Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[CultureCitizen]

Actually Yunnus is an entrepreneur , not a government official , so I'll have to disregard the first part of your comment.
Depressions are built into the capitalist system the main cause is private debt growth.

The greatest Depression in history was caused by the government, and the most recent recession was perpetuated by the government. Your argument is invalid.

It was caused by excessive foreign investment.

If you're referring to the Great Depression, it was caused by a domino effect started by the government attempting to artificially inflate our currency. If you're referring to the most recent recession, it was also caused by the government: Government Policies Caused The Financial Crisis And Made the Recession Worse

Watch the hypocrite put his foot in his mouth.
Watch yourself completely ignore him doing it.

I didn't hear him put his foot in his mouth, you'll need to specify a time. I did, however, hear a detailed explanation of why the government is responsible.

Ah , that's milton at its best: telling how M2 fell by 1/3 ( 5:25 ) and then telling the Fed should have printed more money (7:25). Still he completely ignores the level of private debt which was in place at that time.
How did the debt rise so much in the first time?
And of course he completely ignores debt deflation. He doesn't even attempt to explain why M2 started falling, he simply states that the FED's restrictive policies were the cause of the crisis.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The greatest Depression in history was caused by the government, and the most recent recession was perpetuated by the government. Your argument is invalid.

this is true, at time of collapse Fan/Fred owned or guaranteed 75% of the Alt A and subprime mortgages. They were created to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. And that is only beginning to list lib govt interference with the free market.

Ed, you are famous for discussing topics without a Iota of evidence to support your words.
The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.
It can be argued that government intervention caused the crash ( predatory lending notwithstanding).
But then , what about the 2001 crisis ? Was that too fueled by government intervention?

9/11, and the Federal Reserve Fund caused too much money to be channeled into higher asset prices like real estate and stocks rather than the price of consumer goods. So, yeah, terrorism and the government.

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Federal Aid is a waste of taxpayer money. Even the few people who actually end up on the street would still be fine, because food pantries exist,

Food pantries are already streched to their limits with the food stamp cuts that have recently been instituted in the U.S.:
Food pantries stretched to breaking point by food stamp cuts

I already explained that the Food Stamps were being used by businesses to pay lower amounts, of course more people would head to food pantries due to that problem. Food Stamps shouldn't have been introduced in the first place.

You have shown no evidence that removing food stamps would get businesses to pay higher wages. Nor have you shown that everyone who relies on food stamps would be able to find employment. Every country I have heard of whose minimum wage is abysmal and which has no social safety net contends with this:

And this:

Is that what you think will make America "Great Again"?

You've shown no evidence it would happen. You already showed you understood businesses were using Food Stamps to pay lower wages. At this point, you've already shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that what you're displaying is willful ignorance. This kind of thing is why I detest Socialists more than any other 'human beings'.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Conversely, many employers and corporations care primarily about acquiring money, not about their employees.

Employees aren't pets, they don't need to care. Being an employee or an employer is simply conducting business.

This per employee tax may not be the best thing, I haven't investigated it. I certainly believe there are some flaws with Obamacare, even Obama admits that, but I think it's a step in the right direction. I think it would be much better if it went the route of Canada, with the government being the sole funder (single payer) and doing away with patients having to figure out insurance plans and the like. It also allows the government to apply some real pressure against the corporate pharmaceutical company fat cats, and cut their prices down to size.

Of course it's not the best thing, what else could it possibly do but discourage hiring? Obamacare in its entirety is a flaw, it's a stupid concept, and an example of what government takeovers of private industry accomplish; Destruction of an economy.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The greatest Depression in history was caused by the government, and the most recent recession was perpetuated by the government. Your argument is invalid.

this is true, at time of collapse Fan/Fred owned or guaranteed 75% of the Alt A and subprime mortgages. They were created to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. And that is only beginning to list lib govt interference with the free market.

Ed, you are famous for discussing topics without a Iota of evidence to support your words.
The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.
It can be argued that government intervention caused the crash ( predatory lending notwithstanding).
But then , what about the 2001 crisis ? Was that too fueled by government intervention?

9/11, and the Federal Reserve Fund caused too much money to be channeled into higher asset prices like real estate and stocks rather than the price of consumer goods. So, yeah, terrorism and the government.

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash. It destroys every Nation stupid enough to practice it. On the upside, at least you are a great example of what NOT to think.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The greatest Depression in history was caused by the government, and the most recent recession was perpetuated by the government. Your argument is invalid.

It was caused by excessive foreign investment.

If you're referring to the Great Depression, it was caused by a domino effect started by the government attempting to artificially inflate our currency. If you're referring to the most recent recession, it was also caused by the government: Government Policies Caused The Financial Crisis And Made the Recession Worse

Watch the hypocrite put his foot in his mouth.
Watch yourself completely ignore him doing it.

I didn't hear him put his foot in his mouth, you'll need to specify a time. I did, however, hear a detailed explanation of why the government is responsible.

Another tool.
I love how the government is responsible for printing more money when investors send too much money overseas!
DELICIOUS!
Listen again.

My explanation actually had nothing to do with his, but his sounded fine, too. Gonna join these other Socialist whackjobs in preaching the gospel of failure, too?

 

[Rshermr]

The greatest Depression in history was caused by the government, and the most recent recession was perpetuated by the government. Your argument is invalid.

this is true, at time of collapse Fan/Fred owned or guaranteed 75% of the Alt A and subprime mortgages. They were created to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. And that is only beginning to list lib govt interference with the free market.

Ed, you are famous for discussing topics without a Iota of evidence to support your words.
The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.
It can be argued that government intervention caused the crash ( predatory lending notwithstanding).
But then , what about the 2001 crisis ? Was that too fueled by government intervention?

9/11, and the Federal Reserve Fund caused too much money to be channeled into higher asset prices like real estate and stocks rather than the price of consumer goods. So, yeah, terrorism and the government.

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• China.
• Denmark.
• Finland.
• Netherlands.
• Canada.
• Sweden.
• Norway.
• Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit.

It destroys every Nation stupid enough to practice it. Really, are you stupid enough to think those countries listed above were destroyed by socialism, dipshit?

On the upside, at least you are a great example of what NOT to think.

So, again for your education (if that is possible) what economic types do you recognize as real. In general, economists recognize:
1. Pure Capitalism (Libertarianism) Does not exist in real life.
2. Mixed economies mostly Capitalist The US
3. Socialist Mixed See above
4. Socialist See above
5. Communist Viet Nam and a couple others. Bound to fail.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

this is true, at time of collapse Fan/Fred owned or guaranteed 75% of the Alt A and subprime mortgages. They were created to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. And that is only beginning to list lib govt interference with the free market.

Ed, you are famous for discussing topics without a Iota of evidence to support your words.
The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.
It can be argued that government intervention caused the crash ( predatory lending notwithstanding).
But then , what about the 2001 crisis ? Was that too fueled by government intervention?

9/11, and the Federal Reserve Fund caused too much money to be channeled into higher asset prices like real estate and stocks rather than the price of consumer goods. So, yeah, terrorism and the government.

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• 
  
  
  • China.
  • Denmark.
  • Finland.
  • Netherlands.
  • Canada.
  • Sweden.
  • Norway.
  • Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit.

It destroys every Nation stupid enough to practice it. Really, are you stupid enough to think those countries listed above were destroyed by socialism, dipshit?

On the upside, at least you are a great example of what NOT to think.

So, again for your education (if that is possible) what economic types do you recognize as real. In general, economists recognize:
1. Pure Capitalism (Libertarianism) Does not exist in real life.
2. Mixed economies mostly Capitalist The US
3. Socialist Mixed See above
4. Socialist See above
5. Communist Viet Nam and a couple others. Bound to fail.

Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece. A list of Socialist failures just for you.

Socialism is bound to fail also. Goldman Sachs is foreclosing on China, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Ireland are on the fast track to failing, or converting to systems closer to the US, and Canada used to have people coming over to the United States for healthcare.

 

[Rshermr]

Conversely, many employers and corporations care primarily about acquiring money, not about their employees.

Employees aren't pets, they don't need to care. Being an employee or an employer is simply conducting business.

This per employee tax may not be the best thing, I haven't investigated it. I certainly believe there are some flaws with Obamacare, even Obama admits that, but I think it's a step in the right direction. I think it would be much better if it went the route of Canada, with the government being the sole funder (single payer) and doing away with patients having to figure out insurance plans and the like. It also allows the government to apply some real pressure against the corporate pharmaceutical company fat cats, and cut their prices down to size.

Now that was indeed stupid, dipshit. It gave millions of people health care. It stopped the fast increasing costs of health care. Next.
Of course it's not the best thing, what else could it possibly do but discourage hiring?
Jesus, see above. It could encourage hiring. Any proof to your totally ignorant accusations, dipshit?
Obamacare in its entirety is a flaw,
That would be your opinion. dipshit. And you know how much we all appreciate your opinion. Dipshit.
it's a stupid concept, and an example of what government takeovers of private industry accomplish; Destruction of an economy.

I agree. We should agree then, to have single payer health care insurance. Because:
1. Of the 35 advanced countries in the world, all but the us and one other country have single payer insurance.
2. All are way less expensive than our old (Pre obamacare) healthcare, which was MORE expensive than obamacare. Dipshit.
3. Our healthcare results have been less favorable than most all of those 35 countries.

Now, why again is obamacare is going to destroy our economy, dipshit?
Here is your problem, Obamacare did not take over private industry. It simply regulated private industry, that being NOT healthcare. It simply regulated private insurance companies. Really, have you always been this ignorant, or have you just started?

 

[Rshermr]

Ed, you are famous for discussing topics without a Iota of evidence to support your words.
The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.
It can be argued that government intervention caused the crash ( predatory lending notwithstanding).
But then , what about the 2001 crisis ? Was that too fueled by government intervention?

9/11, and the Federal Reserve Fund caused too much money to be channeled into higher asset prices like real estate and stocks rather than the price of consumer goods. So, yeah, terrorism and the government.

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• 
  
  
  • China.
  • Denmark.
  • Finland.
  • Netherlands.
  • Canada.
  • Sweden.
  • Norway.
  • Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit.

It destroys every Nation stupid enough to practice it. Really, are you stupid enough to think those countries listed above were destroyed by socialism, dipshit?

On the upside, at least you are a great example of what NOT to think.

So, again for your education (if that is possible) what economic types do you recognize as real. In general, economists recognize:
1. Pure Capitalism (Libertarianism) Does not exist in real life.
2. Mixed economies mostly Capitalist The US
3. Socialist Mixed See above
4. Socialist See above
5. Communist Viet Nam and a couple others. Bound to fail.

Those were not countries that crashed because they are socialist, dipshit. They crashed for lots of reasons. I mean, jesus, lets take a look at your ignorance:
Most of these counties are failure prior to becoming socialist. Others are not. And I notice you produced a list with no link. Which proves you to be dishonest. Those that are not third world countries, such as Germany, are doing quite well, dipshit. Got a link, me dishonest con troll. You see, dipshit, any person with any integrity would provide a link to a impartial source. Is that beyond you?


Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece. A list of Socialist failures just for you.

Socialism is bound to fail also. Hardly. That is nonsense. Goldman Sachs is foreclosing on China, Really. Got a source, me lying con troll? Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Ireland are on the fast track to failing, or converting to systems closer to the US, Really. Got a source, me lying con troll? and Canada used to have people coming over to the United States for healthcare. Another lie, me lying con troll. Again, no link for obvious reasons.
You, me con troll, are far from an expert on anything. Especially economics. Saying things with no proof and just asking someone to believe you simply makes you look stupid. Which I assume you are. So, nice try but you loose. You do not know what socialism is, or what communism is, or that there is any difference. Because you are an idiot. You suggest that the US is capitalistic, but can not express why. Because you are an idiot.

 

[Indeependent]

It was caused by excessive foreign investment.

If you're referring to the Great Depression, it was caused by a domino effect started by the government attempting to artificially inflate our currency. If you're referring to the most recent recession, it was also caused by the government: Government Policies Caused The Financial Crisis And Made the Recession Worse

Watch the hypocrite put his foot in his mouth.
Watch yourself completely ignore him doing it.

I didn't hear him put his foot in his mouth, you'll need to specify a time. I did, however, hear a detailed explanation of why the government is responsible.

Another tool.
I love how the government is responsible for printing more money when investors send too much money overseas!
DELICIOUS!
Listen again.

My explanation actually had nothing to do with his, but his sounded fine, too. Gonna join these other Socialist whackjobs in preaching the gospel of failure, too?

A socialist at heart

It was caused by excessive foreign investment.

If you're referring to the Great Depression, it was caused by a domino effect started by the government attempting to artificially inflate our currency. If you're referring to the most recent recession, it was also caused by the government: Government Policies Caused The Financial Crisis And Made the Recession Worse

Watch the hypocrite put his foot in his mouth.
Watch yourself completely ignore him doing it.

I didn't hear him put his foot in his mouth, you'll need to specify a time. I did, however, hear a detailed explanation of why the government is responsible.

Another tool.
I love how the government is responsible for printing more money when investors send too much money overseas!
DELICIOUS!
Listen again.

My explanation actually had nothing to do with his, but his sounded fine, too. Gonna join these other Socialist whackjobs in preaching the gospel of failure, too?

The government prints more money and investors send it oveseas and the government prints more money and investors..,

 

[Pumpkin Row]

9/11, and the Federal Reserve Fund caused too much money to be channeled into higher asset prices like real estate and stocks rather than the price of consumer goods. So, yeah, terrorism and the government.

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• 
  
  
  • China.
  • Denmark.
  • Finland.
  • Netherlands.
  • Canada.
  • Sweden.
  • Norway.
  • Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit.

It destroys every Nation stupid enough to practice it. Really, are you stupid enough to think those countries listed above were destroyed by socialism, dipshit?

On the upside, at least you are a great example of what NOT to think.

So, again for your education (if that is possible) what economic types do you recognize as real. In general, economists recognize:
1. Pure Capitalism (Libertarianism) Does not exist in real life.
2. Mixed economies mostly Capitalist The US
3. Socialist Mixed See above
4. Socialist See above
5. Communist Viet Nam and a couple others. Bound to fail.

Those were not countries that crashed because they are socialist, dipshit. They crashed for lots of reasons. I mean, jesus, lets take a look at your ignorance:
Most of these counties are failure prior to becoming socialist. Others are not. And I notice you produced a list with no link. Which proves you to be dishonest. Those that are not third world countries, such as Germany, are doing quite well, dipshit. Got a link, me dishonest con troll. You see, dipshit, any person with any integrity would provide a link to a impartial source. Is that beyond you?


Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece. A list of Socialist failures just for you.

Socialism is bound to fail also. Hardly. That is nonsense. Goldman Sachs is foreclosing on China, Really. Got a source, me lying con troll? Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Ireland are on the fast track to failing, or converting to systems closer to the US, Really. Got a source, me lying con troll? and Canada used to have people coming over to the United States for healthcare. Another lie, me lying con troll. Again, no link for obvious reasons.
You, me con troll, are far from an expert on anything. Especially economics. Saying things with no proof and just asking someone to believe you simply makes you look stupid. Which I assume you are. So, nice try but you loose. You do not know what socialism is, or what communism is, or that there is any difference. Because you are an idiot. You suggest that the US is capitalistic, but can not express why. Because you are an idiot.

Expecting people to believe me? No, I don't expect anything from Socialists, aside from ignorance and the routes of national destruction. You'll see Goldman Sachs foreclose on China soon enough, I don't need to show you. They have massive debt that's increasing rapidly.

The mere fact that Socialism can't work is enough evidence in and of itself, but there's also the fact that businesses will eventually leave due to regulations and taxes. You can only feed failure off the backs of success for so long before the workers decide they're done. At that point, they pull a Russia and try to replace industry with government, at which point they can't sustain themselves, like Russia. Though, debating with you is pointless, because if Socialists could learn from the past, they wouldn't exist today.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But then , what about the 2001 crisis ? Was that too fueled by government intervention?

no need to feel embarrassed you are a liberal:

"On the other hand, the 2001 recession was barely a recession at all. Output only shrank for two, non-consecutive quarters, and in each the rate of contraction was barely over 1%. The unemployment rate never got above 5.9% during the recession, and it subsequently peaked at 6.3%. Relative to the late 1990s, that seemed like a very high unemployment rate. Relative to the 25 years before the late 1990s, that looked like full employment, or close to it."



Q: The NBER has dated the beginning of the recession in March 2001. Does this mean that the attacks of September 11 did not have a role in causing the recession?

A. No. Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.

so why not tell us what the evidence is?????????????????????????????????????????

 

[phoenyx]

this is true, at time of collapse Fan/Fred owned or guaranteed 75% of the Alt A and subprime mortgages. They were created to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. And that is only beginning to list lib govt interference with the free market.

Ed, you are famous for discussing topics without a Iota of evidence to support your words.
The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.
It can be argued that government intervention caused the crash ( predatory lending notwithstanding).
But then , what about the 2001 crisis ? Was that too fueled by government intervention?

9/11, and the Federal Reserve Fund caused too much money to be channeled into higher asset prices like real estate and stocks rather than the price of consumer goods. So, yeah, terrorism and the government.

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• 
  
  
  • China.
  • Denmark.
  • Finland.
  • Netherlands.
  • Canada.
  • Sweden.
  • Norway.
  • Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit...

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Ed, you are famous for discussing topics without a Iota of evidence to support your words.
The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.
It can be argued that government intervention caused the crash ( predatory lending notwithstanding).
But then , what about the 2001 crisis ? Was that too fueled by government intervention?

9/11, and the Federal Reserve Fund caused too much money to be channeled into higher asset prices like real estate and stocks rather than the price of consumer goods. So, yeah, terrorism and the government.

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• 
  
  
  • China.
  • Denmark.
  • Finland.
  • Netherlands.
  • Canada.
  • Sweden.
  • Norway.
  • Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit...

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

Even if he made any good points, it doesn't matter. I blocked him for degenerating a debate into a dumping contest. Not interested in posters that substitute debates for insults.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such.

A liberal lacks the IQ to understand. Half the Democrats voted for Sanders, an open communist. Hilary endorsed him. Obama voted to left of Sanders. Liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb?? Do you understand now??

 

[phoenyx]

We can agree Russia never implemented the ultimate goals of communism. But the U.S.S.R. definitely considered -itself- to be a communist country, as denoted by the fact that the only allowed party was the communist party. Communism as practiced by the U.S.S.R. is recognized by many as a failure, even by Russia itself now.

I consider myself a princess, that doesn't make me one. I could also try to be a princess, but until that goal is achieved, I wouldn't be one.

The definition of a princess that you'll tend to find in a dictionary or wikipedia is that she is either the daughter of a monarch, or the wife or widow of a prince. However, is that always a good thing? If we look at how monarchs came to be monarchs, it's frequently not a pretty story, nor have all princess and princesses been role models. Along this vein, their is an insulting definition of a princess as well:
**A girl that has been pampered, sheltered and spoiled her whole life to the extent that she has no friggin idea about the real world: "
With her hands on her hips, pouting mouth and a big boisterous umph, Dana shows her princess side whenever she doesn't get exactly what she wants when she wants it."**

Source: Urban Dictionary: Princess

Conversely, many parents call their daughters princesses, or their sons little princes, in a very honorary sense, as to them, there is frequently no one more precious in the world then their children. Based on this, everyone could be considered a prince or a princess. This reminds me of a song from Sarah Mclaughlan that was released around the time my first niece was born, a few years before this new millennium, that talks of innocence, and questions whether we ever truly lose it...


Words are frequently very flexible creatures, and terms like princess and communism are no exception. To quote one of my favourite authors:
"Words can carry any burden we wish. All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

 

[phoenyx]

9/11, and the Federal Reserve Fund caused too much money to be channeled into higher asset prices like real estate and stocks rather than the price of consumer goods. So, yeah, terrorism and the government.

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• 
  
  
  • China.
  • Denmark.
  • Finland.
  • Netherlands.
  • Canada.
  • Sweden.
  • Norway.
  • Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit...

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

Even if he made any good points, it doesn't matter. I blocked him for degenerating a debate into a dumping contest. Not interested in posters that substitute debates for insults.

Are you saying you haven't insulted anyone here ;-)? That being said, I think I understand. We all have limits as to how much insults we're willing to take. I've rarely blocked someone, but I have certainly stopped (or nearly stopped) responding to certain individuals in the past and I can easily imagine myself doing so in the future.

 

[ChrisL]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I think any successful economy needs a healthy balance between "socialism" and "capitalism."