Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[RKMBrown]

If the fed is the federal government, explain then why the fed has to hand over their profits to the federal government.

What would you like them to call it? They move it from the pocket called the Federal Reserve to the pocket called the US Treasury. Clear enough?

The federal reserve banks + federal reserve bank, aka central bank, aka the cartel.

What are the "federal reserve banks"?
Joe's Bank down the street and Liberty Trust across town?

Huh? The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate.

That's not how the "system" works. The way it works is banks take deposits and loan out a portion. Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Currently, banks are lending the Fed over $2.4 trillion.

Excess Reserves of Depository Institutions (EXCSRESNS) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

You ask me to become more educated on the subject.

Yes, that would be nice.

You asked what are the federal reserve banks.

Here's one of their web pages:
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK

Here's a map:
Federal Reserve Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I said, "The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate."

In response you said "[t]hat's not how the system works[,] [t]he way it works is banks take deposits and loan out a portion." Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system. Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?

Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? Interest? ROFL Deposits? ROFL

You asked what are the federal reserve banks.

Here's one of their web pages:
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK

The only federal reserve banks are the Federal Reserve Branches?
What about the member banks, like the bank in my neighborhood?

Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.

So why would the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago need to borrow from the Fed?

Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?

Yup, that's what I say.

Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets?

The Fed gets to create money out of thin air.
It's what Central Banks do.

So just to be clear, the members of the "cartel" are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchanges? Is that your latest claim?

Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.

You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. This is not as hard as you are making it.

Then you say "[t]he Fed gets to create money out of thin air[,] t's what Central Banks do."

Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?


Then you stated/asked, "just to be clear, the members of the cartel are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchange... Is that your latest claim?"

No. I did not make a claim as to whether fed bank branches are openly traded. If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, and some of those banks are openly traded some are privately owned... so in effect the ownership is "once" removed, much like the mob is organized to keep the sins one level away from the leadership.

 

[Indeependent]

You asked what are the federal reserve banks.

Here's one of their web pages:
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK

Here's a map:
Federal Reserve Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I said, "The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate."

In response you said "[t]hat's not how the system works[,] [t]he way it works is banks take deposits and loan out a portion." Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system. Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?

Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? Interest? ROFL Deposits? ROFL

You asked what are the federal reserve banks.

Here's one of their web pages:
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK

The only federal reserve banks are the Federal Reserve Branches?
What about the member banks, like the bank in my neighborhood?

Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.

So why would the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago need to borrow from the Fed?

Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?

Yup, that's what I say.

Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets?

The Fed gets to create money out of thin air.
It's what Central Banks do.

So just to be clear, the members of the "cartel" are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchanges? Is that your latest claim?

Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.

You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. This is not as hard as you are making it.

Then you say "[t]he Fed gets to create money out of thin air[,] t's what Central Banks do."

Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?


Then you stated/asked, "just to be clear, the members of the cartel are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchange... Is that your latest claim?"

No. I did not make a claim as to whether fed bank branches are openly traded. If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, and some of those banks are openly traded some are privately owned... so in effect the ownership is "once" removed, much like the mob is organized to keep the sins one level away from the leadership.

C'mon, we all need a good laugh now and then.

 

[RKMBrown]

You asked what are the federal reserve banks.

Here's one of their web pages:
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK

The only federal reserve banks are the Federal Reserve Branches?
What about the member banks, like the bank in my neighborhood?

Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.

So why would the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago need to borrow from the Fed?

Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?

Yup, that's what I say.

Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets?

The Fed gets to create money out of thin air.
It's what Central Banks do.

So just to be clear, the members of the "cartel" are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchanges? Is that your latest claim?

Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.

You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. This is not as hard as you are making it.

Then you say "[t]he Fed gets to create money out of thin air[,] t's what Central Banks do."

Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?


Then you stated/asked, "just to be clear, the members of the cartel are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchange... Is that your latest claim?"

No. I did not make a claim as to whether fed bank branches are openly traded. If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, and some of those banks are openly traded some are privately owned... so in effect the ownership is "once" removed, much like the mob is organized to keep the sins one level away from the leadership.

C'mon, we all need a good laugh now and then.

 

[gnarlylove]

You are obviously glorifying sadistic tendencies. Congratulations on treating language as another war zone.

Nothing like living in America and being poor.

Since the Great Recession began in 2009, there's been a 73 percent jump in student homelessness and a 23 percent increase in child hunger. The so-called "jobless recovery" has not helped."

It's even worse in Southern states, where 1-in-4 kids is poor. "We call it the geographic lottery," Fichtenberg says. "Depending on where the child is born, there's a much higher or lower chance they'll be poor."

Their findings square with recent research that shows your chances of doing better than your parents depend on where you grow up. When it comes to social mobility, "Geography is destiny."

But states with some of the highest rates of child poverty have historically pursued policies that make life harder for poor families. Here are the 5 states with the worst rates of child poverty and some of the unhelpful policy decisions lawmakers made there.

 

[P@triot]

The "freedom" to create weapons is not a freedom worth having since it limits freedom, ultimately.

Red = appalling
Dark Red = arrogant

I want some votes on this.

Who thinks weapons take away freedom?

Who thinks the extinction of guns is appalling?
In other words, who thinks having the ability to instantly murder someone is not appalling (where we know this is acted out several times a day across America)?

Put differently, who thinks being able to murder someone is appalling?

Being able to murder any human is strictly appalling, immoral and outrageous unjustified.

When it comes to self defense this is another matter but how many instances are self defense? How many are acts of violence? Violence is many magnitudes higher. If nothing else, the fact people are murdered in cold blood removing their freedom in an ultimate sense is sufficient reason to seriously question whether gun ownership should be so easy.

Face it Rot, you prefer to be able to kill people and think it's appalling when you can't. To think you need a gun for the sake of self defense is maddening if no guns existed in the first place. hence my plea to remove guns. And yet you say something so ridiculous as to think a gun-full world is a non-appalling while a gun free world is appalling. You are fucking dense.

The only thing insane is your "thinking" (and I use that term lightly).

You have honestly answered to the best of your ability. You have no respect for academic or reasoned argument. I'm no hot shot academic and do not wish to be but saying my ideas are not ideas sums up your whole response. In other words you just played semantics, it was not much of a substantive response.

I can also assert your ideas are not ideas. So what are we to do? Certainly we can settle this. Wait, no, in your world of "Rot knows" and I'm "a junior" you have already predetermined this debate. How convenient when ideas no know age limit. To think otherwise is a fallacy.

You have no idea how to conduct a rigorous response based in rational thought know as reasoning, which is our only hope of reaching an agreement. Instead, your brain has been rotted out from years of living without critically thinking. And thinking without critically analyzing. So you just accepted whatever thoughts fanned your ego or that made you feel more powerful over your fellow man. But why did you fail to analyze the thoughts you accepted? Because you don't know the rules of thought. I am not perfect but I have the basic understanding on how to compare ideas and determine their value, pragmatic and a priori if any. You even admit this is not important or valuable by saying philosophy isn't valuable (or did you mean marketable?). And you further incriminate yourself as anti-evaluative/philosophical by saying you wouldn't waste your time on such. Your exact words. Therefore, we know where you stand: against rational thought and pro-megalomania confirming beliefs such as gun ownership and violent language tendencies as well as ownership, which is highly egotistical. But don't worry, this doesn't effect you because you do not care about it and I understand some people refuse to because it would mean calling their whole existence into question as a lie.

But alas I can only take what I can get and what I can get from you is punditry repeated. You have no idea how to actually defend your thoughts without repeating them over and over. Eternally running in circles using your own beliefs to justify them. It's like using the Bible to justify the Bible. You are sadly incapable of speaking on the level, so I will respect that and avoid further wasting our time.

Interesting how you edited the entire post and removed all but two sentences which you attempt to take out of context.

Now tell us again how your little pieces of paper have appointed you supreme ruler of the world. Tell us how anyone who thinks there can be "true freedom with private property is sadly mistaken" becuase you're so brilliant and "smug". And then tell me how I'm an "alpha male" because you analyzed my screen name...

 

[P@triot]

I want some votes on this.

Who thinks weapons take away freedom?

Obviously every government in the world disagrees with you because they haven't disarmed yet and they are all free...

 

[Indeependent]

I want some votes on this.

Who thinks weapons take away freedom?

Obviously every government in the world disagrees with you because they haven't disarmed yet and they are all free...

No Arms Agreements?
No Balance of Power?
AND...They're all free.
FINALLY we can disband the UN and NATO.

 

[gnarlylove]

Although I've stated I am a nobody, I see you can't accept the fact someone doesn't need to think of themselves as supreme rulers to identify BS from other people.

I see you may have connected the dots between guns and appalling. I'm sure it won't change you at all but I guess I'm not here for that. I want to offer the hope of creating a 100% free society instead of living in a world of fear. But I am entirely aware this won't work since governments and people like you pass on this knowledge through blood lines to fear others because humans are out to get you. I know since I live and grew up in probably the most redneck part of America (OH-KY-WV tri-state). Although this is true, it turns out this can be taught away but we neglect teaching this reality. Instead, we prefer to teach violence and major retaliation as the only option. It's a clever way to keep the world suffering from violence. Make them think it's the only option.

You sir, are clever at deceiving yourself. You are skilled at rhetoric and sophistry, but not like our politicians. I vowed to be honest with myself and despite taking that vow I have struggled and made choices against it. But how do I know? I am honest with myself. Your bull shit is so stock piled you have gotten use to the smell and it actually turns you on.

I respect you the person and mean you no offense by calling out your horrendous ideas. I am no better than you as a human being, but your ideas are some of the worse cultural memes the world has ever invented. But since it fans your ego you waft your own farts and love it. Count me out, I'll stick to verifiable thought and solidarity with humanity's right to total liberty. But we must take it one step at a time since we have a Mtn Higher than Everest to climb. We may never reach the top but hope is necessary to wake in the morning for everyone

 

[gnarlylove]

"“This issue is hard to talk about. There’s so much stigma attached to hunger in America,” said Kathy Underhill, director of Hunger Free Colorado."

“Everyone has this archetype of who’s hungry in America and it’s usually the gentleman on the side of the street with the cardboard sign,” Underhill said. “And the truth is, you’re most likely to live in a hungry household in Colorado if you’re between the ages of 0 and 5. You’re most likely to be hungry if you’re an older adult or a single woman. So it’s incredibly important for folks to understand that hunger can impact anybody.”

Food stamp recipients document their lives in photos

 

[Indeependent]

Although I've stated I am a nobody, I see you can't accept the fact someone doesn't need to think of themselves as supreme rulers to identify BS from other people.

I see you may have connected the dots between guns and appalling. I'm sure it won't change you at all but I guess I'm not here for that. I want to offer the hope of creating a 100% free society instead of living in a world of fear. But I am entirely aware this won't work since governments and people like you pass on this knowledge through blood lines to fear others because humans are out to get you. I know since I live and grew up in probably the most redneck part of America (OH-KY-WV tri-state). Although this is true, it turns out this can be taught away but we neglect teaching this reality. Instead, we prefer to teach violence and major retaliation as the only option. It's a clever way to keep the world suffering from violence. Make them think it's the only option.

You sir, are clever at deceiving yourself. You are skilled at rhetoric and sophistry, but not like our politicians. I vowed to be honest with myself and despite taking that vow I have struggled and made choices against it. But how do I know? I am honest with myself. Your bull shit is so stock piled you have gotten use to the smell and it actually turns you on.

I respect you the person and mean you no offense by calling out your horrendous ideas. I am no better than you as a human being, but your ideas are some of the worse cultural memes the world has ever invented. But since it fans your ego you waft your own farts and love it. Count me out, I'll stick to verifiable thought and solidarity with humanity's right to total liberty. But we must take it one step at a time since we have a Mtn Higher than Everest to climb. We may never reach the top but hope is necessary to wake in the morning for everyone

Could you please use the QUOTE button.
I know you're conversing with Rott only because I'm here.
If I checked in after two days I wouldn't know to whom you are responding.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You asked what are the federal reserve banks.

Here's one of their web pages:
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK

Here's a map:
Federal Reserve Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I said, "The way the fed system works is the fed lets the federal reserve banks borrow money from the fed and pay the fed back interest at the federal discount lending rate."

In response you said "[t]hat's not how the system works[,] [t]he way it works is banks take deposits and loan out a portion." Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system. Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?

Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets? Interest? ROFL Deposits? ROFL

You asked what are the federal reserve banks.

Here's one of their web pages:
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK

The only federal reserve banks are the Federal Reserve Branches?
What about the member banks, like the bank in my neighborhood?

Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.

So why would the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago need to borrow from the Fed?

Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?

Yup, that's what I say.

Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets?

The Fed gets to create money out of thin air.
It's what Central Banks do.

So just to be clear, the members of the "cartel" are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchanges? Is that your latest claim?

Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.

You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. This is not as hard as you are making it.

Then you say "[t]he Fed gets to create money out of thin air[,] t's what Central Banks do."

Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?


Then you stated/asked, "just to be clear, the members of the cartel are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchange... Is that your latest claim?"

No. I did not make a claim as to whether fed bank branches are openly traded. If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, and some of those banks are openly traded some are privately owned... so in effect the ownership is "once" removed, much like the mob is organized to keep the sins one level away from the leadership.

Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.

Just trying to nail down your silly "cartel" claim.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.

Because many banks are member banks of the Federal Reserve.
A completely different thing than a Federal Reserve Branch.

You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts.

Branches of the Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air, why would they need to borrow money from another Federal Reserve Branch bank?

Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?

Finally? LOL!
When did I deny it?

If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel,

Changed your story? LOL!
It's amazing what you can learn, with a little research.

Let me know if you can find out how much those "cartel members" are borrowing from the Fed.
You might be surprised.

 

[Andylusion]

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.

No, that's how socialism works.

When you say "socialize the costs".... nothing else you say, changes the facts you just laid out. You "socialized the cost".... period. That's socialism.

You look at any socialized system around the world, the costs are socialized. Privatizing the profits, doesn't change the fact that you socialized the costs.

And merely privatizing the profits, doesn't make it a "capitalist system".

Milton Friedman - "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."

Now where in that statement by Milton Friedman do you see "socializing loss is capitalism"? Of course you don't. If you look up Ludwig von Mises, and the Austrian Economics, you won't find it there either. If you read Adam Smith, you won't find it there either. If you look up Friedrich Hayek, you won't find it. If you read Thomas Sowell, you won't find it.

This is one of the keys of leftism. You basically have to be a liar, to make up crap to support your beliefs.

Because no one on the right, no conservatives I know of, have ever supported or promoted the idea of socializing the loss.

Was it not the Conservative Caucus in the House, that proposed an alternative to the bailouts, that required zero tax dollars?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/americas/26iht-repubs.4.16518356.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Why... yes it was. Compare that to the leftists who suppose that the bailout saved America from eminent doom, and yet attack Bush for doing it.

 

[Andylusion]

Capital gains are not EARNED. It's money made from having money.

It is EARNED because you are USING your previously EARNED (and taxed) money to generate more income. If you PUT your capital to WORK (by putting it at risk), the money you make should not be taxed all over again. At the very least, there should be some incentive to put money back to work. That helps EVERYONE without the depraved socialist need to confiscate wealth.

It isn't EARNED like a real paycheck is EARNED, by actually doing something other than already being rich.

And why aren't the 1% putting their money back to work?
Google Joins Apple Avoiding Taxes With Stateless Income - Bloomberg
Global super-rich hide $21 trillion in tax havens - CNN.com
The Real Problem With Offshore Tax Havens | TIME.com
http://tjn-usa.org/storage/documents/The_Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_-_22-07-2012.pdf
Piercing the secrecy of offshore tax havens - The Washington Post
BBC News - Tax havens: Super-rich 'hiding' at least $21tn
Offshore Tax Haven Money Could Save Us From the Fiscal Cliff | Mother Jones
A money 'black hole': rich hide at least $21 trillion in tax havens, study shows - Business
Super-Rich Hide $21 Trillion in Secret Tax Havens, Says Tax Justice Network - ABC News
Tax havens: The missing $20 trillion | The Economist
How Apple, Google And Microsoft Keep Profits Offshore To Avoid Taxes - Business Insider

But, they are using their money to grow their companies, and that benefits millions of employees, and people around the world.

What would NOT be putting money back to work, is to allow the government to have it, which would be spent and consumed, and gone, wasted on bad government projects, and political pay backs to supporters.

Here's the question you should be asking. Why do you support a tax system that rewards companies for investing outside the US?

 

[georgephillip]

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.

No, that's how socialism works.

When you say "socialize the costs".... nothing else you say, changes the facts you just laid out. You "socialized the cost".... period. That's socialism.

You look at any socialized system around the world, the costs are socialized. Privatizing the profits, doesn't change the fact that you socialized the costs.

And merely privatizing the profits, doesn't make it a "capitalist system".

Milton Friedman - "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."

Now where in that statement by Milton Friedman do you see "socializing loss is capitalism"? Of course you don't. If you look up Ludwig von Mises, and the Austrian Economics, you won't find it there either. If you read Adam Smith, you won't find it there either. If you look up Friedrich Hayek, you won't find it. If you read Thomas Sowell, you won't find it.

This is one of the keys of leftism. You basically have to be a liar, to make up crap to support your beliefs.

Because no one on the right, no conservatives I know of, have ever supported or promoted the idea of socializing the loss.

Was it not the Conservative Caucus in the House, that proposed an alternative to the bailouts, that required zero tax dollars?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/americas/26iht-repubs.4.16518356.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Why... yes it was. Compare that to the leftists who suppose that the bailout saved America from eminent doom, and yet attack Bush for doing it.

I guess you've never heard of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital?

"Mitt Romney touts his business acumen and job-creation record as a key qualification for being the next U.S. president.

"What’s clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors.

"He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm’s partners and investors.

"When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain.

"Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses."

Romney?s Bain Yielded Private Gains, Socialized Losses - Bloomberg

Since Adam Smith lived at the time capitalism was in its infancy, he may never have used the phrase socializing cost and privatizing profit; however his Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others leads to the same logical conclusion.

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

 

[RKMBrown]

You asked what are the federal reserve banks.

Here's one of their web pages:
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK

The only federal reserve banks are the Federal Reserve Branches?
What about the member banks, like the bank in my neighborhood?

Uhm... hello!!! Bank deposits and loans to bank customers is not what we are talking about. Duh! We are talking about the federal reserve system.

So why would the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago need to borrow from the Fed?

Then you say Banks rarely borrow from the Fed. Huh?

Yup, that's what I say.

Where do you think the fed got the money for these new assets?

The Fed gets to create money out of thin air.
It's what Central Banks do.

So just to be clear, the members of the "cartel" are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchanges? Is that your latest claim?

Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.

You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts. This is not as hard as you are making it.

Then you say "[t]he Fed gets to create money out of thin air[,] t's what Central Banks do."

Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?


Then you stated/asked, "just to be clear, the members of the cartel are just the Fed branches, not banks traded of stock exchange... Is that your latest claim?"

No. I did not make a claim as to whether fed bank branches are openly traded. If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel, and some of those banks are openly traded some are privately owned... so in effect the ownership is "once" removed, much like the mob is organized to keep the sins one level away from the leadership.

Banks have Bank Branches. Why am I not surprised you don't know what a bank branch is.

Just trying to nail down your silly "cartel" claim.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up your local banks.

Because many banks are member banks of the Federal Reserve.
A completely different thing than a Federal Reserve Branch.

You ask, why would a federal reserve bank borrow from the fed... Banks borrow money so they can buy stuff, and to pay off debts.

Branches of the Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air, why would they need to borrow money from another Federal Reserve Branch bank?

Finally you admit it, why did it take you a dozen dumb ass posts to get there?

Finally? LOL!
When did I deny it?

If you must know the branches are owned by banks of their district that are members of the "federal banking system" aka members of the cartel,

Changed your story? LOL!
It's amazing what you can learn, with a little research.

Let me know if you can find out how much those "cartel members" are borrowing from the Fed.
You might be surprised.

I have not changed my story. Your just a dumb ass.

 

[gnarlylove]

Since Adam Smith lived at the time capitalism was in its infancy, he may never have used the phrase socializing cost and privatizing profit; however his Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others leads to the same logical conclusion.

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

The intro is fascinating:

"But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later [Wealth of Nations], where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."

He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality."

We don't live in perfect liberty. No body denies that. Hence I argued in order to achieve perfect liberty we need to essentially rid the world of violence/esp guns (and private property) since these items are easily capable of encroaching on the needs of others. It sounds like what Smith is saying is markets can create the perfect balance of supply and demand that is based on what humans need, not what people with money want (which is what fills the stores). Marketing and stores have taken our freedom away by creating demands that were never in our heads when we were born.

Our markets have become totally corrupt for personal gain rather than creating a civilized society with liberty and justice for all.

But anyone read Smith's entire Wealth of Nations? I haven't and certainly didn't read the part about division of labor making humans ignorant. I guess it makes sense, the more specialized we become the less likely we are to think about well developed selves, that is to day develop the mind in its logical capacities and creative capacities as well as a well rounded body and routine. Too bad conservatives tend to stick to habit and tradition rather than being open to new experiences that can help round them out. So are conservatives what Smith was talking about when he said division of labor will make people ignorant (because of specialization)?

 

[Andylusion]

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.

No, that's how socialism works.

When you say "socialize the costs".... nothing else you say, changes the facts you just laid out. You "socialized the cost".... period. That's socialism.

You look at any socialized system around the world, the costs are socialized. Privatizing the profits, doesn't change the fact that you socialized the costs.

And merely privatizing the profits, doesn't make it a "capitalist system".

Milton Friedman - "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."

Now where in that statement by Milton Friedman do you see "socializing loss is capitalism"? Of course you don't. If you look up Ludwig von Mises, and the Austrian Economics, you won't find it there either. If you read Adam Smith, you won't find it there either. If you look up Friedrich Hayek, you won't find it. If you read Thomas Sowell, you won't find it.

This is one of the keys of leftism. You basically have to be a liar, to make up crap to support your beliefs.

Because no one on the right, no conservatives I know of, have ever supported or promoted the idea of socializing the loss.

Was it not the Conservative Caucus in the House, that proposed an alternative to the bailouts, that required zero tax dollars?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/americas/26iht-repubs.4.16518356.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Why... yes it was. Compare that to the leftists who suppose that the bailout saved America from eminent doom, and yet attack Bush for doing it.

I guess you've never heard of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital?

"Mitt Romney touts his business acumen and job-creation record as a key qualification for being the next U.S. president.

"What’s clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors.

"He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm’s partners and investors.

"When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain.

"Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses."

Romney?s Bain Yielded Private Gains, Socialized Losses - Bloomberg

Since Adam Smith lived at the time capitalism was in its infancy, he may never have used the phrase socializing cost and privatizing profit; however his Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others leads to the same logical conclusion.

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

You lost the argument again.

How many times do I have to smack you around with your own inability to make an argument?

What does anything you posted have to do with the topic? Does anything you say, have anything to do with what capitalism is? Nope. So what's the point? The point is, you are completely incompetent at discussion on a forum. I said this before, and I'll say it every time you fail at this.... if you have to change the topic in order to respond.... you lost the argument. That's what suddenly changing topics means. Leftist = "I can't answer him, so now I'll bring up Romney and Bain Capital! Dur!"

And Noam Chomsky? You are quoting from a linguist? You do know that Chomsky is a linguist, right? Not an economist. He doesn't know anything about the topic, and that mindlessly stupid quote you posted of his, proves his own ignorance, and the ignorance of those who follow him. You don't typically see Chomsky quoted in Economic review, or The Economist magazine........ because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and most economists don't bother with him. If you want to discuss languages, Chomsky is a brilliant scholar on the subject. If you want to talk economics, Chomsky is a ignorant fool, who plays up to other ignorant fools.

 

[georgephillip]

No, that's how socialism works.

When you say "socialize the costs".... nothing else you say, changes the facts you just laid out. You "socialized the cost".... period. That's socialism.

You look at any socialized system around the world, the costs are socialized. Privatizing the profits, doesn't change the fact that you socialized the costs.

And merely privatizing the profits, doesn't make it a "capitalist system".

Milton Friedman - "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk taking. The losses encourage prudence."

Now where in that statement by Milton Friedman do you see "socializing loss is capitalism"? Of course you don't. If you look up Ludwig von Mises, and the Austrian Economics, you won't find it there either. If you read Adam Smith, you won't find it there either. If you look up Friedrich Hayek, you won't find it. If you read Thomas Sowell, you won't find it.

This is one of the keys of leftism. You basically have to be a liar, to make up crap to support your beliefs.

Because no one on the right, no conservatives I know of, have ever supported or promoted the idea of socializing the loss.

Was it not the Conservative Caucus in the House, that proposed an alternative to the bailouts, that required zero tax dollars?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/americas/26iht-repubs.4.16518356.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Why... yes it was. Compare that to the leftists who suppose that the bailout saved America from eminent doom, and yet attack Bush for doing it.

I guess you've never heard of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital?

"Mitt Romney touts his business acumen and job-creation record as a key qualification for being the next U.S. president.

"What’s clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors.

"He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm’s partners and investors.

"When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain.

"Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses."

Romney?s Bain Yielded Private Gains, Socialized Losses - Bloomberg

Since Adam Smith lived at the time capitalism was in its infancy, he may never have used the phrase socializing cost and privatizing profit; however his Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others leads to the same logical conclusion.

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

You lost the argument again.

How many times do I have to smack you around with your own inability to make an argument?

What does anything you posted have to do with the topic? Does anything you say, have anything to do with what capitalism is? Nope. So what's the point? The point is, you are completely incompetent at discussion on a forum. I said this before, and I'll say it every time you fail at this.... if you have to change the topic in order to respond.... you lost the argument. That's what suddenly changing topics means. Leftist = "I can't answer him, so now I'll bring up Romney and Bain Capital! Dur!"

And Noam Chomsky? You are quoting from a linguist? You do know that Chomsky is a linguist, right? Not an economist. He doesn't know anything about the topic, and that mindlessly stupid quote you posted of his, proves his own ignorance, and the ignorance of those who follow him. You don't typically see Chomsky quoted in Economic review, or The Economist magazine........ because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and most economists don't bother with him. If you want to discuss languages, Chomsky is a brilliant scholar on the subject. If you want to talk economics, Chomsky is a ignorant fool, who plays up to other ignorant fools.

Chomsky has read Adam Smith's books numerous times.
How about you?
You probably don't read the Economist or the Economic Review so how would you know if Chomsky is quoted in those publications or not? Chomsky regularly reads the business press and is paid to offer his interpretations of their economic insights which makes it highly ironic, at least, that an insignificant bitch like you would be qualified to judge the opinions of one of the most astute observers of the political economy currently living.

BTW, you were the one who, stupidly, argued capitalism doesn't involve socializing loss while privatizing profit. I pointed out how capitalists always socialize loss as a way to enhancing private profit and pointed to Bain Capital as one of many examples.

Since you couldn't refute my claim you resorted to "you lost the argument again."
That's only compelling to another right-wing retard incapable of independent thought or existence. Maybe you should try a few college courses before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

"The Commonize Costs–Privatize Profits Game (or CC–PP Game) is a concept developed by the ecologist Garrett Hardin to describe a 'game' (in the game theory sense) widely played in matters of resource allocation.[1]

"The concept is a formalism of the closely related phenomenon known as the tragedy of the commons,[2] and is referred to in political discourse as "privatizing profits and socializing losses".

"Players of the CC–PP Game aim to commonize the costs (or externalities) generated by their activities across the wider community, while privatizing all profits (financial or otherwise) to themselves."

CC?PP game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

Since Adam Smith lived at the time capitalism was in its infancy, he may never have used the phrase socializing cost and privatizing profit; however his Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others leads to the same logical conclusion.

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

The intro is fascinating:

"But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later [Wealth of Nations], where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."

He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality."

We don't live in perfect liberty. No body denies that. Hence I argued in order to achieve perfect liberty we need to essentially rid the world of violence/esp guns (and private property) since these items are easily capable of encroaching on the needs of others. It sounds like what Smith is saying is markets can create the perfect balance of supply and demand that is based on what humans need, not what people with money want (which is what fills the stores). Marketing and stores have taken our freedom away by creating demands that were never in our heads when we were born.

Our markets have become totally corrupt for personal gain rather than creating a civilized society with liberty and justice for all.

But anyone read Smith's entire Wealth of Nations? I haven't and certainly didn't read the part about division of labor making humans ignorant. I guess it makes sense, the more specialized we become the less likely we are to think about well developed selves, that is to day develop the mind in its logical capacities and creative capacities as well as a well rounded body and routine. Too bad conservatives tend to stick to habit and tradition rather than being open to new experiences that can help round them out. So are conservatives what Smith was talking about when he said division of labor will make people ignorant (because of specialization)?

Full disclosure: I haven't read Smith extensively so I rely on experts who have.
I think Smith believed that division of labor taken to its economic extremes would render humanity as stupid and ignorant as it is possible to become.

He also seemed prescient about capitalism's penchant for producing rising inequality of condition and opportunity:

"He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality.

"That's the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at.

"It goes on and on.

"He gave a devastating critique of what we would call North-South policies.

"He was talking about England and India.

"He bitterly condemned the British experiments they were carrying out which were devastating India.

"He also made remarks which ought to be truisms about the way states work. He pointed out that its totally senseless to talk about a nation and what we would nowadays call 'national interests.'

"He simply observed in passing, because it's so obvious, that in England, which is what he's discussing -- and it was the most democratic society of the day -- the principal architects of policy are the 'merchants and manufacturers,' and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, 'most peculiarly attended to,' no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies.

"He didn't have the data to prove it at the time, but he was probably right."

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

Conservatives have always been knee-jerk supporters of the status quo (as long as Master tosses them a few scraps from the big table) so, maybe in that respect, they would be more susceptible to ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Andylusion]

I guess you've never heard of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital?

"Mitt Romney touts his business acumen and job-creation record as a key qualification for being the next U.S. president.

"What’s clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors.

"He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm’s partners and investors.

"When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain.

"Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses."

Romney?s Bain Yielded Private Gains, Socialized Losses - Bloomberg

Since Adam Smith lived at the time capitalism was in its infancy, he may never have used the phrase socializing cost and privatizing profit; however his Vile Maxim of the Masters of Mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for others leads to the same logical conclusion.

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

You lost the argument again.

How many times do I have to smack you around with your own inability to make an argument?

What does anything you posted have to do with the topic? Does anything you say, have anything to do with what capitalism is? Nope. So what's the point? The point is, you are completely incompetent at discussion on a forum. I said this before, and I'll say it every time you fail at this.... if you have to change the topic in order to respond.... you lost the argument. That's what suddenly changing topics means. Leftist = "I can't answer him, so now I'll bring up Romney and Bain Capital! Dur!"

And Noam Chomsky? You are quoting from a linguist? You do know that Chomsky is a linguist, right? Not an economist. He doesn't know anything about the topic, and that mindlessly stupid quote you posted of his, proves his own ignorance, and the ignorance of those who follow him. You don't typically see Chomsky quoted in Economic review, or The Economist magazine........ because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and most economists don't bother with him. If you want to discuss languages, Chomsky is a brilliant scholar on the subject. If you want to talk economics, Chomsky is a ignorant fool, who plays up to other ignorant fools.

Chomsky has read Adam Smith's books numerous times.
How about you?
You probably don't read the Economist or the Economic Review so how would you know if Chomsky is quoted in those publications or not? Chomsky regularly reads the business press and is paid to offer his interpretations of their economic insights which makes it highly ironic, at least, that an insignificant bitch like you would be qualified to judge the opinions of one of the most astute observers of the political economy currently living.

BTW, you were the one who, stupidly, argued capitalism doesn't involve socializing loss while privatizing profit. I pointed out how capitalists always socialize loss as a way to enhancing private profit and pointed to Bain Capital as one of many examples.

Since you couldn't refute my claim you resorted to "you lost the argument again."
That's only compelling to another right-wing retard incapable of independent thought or existence. Maybe you should try a few college courses before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

"The Commonize Costs–Privatize Profits Game (or CC–PP Game) is a concept developed by the ecologist Garrett Hardin to describe a 'game' (in the game theory sense) widely played in matters of resource allocation.[1]

"The concept is a formalism of the closely related phenomenon known as the tragedy of the commons,[2] and is referred to in political discourse as "privatizing profits and socializing losses".

"Players of the CC–PP Game aim to commonize the costs (or externalities) generated by their activities across the wider community, while privatizing all profits (financial or otherwise) to themselves."

CC?PP game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes of course. Reading the book, doesn't mean that spewing idiotic drivel, because you are linguist, and not an economist, is suddenly intelligent, or a valid argument.

Chomsky is a linguist. If you want to under stand languages, he's the guy to go to. He's been trained in languages, done many scholarly works on languages, and is consider one of the top in that field.

I don't know a single economist off hand, that has bothered to comment much on Chomsky's economic spewage, because..... he's not an economist. I've had a subscription to the Economist magazine for quite awhile. I can't find a single article that had anything positive to say about chomsky.... or honestly much to say about him either way... >BECAUSE, HE IS NOT AN ECONOMIST<.

Why is that so hard for you leftists to grasp? Oh right.... because.....

That's why. You can't come up with an argument yourself, so you find some idiot that knows nothing about economics, and hang on his every word about the topic you know nothing about.

Lastly....

As far as The Commonize Costs&#8211;Privatize Profits Game.... yes of course. Everyone, everywhere, tries to do this. In socialized economies, they try and do this. In capitalist economies they try and do this. In every economy they try and do this.

That doesn't make this capitalism, anymore than murderers committing murder, are trying to make murder lawful. That's the absolute stupidity of your argument.

Well they are trying to do that.... thus it must be what capitalism is.

Well they are trying to murder people, thus that must be what lawful protection of rights is.

Do you really not comprehend the stupidity of your position? Does your position really make logical sense to you?

Again, everyone that has advocated Free-market Capitalism, not one of them has supported the idea of socializing the loss. Milton Friedman said "Capitalism is a profit and loss system. Profit encourages risk taking. Loss encourages prudence."

Where in there, do you see "loss is socialized to avoid prudence"? Oh... it's not there? Shocking. Maybe your claim of what capitalism is, is full of crap? Just a thought.

You should try that whole "thinking" thing too. Might do you some good, and stop you from quoting Linguists on economic issues.