
> 
> Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?
> 
> What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
> 
> Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
> 
> "As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, 'this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,' but can only be 'realized by the workers themselves being master over production.'
> 
> "Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances.
> 
> "But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.
> 
> "The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda.
> 
> "They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who 'pre-empt the developing revolutionary process' and distort it to their ends of domination; 'Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests,' which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life.
> 
> "For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx).
> 
> "Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.
> 
> "The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start.
> 
> "In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential.
> 
> "Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood.
> 
> "Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
Click to expand...


That's propaganda.  Chomsky is just making excuses for the failure of socialism by claiming it wasn't real socialism.  There isn't a single fact in that diatribe.  so what is it that Chomsky "knows" about socialism that's actually true?


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.. But you prove conclusively you are not a legend in anyone's mind by quoting people who lean socialist to justify your personal attraction to socialism. My only call to fame is, I don't address areas about which I am not personally aware. Economics and economic systems are my forte. It appears you don't have any forte at all but making stupid statements and calling on people to support you who are no more an expert in the field than you are. You are totally economics challenged. Chomsky LIKES socialism, he doesn't understand the ramifications of the system.
> 
> In fact the conversation was about Chomsky NOT KNOWING MUCH ABOUT SOCIALISM. What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
> 
> But why not answer a couple of questions:
> 
> Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?
> 
> What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
> 
> Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR?
> 
> 
> 
> "Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
> 
> "As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, 'this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,' but can only be 'realized by the workers themselves being master over production.'
> 
> "Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances.
> 
> "But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.
> 
> "The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda.
> 
> "They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who 'pre-empt the developing revolutionary process' and distort it to their ends of domination; 'Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests,' which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life.
> 
> "For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx).
> 
> "Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.
> 
> "The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start.
> 
> "In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential.
> 
> "Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood.
> 
> "Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's propaganda.  Chomsky is just making excuses for the failure of socialism by claiming it wasn't real socialism.  There isn't a single fact in that diatribe.  so what is it that Chomsky "knows" about socialism that's actually true?
Click to expand...

Lenin sold out his revolution to Wall Street in exchange for food.
Western capitalists received lucrative asbestos concessions and half-a-million acres of prime Siberian timber. Chomsky knows how Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin did away with the democratic control by producers over production by doing away with the revolutionary Soviets and factory committees. Can you provide any intelligent evidence to the contrary?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED. You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?



Not at all.. But you prove conclusively you are not a legend in anyone's mind by quoting people who lean socialist to justify your personal attraction to socialism. My only call to fame is, I don't address areas about which I am not personally aware. Economics and economic systems are my forte. It appears you don't have any forte at all but making stupid statements and calling on people to support you who are no more an expert in the field than you are. You are totally economics challenged. Chomsky LIKES socialism, he doesn't understand the ramifications of the system.

In fact the conversation was about Chomsky NOT KNOWING MUCH ABOUT SOCIALISM. What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?

But why not answer a couple of questions:

Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?

What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?

Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR? 





> "Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.


Bwahahahaha - that may have been what some theorist WANTED but it is an impossible tenet.





> "As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, 'this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,' but can only be 'realized by the workers themselves being master over production.'


Another impossible "THEORY!"





> "Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances.


Hogwash!





> "But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.


 A formula for TOTAL DISASTER.





> "The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda.


 Of course they did. They knew positively up front that no socialist system could exist without an autocratic/dictatorial government CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE. Socialism is a dream and won't work in the real world.





> "They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who 'pre-empt the developing revolutionary process' and distort it to their ends of domination; 'Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests,' which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life.


WHY? Because the leaders of the revolution knew as a matter of fact that without that dictatorship the, "to each according to his need and from each according to his ability" was unworkable in an uncontrolled world. The high achievers will leave if not controlled.

"For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx). [/QUOTE]Lenin understood socialism better than the rest of the theorists, proved by his, "THE MASSES MUST BE STRICTLY DISCIPLINED," comment.





> "Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.


One more stupid statement by an idiot who does not understand that LENIN WAS RIGHT, THE PEOPLE MUST BE DISCIPLINED.





> "The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start.


Lenin knew what he was doing. He let the theorist create people who wanted what they were selling but was smart enough to know that once the revolution took control all would be lost since socialism cannot survive without dictatorial government.





> "In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential.


There was never any real potential because the leaders of the revolution knew from the beginning that as soon as they had control of the country dictatorship was needed.





> "Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood.


Of course they did, how else was "socialism" to "succeed?"





> "Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky


Like I said in earlier posts, CHOMSKY knew nothing about true socialism. He liked theoretical socialism but such a status can never be realized and Chomsky was not smart enough to recognize that theoretical socialism was impossible and the only possible socialism was statist socialism where there was a dictatorial government. Chomsky was an ignorant theorist, he was that part of the intelligentsia who dreamed but could not accept the facts.

*Thank you for posting all of those comments from the book. They prove my point conclusively.*

People who believe socialism will work as theorized are abject fools.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
> 
> "As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, 'this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,' but can only be 'realized by the workers themselves being master over production.'
> 
> "Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances.
> 
> "But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.
> 
> "The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda.
> 
> "They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who 'pre-empt the developing revolutionary process' and distort it to their ends of domination; 'Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests,' which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life.
> 
> "For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx).
> 
> "Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.
> 
> "The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start.
> 
> "In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential.
> 
> "Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood.
> 
> "Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's propaganda.  Chomsky is just making excuses for the failure of socialism by claiming it wasn't real socialism.  There isn't a single fact in that diatribe.  so what is it that Chomsky "knows" about socialism that's actually true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lenin sold out his revolution to Wall Street in exchange for food.
> Western capitalists received lucrative asbestos concessions and half-a-million acres of prime Siberian timber. Chomsky knows how Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin did away with the democratic control by producers over production by doing away with the revolutionary Soviets and factory committees. Can you provide any intelligent evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...

The idiocy of Chomsky's diatribe is, *Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin knew what Chomsky did not, SOCIALISM CANNOT SUCCEED WITHOUT STRONG AUTOCRATIC/DICTATORIAL GOVERMENT.*

The definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster will tell most of the story:

Full Definition of SOCIALISM


1:  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 


*2 a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property 

b :  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state *​
Socialism cannot work without 2 b:


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's propaganda.  Chomsky is just making excuses for the failure of socialism by claiming it wasn't real socialism.  There isn't a single fact in that diatribe.  so what is it that Chomsky "knows" about socialism that's actually true?
> 
> 
> 
> Lenin sold out his revolution to Wall Street in exchange for food.
> Western capitalists received lucrative asbestos concessions and half-a-million acres of prime Siberian timber. Chomsky knows how Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin did away with the democratic control by producers over production by doing away with the revolutionary Soviets and factory committees. Can you provide any intelligent evidence to the contrary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idiocy of Chomsky's diatribe is, *Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin knew what Chomsky did not, SOCIALISM CANNOT SUCCEED WITHOUT STRONG AUTOCRATIC/DICTATORIAL GOVERMENT.*
> 
> The definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster will tell most of the story:
> 
> Full Definition of SOCIALISM
> 
> 
> 1:  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> 
> *2 a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> 
> b :  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state *​
> Socialism cannot work without 2 b:
Click to expand...

Socialism cannot exist with 2b


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lenin sold out his revolution to Wall Street in exchange for food.
> Western capitalists received lucrative asbestos concessions and half-a-million acres of prime Siberian timber. Chomsky knows how Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin did away with the democratic control by producers over production by doing away with the revolutionary Soviets and factory committees. Can you provide any intelligent evidence to the contrary?
> 
> 
> 
> The idiocy of Chomsky's diatribe is, *Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin knew what Chomsky did not, SOCIALISM CANNOT SUCCEED WITHOUT STRONG AUTOCRATIC/DICTATORIAL GOVERMENT.*
> 
> The definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster will tell most of the story:
> 
> Full Definition of SOCIALISM
> 
> 
> 1:  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> 
> *2 a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> 
> b :  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state *​
> Socialism cannot work without 2 b:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism cannot exist with 2b
Click to expand...


Interestingly, the socialists will murder, steal and maim in order to own and control the means of productions even though it wont help the people any.

.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lenin sold out his revolution to Wall Street in exchange for food.
> Western capitalists received lucrative asbestos concessions and half-a-million acres of prime Siberian timber. Chomsky knows how Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin did away with the democratic control by producers over production by doing away with the revolutionary Soviets and factory committees. Can you provide any intelligent evidence to the contrary?
> 
> 
> 
> The idiocy of Chomsky's diatribe is, *Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin knew what Chomsky did not, SOCIALISM CANNOT SUCCEED WITHOUT STRONG AUTOCRATIC/DICTATORIAL GOVERMENT.*
> 
> The definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster will tell most of the story:
> 
> Full Definition of SOCIALISM
> 
> 
> 1:  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> 
> *2 a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> 
> b :  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state *​
> Socialism cannot work without 2 b:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism cannot exist with 2b
Click to expand...

*Socialism can ONLY EXIST WITH 2 b:**There is good reason for that, which you socialist theorists don't understand. When production is owned and controlled collectively such that there is the "from all according to his ability and to all according to his needs" is an element of social control, THERE MUST BE A DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT TO KEEP THE HIGH ACHIEVERS FROM LEAVING. Ultimately only the leaders/commissars will achieve any kind of prosperity.*


----------



## dnsmith35

There have been many experiments of socialism. There has never been a success. Even in the US we have had experiments of socialism. In Louisiana, not far from my home of birth, there was a 7,000+ area purchased as a place for a socialist community to function. The result of failure, which could be expected from the beginning, and after a few years of mismanagement by the COLLECTIVE it ceased to exist. As is further to be expected, the land was mostly sold off for the benefit of the LEADERS of the group. The experiment ended in 1939, just 22 years after its inception. "New Llano continued to function as a socialist commune with citizens pooling and sharing resources and wealth until 1939, when, the historians tell us "human nature" and the Great Depression finally did it in."​If you read more about the history of the colony you will note that while socialism may be successful for a short time, but in the end human behavior takes over, and since it could not by its nature, New LLano could not be dictatorial so it fell apart. In addition, the deep pockets which bought the 7,000 acres took final control and the colony dissolved into nothing.


----------



## dnsmith35

"Socialism didn't rub off much on us kids that was at the colony," said Tony Vacik, 79, his eyes narrowed against the sun and the years. "But it sure rubbed off on the government. Now you got old-age pensions, keeping care of the poor and handicapped, unions, Social Security. That's all they was squawkin' about at Llano."

Harriman's attempt to establish a model community based on cooperative economic ideals attracted nearly 1,000 people to the 2,000 acres in the Antelope Valley. Among them were the family of Tony Vacik, then 5 and now one of the colony's last survivors.* After four years, the colony succumbed to a combination of elements, among them internal strife and a host of enemies, including the fiercely anti-Harriman Los Angeles Times.*
Despite their historical significance, the ruins have been looted, vandalized and allowed to decay. A Los Angeles County proposal seeking $100,000 in state funds to preserve the site was rejected last month. Seventy-five years after Llano was founded, scholars and many Antelope Valley residents fear that its last vestiges will disappear.

"It was the most important non-religious utopian colony in Western American history," said Knox Mellon of the Mission Inn Foundation, former head of the state Office of Historic Preservation, and an expert on Harriman and Llano. "It was short-lived, but many communal efforts were short-lived. There was a lot of camaraderie and enthusiasm, a belief that utopia was at hand."


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> "Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.



Really?

What is exploitation?

Is working for a living exploitation?

If so, then who is supposed to support you?

.


----------



## Chris

Republicans are against unions and the minimum wage.

Republican hate working people.


----------



## Contumacious

Chris said:


> Republicans are against unions and the minimum wage.
> 
> Republican hate working people.



That is not true.

But the federal government is supposed to be NEUTRAL.

How much a worker makes should be CONTRACTUALLY determine by the employer-employee relationship.


----------



## dnsmith35

Contumacious said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are against unions and the minimum wage.
> 
> Republican hate working people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> 
> But the federal government is supposed to be NEUTRAL.
> 
> How much a worker makes should be CONTRACTUALLY determine by the employer-employee relationship.
Click to expand...


Actually the key words of any employer/employee contract should be WAGE EARNED, without regard to political party.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED. You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.. But you prove conclusively you are not a legend in anyone's mind by quoting people who lean socialist to justify your personal attraction to socialism. My only call to fame is, I don't address areas about which I am not personally aware. Economics and economic systems are my forte. It appears you don't have any forte at all but making stupid statements and calling on people to support you who are no more an expert in the field than you are. You are totally economics challenged. Chomsky LIKES socialism, he doesn't understand the ramifications of the system.
> 
> In fact the conversation was about Chomsky NOT KNOWING MUCH ABOUT SOCIALISM. What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
> 
> But why not answer a couple of questions:
> 
> Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?
> 
> What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
> 
> Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahahaha - that may have been what some theorist WANTED but it is an impossible tenet.Another impossible "THEORY!"Hogwash! A formula for TOTAL DISASTER. Of course they did. They knew positively up front that no socialist system could exist without an autocratic/dictatorial government CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE. Socialism is a dream and won't work in the real world.WHY? Because the leaders of the revolution knew as a matter of fact that without that dictatorship the, "to each according to his need and from each according to his ability" was unworkable in an uncontrolled world. The high achievers will leave if not controlled.
> 
> "For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx).
Click to expand...

Lenin understood socialism better than the rest of the theorists, proved by his, "THE MASSES MUST BE STRICTLY DISCIPLINED," comment.One more stupid statement by an idiot who does not understand that LENIN WAS RIGHT, THE PEOPLE MUST BE DISCIPLINED.Lenin knew what he was doing. He let the theorist create people who wanted what they were selling but was smart enough to know that once the revolution took control all would be lost since socialism cannot survive without dictatorial government.





> "In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential.


There was never any real potential because the leaders of the revolution knew from the beginning that as soon as they had control of the country dictatorship was needed.





> "Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood.


Of course they did, how else was "socialism" to "succeed?"





> "Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky


Like I said in earlier posts, CHOMSKY knew nothing about true socialism. He liked theoretical socialism but such a status can never be realized and Chomsky was not smart enough to recognize that theoretical socialism was impossible and the only possible socialism was statist socialism where there was a dictatorial government. Chomsky was an ignorant theorist, he was that part of the intelligentsia who dreamed but could not accept the facts.

*Thank you for posting all of those comments from the book. They prove my point conclusively.*

People who believe socialism will work as theorized are abject fools.[/QUOTE]
All your tripe would be more impressive if you knew what socialism meant.
You don't.
You're a senile, business school educated hack who swallowed capitalism hook. line, sinker, and dingy.
The fact you're arrogant enough to believe you know more about socialism than someone who lived it in a Palestine kibbutz tells me all I need to know about your hubris and stupidity.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idiocy of Chomsky's diatribe is, *Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin knew what Chomsky did not, SOCIALISM CANNOT SUCCEED WITHOUT STRONG AUTOCRATIC/DICTATORIAL GOVERMENT.*
> 
> The definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster will tell most of the story:
> 
> Full Definition of SOCIALISM
> 
> 
> 1:  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> 
> *2 a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> 
> b :  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state *​
> Socialism cannot work without 2 b:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism cannot exist with 2b
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Socialism can ONLY EXIST WITH 2 b:**There is good reason for that, which you socialist theorists don't understand. When production is owned and controlled collectively such that there is the "from all according to his ability and to all according to his needs" is an element of social control, THERE MUST BE A DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT TO KEEP THE HIGH ACHIEVERS FROM LEAVING. Ultimately only the leaders/commissars will achieve any kind of prosperity.*
Click to expand...

*Step into 21st Century Socialism:*

"Something important for both socialist theory and working-class alternatives has been steadily growing in Spains Basque country over the past 50 years, and is now spreading slowly across Spain, Europe and the rest of the globe.

"Its an experiment, at once radical and practical, in how the working-class can become the masters of their workplaces and surrounding communities, growing steadily and successfully competing with the capitalism of the old order and laying the foundations of something newits known as the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC).

"Just what that something new adds up to is often contested. Some see the experiment as a major new advance in a centuries-old cooperative tradition, while a few go further and see it as a contribution to a new socialism for our time. 

"A few others see it both as clever refinement of capitalism and as a reformist diversion likely to fail. Still others see it as a third way full of utopian promise simply to be replicated anywhere in whatever way makes sense to those concerned."

Mondragon as a Bridge to a New Socialism | SolidarityEconomy.net


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> There have been many experiments of socialism. There has never been a success. Even in the US we have had experiments of socialism. In Louisiana, not far from my home of birth, there was a 7,000+ area purchased as a place for a socialist community to function. The result of failure, which could be expected from the beginning, and after a few years of mismanagement by the COLLECTIVE it ceased to exist. As is further to be expected, the land was mostly sold off for the benefit of the LEADERS of the group. The experiment ended in 1939, just 22 years after its inception. "New Llano continued to function as a socialist commune with citizens pooling and sharing resources and wealth until 1939, when, the historians tell us "human nature" and the Great Depression finally did it in."​If you read more about the history of the colony you will note that while socialism may be successful for a short time, but in the end human behavior takes over, and since it could not by its nature, New LLano could not be dictatorial so it fell apart. In addition, the deep pockets which bought the 7,000 acres took final control and the colony dissolved into nothing.


How many capitalists were done in by the Great Depression and human nature?


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> What is exploitation?
> 
> Is working for a living exploitation?
> 
> If so, then who is supposed to support you?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

How about checking democracy at the work place door?
Does that strike you as exploitative?

"*Democracy at Work is a project, begun in 2010, that aims to build a social movement. The movements goal is transition to a new society whose productive enterprises (offices, factories, and stores) will mostly be WSDEs,(worker self-directed enterprises) a true economic democracy. 

"The WSDEs would partner equally with similarly organized residential communities they interact with at the local, regional, and national levels (and hopefully international as well). That partnership would form the basis of genuine participatory democracy."*

There ARE alternatives, Gipper

About DAW ? What is DAW? | Democracy At Work


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED. You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.. But you prove conclusively you are not a legend in anyone's mind by quoting people who lean socialist to justify your personal attraction to socialism. My only call to fame is, I don't address areas about which I am not personally aware. Economics and economic systems are my forte. It appears you don't have any forte at all but making stupid statements and calling on people to support you who are no more an expert in the field than you are. You are totally economics challenged. Chomsky LIKES socialism, he doesn't understand the ramifications of the system.
> 
> In fact the conversation was about Chomsky NOT KNOWING MUCH ABOUT SOCIALISM. What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
> 
> But why not answer a couple of questions:
> 
> Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?
> 
> What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?
> 
> Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR? Bwahahahaha - that may have been what some theorist WANTED but it is an impossible tenet.Another impossible "THEORY!"Hogwash! A formula for TOTAL DISASTER. Of course they did. They knew positively up front that no socialist system could exist without an autocratic/dictatorial government CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE. Socialism is a dream and won't work in the real world.WHY? Because the leaders of the revolution knew as a matter of fact that without that dictatorship the, "to each according to his need and from each according to his ability" was unworkable in an uncontrolled world. The high achievers will leave if not controlled.
> 
> "For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lenin understood socialism better than the rest of the theorists, proved by his, "THE MASSES MUST BE STRICTLY DISCIPLINED," comment.One more stupid statement by an idiot who does not understand that LENIN WAS RIGHT, THE PEOPLE MUST BE DISCIPLINED.Lenin knew what he was doing. He let the theorist create people who wanted what they were selling but was smart enough to know that once the revolution took control all would be lost since socialism cannot survive without dictatorial government.There was never any real potential because the leaders of the revolution knew from the beginning that as soon as they had control of the country dictatorship was needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they did, how else was "socialism" to "succeed?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said in earlier posts, CHOMSKY knew nothing about true socialism. He liked theoretical socialism but such a status can never be realized and Chomsky was not smart enough to recognize that theoretical socialism was impossible and the only possible socialism was statist socialism where there was a dictatorial government. Chomsky was an ignorant theorist, he was that part of the intelligentsia who dreamed but could not accept the facts.
> 
> *Thank you for posting all of those comments from the book. They prove my point conclusively.*
> 
> People who believe socialism will work as theorized are abject fools.
Click to expand...




> All your tripe would be more impressive if you knew what socialism meant.
> You don't.


The fact is, I DO KNOW WHAT SOCIALISM IS THEORETICALLY AND IN REAL LIFE.





> You're a senile, business school educated hack who swallowed capitalism hook. line, sinker, and dingy.


The fact is, I am a liberal who knows what socialism is, and I also know you have swallowed the theoretical socialism hook line, sinker and dingy, and have not got the slightest idea how socialism will fail miserably every time it is tried.





> The fact you're arrogant enough to believe you know more about socialism than someone who lived it in a Palestine kibbutz tells me all I need to know about your hubris and stupidity.


The absolute fact is, even in a Kibutz, there must be STRONG AUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT for it to survive. You are totally ignorant of economics, and your minor exposure to a semi-socialist unit in an ever larger CAPITALIST ECONOMY has done nothing to improve your understanding of what true socialism is. The KIBBUTZ would/will fail miserably without the strong government protecting them and buying their product. Collective farming or small industry communes do not socialism make. I HAVE lived in a socialist union in which the government helped the "colony" get started by clearing jungle, building strip housing, digging a communal well, and furnishing a tractor for all to own collectively, farm the land, and share in the process. As any such program will, it failed over time. Some managed to get higher yield than others, the disillusioned sold out their "interest" or "share" to the more successful, and now the high achievers own it all and the low achievers when no longer cared for by the high achievers went on to their anticipated poverty. 

Nothing you have written about or experienced personally will ever change the fact that NO SOCIALIST EXPERIMENT WITHOUT AUTOCRATIC/DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT WILL SUCCEED, and your Kibbutz experience has not and will not change that.

By the way, your arrogance is showing by your continued arguments for a failed system in the face of many people telling you that you are full of crap.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> What is exploitation?
> 
> Is working for a living exploitation?
> 
> If so, then who is supposed to support you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about checking democracy at the work place door?
> Does that strike you as exploitative?
> 
> "*Democracy at Work is a project, begun in 2010, that aims to build a social movement. The movements goal is transition to a new society whose productive enterprises (offices, factories, and stores) will mostly be WSDEs,(worker self-directed enterprises) a true economic democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...

*

"worker self directed enterprises" Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

That is what the former soviets used to call "bullshitsky".

.

.*


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism cannot exist with 2b
> 
> 
> 
> *Socialism can ONLY EXIST WITH 2 b:**There is good reason for that, which you socialist theorists don't understand. When production is owned and controlled collectively such that there is the "from all according to his ability and to all according to his needs" is an element of social control, THERE MUST BE A DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT TO KEEP THE HIGH ACHIEVERS FROM LEAVING. Ultimately only the leaders/commissars will achieve any kind of prosperity.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Step into 21st Century Socialism:*
> 
> "Something important for both socialist theory and working-class alternatives has been steadily growing in Spains Basque country over the past 50 years, and is now spreading slowly across Spain, Europe and the rest of the globe.
> 
> "Its an experiment, at once radical and practical, in how the working-class can become the masters of their workplaces and surrounding communities, growing steadily and successfully competing with the capitalism of the old order and laying the foundations of something newits known as the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC).
> 
> "Just what that something new adds up to is often contested. Some see the experiment as a major new advance in a centuries-old cooperative tradition, while a few go further and see it as a contribution to a new socialism for our time.
> 
> "A few others see it both as clever refinement of capitalism and as a reformist diversion likely to fail. Still others see it as a third way full of utopian promise simply to be replicated anywhere in whatever way makes sense to those concerned."
> 
> Mondragon as a Bridge to a New Socialism | SolidarityEconomy.net
Click to expand...

Amazing isn't it? Every time you come up with some new "proof" that socialism can work, there I am, having spent 3 years in Spain helping the Spanish government build a high speed communication system. Mondragon is no more socialist that the City of New York is. It is a corporation sponsored attempt to make workers more integrated into Management of their own fate, and it has  elevated the prosperity of the people involved only a little bit. That being explained by the fact that the good Padre had them organized as individual small businesses tied together in an over all production effort. I further not that you chose a socialist propaganda site to which your link refers.

A few others see it both as clever refinement of capitalism and as a reformist diversion likely to fail.​
On of the Spanish gentlemen with whom I was involved in that backbone mountain top microwave relay system was a Basque from a small Pyrenees village. He referred me to a situation in which  a one-two punch hit with opening of Spain's market to Europe in 1986. MMC appliances were suddenly up against major German and French brands. This presented a fateful choice:  compete with multinationals fo into niche markets. Mondragón Co-operative Corporation re-organized in three sectors allowing speedy, centralized decisions in common with the multinational competition. It also became obvious that by the time individual cooperatives reached 500 members, the effectiveness of the coop was depreciated.

Bernard Marszalek: 

"Mondragon obviously is embedded in the global capitalist order. It functions with that reality everyday. Its decisions are based on the proverbial bottom-line. Furthermore, it operates in countries seemingly without concern for the factors many liberals in this country believe should influence investment decisions. Mondragon invests in developing countries to compete on the level of the capitalists. For instance, Mondragon has manufacturing facilities in Mexico so that they can take advantage of NAFTA to import their home appliances into the States. 

The critique of globalism cant escape being applied to Mondragon. Nor can that critique be ignored by those who laud the spectacular growth of the MCC as proof that worker-ownership works!​
So one can, by reading more about what Mondragon is today, as opposed to its "theoretical" Utopianism, is nothing but a Corporation with many share holders who nominate and elect the leadership, and which as a 6 tier "profit sharing structure" based on the work done by the members and a % of return on each share holders original investment which was set at 6% originally. 

One of the failures of the system is, that people who becomes members, such as my friend Aznar, who before his death a few years, stopped working in a coop job and made more money as a contractor servicing the backbone communication system of the Spanish Army and Navy. He continued to get his 6% and his family now receives that stipend now that he is gone. 

One more failure to show SOCIALISM is real world viable.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been many experiments of socialism. There has never been a success. Even in the US we have had experiments of socialism. In Louisiana, not far from my home of birth, there was a 7,000+ area purchased as a place for a socialist community to function. The result of failure, which could be expected from the beginning, and after a few years of mismanagement by the COLLECTIVE it ceased to exist. As is further to be expected, the land was mostly sold off for the benefit of the LEADERS of the group. The experiment ended in 1939, just 22 years after its inception. "New Llano continued to function as a socialist commune with citizens pooling and sharing resources and wealth until 1939, when, the historians tell us "human nature" and the Great Depression finally did it in."​If you read more about the history of the colony you will note that while socialism may be successful for a short time, but in the end human behavior takes over, and since it could not by its nature, New LLano could not be dictatorial so it fell apart. In addition, the deep pockets which bought the 7,000 acres took final control and the colony dissolved into nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> How many capitalists were done in by the Great Depression and human nature?
Click to expand...

It is the nature of capitalism that failure can occur. But the overall concept of capitalism is alive and well and is the only system which produces sufficient prosperity to the most people and still cares for the less fortunate.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> What is exploitation?
> 
> Is working for a living exploitation?
> 
> If so, then who is supposed to support you?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about checking democracy at the work place door?
> Does that strike you as exploitative?
> 
> "*Democracy at Work is a project, begun in 2010, that aims to build a social movement. The movements goal is transition to a new society whose productive enterprises (offices, factories, and stores) will mostly be WSDEs,(worker self-directed enterprises) a true economic democracy.
> 
> "The WSDEs would partner equally with similarly organized residential communities they interact with at the local, regional, and national levels (and hopefully international as well). That partnership would form the basis of genuine participatory democracy."*
> 
> There ARE alternatives, Gipper
> 
> About DAW ? What is DAW? | Democracy At Work
Click to expand...


Yet no system of that nature has ever succeeded over the long haul. It is the nature of socialism to fail unless dictatorially controlled.

BTW, YOU HAVE NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS I ASKED YOU.

But why not answer a couple of questions:

Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?

What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?

Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR?


----------



## dnsmith35

George, have you figured out what a socialist economic system will always fail? Just like in the Basque experiment, *there comes a time when the cooperative output cannot compete with capitalism in the market place and the "coop" has to widen its horizons and start to live in the capitalist world at some point*, or dry up and go away.


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> What is exploitation?
> 
> Is working for a living exploitation?
> 
> If so, then who is supposed to support you?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> How about checking democracy at the work place door?
> Does that strike you as exploitative?
> 
> "*Democracy at Work is a project, begun in 2010, that aims to build a social movement. The movements goal is transition to a new society whose productive enterprises (offices, factories, and stores) will mostly be WSDEs,(worker self-directed enterprises) a true economic democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> "worker self directed enterprises" Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> 
> That is what the former soviets used to call "bullshitsky".
> 
> .
> 
> .*
Click to expand...

*
Can you say...?

"Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies.[14]

"Over the years, these links have been embodied in a series of operating rules approved on a majority basis by the Co-operative Congresses, which regulate the activity of the Governing Bodies of the Corporation (Standing Committee, General Council), the Grassroots Co-operatives and the Divisions they belong to, from the organisational, institutional and economic points of view as well as in terms of assets.[15]

"This framework of business culture has been structured based on a common culture derived from the 10 Basic Co-operative Principles, in which Mondragon is rooted: Open Admission, Democratic Organisation, the Sovereignty of Labour, Instrumental and Subordinate Nature of Capital, Participatory Management, Payment Solidarity, Inter-cooperation, Social Transformation, Universality and Education.[16]
This philosophy is complemented by four corporate values: Co-operation..."

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about checking democracy at the work place door?
> Does that strike you as exploitative?
> 
> "*Democracy at Work is a project, begun in 2010, that aims to build a social movement. The movements goal is transition to a new society whose productive enterprises (offices, factories, and stores) will mostly be WSDEs,(worker self-directed enterprises) a true economic democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> "worker self directed enterprises" Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> 
> That is what the former soviets used to call "bullshitsky".
> 
> .
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Can you say...?
> 
> "Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies.[14]
> 
> "Over the years, these links have been embodied in a series of operating rules approved on a majority basis by the Co-operative Congresses, which regulate the activity of the Governing Bodies of the Corporation (Standing Committee, General Council), the Grassroots Co-operatives and the Divisions they belong to, from the organisational, institutional and economic points of view as well as in terms of assets.[15]
> 
> "This framework of business culture has been structured based on a common culture derived from the 10 Basic Co-operative Principles, in which Mondragon is rooted: Open Admission, Democratic Organisation, the Sovereignty of Labour, Instrumental and Subordinate Nature of Capital, Participatory Management, Payment Solidarity, Inter-cooperation, Social Transformation, Universality and Education.[16]
> This philosophy is complemented by four corporate values: Co-operation..."
> 
> Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
Click to expand...

*I can say that those who wrote the article believes that. But are you aware that Mondragon Corporation is now competing with global capitalism and is currently using capitalist principles of share holders and is not run by the theoretical utopian concept of socialism as you have been preaching?

Are you also aware that when groups of employees struck for more they were simply thrown out?

You can whine and cry about Mondragon all you want. It is not socialism IAW the typical utopian view. And now that it has joined the capitalist world, it will thrive, but as soon as it throws off the non democratic concept of capitalism it will fail.

Are you aware that workers are fired from the COOP if they do not adequately produce? Are you aware that if thrown out of the COOP they lose their ORIGINAL SHARE INVESTMENT?

You have still failed in giving us a SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE OF SOCIALISM.*


----------



## dnsmith35

George, you really need to look for examples somewhere I have not spent years living. I am personally aware of all of your examples.


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about checking democracy at the work place door?
> Does that strike you as exploitative?
> 
> "*Democracy at Work is a project, begun in 2010, that aims to build a social movement. The movements goal is transition to a new society whose productive enterprises (offices, factories, and stores) will mostly be WSDEs,(worker self-directed enterprises) a true economic democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> "worker self directed enterprises" Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> 
> That is what the former soviets used to call "bullshitsky".
> 
> .
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Can you say...?
> 
> "Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies.[14]
> 
> "Over the years, these links have been embodied in a series of operating rules approved on a majority basis by the Co-operative Congresses, which regulate the activity of the Governing Bodies of the Corporation (Standing Committee, General Council), the Grassroots Co-operatives and the Divisions they belong to, from the organisational, institutional and economic points of view as well as in terms of assets.[15]
> 
> "This framework of business culture has been structured based on a common culture derived from the 10 Basic Co-operative Principles, in which Mondragon is rooted: Open Admission, Democratic Organisation, the Sovereignty of Labour, Instrumental and Subordinate Nature of Capital, Participatory Management, Payment Solidarity, Inter-cooperation, Social Transformation, Universality and Education.[16]
> This philosophy is complemented by four corporate values: Co-operation..."
> 
> Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
Click to expand...

*
Can you say Mondragon Corporation is a capitalist enterprise? Are you so ignorant to believe that any Socialist effort ever has been or ever will work? I believe you are and I believe your Utopian view of Socialism is based on crackpot left wing fanatic sites which you read as gospel.*


----------



## jasonnfree

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.
> 
> Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same.   Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?
> 
> It's part of the system.   It's how socialism works.
> 
> See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.
> 
> That's simply not true.   During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.
> 
> Victor Chernov: Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.
> 
> Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
> Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14
> 
> See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism.  They don't.   You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists.  We're not.
> 
> It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).
> 
> I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union.     The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.
> 
> When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks.   The German workers are PRO-Company.  Not anti-company.
> 
> Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
> By Jonathan Aves
> On sale today on Amazon!
> Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.
> 
> Paraphrase from Page 179.
> Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group.   The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.
> 
> Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit.  Sounds like Free-market Capitalism.    Well of course Lenin was against that.  He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.
> 
> Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people.  The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system.  The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.
> 
> This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later.   The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will.   You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.
> 
> 
> 
> "Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."
> 
> *First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky*
> 
> "When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.
> 
> "One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.
> 
> "In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you quote Noam Chomsky, the linguist who believes he knows everything about everything, you need to recognize that he as a linguist really knows little about anything besides linguistics.
> 
> I over looked one reference to Sutton, who once worked at the same place as Sowell. It is a shame what Sowell understood did not rub off on Sutton. If it had, Sutton would not be making such sweeping comments of which he in completely incomparable to Sowell.
Click to expand...


Chomsky started out a poor man.  His net worth is probably in the Mitt Romney range.  Evidence that Chomky knows a little more than just linguistics.


----------



## Contumacious

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> What is exploitation?
> 
> Is working for a living exploitation?
> 
> If so, then who is supposed to support you?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> How about checking democracy at the work place door?
> Does that strike you as exploitative?
> 
> "*Democracy at Work is a project, begun in 2010, that aims to build a social movement. The movements goal is transition to a new society whose productive enterprises (offices, factories, and stores) will mostly be WSDEs,(worker self-directed enterprises) a true economic democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> "worker self directed enterprises" Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> 
> That is what the former soviets used to call "bullshitsky".http://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/06/karen-de-coster/who-will-tell-the-people/
> 
> .
> 
> .*
Click to expand...

*

*


----------



## jasonnfree

crisismangement said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> "worker self directed enterprises" Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> 
> That is what the former soviets used to call "bullshitsky".
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> *Can you say...?*
> 
> "Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies.[14]
> 
> "Over the years, these links have been embodied in a series of operating rules approved on a majority basis by the Co-operative Congresses, which regulate the activity of the Governing Bodies of the Corporation (Standing Committee, General Council), the Grassroots Co-operatives and the Divisions they belong to, from the organisational, institutional and economic points of view as well as in terms of assets.[15]
> 
> "This framework of business culture has been structured based on a common culture derived from the 10 Basic Co-operative Principles, in which Mondragon is rooted: Open Admission, Democratic Organisation, the Sovereignty of Labour, Instrumental and Subordinate Nature of Capital, Participatory Management, Payment Solidarity, Inter-cooperation, Social Transformation, Universality and Education.[16]
> This philosophy is complemented by four corporate values: Co-operation..."
> 
> Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you say Mondragon Corporation is a capitalist enterprise? Are you so ignorant to believe that any Socialist effort ever has been or ever will work? I believe you are and I believe your Utopian view of Socialism is based on crackpot left wing fanatic sites which you read as gospel.
Click to expand...


Who certifies what is crackpot left wing?  Social Security and Medicare were socialist efforts that seem to have worked pretty well.  I don't know of anybody on the right that has ever refused to take advantage of their benefits once they are eligible.  Two anti socialists,  Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek logged on to these programs when they were in need of help with money and health care. Where were  their anti socialism friends  in the free market libertarian world when they needed help?  These friends probably gave them a ride to the socialist security office to apply.
p.s.  and their free market friends probably charged them gas money for this  "free" ride.


----------



## kaz

jasonnfree said:


> Social Security and Medicare were socialist efforts that seem to have worked pretty well.  I don't know of anybody on the right that has ever refused to take advantage of their benefits once they are eligible



We're forced to pay into it our whole careers then we take the chicken feed we get at retirement, and that's an argument for what exactly?

If someone robs you with $100 in your wallet, and they take out a $20 and give it to you before they leave, taking that means you weren't robbed?  You should turn it down or you consented to the robbery?

Your point is ... pointless ...


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about checking democracy at the work place door?
> Does that strike you as exploitative?
> 
> "*Democracy at Work is a project, begun in 2010, that aims to build a social movement. The movements goal is transition to a new society whose productive enterprises (offices, factories, and stores) will mostly be WSDEs,(worker self-directed enterprises) a true economic democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> "worker self directed enterprises" Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> 
> That is what the former soviets used to call "bullshitsky".http://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/06/karen-de-coster/who-will-tell-the-people/
> 
> .
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> *
Click to expand...

*
Your link:

"William Greider, author of Who Will Tell the People?, has affirmed the magazines totalitarian agenda in a recent article for The Nation called 'The Future of the American Dream.' 

"In this article, Greider outlined a plan for a form of centrally planned 'soft' tyranny that he refers to as the right to 'engage more expansively the elemental possibilities of human existence.'"

Greider's article mentions a redefinition of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He's saying the ancient threats of scarcity and deprivation have been eliminated, and collectively Americans should take a deep breath and reconsider what it means to be rich.

Where's the tyranny, soft or otherwise?*


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security and Medicare were socialist efforts that seem to have worked pretty well.  I don't know of anybody on the right that has ever refused to take advantage of their benefits once they are eligible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're forced to pay into it our whole careers then we take the chicken feed we get at retirement, and that's an argument for what exactly?
> 
> If someone robs you with $100 in your wallet, and they take out a $20 and give it to you before they leave, taking that means you weren't robbed?  You should turn it down or you consented to the robbery?
> 
> Your point is ... pointless ...
Click to expand...

Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.

Hope you get that point REAL soon


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

jasonnfree said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."
> 
> *First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky*
> 
> "When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.
> 
> "One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.
> 
> "In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
> 
> 
> 
> When you quote Noam Chomsky, the linguist who believes he knows everything about everything, you need to recognize that he as a linguist really knows little about anything besides linguistics.
> 
> I over looked one reference to Sutton, who once worked at the same place as Sowell. It is a shame what Sowell understood did not rub off on Sutton. If it had, Sutton would not be making such sweeping comments of which he in completely incomparable to Sowell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chomsky started out a poor man.  His net worth is probably in the Mitt Romney range.  Evidence that Chomky knows a little more than just linguistics.
Click to expand...


No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American left.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security and Medicare were socialist efforts that seem to have worked pretty well.  I don't know of anybody on the right that has ever refused to take advantage of their benefits once they are eligible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're forced to pay into it our whole careers then we take the chicken feed we get at retirement, and that's an argument for what exactly?
> 
> If someone robs you with $100 in your wallet, and they take out a $20 and give it to you before they leave, taking that means you weren't robbed?  You should turn it down or you consented to the robbery?
> 
> Your point is ... pointless ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.
> 
> Hope you get that point REAL soon
Click to expand...


LOL, I always know when you know you're losing because that's when you go to the Marxist rhetoric...


----------



## Chris

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you quote Noam Chomsky, the linguist who believes he knows everything about everything, you need to recognize that he as a linguist really knows little about anything besides linguistics.
> 
> I over looked one reference to Sutton, who once worked at the same place as Sowell. It is a shame what Sowell understood did not rub off on Sutton. If it had, Sutton would not be making such sweeping comments of which he in completely incomparable to Sowell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chomsky started out a poor man.  His net worth is probably in the Mitt Romney range.  Evidence that Chomky knows a little more than just linguistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American left.
Click to expand...


What did liberals do that was so offensive to the conservatives? Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, &#8216;Liberal,&#8217; as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won&#8217;t work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor. - Lawrence O&#8217;Donnell Jr.


----------



## Chris

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure, and the high wages created consumer demand. 
Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, and 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.
70% of our economy is consumer demand, so too much money in too few hands is starving our economy of demand. We need to raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"worker self directed enterprises" Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> 
> That is what the former soviets used to call "bullshitsky".http://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/06/karen-de-coster/who-will-tell-the-people/*
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your link:*
> 
> "William Greider, author of Who Will Tell the People?, has affirmed the magazines totalitarian agenda in a recent article for The Nation called 'The Future of the American Dream.'
> 
> "In this article, Greider outlined a plan for a form of centrally planned 'soft' tyranny that he refers to as the right to 'engage more expansively the elemental possibilities of human existence.'"
> 
> *Greider's article mentions a redefinition of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He's saying the ancient threats of scarcity and deprivation have been eliminated, and collectively Americans should take a deep breath and reconsider what it means to be rich.
> 
> Where's the tyranny, soft or otherwise?*
Click to expand...



You know, wait until you get marry and have a family, they try to force your teenagers to accept your vision and guidance....


"Marxists like Greider have no problem being forthcoming about the need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute in order to accomplish their agenda of redistribution and equality of outcome. Human lives are never individual  they should be collectively assembled and shaped into some form that best suits the grandiose ideals of the visionary Philosopher Kings"

.


----------



## crisismangement

jasonnfree said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."
> 
> *First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky*
> 
> "When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.
> 
> "One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.
> 
> "In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction."
> 
> The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
> 
> 
> 
> When you quote Noam Chomsky, the linguist who believes he knows everything about everything, you need to recognize that he as a linguist really knows little about anything besides linguistics.
> 
> I over looked one reference to Sutton, who once worked at the same place as Sowell. It is a shame what Sowell understood did not rub off on Sutton. If it had, Sutton would not be making such sweeping comments of which he in completely incomparable to Sowell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chomsky started out a poor man.  His net worth is probably in the Mitt Romney range.  Evidence that Chomsky knows a little more than just linguistics.
Click to expand...

Actually it means nothing. Noam convinced some left wing fanatics that he understood Socialism, he doesn't. Then he sold all of his left wing propaganda to unsuspecting left wing fanatics and made big bucks. He was also university professor in linguistics which also brought him big bucks. In other subjects he is a wanna be, not an actual expert in anything but linguistics.


----------



## crisismangement

jasonnfree said:


> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Can you say...?*
> 
> "Mondragon co-operatives are united by a humanist concept of business, a philosophy of participation and solidarity, and a shared business culture. The culture is rooted in a shared mission and a number of principles, corporate values and business policies.[14]
> 
> "Over the years, these links have been embodied in a series of operating rules approved on a majority basis by the Co-operative Congresses, which regulate the activity of the Governing Bodies of the Corporation (Standing Committee, General Council), the Grassroots Co-operatives and the Divisions they belong to, from the organisational, institutional and economic points of view as well as in terms of assets.[15]
> 
> "This framework of business culture has been structured based on a common culture derived from the 10 Basic Co-operative Principles, in which Mondragon is rooted: Open Admission, Democratic Organisation, the Sovereignty of Labour, Instrumental and Subordinate Nature of Capital, Participatory Management, Payment Solidarity, Inter-cooperation, Social Transformation, Universality and Education.[16]
> This philosophy is complemented by four corporate values: Co-operation..."
> 
> Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Can you say Mondragon Corporation is a capitalist enterprise? Are you so ignorant to believe that any Socialist effort ever has been or ever will work? I believe you are and I believe your Utopian view of Socialism is based on crackpot left wing fanatic sites which you read as gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who certifies what is crackpot left wing?  Social Security and Medicare were socialist efforts that seem to have worked pretty well.  I don't know of anybody on the right that has ever refused to take advantage of their benefits once they are eligible.  Two anti socialists,  Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek logged on to these programs when they were in need of help with money and health care. Where were  their anti socialism friends  in the free market libertarian world when they needed help?  These friends probably gave them a ride to the socialist security office to apply.
> p.s.  and their free market friends probably charged them gas money for this  "free" ride.
Click to expand...

Medicare and Social Security are insurance programs forced on the people by the government. Ask all the elderly in New York City or Chicago, or even the Mayo clinic how well that works for them? Medical providers in those areas turn down medicare on a continuous basis. Since the government forced the people to pay those premiums you consider them using what they bought and paid for somehow justification for them to not collect the benefits they paid for? How much of an idiot are you?


----------



## crisismangement

kaz said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security and Medicare were socialist efforts that seem to have worked pretty well.  I don't know of anybody on the right that has ever refused to take advantage of their benefits once they are eligible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're forced to pay into it our whole careers then we take the chicken feed we get at retirement, and that's an argument for what exactly?
> 
> If someone robs you with $100 in your wallet, and they take out a $20 and give it to you before they leave, taking that means you weren't robbed?  You should turn it down or you consented to the robbery?
> 
> Your point is ... pointless ...
Click to expand...

He is obviously brain dead.


----------



## georgephillip

kaz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're forced to pay into it our whole careers then we take the chicken feed we get at retirement, and that's an argument for what exactly?
> 
> If someone robs you with $100 in your wallet, and they take out a $20 and give it to you before they leave, taking that means you weren't robbed?  You should turn it down or you consented to the robbery?
> 
> Your point is ... pointless ...
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.
> 
> Hope you get that point REAL soon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I always know when you know you're losing because that's when you go to the Marxist rhetoric...
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're an expert on losing.


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security and Medicare were socialist efforts that seem to have worked pretty well.  I don't know of anybody on the right that has ever refused to take advantage of their benefits once they are eligible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're forced to pay into it our whole careers then we take the chicken feed we get at retirement, and that's an argument for what exactly?
> 
> If someone robs you with $100 in your wallet, and they take out a $20 and give it to you before they leave, taking that means you weren't robbed?  You should turn it down or you consented to the robbery?
> 
> Your point is ... pointless ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.
> 
> Hope you get that point REAL soon
Click to expand...

I have worked for a university, for a major non-profit,  a foreign subsidiary of an American company, and as a union member of a major US industry. Over those 40 years I have never seen or heard of an employer stealing from their workers. That is a lie you socialists like to spin. As has been explained to you numerous times, with citations and links, SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING FOR A DISASTER, DURING THE 1ST GENERATION WORKERS WHO DREAMED IT WOULD BE GOOD, AND EVEN MORE DISASTROUS FOR THE 2ND GENERATION.

I LMAO at the assertion Mondragon was actually a socialist system. The people who could not afford to BUY IN were left on the side of the road by what was actually a disguised form of capitalism. The good priest THOUGHT he was doing good, and at least tried to care for the less wealthy.


----------



## crisismangement

Chris said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chomsky started out a poor man.  His net worth is probably in the Mitt Romney range.  Evidence that Chomky knows a little more than just linguistics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the conservatives? Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, Liberal, as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it wont work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor. - Lawrence ODonnell Jr.
Click to expand...

Liberals are not offensive. It is the left wing fanatic which is offensive. Liberals did all of the things you asserted they did, while the left wing fanatics screamed for more. There is nothing to be ashamed about to be liberal. But left wing fanatics like you are totally full or rat poop.


----------



## kaz

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.
> 
> Hope you get that point REAL soon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, I always know when you know you're losing because that's when you go to the Marxist rhetoric...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you're an expert on losing.
Click to expand...


Not like you're an expert on Marxist rhetoric


----------



## crisismangement

Chris said:


> From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure, and the high wages created consumer demand.
> Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, and 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.
> 70% of our economy is consumer demand, so too much money in too few hands is starving our economy of demand. We need to raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.


What you don't understand was, wartime mobilization and the change in the character of the work force, savings during rationing and for soldiers on active duty caused the prosperity in spite of the high taxes. It has been pointed out on this thread several times that the president who caused the highest drop in taxes on the top bracket as was the most effective supply side economics president was JOHN F. KENNEDY, who cut the top bracket from 91% to 70%, cut corporate taxes while only cutting the bottom brackets by 6%. Also, consumer demand is 70% of the economy, and that includes mostly consumption by the middle class and the rest of the top 3 quintiles of income. You are obviously not much on understanding economics.


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.
> 
> Hope you get that point REAL soon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, I always know when you know you're losing because that's when you go to the Marxist rhetoric...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you're an expert on losing.
Click to expand...

Not from where I sit. You are as brain dead as Chris and Jason.


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your link:*
> 
> "William Greider, author of Who Will Tell the People?, has affirmed the magazines totalitarian agenda in a recent article for The Nation called 'The Future of the American Dream.'
> 
> "In this article, Greider outlined a plan for a form of centrally planned 'soft' tyranny that he refers to as the right to 'engage more expansively the elemental possibilities of human existence.'"
> 
> *Greider's article mentions a redefinition of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He's saying the ancient threats of scarcity and deprivation have been eliminated, and collectively Americans should take a deep breath and reconsider what it means to be rich.
> 
> Where's the tyranny, soft or otherwise?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know, wait until you get marry and have a family, they try to force your teenagers to accept your vision and guidance....
> 
> 
> "Marxists like Greider have no problem being forthcoming about the need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute in order to accomplish their agenda of redistribution and equality of outcome. Human lives are never individual  they should be collectively assembled and shaped into some form that best suits the grandiose ideals of the visionary Philosopher Kings"
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You know, it's actually too late for me to worry about a family, but I think you should consider the possibility that Greider's "need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute" wouldn't be useful if capital hadn't fixed the rules of the game long before either of us was born.


----------



## freedombecki

Chris said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chomsky started out a poor man. His net worth is probably in the Mitt Romney range. Evidence that Chomky knows a little more than just linguistics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the conservatives? Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, &#8216;Liberal,&#8217; as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won&#8217;t work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor. - Lawrence O&#8217;Donnell Jr.
Click to expand...


Democrats fought Republicans tooth and nail over women's sufferage, Chris. Republicans and a few Democrats they persuaded to go with them gave women the right to vote. 
CHICAGO, Feb. 14 - The National American Woman's Suffrage Association today came to the defense of Will Hays, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, who has been attacked by anti-suffragists for aid rendered to the suffrage cause, and congratulated the Republican Party "for having a Chairman who is astute enough to recognize the certain trend of public affairs and to lead his party in step with the inevitable march of human progress." Modern History Sourcebook: Passage of the 19th Amendment 1919-20


​The truth of this and all the credits you ascribed to yourself which took place in the nineteenth century are all the same: The Republicans formed to take on Democrats over all the changes you mentioned, and we won each and every cause. We made it happen for blacks, for women, voting and civil rights, and Democrats beat us up over each and every win for civil rights until the year 1961, when Lyndon Baines Johnson, Democrat Vice-President petitioned President JFKennedy to go after the African vote so they could win elections. Between the end of the civil war and the 60s, it was fight tooth and nail, Republican v. Democrats, for the Republicans to win all the Civil Rights fights. Republicans stepped in at Little Rock, Arkansas, as late as 1954 to bring troops in to protect black students entering formerly all-white schools for equal education and equal opportunities to get the kind of education people need to succeed in American management jobs.

Stop claiming such victories for liberals when it was your conservative brethren, the Republicans who opened schools and polls to black people, and it was nobody else, either, fella.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your link:*
> 
> "William Greider, author of Who Will Tell the People?, has affirmed the magazines totalitarian agenda in a recent article for The Nation called 'The Future of the American Dream.'
> 
> "In this article, Greider outlined a plan for a form of centrally planned 'soft' tyranny that he refers to as the right to 'engage more expansively the elemental possibilities of human existence.'"
> 
> *Greider's article mentions a redefinition of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He's saying the ancient threats of scarcity and deprivation have been eliminated, and collectively Americans should take a deep breath and reconsider what it means to be rich.
> 
> Where's the tyranny, soft or otherwise?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, wait until you get marry and have a family, they try to force your teenagers to accept your vision and guidance....
> 
> 
> "Marxists like Greider have no problem being forthcoming about the need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute in order to accomplish their agenda of redistribution and equality of outcome. Human lives are never individual  they should be collectively assembled and shaped into some form that best suits the grandiose ideals of the visionary Philosopher Kings"
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, it's actually too late for me to worry about a family, but I think you should consider the possibility that Greider's "need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute" wouldn't be useful if capital hadn't fixed the rules of the game long before either of us was born.
Click to expand...


Excuse me ding dong,

what I am trying to tell you is that INDIVIDUALS - not the government bureaucrats - will define wealth and happiness. And that there are two entities which will cater to their demands , either the FREE MARKET or its cousin, the BLACK MARKET.

Ask your comrades in the former KGB.

.


----------



## georgephillip

crisismangement said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're forced to pay into it our whole careers then we take the chicken feed we get at retirement, and that's an argument for what exactly?
> 
> If someone robs you with $100 in your wallet, and they take out a $20 and give it to you before they leave, taking that means you weren't robbed?  You should turn it down or you consented to the robbery?
> 
> Your point is ... pointless ...
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.
> 
> Hope you get that point REAL soon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have worked for a university, for a major non-profit,  a foreign subsidiary of an American company, and as a union member of a major US industry. Over those 40 years I have never seen or heard of an employer stealing from their workers. That is a lie you socialists like to spin. As has been explained to you numerous times, with citations and links, SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING FOR A DISASTER, DURING THE 1ST GENERATION WORKERS WHO DREAMED IT WOULD BE GOOD, AND EVEN MORE DISASTROUS FOR THE 2ND GENERATION.
> 
> I LMAO at the assertion Mondragon was actually a socialist system. The people who could not afford to BUY IN were left on the side of the road by what was actually a disguised form of capitalism. The good priest THOUGHT he was doing good, and at least tried to care for the less wealthy.
Click to expand...

Can you prove any of your "accomplishments", or are you an (amateurish) Sockpuppet (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/B]
> 
> You know, wait until you get marry and have a family, they try to force your teenagers to accept your vision and guidance....
> 
> 
> "Marxists like Greider have no problem being forthcoming about the need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute in order to accomplish their agenda of redistribution and equality of outcome. Human lives are never individual  they should be collectively assembled and shaped into some form that best suits the grandiose ideals of the visionary Philosopher Kings"
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it's actually too late for me to worry about a family, but I think you should consider the possibility that Greider's "need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute" wouldn't be useful if capital hadn't fixed the rules of the game long before either of us was born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me ding dong,
> 
> what I am trying to tell you is that INDIVIDUALS - not the government bureaucrats - will define wealth and happiness. And that there are two entities which will cater to their demands , either the FREE MARKET or its cousin, the BLACK MARKET.
> 
> Ask your comrades in the former KGB.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

So you prefer INDIVIDUALS at the New York Fed and Federal Reserve dictating your wealth and happiness?

The rich are not your friend, Amigo


----------



## SAYIT

georgephillip said:


> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.
> 
> Hope you get that point REAL soon
> 
> 
> 
> I have worked for a university, for a major non-profit,  a foreign subsidiary of an American company, and as a union member of a major US industry. Over those 40 years I have never seen or heard of an employer stealing from their workers. That is a lie you socialists like to spin. As has been explained to you numerous times, with citations and links, SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING FOR A DISASTER, DURING THE 1ST GENERATION WORKERS WHO DREAMED IT WOULD BE GOOD, AND EVEN MORE DISASTROUS FOR THE 2ND GENERATION.
> 
> I LMAO at the assertion Mondragon was actually a socialist system. The people who could not afford to BUY IN were left on the side of the road by what was actually a disguised form of capitalism. The good priest THOUGHT he was doing good, and at least tried to care for the less wealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove any of your "accomplishments", or are you an (amateurish) Sockpuppet (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Only a fool would post hard personal info here, GP, and you've been at this long enough to know your ridiculous demands for proof in such situations are only surpassed in silliness by your unceasing whining about how unfair life in America has treated you.
Would you like some cheese and music with your whine?


----------



## Chris

For Republicans America is a platform for individual fulfillment. But here's the catch: the Individual is defined in the narrowest possible terms. Any notion of the "The Public Good" is seen as "Socialism" (socialism being anything the government does for the non-wealthy). The Free Market will fix New Orleans levees. The Free Market will effectively control the amount of derivative based risk Wall Street will take. The Free Market will get us off imported oil(rather than spending decades making terrorists stronger). The Free Market will keep our rivers clean. The Free Market will make healthcare more efficient. The Free Market won't bribe Washington in order to increase it's profit margin. We don't need to worry about "The Public Good", individual selfishness driven by short term profit is a utopian reflex. 

But the world doesn't work that way. Selfishness harms society....tears it apart....destroys the world economy....spills millions of barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.....tears a hole in the ozone...creates a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas...melts the North Polar ice cap.....creates massive deficits by giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy....

But the Republicans celebrate this selfishness. It is their core value. For them greed is good.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it's actually too late for me to worry about a family, but I think you should consider the possibility that Greider's "need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute" wouldn't be useful if capital hadn't fixed the rules of the game long before either of us was born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me ding dong,
> 
> what I am trying to tell you is that INDIVIDUALS - not the government bureaucrats - will define wealth and happiness. And that there are two entities which will cater to their demands , either the FREE MARKET or its cousin, the BLACK MARKET.
> 
> Ask your comrades in the former KGB.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you prefer INDIVIDUALS at the New York Fed and Federal Reserve dictating your wealth and happiness?
> 
> The rich are not your friend, Amigo
Click to expand...


No. I want the NY Fed And Federal Reserve ABOLISHED.

The ONLY person qualified to dictate my happiness is  Yours Truly.

.


----------



## georgephillip

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have worked for a university, for a major non-profit,  a foreign subsidiary of an American company, and as a union member of a major US industry. Over those 40 years I have never seen or heard of an employer stealing from their workers. That is a lie you socialists like to spin. As has been explained to you numerous times, with citations and links, SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING FOR A DISASTER, DURING THE 1ST GENERATION WORKERS WHO DREAMED IT WOULD BE GOOD, AND EVEN MORE DISASTROUS FOR THE 2ND GENERATION.
> 
> I LMAO at the assertion Mondragon was actually a socialist system. The people who could not afford to BUY IN were left on the side of the road by what was actually a disguised form of capitalism. The good priest THOUGHT he was doing good, and at least tried to care for the less wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove any of your "accomplishments", or are you an (amateurish) Sockpuppet (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a fool would post hard personal info here, GP, and you've been at this long enough to know your ridiculous demands for proof in such situations are only surpassed in silliness by your unceasing whining about how unfair life in America has treated you.
> Would you like some cheese and music with your whine?
Click to expand...

*Socks waste all our time.
I'm not whining about anything when I point out why and by how much economic inequality has grown in the US over the last forty years:*

"From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[43][dubious  discuss] 

"The share of total income in America going to the top 1% of American households (also after federal taxes and income transfers) increased from 11.3% in 1979 to 20.9% in 2007.[44] 

"A 2013 study by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez et al., notes that the rise in the share of total annual income received by the top 1%, which has more than doubled since 1976, has had a significant effect on overall income inequality. It states: 'It is tempting to dismiss the study of this group as a passing political fad due to the slogans of the Occupy movement or as the academic equivalent of reality TV. But the magnitudes are truly substantial.'[45] 

"Also in 2013, the Economic Policy Institute noted that even though corporate profits are at historic highs, the wage and benefit growth of the vast majority has stagnated. 

"The fruits of overall growth have accrued disproportionately to the top 1%."

*At the very least, all of us us who are NOT posting for purposes of deception would be well-advised to speculate upon what consequences another five decades of income and wealth inequality will have on our civil rights and our republic.*

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it's actually too late for me to worry about a family, but I think you should consider the possibility that Greider's "need to redefine, revamp, or redistribute" wouldn't be useful if capital hadn't fixed the rules of the game long before either of us was born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me ding dong,
> 
> what I am trying to tell you is that INDIVIDUALS - not the government bureaucrats - will define wealth and happiness. And that there are two entities which will cater to their demands , either the FREE MARKET or its cousin, the BLACK MARKET.
> 
> Ask your comrades in the former KGB.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have friends from all walks of life, and most of my jobs after my first career were directly the result of the CEO's of the companies for which I consulted. The "rich" are the ones who  invest in the economy and directly or indirectly pay all of the wages of our labor force. Fortunately it is only a small % of the labor force which tends to bite the hands that feed it.
> 
> If you and your socialist friends want socialism, do what groups have done the world over. Buy some land, invest in an industry. Let hour high achievers support the rest of you until they get tired and leave. But don't come crawling back over your failures. Maybe become what the Basque group did, become capitalists and make a living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you prefer INDIVIDUALS at the New York Fed and Federal Reserve dictating your wealth and happiness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better them than a bunch of dead head left wing extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich are not your friend, Amigo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again! The rich do more for the average individual than all the socialists in the world.
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

Chris said:


> For Republicans America is a platform for individual fulfillment. But here's the catch: the Individual is defined in the narrowest possible terms. Any notion of the "The Public Good" is seen as "Socialism" (socialism being anything the government does for the non-wealthy). The Free Market will fix New Orleans levees. The Free Market will effectively control the amount of derivative based risk Wall Street will take. The Free Market will get us off imported oil(rather than spending decades making terrorists stronger). The Free Market will keep our rivers clean. The Free Market will make healthcare more efficient. The Free Market won't bribe Washington in order to increase it's profit margin. We don't need to worry about "The Public Good", individual selfishness driven by short term profit is a utopian reflex.
> 
> But the world doesn't work that way. Selfishness harms society....tears it apart....destroys the world economy....spills millions of barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.....tears a hole in the ozone...creates a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas...melts the North Polar ice cap.....creates massive deficits by giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy....
> 
> But the Republicans celebrate this selfishness. It is their core value. For them greed is good.


There's a huge corporate safety net in the land of "rugged individualism" that we've all seen recently. Banks gambled with impunity, and government intervened to make the biggest banks even bigger while millions of workers lost their homes, jobs, families or all of the above. It seems to me government has been rewriting the rules of the market economy since before the Gipper moved into the White House to roll back the New Deal, and our current levels of inequality make it appear they have largely succeeded. Today it seems both parties depend on the richest 1% of voters to fund their campaigns and retirements so I don't know how we change anything by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove any of your "accomplishments", or are you an (amateurish) Sockpuppet (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would post hard personal info here, GP, and you've been at this long enough to know your ridiculous demands for proof in such situations are only surpassed in silliness by your unceasing whining about how unfair life in America has treated you.
> Would you like some cheese and music with your whine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Socks waste all our time.
> I'm not whining about anything when I point out why and by how much economic inequality has grown in the US over the last forty years:*
> 
> "From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[43][dubious &#8211; discuss]
> 
> "The share of total income in America going to the top 1% of American households (also after federal taxes and income transfers) increased from 11.3% in 1979 to 20.9% in 2007.[44]
> 
> "A 2013 study by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez et al., notes that the rise in the share of total annual income received by the top 1%, which has more than doubled since 1976, has had a significant effect on overall income inequality. It states: 'It is tempting to dismiss the study of this group as a passing political fad due to the slogans of the Occupy movement or as the academic equivalent of reality TV. But the magnitudes are truly substantial.'[45]
> 
> "Also in 2013, the Economic Policy Institute noted that even though corporate profits are at historic highs, the wage and benefit growth of the vast majority has stagnated.
> 
> "The fruits of overall growth have accrued disproportionately to the top 1%."
> 
> *At the very least, all of us us who are NOT posting for purposes of deception would be well-advised to speculate upon what consequences another five decades of income and wealth inequality will have on our civil rights and our republic.*
> 
> Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Emmanuel Saez! He was the nut who teamed up with Diamond to try to convince the world that the LAW OF MARGINAL UTILITY shows that when dealing with money, just as with goods and services, marginal utility always diminishes. What a pair of idiots. They try to use that garbage as a proof of why the rich should be taxed more. The fact is, WE DON'T NEED A REASON TO TAX THE RICH MORE, as they get more value from our infrastructure and thus SHOULD PAY MORE.

The fact of the matter is, as wealth increases the SIZE OF THE MARGINAL UNIT OF MONEY INCREASES, thus every additional and increasing marginal unit is pleasing to the individual, thus achieves an increase in marginal utility.

Diamond and Saez tried to suggest that like automobiles, which after satisfying the needs of an individual, the next automobile is less satisfying, thus a diminishing marginal utility. They did not consider a more luxurious automobile as having increased marginal utility.

With money, if the marginal unit remains the same, and wealth increases anyway, one can assume that the marginal utility will either diminish or stay the same. But that is one person making decisions about another persons satisfaction and feelings of pleasure.

With money, the norm as wealth increases, and the marginal unit increases in value, the recipient continues to have an increase in marginal utility.

That said, it is obvious that Diamond and Saez are socialist paradigm "economists." IE, they believe in the bullcrap propaganda that they are able to judge satisfaction for others. THEY CAN'T!


----------



## Contumacious

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me ding dong,
> 
> what I am trying to tell you is that INDIVIDUALS - not the government bureaucrats - will define wealth and happiness. And that there are two entities which will cater to their demands , either the FREE MARKET or its cousin, the BLACK MARKET.
> 
> Ask your comrades in the former KGB.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> We have friends from all walks of life, and most of my jobs after my first career were directly the result of the CEO's of the companies for which I consulted. The "rich" are the ones who  invest in the economy and directly or indirectly pay all of the wages of our labor force. Fortunately it is only a small % of the labor force which tends to bite the hands that feed it.
> 
> If you and your socialist friends want socialism, do what groups have done the world over. Buy some land, invest in an industry. Let hour high achievers support the rest of you until they get tired and leave. But don't come crawling back over your failures. Maybe become what the Basque group did, become capitalists and make a living.* Better them than a bunch of dead head left wing extremists.*
> 
> 
> 
> The rich are not your friend, Amigo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again! The rich do more for the average individual than all the socialists in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the fed must go. They were created , and are  populated , by left wing extremists.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Republicans America is a platform for individual fulfillment. But here's the catch: the Individual is defined in the narrowest possible terms. Any notion of the "The Public Good" is seen as "Socialism" (socialism being anything the government does for the non-wealthy). The Free Market will fix New Orleans levees. The Free Market will effectively control the amount of derivative based risk Wall Street will take. The Free Market will get us off imported oil(rather than spending decades making terrorists stronger). The Free Market will keep our rivers clean. The Free Market will make healthcare more efficient. The Free Market won't bribe Washington in order to increase it's profit margin. We don't need to worry about "The Public Good", individual selfishness driven by short term profit is a utopian reflex.
> 
> But the world doesn't work that way. Selfishness harms society....tears it apart....destroys the world economy....spills millions of barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.....tears a hole in the ozone...creates a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas...melts the North Polar ice cap.....creates massive deficits by giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy....
> 
> But the Republicans celebrate this selfishness. It is their core value. For them greed is good.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a huge corporate safety net in the land of "rugged individualism" that we've all seen recently. Banks gambled with impunity, and government intervened to make the biggest banks even bigger while millions of workers lost their homes, jobs, families or all of the above. It seems to me government has been rewriting the rules of the market economy since before the Gipper moved into the White House to roll back the New Deal, and our current levels of inequality make it appear they have largely succeeded. Today it seems both parties depend on the richest 1% of voters to fund their campaigns and retirements so I don't know how we change anything by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.
Click to expand...

Considering that the government's monetary and fiscal policies caused the public to lose value in real estate, and also caused the investment banks to lose billions of $$$$ it was the government's responsibility to bail it out.

BTW, it is not the top 1% you should be concerned about. If anyone, it is the top .01%.


----------



## georgephillip

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me ding dong,
> 
> what I am trying to tell you is that INDIVIDUALS - not the government bureaucrats - will define wealth and happiness. And that there are two entities which will cater to their demands , either the FREE MARKET or its cousin, the BLACK MARKET.
> 
> Ask your comrades in the former KGB.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> We have friends from all walks of life, and most of my jobs after my first career were directly the result of the CEO's of the companies for which I consulted. The "rich" are the ones who  invest in the economy and directly or indirectly pay all of the wages of our labor force. Fortunately it is only a small % of the labor force which tends to bite the hands that feed it.
> 
> If you and your socialist friends want socialism, do what groups have done the world over. Buy some land, invest in an industry. Let hour high achievers support the rest of you until they get tired and leave. But don't come crawling back over your failures. Maybe become what the Basque group did, become capitalists and make a living. Better them than a bunch of dead head left wing extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich are not your friend, Amigo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again! The rich do more for the average individual than all the socialists in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you devoted the vast majority of your productive life to sucking up scraps tossed from Master's table, and now want applause?FUAY
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

George, are you planning to ever answer the few questions I asked you? What's the matter? Do you think if you answer them honestly it will blow your socialist cover?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Chris said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chomsky started out a poor man.  His net worth is probably in the Mitt Romney range.  Evidence that Chomky knows a little more than just linguistics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the conservatives? Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, Liberal, as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it wont work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor. - Lawrence ODonnell Jr.
Click to expand...


*Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. *

It was great when Republicans did that.

*Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty.*

We can do better now, with 12.4% of our lifetime earnings.

*Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. *

It was great when Republicans did that.

*Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. *

Nixon!


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have friends from all walks of life, and most of my jobs after my first career were directly the result of the CEO's of the companies for which I consulted. The "rich" are the ones who  invest in the economy and directly or indirectly pay all of the wages of our labor force. Fortunately it is only a small % of the labor force which tends to bite the hands that feed it.
> 
> If you and your socialist friends want socialism, do what groups have done the world over. Buy some land, invest in an industry. Let hour high achievers support the rest of you until they get tired and leave. But don't come crawling back over your failures. Maybe become what the Basque group did, become capitalists and make a living.* Better them than a bunch of dead head left wing extremists.Wrong again! The rich do more for the average individual than all the socialists in the world.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> No, the fed must go. They were created , and are  populated , by left wing extremists.
> 
> .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Would you care to name one?*
Click to expand...


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the fed must go. They were created , and are  populated , by left wing extremists.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care to name one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did  not say that. Here is my post.http://www.usmessageboard.com/9269551-post4516.html
Click to expand...


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> crisismangement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you've obtained that $100 by stealing from your workers or bribing rich-bitch politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.
> 
> Hope you get that point REAL soon
> 
> 
> 
> I have worked for a university, for a major non-profit,  a foreign subsidiary of an American company, and as a union member of a major US industry. Over those 40 years I have never seen or heard of an employer stealing from their workers. That is a lie you socialists like to spin. As has been explained to you numerous times, with citations and links, SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING FOR A DISASTER, DURING THE 1ST GENERATION WORKERS WHO DREAMED IT WOULD BE GOOD, AND EVEN MORE DISASTROUS FOR THE 2ND GENERATION.
> 
> I LMAO at the assertion Mondragon was actually a socialist system. The people who could not afford to BUY IN were left on the side of the road by what was actually a disguised form of capitalism. The good priest THOUGHT he was doing good, and at least tried to care for the less wealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove any of your "accomplishments", or are you an (amateurish) Sockpuppet (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

:LOL: This is rich! Here is the puppeteer of several sock puppets calling me a sockpuppet. Way to go numbnut


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> ]Socks waste all our time.


Yeah, you sure do numbnut.


----------



## dnsmith35

I think it is time for the moderators to do an IP check.


----------



## crisismangement

What is the matter Mr. Phillips? Did we embarrass you when you were outed?


----------



## Unkotare

jasonnfree said:


> Chomsky started out a poor man.  His net worth is probably in the Mitt Romney range.  .




P.T. Barnum and Bob Guccione made a lot of money too.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the fed must go. They were created , and are  populated , by left wing extremists.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care to name one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *HUH?*
> 
> The Ten Planks of the * Communist Manifesto *1848 by Karl Heinrich Marx
> *
> 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.*
> 
> The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a "national bank" and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States.   This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective.   Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care to name one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HUH?*
> 
> The Ten Planks of the * Communist Manifesto *1848 by Karl Heinrich Marx
> *
> 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.*
> 
> The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a "national bank" and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States.   This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective.   Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no doubt the Fed qualifies as a central bank, but it's not clear that it's under democratic (state) control:*
> 
> "'Let me issue and control a nations money and I care not who writes the laws.' Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.
> 
> 'The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.' The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863."
> 
> *Do you have any idea what the Rothschid brothers meant by "the tremendous advantage that capiral derives from the system..."*
> 
> Famous Quotations on Banking
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

georgephillip said:


> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*



Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style?  Just look at Russia.  Russia is basically run by Corporations.  Completely corrupt.  Very similar to ours. 

'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'


----------



## sealybobo

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?


----------



## JT8691

If incomes were equal what would be the incentive for new innovations?

What would be the incentive to start up new businesses that help society?


----------



## sealybobo

dnsmith35 said:


> George, are you planning to ever answer the few questions I asked you? What's the matter? Do you think if you answer them honestly it will blow your socialist cover?



The middle class is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace.  The rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that without rules and referees sports would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules doesnt work.  Works for the top 1% but not for the rest of us.  The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is,stop government from defending workers and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade.  
Sorry but governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been if you want to do business in America you have to do business that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.    
The middle class is not a normal result of free markets. Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small middle mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called serfs.  The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws.  Labor laws and dont forget unions.  New Deal, FDR.  The rich called him a traitor to his class.  
When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.


----------



## sealybobo

JT8691 said:


> If incomes were equal what would be the incentive for new innovations?
> 
> What would be the incentive to start up new businesses that help society?



No one said all incomes should be equal.

In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker.  Today it's 350 times.  Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing?  You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it.  You don't value workers apparently.  You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums.  I understand.  

Your business has to benefit society.  If you have a great product and don't need help/workers then cool, but if you do you have to pay American workers a fair wage, and you can no longer hire illegals like you and Mitt Romney did.  They wouldn't stay here if no one was hiring.  Right?  

Anyways, your question tells me you need to start over from Politics 101 and re educate yourself.  Either you are rich or you are   I don't really mean crazy I mean stupid.


----------



## Fishlore

dnsmith35 said:


> George, are you planning to ever answer the few questions I asked you? What's the matter? Do you think if you answer them honestly it will blow your socialist cover?



I can't find the questions. I'm new here and the board is difficult for me to navigate. Send me the questions PM and I will be happy to answer them.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style?  Just look at Russia.  Russia is basically run by Corporations.  Completely corrupt.  Very similar to ours.
> 
> 'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'
Click to expand...


It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are.  Russia is nothing like a libertarian government.  I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot.   He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property.  That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.

I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so.  They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority.  Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.

Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.


----------



## dnsmith35

sealybobo said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> George, are you planning to ever answer the few questions I asked you? What's the matter? Do you think if you answer them honestly it will blow your socialist cover?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The middle class is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace.  The rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that without rules and referees sports would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules doesnt work.  Works for the top 1% but not for the rest of us.  The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is,stop government from defending workers and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade.
> Sorry but governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been if you want to do business in America you have to do business that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.
> The middle class is not a normal result of free markets. Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small middle mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called serfs.  The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws.  Labor laws and dont forget unions.  New Deal, FDR.  The rich called him a traitor to his class.
> When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.
Click to expand...

You are preaching to the choir when you argue to me about regulation. I have always been for regulation of business and industry, without which we would have a real major issue fairness in society.

Beyond that you have several comments which are simply untrue. I am not a conservative, I am liberal, JUST NOT LEFT WING EXTREME, as some on this thread are. Your contention that labor has "the power" to organized into unions may be true, but the majority of labor in the US chooses NOT TO HAVE THEM. Only 12% of our labor force is unionized and for good reason. The government has taken over the role of unions in so far as fairness and safety rules in the work place. Union usefulness has just about run its course in the US. However in 3rd world labor markets the labor revolution has not yet taken root, and that is where unions can still be useful to society. In addition protectionism against the big bad foreign competition does the US labor force more harm than good and globalization is here and will be here whether you like it or not. Also, your concept of conservatism is warped. Conservatives are the ones who WANT PROTECTIONISM and the status quo rather than globalism, and it is we liberals (not left wingers) who want to do business with the world such that ALL HUMANS ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE A DIGNIFIED LIFE. The platitudes you throw out are a reflection of the propaganda sources you read or listen to, and do not reflect reality in the Industrialized world.


----------



## dnsmith35

Fishlore said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> George, are you planning to ever answer the few questions I asked you? What's the matter? Do you think if you answer them honestly it will blow your socialist cover?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't find the questions. I'm new here and the board is difficult for me to navigate. Send me the questions PM and I will be happy to answer them.
Click to expand...

I know the answers! They were specifically for George Phillips to answer because of his weird concept of economics. The were posted, then reposted several pages ago.


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker.  Today it's 350 times.  Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing?  You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it.  You don't value workers apparently.  You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums.  I understand.



It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, _someone_ thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?


----------



## dnsmith35

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker.  Today it's 350 times.  Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing?  You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it.  You don't value workers apparently.  You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums.  I understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, _someone_ thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?
Click to expand...

Envy! The concept that the top CEOs should not have high incomes is associated with the Socialist paradigm of economics. When socialist economies are evaluated (over the short time they existed) invariably the people who lose the most prosperity or the masses and the Commissars continue to get wealthy.

Every experiment with socialism has failed miserably. Even when the true Utopian socialists look at the past experiments, they tend to whine that, "it was not real socialism." That is because theoretical socialists over look the fact that for "socialist" cannot exist without authoritarian/dictatorial government protecting the commissars and very little "trickles down" to the worker. Other experiments have ended with the experiment becoming capitalist such that they can compete with other capital enterprises.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style?  Just look at Russia.  Russia is basically run by Corporations.  Completely corrupt.  Very similar to ours.
> 
> 'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are.  Russia is nothing like a libertarian government.  I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot.   He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property.  That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.
> 
> I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so.  They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority.  Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.
> 
> Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.
Click to expand...


Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY.  The companies can sub contract the actual work but that's it.  So on this I'm a socialist.

I'm also a socialist on healthcare, water, heat, electric, schools, police and fire fighters.  I'm also pro government unless the politician is serving the rich and corporations not their constituents.  Then I'm anti government too.  But you seem to want the government to get out of the way so corporations can pay us all $3 hr.


----------



## sealybobo

dnsmith35 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> George, are you planning to ever answer the few questions I asked you? What's the matter? Do you think if you answer them honestly it will blow your socialist cover?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The middle class is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace.  The rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that without rules and referees sports would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules doesnt work.  Works for the top 1% but not for the rest of us.  The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is,stop government from defending workers and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade.
> Sorry but governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been if you want to do business in America you have to do business that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.
> The middle class is not a normal result of free markets. Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small middle mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called serfs.  The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws.  Labor laws and dont forget unions.  New Deal, FDR.  The rich called him a traitor to his class.
> When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are preaching to the choir when you argue to me about regulation. I have always been for regulation of business and industry, without which we would have a real major issue fairness in society.
> 
> Beyond that you have several comments which are simply untrue. I am not a conservative, I am liberal, JUST NOT LEFT WING EXTREME, as some on this thread are. Your contention that labor has "the power" to organized into unions may be true, but the majority of labor in the US chooses NOT TO HAVE THEM. Only 12% of our labor force is unionized and for good reason. The government has taken over the role of unions in so far as fairness and safety rules in the work place. Union usefulness has just about run its course in the US. However in 3rd world labor markets the labor revolution has not yet taken root, and that is where unions can still be useful to society. In addition protectionism against the big bad foreign competition does the US labor force more harm than good and globalization is here and will be here whether you like it or not. Also, your concept of conservatism is warped. Conservatives are the ones who WANT PROTECTIONISM and the status quo rather than globalism, and it is we liberals (not left wingers) who want to do business with the world such that ALL HUMANS ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE A DIGNIFIED LIFE. The platitudes you throw out are a reflection of the propaganda sources you read or listen to, and do not reflect reality in the Industrialized world.
Click to expand...


1.  The need for unions has never been stronger than it is today.  Where has the middle class gone?  Bunch of white collar broke asses raising families on $30K plus an hour.  I see it.  It's all around you.  A lot of your friends went from middle class in the 90's to where they are today.  Not saving anything, in debt, barely making ends meet, haven't had a raise in years, cost of living going up.  Or a lot of my friends are making much less than they did in the 90's.  They took steps backward.  And today the jobs just aren't paying what they use to.  So a lot of people are working but they are working for much less.  It has become the new normal in America.  Not saving a dime for retirement???  The new norm?  And don't act like the GOP hate this.  Paying employees less?  They love it don't pretend they don't. 

2.  I'm re reading your rebuttal and I don't see where you are pointing out something I said that was untrue.  

3.  Do you know the tactics that corporations pull to get their employees to not vote to unionize?  I wouldn't be so sure about how people feel about unions.  The majority of people don't like unions because they've never been in one and they've been brainwashed to think they are bad.  They aren't perfect but I can bet you that if a lot of people could vote anonymously and without fear/intimidation they would choose to have a union represent them.

ANYONE who hasn't gotten a raise in 10 years but their ceo is now making 350 times what they make when before it was 35 times more is a fool.  

The smartest guys I ever knew worked in a union factory because at least they were smart enough to get their fair share of the profits.  

P.S.  The only reason non union companies paid so well all these years is because they were afraid their employees would unionize.  They aren't afraid anymore and look where wages are.

If you are a liberal you aren't a smart one.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker.  Today it's 350 times.  Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing?  You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it.  You don't value workers apparently.  You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums.  I understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, _someone_ thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?
Click to expand...


Yea, they think they are worth it.  And don't expect the BOD to step in because the CEO we are talking about here sits on their companies BOD and so you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.

If the company had a union it would insist that the employees get some of the profits.  My dad every year got a profit sharing check from Ford when they turned a profit, which by the way they did turn a profit for years even with union employees. 

So it wasn't the union employees that bankrupt Ford.  It was the global recession Bush and Friends caused.


----------



## dnsmith35

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style?  Just look at Russia.  Russia is basically run by Corporations.  Completely corrupt.  Very similar to ours.
> 
> 'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are.  Russia is nothing like a libertarian government.  I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot.   He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property.  That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.
> 
> I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so.  They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority.  Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.
> 
> Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY.  The companies can sub contract the actual work but that's it.  So on this I'm a socialist.
> 
> I'm also a socialist on healthcare, water, heat, electric, schools, police and fire fighters.  I'm also pro government unless the politician is serving the rich and corporations not their constituents.  Then I'm anti government too.  *But you seem to want the government to get out of the way so corporations can pay us all $3 hr*.
Click to expand...

To the highlighted comment I say "BAH HUMBUG."

To the rest of it, make a note, ONE IS EITHER SOCIALIST OR ONE IS CAPITALIST, there is no middle ground. We are in a democratically elected republic and the government's primary job is to PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY, not to usurp ownership from a menu of industries or companies.

You may THINK it would be great for there to be some form of government or collective ownership or control of production and distribution of goods and services, but if you ever were put into that position, UNLESS YOU WERE THE COMMISSAR, you would live in poverty as every attempt as socialism in our world has failed miserably. Mainly because government has to  become autocratic/dictatorial just like it did in Russia when Lenin observed cracks in the "collective" functions.


----------



## sealybobo

dnsmith35 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker.  Today it's 350 times.  Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing?  You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it.  You don't value workers apparently.  You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums.  I understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, _someone_ thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Envy! The concept that the top CEOs should not have high incomes is associated with the Socialist paradigm of economics. When socialist economies are evaluated (over the short time they existed) invariably the people who lose the most prosperity or the masses and the Commissars continue to get wealthy.
> 
> Every experiment with socialism has failed miserably. Even when the true Utopian socialists look at the past experiments, they tend to whine that, "it was not real socialism." That is because theoretical socialists over look the fact that for "socialist" cannot exist without authoritarian/dictatorial government protecting the commissars and very little "trickles down" to the worker. Other experiments have ended with the experiment becoming capitalist such that they can compete with other capital enterprises.
Click to expand...


You don't seem to realize that the USA has some socialism (gas, power, energy, schools, police, fire fighters, government workers, prisons) and then we have Capitalism too.  

No 100% Capitalistic society ever existed.  

America was at it's greatest when we had a strong social safety net, ss, medicare, unemployment benefits, welfare, unions, pensions.  

The GOP didn't just tell us Government is bad they proved it.


----------



## sealybobo

dnsmith35 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are.  Russia is nothing like a libertarian government.  I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot.   He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property.  That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.
> 
> I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so.  They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority.  Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.
> 
> Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY.  The companies can sub contract the actual work but that's it.  So on this I'm a socialist.
> 
> I'm also a socialist on healthcare, water, heat, electric, schools, police and fire fighters.  I'm also pro government unless the politician is serving the rich and corporations not their constituents.  Then I'm anti government too.  *But you seem to want the government to get out of the way so corporations can pay us all $3 hr*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To the highlighted comment I say "BAH HUMBUG."
> 
> To the rest of it, make a note, ONE IS EITHER SOCIALIST OR ONE IS CAPITALIST, there is no middle ground. We are in a democratically elected republic and the government's primary job is to PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY, not to usurp ownership from a menu of industries or companies.
> 
> You may THINK it would be great for there to be some form of government or collective ownership or control of production and distribution of goods and services, but if you ever were put into that position, UNLESS YOU WERE THE COMMISSAR, you would live in poverty as every attempt as socialism in our world has failed miserably. Mainly because government has to  become autocratic/dictatorial just like it did in Russia when Lenin observed cracks in the "collective" functions.
Click to expand...


You can't talk to someone who thinks you are either 100% capitalist or you are 100% a socialist.  If you believe in public schools are you a socialist?

If you can't see why we don't let corporations take over everything, that makes you a libertarian and you can't talk to those guys either.  They are nucking futs.  

With them you can never deregulate enough.  So no matter how bad the results they'll keep telling you we need to keep deregulating MORE!  

Yea, the reason bush trashed the economy was he was too liberal is what they said.


----------



## sealybobo

dnsmith35 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker.  Today it's 350 times.  Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing?  You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it.  You don't value workers apparently.  You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums.  I understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, _someone_ thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Envy! The concept that the top CEOs should not have high incomes is associated with the Socialist paradigm of economics. When socialist economies are evaluated (over the short time they existed) invariably the people who lose the most prosperity or the masses and the Commissars continue to get wealthy.
> 
> Every experiment with socialism has failed miserably. Even when the true Utopian socialists look at the past experiments, they tend to whine that, "it was not real socialism." That is because theoretical socialists over look the fact that for "socialist" cannot exist without authoritarian/dictatorial government protecting the commissars and very little "trickles down" to the worker. Other experiments have ended with the experiment becoming capitalist such that they can compete with other capital enterprises.
Click to expand...


Was it envy when in the late 90's the rich decided to pull a coup and steal the 2000 elections, put bush in power and have him inact policies that would help corporations move operations overseas thus crushing the American labor force in an attempt to destroy unions and steal pensions.  They let go of so many employees, meanwhile the GOP was insisting we cut government jobs too because hey, we're broke.  Even more so flooding the market with workers so they could max profits.  And the CEO's who did the most laying off got the biggest bonus'. 

So did they envy us when they waged class warfare on the middle class?  Remember jobs Americans won't do?  Well the corporations starting giving illegals jobs Americans would do not just seasonal migrant work.  

There is no doubt it was all done on purpose.  So did the rich envy us when we were saving and spending and actually making the economy work because the only real way small business thrives and wages go up is if people have money to spend.  The top 1% can spend enough.  Business' need the masses spending.  Wake up.  

I could go on and on but it would just go right over your head I'm sure.


----------



## sealybobo

dnsmith35 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are.  Russia is nothing like a libertarian government.  I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot.   He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property.  That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.
> 
> I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so.  They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority.  Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.
> 
> Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY.  The companies can sub contract the actual work but that's it.  So on this I'm a socialist.
> 
> I'm also a socialist on healthcare, water, heat, electric, schools, police and fire fighters.  I'm also pro government unless the politician is serving the rich and corporations not their constituents.  Then I'm anti government too.  *But you seem to want the government to get out of the way so corporations can pay us all $3 hr*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To the highlighted comment I say "BAH HUMBUG."
> 
> To the rest of it, make a note, ONE IS EITHER SOCIALIST OR ONE IS CAPITALIST, there is no middle ground. We are in a democratically elected republic and the government's primary job is to PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY, not to usurp ownership from a menu of industries or companies.
> 
> You may THINK it would be great for there to be some form of government or collective ownership or control of production and distribution of goods and services, but if you ever were put into that position, UNLESS YOU WERE THE COMMISSAR, you would live in poverty as every attempt as socialism in our world has failed miserably. Mainly because government has to  become autocratic/dictatorial just like it did in Russia when Lenin observed cracks in the "collective" functions.
Click to expand...


Are you against medicare for seniors?  Then I guess you aren't 100% capitalist then.  

Or do you think without having to pay into medicare, you'd invest your money and instead you'd have more than you would need to pay for your own private health insurance.

Are you insane?  Do you know how much a for profit corporation would charge your 62 year old ass?  

This is the exact argument right wingers made about ending SS.  They say they would do better investing their own money.   Meanwhile lets say another Bush gets into office when they are in their 60's and that Bush like the last one trashes the economy and their investments aren't worth shit.  Who's gonna take care of these people, the churches?  HA!  They'll starve before that happens.  This is why we aren't 100% capitalism.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, _someone_ thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?
> 
> 
> 
> Envy! The concept that the top CEOs should not have high incomes is associated with the Socialist paradigm of economics. When socialist economies are evaluated (over the short time they existed) invariably the people who lose the most prosperity or the masses and the Commissars continue to get wealthy.
> 
> Every experiment with socialism has failed miserably. Even when the true Utopian socialists look at the past experiments, they tend to whine that, "it was not real socialism." That is because theoretical socialists over look the fact that for "socialist" cannot exist without authoritarian/dictatorial government protecting the commissars and very little "trickles down" to the worker. Other experiments have ended with the experiment becoming capitalist such that they can compete with other capital enterprises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to realize that the USA has some socialism (gas, power, energy, schools, police, fire fighters, government workers, prisons) and then we have Capitalism too.
Click to expand...


Gas, power and energy are not run by the government, numskull.  They are privately owned.  The government runs all the parts of our economy that cost way more than they should and were the service sucks, like schools, police and fire fighters.



sealybobo said:


> No 100% Capitalistic society ever existed.



And no 100% socialist society ever existed.  However, we know that the closer you get to 100% capitalism, the better the material well being of your citizens.  The closer you get to 100%, the closer you get to abject poverty and mass starvation.



sealybobo said:


> America was at it's greatest when we had a strong social safety net, ss, medicare, unemployment benefits, welfare, unions, pensions.
> 
> The GOP didn't just tell us Government is bad they proved it.



Another way of saying that is that the downhill slide began after we adopted all the programs you listed.


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker.  Today it's 350 times.  Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing?  You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it.  You don't value workers apparently.  You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums.  I understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, _someone_ thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, they think they are worth it.  And don't expect the BOD to step in because the CEO we are talking about here sits on their companies BOD and so you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
Click to expand...


What about the investors who elect the BOD and fund the company? The customers who buy the products and services the company offers? All of these people are making value judgements that result in the salary of the CEO. 

Why shouldn't it be up to individuals how they spend their money? Because that's really what this is all about. Those of you advocating for wage and price controls are demanding that we give up our right to spend our money the way we want, that our personal economic decisions should be dictated by government.


----------



## sealybobo

UNREGULATED CRONY CAPITALISM leads to income inequality.  

People like to talk about our founding fathers

At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?  It's a debate we haven't had freely and openly in this nation for nearly a century, and last week, by voting to end the Estate Tax, House Republicans tried to ensure that it wouldn't be had again in this generation.  -April 2005 Thom Hartmann.

In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death.  

In this, he was making the same argument that the Framers of Pennsylvania tried to make when writing their constitution in 1776 "an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness of mankind, and, therefore, every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property."


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style?  Just look at Russia.  Russia is basically run by Corporations.  Completely corrupt.  Very similar to ours.
> 
> 'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are.  Russia is nothing like a libertarian government.  I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot.   He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property.  That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.
> 
> I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so.  They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority.  Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.
> 
> Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY.  The companies can sub contract the actual work but that's it.  So on this I'm a socialist.
Click to expand...


And just like Venezuela, the minute you did that the production of oil in this country would begin to decline.  You really don't know much about the Venezuelan economy, do you?  That's to be expected.  Ignorance is the basis for most of the socialist agenda.



sealybobo said:


> I'm also a socialist on healthcare, water, heat, electric, schools, police and fire fighters.  I'm also pro government unless the politician is serving the rich and corporations not their constituents.  Then I'm anti government too.  But you seem to want the government to get out of the way so corporations can pay us all $3 hr.



You're just a socialist, period.  Under socialism, politicians serve corporations and the rich.  Haven't you noticed who is doing the best under the Obama regime?


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you or I think CEOs should be paid. Obviously, _someone_ thinks they're worth it. Why should you or I have the power to overrule their decision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, they think they are worth it.  And don't expect the BOD to step in because the CEO we are talking about here sits on their companies BOD and so you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the investors who elect the BOD and fund the company? The customers who buy the products and services the company offers? All of these people are making value judgements that result in the salary of the CEO.
> 
> Why shouldn't it be up to individuals how they spend their money? Because that's really what this is all about. Those of you advocating for wage and price controls are demanding that we give up our right to spend our money the way we want, that our personal economic decisions should be dictated by government.
Click to expand...


Whereas directors are elected by the shareholders in publicly traded companies, a private company decides for itself how board members are chosen.

If you think just because you have 1 stock in a company that you get to pick who the BOD'ers are, you are wrong.  Major shareholders might but they again are VP's or CEO's of other companies.  I know how it works.  I have a brother who's one of them.  Do you know how it works?  Then you wouldn't be arguing that it is fair.

You are arguing like a VP or CEO or Libertarian would.  We should just all boycott those companies, except for a few things.

1.  They'll all bad.
2.  They have a monopoly

Hey, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.  The fact that so many less poor and middle class people are going to show up this midterm than will in 2016 tells me that the people are happy with what they are making.  If they want better/more then they need to show up and vote and next time there company votes for a union vote YES.  Have some balls.  Don't be scared you'll lose that $8 job.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's unbelievable what moronic jackasses libturds are.  Russia is nothing like a libertarian government.  I have no idea how many regulations they have, but Putin is an arbitrary despot.   He stripped the owner of the largest oil company in the country of his company and threw him in jail purely because he wanted the man's property.  That's the kind of thing turds like you support, not libertarians.
> 
> I recall how all the libturds were hooting for the government to confiscate the property of British Petroleum because of the Gulf oil spill even though there was no law giving the government authority to do so.  They all cheered when Obama intimidated the company into forking over $20 billion even though the president had no such authority.  Obama acted just like a Putin style thug and you all loved it.
> 
> Turds like you don't give a flying fuck about the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY.  The companies can sub contract the actual work but that's it.  So on this I'm a socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just like Venezuela, the minute you did that the production of oil in this country would begin to decline.  You really don't know much about the Venezuelan economy, do you?  That's to be expected.  Ignorance is the basis for most of the socialist agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also a socialist on healthcare, water, heat, electric, schools, police and fire fighters.  I'm also pro government unless the politician is serving the rich and corporations not their constituents.  Then I'm anti government too.  But you seem to want the government to get out of the way so corporations can pay us all $3 hr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just a socialist, period.  Under socialism, politicians serve corporations and the rich.  Haven't you noticed who is doing the best under the Obama regime?
Click to expand...


That's just insane.  Then why are they unhappy if they are doing so good?  And why aren't they hiring more then?  What do you think it will take for them to give their employees a raise?  I mean they are making record profits.  Amazing you are ok that the CEO's pay went up 350 x but the workers haven't had a raise in 10 years.

Either you are a CEO or a fool.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY.





Oh yeah, 'cause that worked out so well for Venezuela and EVERY OTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS TRIED SUCH SOCIALIST NONSENSE.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Godboy said:


> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.




The poor haven't benefited from the unbridled capitalism you and your ilk promote. They've benefited from a capitalism held in check by regulations and labor unions. Those checks have been slowly eroding over the past several decades. As a consequence the share of benefis that accrue to the working class with every economic advance have been getting smaller and smaller over time.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, 'cause that worked out so well for Venezuela and EVERY OTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS TRIED SUCH SOCIALIST NONSENSE.
Click to expand...


At least heavily regulated the oil industry.

I'll give you a great example.  The oil companies/lobbyists/republicans/rich/sara palin were all screaming DRILL BABY DRILL, when the fact is that would have lowered gas prices 3 cents a gallon.  BFD.

But they/you don't want to discuss how wallstreet speculation is jacking up the price $12 for SUV's and $8 per fill up on economy cars.  

So keep crying about 3 cents and keep allowing speculators to needlessly jack up the price of gas $8 a fillup on Im sure you drive an economy car.


----------



## sealybobo

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poor haven't benefited from the unbridled capitalism you and your ilk promote. They've benefited from a capitalism held in check by regulations and labor unions. Those checks have been slowly eroding over the past several decades. As a consequence the share of benefis that accrue to the working class with every economic advance have been getting smaller and smaller over time.
Click to expand...




Smart guy.


----------



## Unkotare

I wonder if these hypocritical, myopic liberals have bothered to notice what effect this "regulate baby, regulate" administration has had on gas prices since the obama came to  office?


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> I wonder if these hypocritical, myopic liberals have bothered to notice what effect this "regulate baby, regulate" administration has had on gas prices since the obama came to  office?



You fools say gas was cheap when Bush left office.  You forget why.  The economy went into a great recession.  In part because GAS WAS OVER $4 a gallon!   I remember truck drivers were staying home rather than drive because it wasn't worth it.

Republicans forget that gas was cheap in 2007 because in 2006 the oil companies helped break the economy.

Remember folks the GOP broke/trashed the economy on purpose.  How did it work out for them? GREAT?  How did it work out for you?  Not so good?  Then stop voting GOP.  You aren't rich enough to be a Republican.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> I wonder if these hypocritical, myopic liberals have bothered to notice what effect this "regulate baby, regulate" administration has had on gas prices since the obama came to  office?



Speculators on Wallstreet cost you $8-$13 a fill up.  How smart are you?  

You keep crying for drill baby drill so you can save 60 cents while they fuck you out of $13.


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, they think they are worth it.  And don't expect the BOD to step in because the CEO we are talking about here sits on their companies BOD and so you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the investors who elect the BOD and fund the company? The customers who buy the products and services the company offers? All of these people are making value judgements that result in the salary of the CEO.
> 
> Why shouldn't it be up to individuals how they spend their money? Because that's really what this is all about. Those of you advocating for wage and price controls are demanding that we give up our right to spend our money the way we want, that our personal economic decisions should be dictated by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas directors are elected by the shareholders in publicly traded companies, a private company decides for itself how board members are chosen.
> 
> If you think just because you have 1 stock in a company that you get to pick who the BOD'ers are, you are wrong.  Major shareholders might but they again are VP's or CEO's of other companies.  I know how it works.  I have a brother who's one of them.  Do you know how it works?  Then you wouldn't be arguing that it is fair.
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that it's "all fair". I suspect there's plenty of corruption going on. I'm just taking issue with the notion that there should be limits on the amount of money we can give to each other. That's like saying that because there is campaign corruption, we shouldn't have the freedom to vote for whoever want. The solution is dumb, and doesn't even really address the problem.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, they think they are worth it.  And don't expect the BOD to step in because the CEO we are talking about here sits on their companies BOD and so you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the investors who elect the BOD and fund the company? The customers who buy the products and services the company offers? All of these people are making value judgements that result in the salary of the CEO.
> 
> Why shouldn't it be up to individuals how they spend their money? Because that's really what this is all about. Those of you advocating for wage and price controls are demanding that we give up our right to spend our money the way we want, that our personal economic decisions should be dictated by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas directors are elected by the shareholders in publicly traded companies, a private company decides for itself how board members are chosen.
> 
> If you think just because you have 1 stock in a company that you get to pick who the BOD'ers are, you are wrong.  Major shareholders might but they again are VP's or CEO's of other companies.  I know how it works.  I have a brother who's one of them.  Do you know how it works?  Then you wouldn't be arguing that it is fair.
> 
> You are arguing like a VP or CEO or Libertarian would.  We should just all boycott those companies, except for a few things.
> 
> 1.  They'll all bad.
> 2.  They have a monopoly
> 
> Hey, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.  The fact that so many less poor and middle class people are going to show up this midterm than will in 2016 tells me that the people are happy with what they are making.  If they want better/more then they need to show up and vote and next time there company votes for a union vote YES.  Have some balls.  Don't be scared you'll lose that $8 job.
Click to expand...


*a private company decides for itself how board members are chosen.*

OMG! Private owners deciding for themselves how to spend their own money, how to run their own company!!!

How can this be allowed in America?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like Venesuela did, I would Nationalize the oil in America IMMEDIATELY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, 'cause that worked out so well for Venezuela and EVERY OTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS TRIED SUCH SOCIALIST NONSENSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least heavily regulated the oil industry.
> 
> I'll give you a great example.  The oil companies/lobbyists/republicans/rich/sara palin were all screaming DRILL BABY DRILL, when the fact is that would have lowered gas prices 3 cents a gallon.  BFD.
> 
> But they/you don't want to discuss how wallstreet speculation is jacking up the price $12 for SUV's and $8 per fill up on economy cars.
> 
> So keep crying about 3 cents and keep allowing speculators to needlessly jack up the price of gas $8 a fillup on Im sure you drive an economy car.
Click to expand...


*The oil companies/lobbyists/republicans/rich/sara palin were all screaming DRILL BABY DRILL, when the fact is that would have lowered gas prices 3 cents a gallon.*

OMG! Lowering the price? Let's not do that.

Liberals want to raise the price. That must be a good idea, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if these hypocritical, myopic liberals have bothered to notice what effect this "regulate baby, regulate" administration has had on gas prices since the obama came to  office?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculators on Wallstreet cost you $8-$13 a fill up.  How smart are you?
> 
> You keep crying for drill baby drill so you can save 60 cents while they fuck you out of $13.
Click to expand...

*
Speculators on Wallstreet cost you $8-$13 a fill up. *

I'd ask you to prove it, but I know that's a futile request.


----------



## Unkotare

I suspect that some of these mindless liberal drones actually believe the bullshit they have been instructed to regurgitate. 



If someone wants a more socialist system, I suggest they go try living in one for an extended period and then reevaluate their conclusions.


----------



## dnsmith35

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if these hypocritical, myopic liberals have bothered to notice what effect this "regulate baby, regulate" administration has had on gas prices since the obama came to  office?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculators on Wallstreet cost you $8-$13 a fill up.  How smart are you?
> 
> You keep crying for drill baby drill so you can save 60 cents while they fuck you out of $13.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Speculators on Wallstreet cost you $8-$13 a fill up. *
> 
> I'd ask you to prove it, but I know that's a futile request.
Click to expand...

Speculators may cost us something, but certainly not $8 to $18 a fill up. But what the socialist oriented idiots on the thread refuse to acknowledge is, if we allowed a government controlled price on gasoline, the left wingers would add $5 to $7 a GALLON in their onslaught on fossil fuels like they have in Europe. State and federal taxes increase the price by $1 in some states as it is. Where I live the price of gasoline INCLUDING TAX is $3.33 a gallon, and a fill up without taxes for a 25 gallon tank $70 in my Expedition.


----------



## dnsmith35

sealybobo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if these hypocritical, myopic liberals have bothered to notice what effect this "regulate baby, regulate" administration has had on gas prices since the obama came to  office?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fools say gas was cheap when Bush left office.  You forget why.  The economy went into a great recession.  In part because GAS WAS OVER $4 a gallon!   I remember truck drivers were staying home rather than drive because it wasn't worth it.
> 
> *Republicans forget that gas was cheap in 2007 because in 2006 the oil companies helped break the economy.*
Click to expand...

So much bullshit and so little brain power.





> Remember folks the GOP broke/trashed the economy on purpose.  How did it work out for them? GREAT?  How did it work out for you?  Not so good?  Then stop voting GOP.  You aren't rich enough to be a Republican.


The facts are it was neither the GOP nor the democrats who broke the economy. BOTH had a hand in it, from the inception of CRA to the bad monetary and fiscal policies of CLINTON AND BUSH PUT TOGETHER who broke the economy. The inflationary moves of housing prices started in 1997 and and continued until the balloon popped in 2006.





Androw said:


> Carter passed the Community Reinvestment act, believing that the problem with dropping home ownership rates, was caused by lack of investment into homes, rather than a problem societal family break down.  It's much easier to regulate the banks, than to convince people to stay true to their wedding vows.
> 
> In 1977, the CRA was signed into law, promoting investment into home ownership, encouraging lending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you tell me....  Does that look like home prices after World War 2, were 'fairly' stable and consistent.... until when?   1977.   Look at the chart.  In 1977, prices started climbing, until they crashed.
> 
> Because of this... the CRA was virtually ignored for a decade.   Community groups were complaining that the CRA was not enforced.  (and it wasn't... for good reason).
> 
> In 1990s, Clinton came along, and vowed to fix things.  He instructed his government to start pushing banks.... which they did.
> 
> HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube
> 
> In 1998, the Clinton government sued in court, banks to give out $2.1 Billion in unqualified loans.    Andrew Cuomo, at 3 minutes in, directly states they will be a higher risk, and higher default rate.
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --
> 
> But it doesn't end there....   In 1997, Freddie Mac agrees to Securitize Sub-prime loans, for the first time in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Union Capital Markets Corp.
> and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
> securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
> 
> The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
> and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE:   FTU).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People asked "how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating?   This is how.  Freddie Mac, gave it to them.
> 
> Between the government directly suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and Freddie Mac securing them, what do you think that did to sub-prime lending?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what do you think all those previously unqualified buyers flooding the market did to home prices?
> 
> From the prior picture.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the exact year that prices started spiking up?   1997.
> 
> Bottom line.... yes Bush did support more home ownership.   That's true, and no one I know, denies it.
> 
> The problem is.... the price bubble, and sub-prime bubble, started in 1997.  The facts clearly show this.  It's not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> And by the way.... Obama himself, was involved in the lawsuits against banks, to force them to engage in sub-prime lending.   We have court documents, with his name on them.
> 
> So Obama, was directly involved back in the late 90s, in what caused the crash in 2008.
> 
> It's just a fact.​
Click to expand...

This was a great post. However, if you believe the left wing extremists will accept the FACTS you posted, I have a bridge over the Atchafalaya Swamp to sell


----------



## dnsmith35

What I have noticed is, when the left wing extremists make vague claims, and the liberals and moderates come back with facts, the left wing extremists arguments fade into nothing. BECAUSE THEY CAN'T ANSWER FACTS with their propaganda.


----------



## JT8691

sealybobo said:


> JT8691 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If incomes were equal what would be the incentive for new innovations?
> 
> What would be the incentive to start up new businesses that help society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one said all incomes should be equal.
> 
> In the past CEO's made 35 times more than the average worker.  Today it's 350 times.  Why were we wrong to unionize and demand profit sharing?  You call it class warfare when we ask for a raise or our fair share but when the CEO goes from 35-350 times you defend it.  You don't value workers apparently.  You think the CEO should get it all and the workers should get the crums.  I understand.
> 
> Your business has to benefit society.  If you have a great product and don't need help/workers then cool, but if you do you have to pay American workers a fair wage, and you can no longer hire illegals like you and Mitt Romney did.  They wouldn't stay here if no one was hiring.  Right?
> 
> Anyways, your question tells me you need to start over from Politics 101 and re educate yourself.  Either you are rich or you are   I don't really mean crazy I mean stupid.
Click to expand...


*If you want workers to be eligible for profit sharing....if the company loses money are you also for the workers losing wages?
*
And forget about Politics 101...you need to take Macro 101, or go to business school.

Ultimately I think those that take the biggest risk and are the most important to a company's success get the most amount of money. Why should somebody flipping burgers NOT make significantly less than the person who's at risk (the owner of the restaurant)? If the company goes under the owner(s) lose EVERYTHING they have. The person flipping burgers moves down the street to take the next minimum wage job.

People get paid what they're worth. If somebody has a problem with it they have a few choices. They can: A) Get a better education B) Work hard for promotions C) Start their own business D) Gain a new skill E) Find a better paying job elsewhere or F) Whine and complain and blame others for their lack of success.

One of those options is the lazy way out. I'll let you figure out which one it is.


----------



## georgephillip

sealybobo said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late 70s and early 80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the worlds top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style?  Just look at Russia.  Russia is basically run by Corporations.  Completely corrupt.  Very similar to ours.
> 
> 'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'
Click to expand...

*Had Reagan been born in Russia, he would have sucked the party teat at least as slavishly as he slurped the corporate teat in this country.*

"Reagan, like George W. Bush after him, failed to understand that when people come together into community, and then into nationhood, that they organize themselves to protect themselves from predators, both human and corporate, both domestic and foreign. 

"This form of organization is called government.

"But the Reagan/Bush ideologues don't 'believe' in government, in anything other than a military and police capacity. 

"Government should punish, they agree, but it should never nurture, protect, or defend individuals. 

"Nurturing and protecting, they suggest, is the more appropriate role of religious institutions, private charities, families, and - perhaps most important - corporations.

"Let the corporations handle your old-age pension. Let the corporations decide how much protection we and our environment need from their toxics. Let the corporations decide what we're paid. Let the corporations decide what doctor we can see, when, and for what purpose."

'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?
> 
> A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?
> 
> Ready for the best part?
> 
> Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.*
> 
> "The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late &#8216;70s and early &#8216;80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.
> 
> "The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."
> 
> "Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world&#8217;s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.
> 
> "In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, *many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown,* increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent  less than half a percentage point."
> 
> Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality
> 
> *There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see the GOP's dream of a government free utopia with no regulations, libertarian/tea party style?  Just look at Russia.  Russia is basically run by Corporations.  Completely corrupt.  Very similar to ours.
> 
> 'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Had Reagan been born in Russia, he would have sucked the party teat at least as slavishly as he slurped the corporate teat in this country.*
> 
> "Reagan, like George W. Bush after him, failed to understand that when people come together into community, and then into nationhood, that they organize themselves to protect themselves from predators, both human and corporate, both domestic and foreign.
> 
> "This form of organization is called government.
> 
> "But the Reagan/Bush ideologues don't 'believe' in government, in anything other than a military and police capacity.
> 
> "Government should punish, they agree, but it should never nurture, protect, or defend individuals.
> 
> "Nurturing and protecting, they suggest, is the more appropriate role of religious institutions, private charities, families, and - perhaps most important - corporations.
> 
> "Let the corporations handle your old-age pension. Let the corporations decide how much protection we and our environment need from their toxics. Let the corporations decide what we're paid. Let the corporations decide what doctor we can see, when, and for what purpose."
> 
> 'You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government'
Click to expand...

Is it possible for you to find a more "suck teat" source? Common Dreams and Air America are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh but on the other extreme. If you believe ANYTHING they report you are a fool; and Truth-out.org is down right hostile. 

*The comment "There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth," is true. IT IS CALLED POVERTY FOR ALL BUT THE COMMISSARS.*


----------



## georgephillip

sealybobo said:


> How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?


"At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?

"It's a debate we haven't had freely and openly in this nation for nearly a century, and last week,(4/2005) by voting to end the Estate Tax, House Republicans tried to ensure that it wouldn't be had again in this generation.

"But it's a debate that's vital to the survival of democracy in America.

"In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. 

"He wrote, 'If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree...'"

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> "At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?
> 
> "It's a debate we haven't had freely and openly in this nation for nearly a century, and last week,(4/2005) by voting to end the Estate Tax, House Republicans tried to ensure that it wouldn't be had again in this generation.
> 
> "But it's a debate that's vital to the survival of democracy in America.
> 
> "In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death.
> 
> "He wrote, 'If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree...'"
> 
> How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?
Click to expand...

Still using bull crap propaganda eh George? Do you actually believe the thrust of that article?


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> "At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?
Click to expand...


How do you define to "harm democracy" ? 

And why should those of us who support Capitalism and a Constitutional Republic care?

.


----------



## SAYIT

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the investors who elect the BOD and fund the company? The customers who buy the products and services the company offers? All of these people are making value judgements that result in the salary of the CEO.
> 
> Why shouldn't it be up to individuals how they spend their money? Because that's really what this is all about. Those of you advocating for wage and price controls are demanding that we give up our right to spend our money the way we want, that our personal economic decisions should be dictated by government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas directors are elected by the shareholders in publicly traded companies, a private company decides for itself how board members are chosen.
> 
> If you think just because you have 1 stock in a company that you get to pick who the BOD'ers are, you are wrong.  Major shareholders might but they again are VP's or CEO's of other companies.  I know how it works.  I have a brother who's one of them.  Do you know how it works?  Then you wouldn't be arguing that it is fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing that it's "all fair". I suspect there's plenty of corruption going on. I'm just taking issue with the notion that there should be limits on the amount of money we can give to each other. That's like saying that because there is campaign corruption, we shouldn't have the freedom to vote for whoever want. The solution is dumb, and doesn't even really address the problem.
Click to expand...


It's called "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Socialists never manage to think past the part where they use our gov't to confiscate the PRIVATE WEALTH of some to pay for the needs and wants of others. They have no idea where that road leads.


----------



## KNB

How much wealth have Socialists confiscated from private businesses?  Provide a link with the exact dollar amount.  Or even just a rough estimate.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> "At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?"
Click to expand...


It happens whenever government is granted the power to dictate our economic decisions, irrespective of the concentration of wealth.


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> "At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you define to "harm democracy" ?
> 
> And why should those of us who support Capitalism and a Constitutional Republic care?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

*I would say democracy is harmed when one percent of voters pay for the election campaigns and retirements of our elected representatives. Or when much of our judiciary is composed of corporate lawyers. The power of the corporation threatens to turn this Constitutional Republic into an oligarchy.

Chomsky says it pretty clearly:
*

"Q: You view corporations as being incompatible with democracy, and you say that is we apply the concepts that are used in political analysis, corporations are fascist. What do you mean?

"A: I mean fascism pretty much in the traditional sense, [analogous to] a system in which the state integrates labor and capital under their control. The ideal is top-down control with the public essentially following orders.

"Fascism is a term that doesnt strictly apply to corporations, but if you look at them, power goes strictly top-down. Ultimate power resides in the hands of investors, owners, banks, etc. People can disrupt, make suggestions, but the same is true of a slave society. People who arent owners and investors have nothing much to say about it.

"Thats something of an exaggeration because corporations are subject to some legal requirements and there is some limited degree of public control. But corporations are more totalitarian than most institutions we call totalitarian in the political arena."

Secrets, Lies, and Democracy, by Noam Chomsky


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?
> 
> 
> 
> "At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It happens whenever government is granted the power to dictate our economic decisions, irrespective of the concentration of wealth.
Click to expand...

The current concentration of wealth in the US gives 1% of voters de facto control of government. Why are you afraid of a democratic adjustment? 

Are you rich?


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens whenever government is granted the power to dictate our economic decisions, irrespective of the concentration of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The current concentration of wealth in the US gives 1% of voters de facto control of government. Why are you afraid of a democratic adjustment?
Click to expand...


'Democratic adjustment'? What does that mean?

Have you given much thought to _why_ wealth has so much influence over government? How did we solve the similar problem of religion having too much influence over government?


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It happens whenever government is granted the power to dictate our economic decisions, irrespective of the concentration of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> The current concentration of wealth in the US gives 1% of voters de facto control of government. Why are you afraid of a democratic adjustment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Democratic adjustment'? What does that mean?
> 
> Have you given much thought to _why_ wealth has so much influence over government? How did we solve the similar problem of religion having too much influence over government?
Click to expand...

A wall between church and state.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current concentration of wealth in the US gives 1% of voters de facto control of government. Why are you afraid of a democratic adjustment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Democratic adjustment'? What does that mean?
> 
> Have you given much thought to _why_ wealth has so much influence over government? How did we solve the similar problem of religion having too much influence over government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A wall between church and state.
Click to expand...


Exactly. And the counter-intuitive aspect of that 'wall', the thing that took us awhile to come to understand, is that limiting the religion's influence in government required limiting government's power over religion. 

At first, government leaders thought they could reign in religious power by co-opting it, by asserting state power over religion. But in doing so they merely invited religious leaders, albeit unintentionally, to become part of the government. Ambitious religious leaders were eager to use the power of the state to further their agenda.

The same thing is happening now with economic power. And we're making the same mistakes, assuming we can limit the power of wealth by bringing it under government control. When, in fact, that only amplifies and centralizes the oligarch's power.


----------



## SAYIT

KNB said:


> How much wealth have Socialists confiscated from private businesses?  Provide a link with the exact dollar amount.  Or even just a rough estimate.



It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's *HALF* of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.


----------



## SAYIT

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you define to "harm democracy" ?
> 
> And why should those of us who support Capitalism and a Constitutional Republic care?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I would say democracy is harmed when one percent of voters pay for the election campaigns and retirements of our elected representatives. Or when much of our judiciary is composed of corporate lawyers. The power of the corporation threatens to turn this Constitutional Republic into an oligarchy.
> 
> Chomsky says it pretty clearly:
> *
> 
> "Q: You view corporations as being incompatible with democracy, and you say that is we apply the concepts that are used in political analysis, corporations are fascist. What do you mean?
> 
> "A: I mean fascism pretty much in the traditional sense, [analogous to] a system in which the state integrates labor and capital under their control. The ideal is top-down control with the public essentially following orders.
> 
> "Fascism is a term that doesnt strictly apply to corporations, but if you look at them, power goes strictly top-down. Ultimate power resides in the hands of investors, owners, banks, etc. People can disrupt, make suggestions, but the same is true of a slave society. People who arent owners and investors have nothing much to say about it.
> 
> "Thats something of an exaggeration because corporations are subject to some legal requirements and there is some limited degree of public control. But corporations are more totalitarian than most institutions we call totalitarian in the political arena."
> 
> Secrets, Lies, and Democracy, by Noam Chomsky
Click to expand...


The beauty of America's capitalism is that anyone can become an owner. It's a story we see repeated time and time again. The flip side is that those who don't manage to do so are free to whine about those who do.


----------



## georgephillip

SAYIT said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much wealth have Socialists confiscated from private businesses?  Provide a link with the exact dollar amount.  Or even just a rough estimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
> In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
> The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's *HALF* of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
> Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.
Click to expand...

Specify what you mean by "the entire federal tax load."


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Democratic adjustment'? What does that mean?
> 
> Have you given much thought to _why_ wealth has so much influence over government? How did we solve the similar problem of religion having too much influence over government?
> 
> 
> 
> A wall between church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. And the counter-intuitive aspect of that 'wall', the thing that took us awhile to come to understand, is that limiting the religion's influence in government required limiting government's power over religion.
> 
> At first, government leaders thought they could reign in religious power by co-opting it, by asserting state power over religion. But in doing so they merely invited religious leaders, albeit unintentionally, to become part of the government. Ambitious religious leaders were eager to use the power of the state to further their agenda.
> 
> The same thing is happening now with economic power. And we're making the same mistakes, assuming we can limit the power of wealth by bringing it under government control. When, in fact, that only amplifies and centralizes the oligarch's power.
Click to expand...

Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?


----------



## SAYIT

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much wealth have Socialists confiscated from private businesses?  Provide a link with the exact dollar amount.  Or even just a rough estimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
> In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
> The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's *HALF* of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
> Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Specify what you mean by "the entire federal tax load."
Click to expand...


It's not my definition, it's NTU's:
https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNF_oT1xqa08Sjl7umFCepEpuUPKLw

Not for nothing, Heritage.org and Taxfoundation.org have the same figures. What about them do you not agree with?


----------



## georgephillip

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
> In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
> The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's *HALF* of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
> Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Specify what you mean by "the entire federal tax load."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my definition, it's NTU's:
> https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNF_oT1xqa08Sjl7umFCepEpuUPKLw
> 
> Not for nothing, Heritage.org and Taxfoundation.org have the same figures. What about them do you not agree with?
Click to expand...

*Your link:*

"Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?"

*I don't think Income Taxes equate to "the entire federal tax load", do you?*


----------



## SAYIT

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "At what point does great wealth held in a few hands actually harm democracy, threatening to turn a democratic republic into an oligarchy?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens whenever government is granted the power to dictate our economic decisions, irrespective of the concentration of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The current concentration of wealth in the US gives 1% of voters de facto control of government. Why are you afraid of a democratic adjustment?
> 
> Are you rich?
Click to expand...


Is that how you assuage your inadequacies? Why do you ASSUME others are afraid? Is it because *you* feel so powerless? We the people have the right and the power to adjust our democracy at the ballot box and we do. We recently brought down the House majority leader (see: Eric Cantor). The fact that you see "the rich" as a single entity operating as a cabal says much about *your very narrow view* of America, Americans and life.


----------



## SAYIT

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Specify what you mean by "the entire federal tax load."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my definition, it's NTU's:
> https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNF_oT1xqa08Sjl7umFCepEpuUPKLw
> 
> Not for nothing, Heritage.org and Taxfoundation.org have the same figures. What about them do you not agree with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your link:*
> 
> "Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?"
> 
> *I don't think Income Taxes equate to "the entire federal tax load", do you?*
Click to expand...


That depends on what your definition of "is" is. 
Do you have different figures? Do you doubt the percentages are as stated? Do you doubt that the top 1% pays 36.73% of the taxes or that the bottom *50%* pays 2.25%?


----------



## jasonnfree

SAYIT said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much wealth have Socialists confiscated from private businesses?  Provide a link with the exact dollar amount.  Or even just a rough estimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
> In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
> The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's *HALF* of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
> Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.
Click to expand...


Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets.  When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent.  Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%.  It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

jasonnfree said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much wealth have Socialists confiscated from private businesses?  Provide a link with the exact dollar amount.  Or even just a rough estimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
> In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
> The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's *HALF* of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
> Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets.  When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent.  Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%.  It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.
Click to expand...


*It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision. *

It's horrible that corporations can now spend like unions. Just awful!


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
> In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
> The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's *HALF* of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
> Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets.  When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent.  Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%.  It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision. *
> 
> It's horrible that corporations can now spend like unions. Just awful!
Click to expand...

Which is richer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets.  When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent.  Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%.  It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision. *
> 
> It's horrible that corporations can now spend like unions. Just awful!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is richer?
Click to expand...


Which spent for decades with no restrictions?


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall between church and state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And the counter-intuitive aspect of that 'wall', the thing that took us awhile to come to understand, is that limiting the religion's influence in government required limiting government's power over religion.
> 
> At first, government leaders thought they could reign in religious power by co-opting it, by asserting state power over religion. But in doing so they merely invited religious leaders, albeit unintentionally, to become part of the government. Ambitious religious leaders were eager to use the power of the state to further their agenda.
> 
> The same thing is happening now with economic power. And we're making the same mistakes, assuming we can limit the power of wealth by bringing it under government control. When, in fact, that only amplifies and centralizes the oligarch's power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?
Click to expand...


???


----------



## dnsmith35

sealybobo said:


> The middle class is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace.  The rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that without rules and referees sports would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules doesn&#8217;t work.  Works for the top 1% but not for the rest of us.  The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is,&#8221;stop government from defending workers and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade.&#8221;
> Sorry but governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been if you want to do business in America you have to do business that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.
> The middle class is not a normal result of free markets. Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small middle mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called serfs.  The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws.  Labor laws and don&#8217;t forget unions.  New Deal, FDR.  The rich called him a traitor to his class.
> When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.





dnsmith35 said:


> You are preaching to the choir when you argue to me about regulation. I have always been for regulation of business and industry, without which we would have a real major issue fairness in society.
> 
> Beyond that you have several comments which are simply untrue. I am not a conservative, I am liberal, JUST NOT LEFT WING EXTREME, as some on this thread are. Your contention that labor has "the power" to organized into unions may be true, but the majority of labor in the US chooses NOT TO HAVE THEM. Only 12% of our labor force is unionized and for good reason. The government has taken over the role of unions in so far as fairness and safety rules in the work place. Union usefulness has just about run its course in the US. However in 3rd world labor markets the labor revolution has not yet taken root, and that is where unions can still be useful to society. In addition protectionism against the big bad foreign competition does the US labor force more harm than good and globalization is here and will be here whether you like it or not. Also, your concept of conservatism is warped. Conservatives are the ones who WANT PROTECTIONISM and the status quo rather than globalism, and it is we liberals (not left wingers) who want to do business with the world such that ALL HUMANS ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE A DIGNIFIED LIFE. The platitudes you throw out are a reflection of the propaganda sources you read or listen to, and do not reflect reality in the Industrialized world.





> Bobo (the clown)
> 
> 1.  The need for unions has never been stronger than it is today.  Where has the middle class gone?  Bunch of white collar broke asses raising families on $30K plus an hour.  I see it.  It's all around you.  A lot of your friends went from middle class in the 90's to where they are today.  Not saving anything, in debt, barely making ends meet, haven't had a raise in years, cost of living going up.  Or a lot of my friends are making much less than they did in the 90's.  They took steps backward.  And today the jobs just aren't paying what they use to.  So a lot of people are working but they are working for much less.  It has become the new normal in America.  Not saving a dime for retirement???  The new norm?  And don't act like the GOP hate this.  Paying employees less?  They love it don't pretend they don't.


Your suggestion that I am either conservative or a GOP is untrue. Also, Unions are passé. The value of unions was to fight for reasonable wages, safety and decent work conditions. The government has taken over the role of unions with labor laws.





> 2.  I'm re reading your rebuttal and I don't see where you are pointing out something I said that was untrue.


See above. If you still don't see, you DON'T WANT TO SEE.





> 3.  Do you know the tactics that corporations pull to get their employees to not vote to unionize?  I wouldn't be so sure about how people feel about unions.  The majority of people don't like unions because they've never been in one and they've been brainwashed to think they are bad.  They aren't perfect but I can bet you that if a lot of people could vote anonymously and without fear/intimidation they would choose to have a union represent them.


Not a shred of evidence to support that assertion, and I don't believe any of it.





> ANYONE who hasn't gotten a raise in 10 years but their ceo is now making 350 times what they make when before it was 35 times more is a fool.


Like every one has an asshole and an opinion. So now you express opinion which I am sure you can find supported by many left wing extremist propaganda sites.





> The smartest guys I ever knew worked in a union factory because at least they were smart enough to get their fair share of the profits.


 Apparently you don't know many people. As a liberal with an MBA with a major in economics and an Ed.S in Psychology (since economics is based on human behavior) I consulted with hundreds of businesses on how to improve labor relations, ie keep their employees happy. Most of the process was talking to a large swath of the labor force. Based on their opinions, you are 180 degrees out of sync.





> P.S.  The only reason non union companies paid so well all these years is because they were afraid their employees would unionize.  They aren't afraid anymore and look where wages are.


More propaganda!





> If you are a liberal you aren't a smart one.


ROTFLMAO! You lose again.






Obviously you are not aware that the top 1%s income has not fluctuated up much over the last 44 years.


----------



## georgephillip

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision. *
> 
> It's horrible that corporations can now spend like unions. Just awful!
> 
> 
> 
> Which is richer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which spent for decades with no restrictions?
Click to expand...

Which controls all three branches of government today?


----------



## georgephillip

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my definition, it's NTU's:
> https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNF_oT1xqa08Sjl7umFCepEpuUPKLw
> 
> Not for nothing, Heritage.org and Taxfoundation.org have the same figures. What about them do you not agree with?
> 
> 
> 
> *Your link:*
> 
> "Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?"
> 
> *I don't think Income Taxes equate to "the entire federal tax load", do you?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
> Do you have different figures? Do you doubt the percentages are as stated? Do you doubt that the top 1% pays 36.73% of the taxes or that the bottom *50%* pays 2.25%?
Click to expand...

I'm sure your figures are accurate as far as Federal Income Taxes are concerned.
Most Americans don't earn enough to pay Income Tax.
What about FICA taxes?
The bottom 50% of workers pays a higher proportion of its earnings in taxes of all kinds than the 1% does.


----------



## dblack

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And the counter-intuitive aspect of that 'wall', the thing that took us awhile to come to understand, is that limiting the religion's influence in government required limiting government's power over religion.
> 
> At first, government leaders thought they could reign in religious power by co-opting it, by asserting state power over religion. But in doing so they merely invited religious leaders, albeit unintentionally, to become part of the government. Ambitious religious leaders were eager to use the power of the state to further their agenda.
> 
> The same thing is happening now with economic power. And we're making the same mistakes, assuming we can limit the power of wealth by bringing it under government control. When, in fact, that only amplifies and centralizes the oligarch's power.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???
Click to expand...


George? I'm assuming this was a typo. Otherwise, kindly explain how a stipulation that "Congress shall make no law ..." asserts state power over anything.


----------



## JT8691

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall between church and state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And the counter-intuitive aspect of that 'wall', the thing that took us awhile to come to understand, is that limiting the religion's influence in government required limiting government's power over religion.
> 
> At first, government leaders thought they could reign in religious power by co-opting it, by asserting state power over religion. But in doing so they merely invited religious leaders, albeit unintentionally, to become part of the government. Ambitious religious leaders were eager to use the power of the state to further their agenda.
> 
> The same thing is happening now with economic power. And we're making the same mistakes, assuming we can limit the power of wealth by bringing it under government control. When, in fact, that only amplifies and centralizes the oligarch's power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?
Click to expand...


The Constitution defines the role of government, NOT grant it power (necessarily). Big difference.


----------



## SAYIT

jasonnfree said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much wealth have Socialists confiscated from private businesses?  Provide a link with the exact dollar amount.  Or even just a rough estimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
> In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
> The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's *HALF* of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
> Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets.  When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent.  Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%.  It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.
Click to expand...


As already mentioned America's capitalism offers virtually anyone the OPPORTUNITY to be an owner and for those who don't manage that, the OPPORTUNITY to whine about those who do.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your link:*
> 
> "Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?"
> 
> *I don't think Income Taxes equate to "the entire federal tax load", do you?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
> Do you have different figures? Do you doubt the percentages are as stated? Do you doubt that the top 1% pays 36.73% of the taxes or that the bottom *50%* pays 2.25%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure your figures are accurate as far as Federal Income Taxes are concerned.
> Most Americans don't earn enough to pay Income Tax.
> What about FICA taxes?
> The bottom 50% of workers pays a higher proportion of its earnings in taxes of all kinds than the 1% does.
Click to expand...

FICA are in reality INSURANCE premiums. Those in the lower brackets get their PREMIUMS back with Earned Income Tax Credits. It is disingenuous to try to combine retirement/disability insurance/Medicare premiums as "tax" since it was not intended as a tax. 

Federal Insurance Contributions Act - FICA

Definition of 'Federal Insurance Contributions Act - FICA'

A U.S. law requiring a deduction from paychecks and income that goes toward the Social Security program and Medicare. Both employees and employers are responsible for sharing the FICA payments.​
Are you suggesting that we stop MANDATING INSURANCE? Are you wanting to reverse our great president FDR's most important contribution to our society? Trying to convince people that FICA is a tax in the same vein as Federal Income Tax is lame, very lame.

Also, as you noted, about 49% of Americans do not pay INCOME TAX; and the less wealthy wage earners get their FICA back.


----------



## dnsmith35

SAYIT said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't that socialists have confiscated anything but certainly our gov't is used by socialists to do their dirty work.
> In 2009, according to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of America's earners carried 36.73% of the entire federal tax load. The top 10% ... 70.47%.
> The bottom 50% saw their share of the load gradually cut from 4% in 1999 to 2.25% in 2009. That's *HALF* of America's taxpayers paying almost nothing.
> Does the bottom half not benefit from all America has to offer? Clearly they don't help pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets.  When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent.  Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%.  It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As already mentioned America's capitalism offers virtually anyone the OPPORTUNITY to be an owner and for those who don't manage that, the OPPORTUNITY to whine about those who do.
Click to expand...

Jason regurgitates left wing propaganda without conscience. Wealth distribution is being affected by the individual's skills and education more so than anyone who is wealthy. Fortune Magazine had a great article  about don't blame the 1% for the disparity of income. That page has been taken down, but there are still copies floating around.

Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

Harvard's Lawrence Katz has calculated that even if all the gains of the top 1% were redistributed to the 99%, household incomes would go up by less than half of what they would if everyone had a college degree. In other words, the financial rewards of higher education are a big contributor to the income gap."​
Not just college degrees, but also skilled technical training are important. 

Look at this chart: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_124.asp

Across the US the graduation rates of students average 78.2% Then look at D.C.: 59.9%; NY: 76%; Cal.: 78.2%


----------



## SAYIT

dnsmith35 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most in the bottom half would like to be in higher tax brackets.  When the extremely wealthy and corporations have more influence over our rule makers than all of us who vote combined, it's no wonder that the wealth distribution keeps on favoring the one percent.  Or more like the on 1/4th of 1%.  It will keep on being like this since the money floodgates were opened with citizens united decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As already mentioned America's capitalism offers virtually anyone the OPPORTUNITY to be an owner and for those who don't manage that, the OPPORTUNITY to whine about those who do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jason regurgitates left wing propaganda without conscience. Wealth distribution is being affected by the individual's skills and education more so than anyone who is wealthy. Fortune Magazine had a great article  about don't blame the 1% for the disparity of income. That page has been taken down, but there are still copies floating around.
Click to expand...


GeorgePhillip does the same but after squirming around he finally admitted that the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay virtually no federal income tax ... that they get a free ride on the backs of those who do pay those taxes. I think we are making progress. 
Lotsa luck with JasonIwant4free.


----------



## hipeter924

You should only be taxed for government services you actually use or support. But talking heresy here because the propaganda line goes that if you make paying for the welfare state voluntary, then no one would contribute.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George? I'm assuming this was a typo. Otherwise, kindly explain how a stipulation that "Congress shall make no law ..." asserts state power over anything.
Click to expand...

It was the state that erected the wall between church and state, right?


----------



## dblack

hipeter924 said:


> You should only be taxed for government services you actually use or support. But talking heresy here because the propaganda line goes that if you make paying for the welfare state voluntary, then no one would contribute.



I disagree. Government services that can't be justified as benefitting everyone more or less equally shouldn't be government services in the first place.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George? I'm assuming this was a typo. Otherwise, kindly explain how a stipulation that "Congress shall make no law ..." asserts state power over anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the state that erected the wall between church and state, right?
Click to expand...


No. It was the people. That's the difference between the Constitution and ordinary laws. Regardless, the first amendment doesn't assert state power over religion. It expressly denies it.


----------



## georgephillip

JT8691 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And the counter-intuitive aspect of that 'wall', the thing that took us awhile to come to understand, is that limiting the religion's influence in government required limiting government's power over religion.
> 
> At first, government leaders thought they could reign in religious power by co-opting it, by asserting state power over religion. But in doing so they merely invited religious leaders, albeit unintentionally, to become part of the government. Ambitious religious leaders were eager to use the power of the state to further their agenda.
> 
> The same thing is happening now with economic power. And we're making the same mistakes, assuming we can limit the power of wealth by bringing it under government control. When, in fact, that only amplifies and centralizes the oligarch's power.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution defines the role of government, NOT grant it power (necessarily). Big difference.
Click to expand...

"Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]

*If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.*

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SAYIT

georgephillip said:


> JT8691 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution defines the role of government, NOT grant it power (necessarily). Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]
> 
> *If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.*
> 
> Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


One has nothing to do with the other and you are distorting the meaning of the First Amendment. Rather than giving the gov't power over religion it expressly prohibits gov't from acting in that arena. You do understand the diff, right?


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> JT8691 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution defines the role of government, NOT grant it power (necessarily). Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]
> 
> *If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.*
> 
> Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


The Church and tthe ECONOMY ought to be separated - there should be a wall of separation between the state and the economy - thereby nullifying Obama Hellcare and similar transgressions.

.


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JT8691 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution defines the role of government, NOT grant it power (necessarily). Big difference.
> 
> 
> 
> "Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]
> 
> *If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.*
> 
> Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Church and tthe ECONOMY ought to be separated - there should be a wall of separation between the state and the economy - thereby nullifying Obama Hellcare and similar transgressions.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly. It does seem like government could separate the influence of private wealth on the state by limiting the amount of money that could be donated to any campaign.


----------



## Contumacious

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]
> 
> *If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.*
> 
> Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Church and tthe ECONOMY ought to be separated - there should be a wall of separation between the state and the economy - thereby nullifying Obama Hellcare and similar transgressions.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly. It does seem like government could separate the influence of private wealth on the state by limiting the amount of money that could be donated to any campaign.
Click to expand...


Before 1935 it was understood that a Constitutional tax was one used to finance the functions which were necessary to pay for the government SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS. 

But the scumbags in the SCOTUS have expanded the authority to include EVERYTHING.

.


----------



## georgephillip

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Church and tthe ECONOMY ought to be separated - there should be a wall of separation between the state and the economy - thereby nullifying Obama Hellcare and similar transgressions.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly. It does seem like government could separate the influence of private wealth on the state by limiting the amount of money that could be donated to any campaign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before 1935 it was understood that a Constitutional tax was one used to finance the functions which were necessary to pay for the government SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS.
> 
> But the scumbags in the SCOTUS have expanded the authority to include EVERYTHING.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has a lot to answer for, IMHO, starting with _Santa Clara v Southern Pacific Railroad_

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]
> 
> *If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.*
> 
> Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Church and the ECONOMY ought to be separated - there should be a wall of separation between the state and the economy - thereby nullifying Obama Hellcare and similar transgressions.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly.
Click to expand...


We faced exactly the same situation with religion. Laws that everyone must follow necessarily apply to religious people, and _will_ have an impact on some religious practice. But the first amendment prohibits the state from making laws that specifically target or promote religions. Likewise, taxes and other economic regulation _will_ have an impact on the economy, but they should never target, or promote, specific economic interests.

And right now, no such separation exists. Lobbyists push for legislation promoting specific economic agendas as a matter of course. The practice represents the bulk of Congressional power. This is why private money is so deeply embedded in Washington, and it won't end until the government's power to manipulate our economic decisions is revoked.


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> JT8691 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the First Amendment asserting state power over religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution defines the role of government, NOT grant it power (necessarily). Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Jefferson wrote, 'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.'"[1]
> 
> *If the state exerted its power over religion with the First Amendment, it could do the same with private wealth today.*
> 
> Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I believe the 1st amendment has been grossly misinterpreted by the courts. All it says relative to religion is that there would effectively no state religion. It does not mean that we have freedom from religion. The government should simply stay out of religion so long as no one forcibly tries to push a religion upon the people. The mere existence of religion and the practice thereof should not be tread upon no matter who or where any given religion is practiced.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Church and the ECONOMY ought to be separated - there should be a wall of separation between the state and the economy - thereby nullifying Obama Hellcare and similar transgressions.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We faced exactly the same situation with religion. Laws that everyone must follow necessarily apply to religious people, and _will_ have an impact on some religious practice. But the first amendment prohibits the state from making laws that specifically target or promote religions. Likewise, taxes and other economic regulation _will_ have an impact on the economy, but they should never target, or promote, specific economic interests.
> 
> And right now, no such separation exists. Lobbyists push for legislation promoting specific economic agendas as a matter of course. The practice represents the bulk of Congressional power. This is why private money is so deeply embedded in Washington, and it won't end until the government's power to manipulate our economic decisions is revoked.
Click to expand...

When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?

How could such an event transpire except through a democratic adjustment at the polls?

Private money rules government because of the power of corporations which will not vanish by reducing the level of democratic control supplied by government.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We faced exactly the same situation with religion. Laws that everyone must follow necessarily apply to religious people, and _will_ have an impact on some religious practice. But the first amendment prohibits the state from making laws that specifically target or promote religions. Likewise, taxes and other economic regulation _will_ have an impact on the economy, but they should never target, or promote, specific economic interests.
> 
> And right now, no such separation exists. Lobbyists push for legislation promoting specific economic agendas as a matter of course. The practice represents the bulk of Congressional power. This is why private money is so deeply embedded in Washington, and it won't end until the government's power to manipulate our economic decisions is revoked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?
Click to expand...


Individuals, deciding for themselves how to earn and spend their own money. Corporations can't dictate to us without government doing their dirty work for them.


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> We faced exactly the same situation with religion. Laws that everyone must follow necessarily apply to religious people, and _will_ have an impact on some religious practice. But the first amendment prohibits the state from making laws that specifically target or promote religions. Likewise, taxes and other economic regulation _will_ have an impact on the economy, but they should never target, or promote, specific economic interests.
> 
> And right now, no such separation exists. Lobbyists push for legislation promoting specific economic agendas as a matter of course. The practice represents the bulk of Congressional power. This is why private money is so deeply embedded in Washington, and it won't end until the government's power to manipulate our economic decisions is revoked.
> 
> 
> 
> When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Individuals, deciding for themselves how to earn and spend their own money. Corporations can't dictate to us without government doing their dirty work for them.
Click to expand...

Corporations can't exist without government.
Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?


----------



## Crystalclear

Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals, deciding for themselves how to earn and spend their own money. Corporations can't dictate to us without government doing their dirty work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corporations can't exist without government.
> Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
> I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?
Click to expand...


I'm not advocating for weakening the power of individuals, collectively or otherwise, to resist businesses. I'd advocating for _restoring_ it. I'm arguing for government that protects our fundamental freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money. That's it in nutshell.

This is where so many have it backwards. Economic freedom doesn't indulge the power of wealth, it contains it.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article I Section 8 gives government the power to coin money and to lay and collect taxes so I don't know how to separate the state from its economy exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We faced exactly the same situation with religion. Laws that everyone must follow necessarily apply to religious people, and _will_ have an impact on some religious practice. But the first amendment prohibits the state from making laws that specifically target or promote religions. Likewise, taxes and other economic regulation _will_ have an impact on the economy, but they should never target, or promote, specific economic interests.
> 
> And right now, no such separation exists. Lobbyists push for legislation promoting specific economic agendas as a matter of course. The practice represents the bulk of Congressional power. This is why private money is so deeply embedded in Washington, and it won't end until the government's power to manipulate our economic decisions is revoked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?
> 
> How could such an event transpire except through a democratic adjustment at the polls?
> 
> Private money rules government because of the power of corporations which will not vanish by reducing the level of democratic control supplied by government.
Click to expand...


What "power" do corporations have other than to supply you with goods you want?


----------



## Crystalclear

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals, deciding for themselves how to earn and spend their own money. Corporations can't dictate to us without government doing their dirty work for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations can't exist without government.
> Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
> I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating for weakening the power of individuals, collectively or otherwise, to resist businesses. I'd advocating for _restoring_ it. I'm arguing for government that protects our fundamental freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money. That's it in nutshell.
> 
> This is where so many have it backwards. Economic freedom doesn't indulge the power of wealth, it contains it.
Click to expand...


No, economic freedom spreads the power of wealth. With less government regulations, there is more competition, which leads to te end of monopolies.


----------



## georgephillip

Crystalclear said:


> Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.


All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?


----------



## georgephillip

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals, deciding for themselves how to earn and spend their own money. Corporations can't dictate to us without government doing their dirty work for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations can't exist without government.
> Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
> I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating for weakening the power of individuals, collectively or otherwise, to resist businesses. I'd advocating for _restoring_ it. I'm arguing for government that protects our fundamental freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money. That's it in nutshell.
> 
> This is where so many have it backwards. Economic freedom doesn't indulge the power of wealth, it contains it.
Click to expand...

Any government that protects your economic freedom (whatever that is) would have to be free of the influence of its richest citizens. Since the richest 1% of Americans currently own government, how do we protect our freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations can't exist without government.
> Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
> I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating for weakening the power of individuals, collectively or otherwise, to resist businesses. I'd advocating for _restoring_ it. I'm arguing for government that protects our fundamental freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money. That's it in nutshell.
> 
> This is where so many have it backwards. Economic freedom doesn't indulge the power of wealth, it contains it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any government that protects your economic freedom (whatever that is) would have to be free of the influence of its richest citizens. Since the richest 1% of Americans currently own government, how do we protect our freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money?
Click to expand...


*Since the richest 1% of Americans currently own government*

Sounds like an excellent reason to shrink government, a lot.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?
Click to expand...


What governments are not "under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes" other than socialist economic basket cases like Somalia or Liberia?


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations can't exist without government.
> Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
> I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating for weakening the power of individuals, collectively or otherwise, to resist businesses. I'd advocating for _restoring_ it. I'm arguing for government that protects our fundamental freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money. That's it in nutshell.
> 
> This is where so many have it backwards. Economic freedom doesn't indulge the power of wealth, it contains it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any government that protects your economic freedom (whatever that is) would have to be free of the influence of its richest citizens. Since the richest 1% of Americans currently own government, how do we protect our freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money?
Click to expand...


Can you post a link to the title that shows these people purchased the government?


----------



## dblack

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations can't exist without government.
> Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.
> I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating for weakening the power of individuals, collectively or otherwise, to resist businesses. I'd advocating for _restoring_ it. I'm arguing for government that protects our fundamental freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money. That's it in nutshell.
> 
> This is where so many have it backwards. Economic freedom doesn't indulge the power of wealth, it contains it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any government that protects your economic freedom (whatever that is) would have to be free of the influence of its richest citizens.
Click to expand...


Actually, let's be really clear on what 'economic freedom' means. There's not much point in conversation if the terms aren't clear. 

What I mean by economic freedom is the right to conduct voluntary trade with others free from interference. As long as such transactions are agreed to voluntarily, and conducted honestly, the details of the exchange are no one else's business. That means I can work for whomever will agree to pay me, for whatever terms we can mutually agree to. I don't have to ask the state for permission and neither does my employer. It means I can purchase goods and services from others without approval from outside interests. It means I can pay someone else to work for me regardless of whether a third party thinks they're 'qualified'. It means I can go to any doctor who will see me, regardless of whether other doctors, or my neighbors, or the government, thinks that doctor is a "quack". It means I decide how to invest my money and save for the future regardless of whether the lobbyists of the insurance industry, or my neighbors, or the government, thinks I'm "doing it right". It means I can buy and consume whatever food and drugs I want regardless of whether the lobbyists of the food and drug industry, my neighbors, or the government, approves of my decision.

It means pressure groups don't get to use legislation to manipulate markets in their favor, regardless of the excuse.


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals, deciding for themselves how to earn and spend their own money. Corporations can't dictate to us without government doing their dirty work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corporations can't exist without government.
Click to expand...

No economic entity can exist without government.





> Individuals can but they find organizing into collectives enhances their ability to resist dictators.


Collectives REQUIRE DICTATORS to function for any long period of time.


> I know you are not calling for an elimination of government, but I'm not clear on how you advance the power of the individual to resist corporate rule by weakening the authority of the collectives individuals freely form to resist legal monopolies?


Government's primary purpose is to provide security to its citizens, and part of that security is PROTECTING PRIVATE PROPERTY; property of individuals, collectives (corporate share holders), or any other legal entity. Effectively, proper security protects private property from the GOVERNMENT ITSELF OR OTHER ENTITIES.


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?
Click to expand...

Gosh, now you want to reduce the power of government, dictatorial government is an absolute requirement for your other dream, SOCIALISM. Regulation is very acceptable, dictatorship as required by SOCIALISM is not. Therefore, SOCIALISM IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE.


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> Any government that protects your economic freedom (whatever that is) would have to be free of the influence of its richest citizens. Since the richest 1% of Americans currently own government, how do we protect our freedom to decide for ourselves how to spend our money?


That is unmitigated horse crap. It is common left wing propaganda used to scare people into believing that the 1% are omnipotent. They are not, and they are not appreciably more wealthy than the average upper middle class. The tiny 1/100 of that 1% are very wealthy, but cannot run the government. There is obviously some influence on individuals using their money for campaigns, but it stops there.


----------



## Crystalclear

georgephillip said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?
Click to expand...



Almost all governments, look at the Soviet Union, for example, with a small, but very rich elite. So not only the US and other capitalist countries have governments that help the very wealthy, but communist countries can be just as bad.


----------



## crisismangement

Crystalclear said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all governments, look at the Soviet Union, for example, with a small, but very rich elite. So not only the US and other capitalist countries have governments that help the very wealthy, but communist countries can be just as bad.
Click to expand...

The Soviet Union and all Marxist governments are worse than the US and generate wealth only for the politicians.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> We faced exactly the same situation with religion. Laws that everyone must follow necessarily apply to religious people, and _will_ have an impact on some religious practice. But the first amendment prohibits the state from making laws that specifically target or promote religions. Likewise, taxes and other economic regulation _will_ have an impact on the economy, but they should never target, or promote, specific economic interests.
> 
> And right now, no such separation exists. Lobbyists push for legislation promoting specific economic agendas as a matter of course. The practice represents the bulk of Congressional power. This is why private money is so deeply embedded in Washington, and it won't end until the government's power to manipulate our economic decisions is revoked.
> 
> 
> 
> When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?
> 
> How could such an event transpire except through a democratic adjustment at the polls?
> 
> Private money rules government because of the power of corporations which will not vanish by reducing the level of democratic control supplied by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "power" do corporations have other than to supply you with goods you want?
Click to expand...

Corporations have the power to pre-select the candidates you vote for.
They use this same power to drive down wages, foreclose opportunity, and raise prices. They transfer wealth from consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs to rich execs and shareholders.


----------



## georgephillip

Crystalclear said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Governments ruin a free market and create monster monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all governments, look at the Soviet Union, for example, with a small, but very rich elite. So not only the US and other capitalist countries have governments that help the very wealthy, but communist countries can be just as bad.
Click to expand...

Every government ever conceived as served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority. Only the US has to potential to change that peacefully at the ballot box.
But not by "choosing" either Democrat OR Republican.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?
> 
> How could such an event transpire except through a democratic adjustment at the polls?
> 
> Private money rules government because of the power of corporations which will not vanish by reducing the level of democratic control supplied by government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "power" do corporations have other than to supply you with goods you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corporations have the power to pre-select the candidates you vote for.
Click to expand...


They have no such power.  In reality populare candidates have the power to squeeze corporations for donations by threatening them with harmful regulations.



georgephillip said:


> They use this same power to drive down wages,



They have no power to drive down wages.  Politicians, on the other hand, do have that power by flooding the country with immigrants willing to work for low wages.



georgephillip said:


> foreclose opportunity,



How on earth would they do that?  Why would they do it if they could?



georgephillip said:


> and raise prices.



It sure isn't working in the housing sector, is it?



georgephillip said:


> They transfer wealth from consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs to rich execs and shareholders.



How do they accomplish this "transfer" of wealth?  I'm dying to know.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all governments, look at the Soviet Union, for example, with a small, but very rich elite. So not only the US and other capitalist countries have governments that help the very wealthy, but communist countries can be just as bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every government ever conceived as served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority. Only the US has to potential to change that peacefully at the ballot box.
> But not by "choosing" either Democrat OR Republican.
Click to expand...


How will it be achieved?


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> When government's power to manipulate our economic decisions, whatever that means, is revoked, what fills the power vacuum, corporations?
> 
> How could such an event transpire except through a democratic adjustment at the polls?
> 
> Private money rules government because of the power of corporations which will not vanish by reducing the level of democratic control supplied by government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "power" do corporations have other than to supply you with goods you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corporations have the power to pre-select the candidates you vote for.
> They use this same power to drive down wages, foreclose opportunity, and raise prices. They transfer wealth from consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs to rich execs and shareholders.
Click to expand...


BAH HUMBUG! You and your left wing propaganda exaggerate the power corporations have over elections, either through campaign contribution or with hold over them if elected. I do believe lobbying should be outlawed but I don't they control as much you believe they do.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> All governments create monster monopolies or only those governments under the corrupting influence of large private fortunes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all governments, look at the Soviet Union, for example, with a small, but very rich elite. So not only the US and other capitalist countries have governments that help the very wealthy, but communist countries can be just as bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every government ever conceived as served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority. Only the US has to potential to change that peacefully at the ballot box.
> But not by "choosing" either Democrat OR Republican.
Click to expand...

BAH HUMBUG, AGAIN. The only countries you can be sure are being effected by the rich, are those who have authoritative/dictatorial governments and the leaders get rich while the masses are poor. You exaggerate "bought" government in the US by huge amounts. Why don't you find a nice collective to live it and spare us your propaganda?


----------



## dnsmith35

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "power" do corporations have other than to supply you with goods you want?
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations have the power to pre-select the candidates you vote for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have no such power.  In reality populare candidates have the power to squeeze corporations for donations by threatening them with harmful regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> They have no power to drive down wages.  Politicians, on the other hand, do have that power by flooding the country with immigrants willing to work for low wages.
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth would they do that?  Why would they do it if they could?
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> and raise prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure isn't working in the housing sector, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> They transfer wealth from consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs to rich execs and shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do they accomplish this "transfer" of wealth?  I'm dying to know.
Click to expand...

He can't answer that. He is a socialist conspiracy theorist, and spreader of socialist propagandist, regurgitating crap from his left wing extremist sites.


----------



## Crystalclear

dnsmith35 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "power" do corporations have other than to supply you with goods you want?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations have the power to pre-select the candidates you vote for.
> 
> They use this same power to drive down wages, foreclose opportunity, and raise prices. They transfer wealth from consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs to rich execs and shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BAH HUMBUG! You and your left wing propaganda exaggerate the power corporations have over elections, either through campaign contribution or with hold over them if elected. I do believe lobbying should be outlawed but I don't they control as much you believe they do.
Click to expand...




Military industrial complex doesn't have much control?


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "power" do corporations have other than to supply you with goods you want?
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations have the power to pre-select the candidates you vote for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have no such power.  In reality populare candidates have the power to squeeze corporations for donations by threatening them with harmful regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> They have no power to drive down wages.  Politicians, on the other hand, do have that power by flooding the country with immigrants willing to work for low wages.
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth would they do that?  Why would they do it if they could?
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> and raise prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure isn't working in the housing sector, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> They transfer wealth from consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs to rich execs and shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do they accomplish this "transfer" of wealth?  I'm dying to know.
Click to expand...

By bribing politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.
Now feel free to die.


----------



## crisismangement

Crystalclear said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations have the power to pre-select the candidates you vote for.
> 
> They use this same power to drive down wages, foreclose opportunity, and raise prices. They transfer wealth from consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs to rich execs and shareholders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BAH HUMBUG! You and your left wing propaganda exaggerate the power corporations have over elections, either through campaign contribution or with hold over them if elected. I do believe lobbying should be outlawed but I don't they control as much you believe they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military industrial complex doesn't have much control?
Click to expand...

Not since the end of WWII was there a military industrial complex, and even then it was subject to government demands. After the war industry went back to producing mostly consumer goods, but the government still regulates them.


----------



## crisismangement

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations have the power to pre-select the candidates you vote for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have no such power.  In reality populare candidates have the power to squeeze corporations for donations by threatening them with harmful regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> They have no power to drive down wages.  Politicians, on the other hand, do have that power by flooding the country with immigrants willing to work for low wages.
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth would they do that?  Why would they do it if they could?
> 
> 
> 
> It sure isn't working in the housing sector, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> They transfer wealth from consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs to rich execs and shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do they accomplish this "transfer" of wealth?  I'm dying to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By bribing politicians for favorable tax and trade policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some politicians are corrupt. Many are not. I believe that is an outlandish accusation impugning the character of our Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now feel free to die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was uncalled for.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all governments, look at the Soviet Union, for example, with a small, but very rich elite. So not only the US and other capitalist countries have governments that help the very wealthy, but communist countries can be just as bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Every government ever conceived as served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority. Only the US has to potential to change that peacefully at the ballot box.
> But not by "choosing" either Democrat OR Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How will it be achieved?
Click to expand...

By selecting your House and Senate members from the list of established third parties instead of Democrat OR Republican. Those voters whose ballots don't contain third party candidates for congress would vote against all incumbents. FLUSH dozens or hundreds of incumbents from DC in a single news cycle and fire the second shot heard 'round the world.


----------



## dnsmith35

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every government ever conceived as served its richest citizens at the expense of its majority. Only the US has to potential to change that peacefully at the ballot box.
> But not by "choosing" either Democrat OR Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will it be achieved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By selecting your House and Senate members from the list of established third parties instead of Democrat OR Republican. Those voters whose ballots don't contain third party candidates for congress would vote against all incumbents. FLUSH dozens or hundreds of incumbents from DC in a single news cycle and fire the second shot heard 'round the world.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that independent candidates are any more immune to corruption than Jackasses or Elephants?

If you really want to elect good Senators or Presidents we need to revert to the original method, that being MAKE ELECTIONS LOCAL AGAIN. We are more likely to know the crooks within our small congressional district than from the entire state and definitely on a national level. State legislatures are capable of appointing senators and electors for the electoral college than voters are based on more intimate knowledge of the candidates, especially on a national level.


----------



## dnsmith35

As anyone with a brain can determine, the top .01% is the super high income earners, but not from wages, from stock value. I believe that people who complain about how much they make refuse to understand that their investments put money into the hands of job creators.






The graph above shows us in concrete understanding, that the people who invest the most in America get the highest returns. That being the case it is essential that the nay sayer's recognize that even with the top 50% paying all the federal income taxes, it is the top tier which creates more jobs through their investment. I do believe the rich should pay more taxes than the less wealth, but I also recognize that every $$$ taken from the rich is lost to investment.


----------



## dnsmith35

The link below from the BLS tells us who actually earns minimum wage. 

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over. (those paid less are persons who work for tips in addition to their wage.)

Among hourly paid workers age 16 and over, about 10 percent of those who had less than a high school diploma earned the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 4 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college) 

The industry with the highest proportion of workers with hourly wages at or below the federal minimum wage was leisure and hospitality (about 19 percent). About half of all workers paid at or below the federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, the vast majority in restaurants and other food services. For many of these workers, tips and commissions supplement the hourly wages received.​
Based on the BLS statistics and the general consensus of economic studies, people who earn the minimum wage tend not to have sufficient skills and/or education to perform at a higher level.


----------



## dnsmith35

Harvard&#8217;s Lawrence Katz has calculated that even if all the gains of the top 1% were redistributed to the 99%, household incomes would go up by less than half of what they would if everyone had a college degree. In other words, the financial rewards of higher education are a big contributor to the income gap.


----------



## dnsmith35

Looks like G.P. has finally realize he was wrong the whole time.


----------

