Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Legalizing thievery is alive and well today, but it's not the people flipping burgers who are doing the thieving. It's the banks who are constantly devaluating the money supply, with its never ending creation of money by means of loans given to individuals and corporations.
I never disagreed that they should be broken up, but socialist policies would just make the problem worse, as I've detailed.
.I see that you didn't answer my question on thieves. Do you think it's fine if they roam free?
I did answer your question, I pointed out that Socialism would allow the government to act as thieves.
You'd be attempting, and failing, to stop 'thievery' by the banks by replacing them with government thievery.
I think you're way too optimistic as to the odds of getting a job. And then there are those who can't get a regular job (or hold it) for various reasons.
Your solution is already enacted in various third world countries. Here are the results:
Guess she should have gotten a useful degree, in field there's actually a demand for, like internet technology.You really don't know, do you?
**
Poor Sally. She has spent tens of thousands of dollars and four long years to get her college degree and has $26,000 in student loans to pay off, yet she can’t find a job that puts her degree to good use. Sally and her parents may be asking whether college was “worth it.”
Sally epitomizes many of her fellow college graduates who wonder why college graduates can’t find good jobs.
The experts give all sorts of explanations for Sally’s plight.
One of the most perplexing and frustrating explanations is that Sally is over-educated.
Think of the psychology major who brewed your Starbucks coffee this morning, or the Uber driver with the degree in philosophy who took you home last night.
Almost half of all recent college graduates are working at jobs that don’t require a bachelor’s degree, according to a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.**
Source: Why Sally can’t get a good job with her college degree | Washington Post
We disagree on that point. But my point is, without government, who would stop them?
Elaborate, I'm curious.No, that isn't what I had in mind. Have you heard of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies? That's not run by governments. I think that would be the best solution. The government could print out bitcoins, but so could other enterprises. The horrible amount of debt we have from our current monetary system would vanish.
I bet I've done a hell of a lot more demolition work than you.The towers did not come down like a planned demolition.1. Believing in a creator is not the same as believing in a religion.What's crazier?
1. Believing in god? There's no evidence for such! Believe it or not all the evidence, data and the reality of the facts all are against such! Pretty freaking crazy!
2. Believing in Aliens? Well, there's 300 billion stars in our galaxy and some stars have 3-8 planets. We have found about 8-9 planets that could already have such life. It isn't that much of a stretch of the imagination.
3. Well, half a million years ago a huge ape that stood 10-12 feet tall was very real.
4. No evidence to support it but the US government has done some fucked up stuff in history!
5. No evidence for such! Pretty crazy as far as I can tell. Now McCain and some other people in our government did visit and come close to baghdadi,,,so who knows.
I believe that the craziest effin thing on this list is believing in some all powerful creature and believing in what some 2,000 year old book says.
2. Believable
3. Believable
4. Believable. Especially when you see the way the towers came down like a planned demolition.
5. Not believable.
They came down like they got hit by two huge aircraft.
thinks for the biggest lie of the whole day.
obviously you have never seen a controlled demolition before.
As soon as I saw a plane hit that tower I knew it was coming down.
if THAT is not being a troll,then what is?
I don't think anyone takes "Rightwinger" seriously, anyway.still waiting for a reply from you on this phoenyx.lol
so does that mean you have FINALLY wised up at least about USMB's resident troll rightwinger that he is the biggest troll of them all here the fact he is incapable of EVER saying-you were right,I was wrong. He would commit hari kari FIRST before he would ever admit that he was proven wrong on ANYTHING and I have proof of that.
Two years ago he was saying the rams would never come back to LA,well even YOU I am sure is aware that they are back in LA right? well guess what? he is STILL going around trolling saying they are playing in st louis this year.I am not kidding,im serious.
I can show you proof if you want? see that just proves what i was asking you earlier that if people like candyass STILL to this day think oswald killed JFK,WHY do you think they will listen to you on 9/11? yet you STILL were foolish enough to keep feeding the trolls saying that you would still talk to candy even though he believes oswald shot JFK. which of course makes no sense to do.
they are ALL like rightwinger,why would you waste your time on someone like rightwinger and these others when they are the same as rightwinger,cant admit when they are proven wrong and are going around STILL saying the rams are not playing in LA this year? rightwinger is anyways and he KNOWS he is wrong
I don't think anyone takes "Rightwinger" seriously, anyway.still waiting for a reply from you on this phoenyx.lol
so does that mean you have FINALLY wised up at least about USMB's resident troll rightwinger that he is the biggest troll of them all here the fact he is incapable of EVER saying-you were right,I was wrong. He would commit hari kari FIRST before he would ever admit that he was proven wrong on ANYTHING and I have proof of that.
Two years ago he was saying the rams would never come back to LA,well even YOU I am sure is aware that they are back in LA right? well guess what? he is STILL going around trolling saying they are playing in st louis this year.I am not kidding,im serious.
I can show you proof if you want? see that just proves what i was asking you earlier that if people like candyass STILL to this day think oswald killed JFK,WHY do you think they will listen to you on 9/11? yet you STILL were foolish enough to keep feeding the trolls saying that you would still talk to candy even though he believes oswald shot JFK. which of course makes no sense to do.
they are ALL like rightwinger,why would you waste your time on someone like rightwinger and these others when they are the same as rightwinger,cant admit when they are proven wrong and are going around STILL saying the rams are not playing in LA this year? rightwinger is anyways and he KNOWS he is wrong
You frequently talk long before you are aware that you have no clue what you are talking about.The towers did not come down like a planned demolition.1. Believing in a creator is not the same as believing in a religion.What's crazier?
1. Believing in god? There's no evidence for such! Believe it or not all the evidence, data and the reality of the facts all are against such! Pretty freaking crazy!
2. Believing in Aliens? Well, there's 300 billion stars in our galaxy and some stars have 3-8 planets. We have found about 8-9 planets that could already have such life. It isn't that much of a stretch of the imagination.
3. Well, half a million years ago a huge ape that stood 10-12 feet tall was very real.
4. No evidence to support it but the US government has done some fucked up stuff in history!
5. No evidence for such! Pretty crazy as far as I can tell. Now McCain and some other people in our government did visit and come close to baghdadi,,,so who knows.
I believe that the craziest effin thing on this list is believing in some all powerful creature and believing in what some 2,000 year old book says.
2. Believable
3. Believable
4. Believable. Especially when you see the way the towers came down like a planned demolition.
5. Not believable.
They came down like they got hit by two huge aircraft.
You frequently talk long before you are aware that you have no clue what you are talking about.The towers did not come down like a planned demolition.1. Believing in a creator is not the same as believing in a religion.What's crazier?
1. Believing in god? There's no evidence for such! Believe it or not all the evidence, data and the reality of the facts all are against such! Pretty freaking crazy!
2. Believing in Aliens? Well, there's 300 billion stars in our galaxy and some stars have 3-8 planets. We have found about 8-9 planets that could already have such life. It isn't that much of a stretch of the imagination.
3. Well, half a million years ago a huge ape that stood 10-12 feet tall was very real.
4. No evidence to support it but the US government has done some fucked up stuff in history!
5. No evidence for such! Pretty crazy as far as I can tell. Now McCain and some other people in our government did visit and come close to baghdadi,,,so who knows.
I believe that the craziest effin thing on this list is believing in some all powerful creature and believing in what some 2,000 year old book says.
2. Believable
3. Believable
4. Believable. Especially when you see the way the towers came down like a planned demolition.
5. Not believable.
They came down like they got hit by two huge aircraft.
This tower should have fell to the left as you are viewing it. Instead it came straight down like an implosion.
"In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]"I don't -always- agree with wikipedia, but you just putting up its Communism article means I don't have to- you haven't shown that it differs from the above essay on the difference between communism and socialism.
It does specify beyond the article, and it does say there's an absence of government. Did you even read it? Did you think that even with the absence of social classes, it would keep the politicians, who are considered a social class? It would be trying to get rid of any form of power, but would keep political power... because? Just because? That would go against the very goal of the social structure, that being to make everyone equal. Of course there's no government in Communism, because then there would be people that are 'more equal than others'.
He made a mistake when defining Communism, as I pointed out. He also neglected to point out every flaw, but you'd likely ignore that.I'm glad you agree that the author of Investopedia's article is "right to some extent". For the sake of simplicity, I will assume that the author is a man, like the audio clip. Do you believe he has made any mistakes? I also agree that he cites problems with both communism -and- socialism. I don't support communism, so we don't need to look at that one. His criticism of socialism makes sense:
**Socialism shares similarities to communism but to a lesser extreme. As in communism, equality is the main focus. Instead of the workers owning the facilities and tools for production, workers are paid and allowed to spend their wages as they choose, while the governing body owns and operates the means of production for the benefit of the working class. Each worker is provided with necessities so he is able to produce without worry for his basic needs. Still, advancement and production are limited because there is no incentive to achieve more. Without motivation to succeed, such as the ability to own an income-producing business, workers' human instincts prohibit drive and desire that is produced through such incentives.**
Encouraging Unionism is not 'free market', and as explained, those social programs are the biggest part of the problem. Raising minimum wage, again, would not solve it.The thing is, Bernie is not advocating that kind of socialism. Bernie would state that he's a democratic socialist. An article in Forbes magazine from a European author named Tim Worstall states that Bernie is not actually a democratic socialist, or a socialist at all, but a social democrat, and that that can be a good thing, if done right. He doesn't think that Bernie could have done it right, but I think he was being overly pessimistic. Here's his stated reason why he doesn't believe Bernie could have pulled it off:
**But the reason I really think social democracy won’t work in the U.S. is because people don’t understand what it is that makes those Nordics tick in an economic sense. They don’t do it, as Bernie seems to think can be done, by taxing the heck out of the rich to pay for everything. Instead they tax everyone through a VAT to pay for everything. Their tax systems are very much less progressive than that of the U.S., especially at the federal level. The only U.S. commentator I’ve seen actually get this is Lane Kenworthy, which is exactly why he proposes a VAT for the U.S., to raise 10% of GDP, in order to pay for those wonderfully socially democratic programs.
The second point is that the Nordics are notably more free market than the U.S. Whether you use the Fraseror the Heritage rankings this is so.**
At this point, from the first sentence, I get the feeling you just have wealth envy. What makes you think that the business owners shouldn't keep their money? They earned it, and they use it to expand and hire people, that keeps the economy working, and that's assuming the whole "Tax the rich to fund a bunch of regressive social programs" thing works. It doesn't. It chases businesses into other, less regressive countries, and if they don't leave, they just get rid of employees, positions, increase cost of living, or any combination of those. Nations need businesses, so this idea is exactly as stupid as it sounds.I'm not so sure that the rich couldn't be taxed more. The U.S. has actually been taxing the rich less and less for decades. As to his other point, it's not that hard to understand what makes it work for Nordics. He mentions provides a good clue in his article:
**I think there’s reasons that it won’t work, one of them simply being geography. The U.S. is just too large a place to be shipping 15% (another 15%!) of GDP off to Washington DC for it then to be redistributed in nice things from the bureaucrats. There really are good reasons why Denmark does much of this at the commune level, a grouping of as few as 10,000 people.**
You're also assuming the 'Nordics' have a system that works, and they don't. They have either massive tax rates, or massive amounts of Unions, which drive their GDP up, or their household income up. They don't actually have a good economy, and really, their system will collapse once people get sick of carrying the lazy on their backs.
I already explained why workers owning the business won't work. Tired of repeating myself already.I think this is really key. Like the author, I don't think the solution is in the Federal government getting all this income for it to them redistribute back. I think the solution is to have local businesses owned by the workers who work in them. He also gives a nod to credit unions:
**A Credit Union is a socialist organization (it’s usually owned collectively by the depositors) and I know of no examples of such leading to people getting rich precisely because that organization must compete in the market.**
I'll respond to more of your post in a bit, I'm thinking it's better to break up such a large post into pieces...
We have 160 worthless government agencies, and regressive government programs out the wazu, and you want to cut defense? Well, I suppose if the United States is conquered, we wouldn't have any more Regressives demanding that business owners be forced to give their money to lazy people.I certainly believe that the U.S. government's budget should take some massive cuts. The U.S. spent almost $600 billion dollars last year in its military budget. China came a distant second at $145 billion, Saudia Arabia came third at $88 billion, and Russia only spent a little less then $66 billion. Despite this, I think most would agree that Russia is the U.S.'s primary military opponent, not China.
Source: List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the Federal government didn't have the power to influence the competitors of the large businesses, do you think that we'd get said big businesses funding politicians getting into office to stifle their competition? They'd have to do it at the state level in each state, and that process would be far less widespread, and people would be able to move away from the states to avoid the impact. When that happens, those businesses would lose consumers because of their tactics, and there would be far less incentive to even try.So you think that a large federal government creates corrupt politicians? Personally, I think how those politicians are funded strongly influences said politicians. Most of the time, said funders would be the rich.
That wouldn't turn the US into a third world country, that thought process is laughable. Without regulations, there would be so many jobs, businesses would never have enough employees. If anything, removing Federal Aid would cause businesses to pay their employees more, and cause them to hire more employees and expand faster. 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, and there are, again, programs that show people how to write resumes and get them interviews on their behalf. As I explained before, the solution is to get people jobs, not to give them money. AGAIN, if Regressives understood economics, they wouldn't be Regressives.So people are failures for taking the only jobs available to them? You think most people -want- to work at a Walmart or a fast food chain? But there's another point that I see you're not addressing- what happens when Federal Aid is cut off? You really want to see the U.S. turn into a third world country, starving children and all?
Refer to previous paragraph. Without Regressive policies destroying the economy, there are far more than enough jobs for everyone to be able to get one. There are programs that get people interviews on their behalf, and those that can't keep, or find another, job, then they have only themselves to blame.I strongly disagree with that, and once again ask you to consider how the poor fair in countries that don't have subsidies and federal aid: people die, many of them children. I found an article the addresses your viewpoint, that subsidies make people 'lazy'. It doesn't really get into the 'lazy' bit, but it does say that people generally can't get out of poverty without help:
Does welfare provide assistance or encourage laziness?
Africa has a lot of problems, and lack of Federal Aid is not one of them. Having Federal Aid would not suddenly make Africa not garbage.Tell that to the starving africans who also receive no federal aid.
During Ronald Reagan's presidency. See upper paragraph. Tired of repeating myself.Not sure when this time allegedly was, but today, getting a job is considerably more difficult then that. Getting a decently paid one with enough hours is even harder. Put simply, a great many people simply can't find these types of jobs anymore.
I am very fond of that line myself. But the fact of the matter is, most people can't be fishermen today. It used to be that a lot more americans were farmers, which is close. But ever since the industrialization of agriculture, there's been a mass exodus of farming jobs, even as the quality of our food has taken a nose dive due to those same industrial farming practices.
That was a metaphor...
Have you taken a look at the job market out there? A lot of them are positively horrendous. I think it can easily be argued that someone with strong ethics would rather die of starvation then take them. Most people try to get jobs anyway, though. This doesn't mean that they all succeed, are able to keep them, or that those jobs pay all the bills. Take a look at this tragedy of someone trying to make due by holding 4 part time jobs:You can thank Obama's Regressive policies for people being unable to work full time. Government regulation is, again, the route of the problem. Also see upper paragraphs on Federal Aid, which is also at the route of the problem.
Sounds like an excuse to me, because you can't refute anything I said. You never contribute to any discussion, anyway.How does someone who is alleged 15 years old and never had a job know anything about what they are talking about, with no real world experience to rely upon??? Have you been in the job market? Have you been to college?
Sounds like an excuse to me, because you can't refute anything I said. You never contribute to any discussion, anyway.How does someone who is alleged 15 years old and never had a job know anything about what they are talking about, with no real world experience to rely upon??? Have you been in the job market? Have you been to college?
Sounds like an excuse to me, because you can't refute anything I said. You never contribute to any discussion, anyway.How does someone who is alleged 15 years old and never had a job know anything about what they are talking about, with no real world experience to rely upon??? Have you been in the job market? Have you been to college?
It comes from intense study of the subject. It's also not hatred of 'poor people', it's hatred of lazy and uninformed people. One only needs to learn history and study the economy.Sounds like an excuse to me, because you can't refute anything I said. You never contribute to any discussion, anyway.How does someone who is alleged 15 years old and never had a job know anything about what they are talking about, with no real world experience to rely upon??? Have you been in the job market? Have you been to college?
Well, how can you speak as if you know about the job market and working when you've never had a job? Excuse for what? I asked you a couple of questions is all. Where does this cynical hatred of the poor people come from, when you are only a child?
Neither, but I don't need to hold a job or have a college degree to understand economic basics. If you understood said basics, you wouldn't have to ask me questions about it.Sounds like an excuse to me, because you can't refute anything I said. You never contribute to any discussion, anyway.How does someone who is alleged 15 years old and never had a job know anything about what they are talking about, with no real world experience to rely upon??? Have you been in the job market? Have you been to college?
Let's try again. Have you ever even had a job? Do you hold a college degree?
It's not 'disadvantaged' when literally anyone can succeed in the country.You know that the biggest reason social service supports exist is for the innocent children of these "pathetic losers" (as some of you like to call the disadvantaged). It is always the CHILDREN who suffer.
It comes from intense study of the subject. It's also not hatred of 'poor people', it's hatred of lazy and uninformed people. One only needs to learn history and study the economy.Sounds like an excuse to me, because you can't refute anything I said. You never contribute to any discussion, anyway.How does someone who is alleged 15 years old and never had a job know anything about what they are talking about, with no real world experience to rely upon??? Have you been in the job market? Have you been to college?
Well, how can you speak as if you know about the job market and working when you've never had a job? Excuse for what? I asked you a couple of questions is all. Where does this cynical hatred of the poor people come from, when you are only a child?
