Time for a dose of truth for once around here
-
harold aptroot wrote:
How about Hayekism?
Well, people know so little about what they design, so that is another reason why centrally planned and rigged economies fail.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
I'm sick of all of the men (and women? people got man points in here or what?) here that say that socialism rocks. I know that most of you would agree with me in saying that Goldman Sachs should not have been bailed out (or any other bank for that matter), but the same people would disagree in saying that it wasn't necessary (a.k.a., you would say it was, in fact, necessary). How about taking a quick look at history, and seeing how bank's programs in usury and fraud always wreak havoc on the commoners. Anyway, I know it's not the cool thing to do, but these videos (MaxKeiserTV on youtube) should shed a bit of light on the situation. Three guests were brought onto Inside Story on AlJazeera. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8LAGVFdmrE[^] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RKaRjDF7j0[^]
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Josh, we've all been through this... Socialism by itself is no good. Capitalism by itself is no good. You need a combination to keep everything balanced and at least semi-fair. But if we're talking specifics... The big Wall Street bailout was a Bad Thing (tm). I think that's undisputed, even here. It was a necessary evil, though. GS didn't deserve to survive, but the various firms are so intertwined that if one large one dies (Or enough small ones), it could bring the entire economy crashing down. We're talking a LOT worse than our current recession. The big firms all own each others' debt, and borrow money from each other... Basically, the best solution would have been a systematic liquidation of the dying firms by the FDIC, but those types of procedures just weren't in place at the time (And still aren't, I believe). If they were, then those firms could have been shut down cleanly, without destroying everyone around them. That would have been an ideal solution, a combination of capitalism (Weak business failing) and socialism (Government intervention to keep everything running). The trick is the domino effect in the bond market. Now, with the stock market, any one company going bankrupt isn't going to change things too much. There's enough volume spread out over enough people that it can absorb any problems. Some of the bond markets aren't like that at all. With those, the vast majority of each issue is owned by a small number of firms/funds. One company might own 15-20% of an issue. (Terminology: An "issue" is a certain package of bonds sold by a company to raise money. Basically, a company takes out an $X billion loan, breaks in into lots and lots of $1000 chunks, and all of those together are referred to as an "issue"... As in, the company "issued" bonds. If they do it again next week, that's a different issue)
So let's say I own 15% of an issue, and suddenly my firm is dying. That means I have to sell off my entire portfolio. Now, the actual "price" of that issue is basically calculated as me calling up some of the guys who own it, and asking them, "What would you give me for it?" This isn't listed stock, so there's no published price. The problem, of course, is that if people know I'm going out of business, they know I HAVE to sell, so suddenly it's not worth as much. They can pay less for it, because they know I don't have a choice. When you're talking about bond issues instead of huge blocks of stock, this could drop the price by a good 1 -
Josh, we've all been through this... Socialism by itself is no good. Capitalism by itself is no good. You need a combination to keep everything balanced and at least semi-fair. But if we're talking specifics... The big Wall Street bailout was a Bad Thing (tm). I think that's undisputed, even here. It was a necessary evil, though. GS didn't deserve to survive, but the various firms are so intertwined that if one large one dies (Or enough small ones), it could bring the entire economy crashing down. We're talking a LOT worse than our current recession. The big firms all own each others' debt, and borrow money from each other... Basically, the best solution would have been a systematic liquidation of the dying firms by the FDIC, but those types of procedures just weren't in place at the time (And still aren't, I believe). If they were, then those firms could have been shut down cleanly, without destroying everyone around them. That would have been an ideal solution, a combination of capitalism (Weak business failing) and socialism (Government intervention to keep everything running). The trick is the domino effect in the bond market. Now, with the stock market, any one company going bankrupt isn't going to change things too much. There's enough volume spread out over enough people that it can absorb any problems. Some of the bond markets aren't like that at all. With those, the vast majority of each issue is owned by a small number of firms/funds. One company might own 15-20% of an issue. (Terminology: An "issue" is a certain package of bonds sold by a company to raise money. Basically, a company takes out an $X billion loan, breaks in into lots and lots of $1000 chunks, and all of those together are referred to as an "issue"... As in, the company "issued" bonds. If they do it again next week, that's a different issue)
So let's say I own 15% of an issue, and suddenly my firm is dying. That means I have to sell off my entire portfolio. Now, the actual "price" of that issue is basically calculated as me calling up some of the guys who own it, and asking them, "What would you give me for it?" This isn't listed stock, so there's no published price. The problem, of course, is that if people know I'm going out of business, they know I HAVE to sell, so suddenly it's not worth as much. They can pay less for it, because they know I don't have a choice. When you're talking about bond issues instead of huge blocks of stock, this could drop the price by a good 1if (post.refutedwithactualfacts)
{
reply.callthemnames(username);
thread.vanish();
}
else
{
reply.keepsayingdumbcrap();
thread.keepchecking();
}If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
if (post.refutedwithactualfacts)
{
reply.callthemnames(username);
thread.vanish();
}
else
{
reply.keepsayingdumbcrap();
thread.keepchecking();
}If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
Easy there, rags... That's CSS, not josda.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Easy there, rags... That's CSS, not josda.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)good point. Josda thinks.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
How about Hayekism?
Well, people know so little about what they design, so that is another reason why centrally planned and rigged economies fail.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
so that is another reason why centrally planned and rigged economies fail.
But you posted your support for Milton Friedman, another central planner and rigger who failed. As you say, people like you know so little.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
It takes a higher intelligence to understand that Marxism and Keynesianism are fundamentally flawed systems. Only Liberty, Property Rights, and Free Markets work.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It takes a higher intelligence to understand that Marxism and Keynesianism are fundamentally flawed systems.
And you understand it I suppose...
Steve
-
if (post.refutedwithactualfacts)
{
reply.callthemnames(username);
thread.vanish();
}
else
{
reply.keepsayingdumbcrap();
thread.keepchecking();
}If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
Please everyone, no more code-speak posts.
Steve
-
Josh, we've all been through this... Socialism by itself is no good. Capitalism by itself is no good. You need a combination to keep everything balanced and at least semi-fair. But if we're talking specifics... The big Wall Street bailout was a Bad Thing (tm). I think that's undisputed, even here. It was a necessary evil, though. GS didn't deserve to survive, but the various firms are so intertwined that if one large one dies (Or enough small ones), it could bring the entire economy crashing down. We're talking a LOT worse than our current recession. The big firms all own each others' debt, and borrow money from each other... Basically, the best solution would have been a systematic liquidation of the dying firms by the FDIC, but those types of procedures just weren't in place at the time (And still aren't, I believe). If they were, then those firms could have been shut down cleanly, without destroying everyone around them. That would have been an ideal solution, a combination of capitalism (Weak business failing) and socialism (Government intervention to keep everything running). The trick is the domino effect in the bond market. Now, with the stock market, any one company going bankrupt isn't going to change things too much. There's enough volume spread out over enough people that it can absorb any problems. Some of the bond markets aren't like that at all. With those, the vast majority of each issue is owned by a small number of firms/funds. One company might own 15-20% of an issue. (Terminology: An "issue" is a certain package of bonds sold by a company to raise money. Basically, a company takes out an $X billion loan, breaks in into lots and lots of $1000 chunks, and all of those together are referred to as an "issue"... As in, the company "issued" bonds. If they do it again next week, that's a different issue)
So let's say I own 15% of an issue, and suddenly my firm is dying. That means I have to sell off my entire portfolio. Now, the actual "price" of that issue is basically calculated as me calling up some of the guys who own it, and asking them, "What would you give me for it?" This isn't listed stock, so there's no published price. The problem, of course, is that if people know I'm going out of business, they know I HAVE to sell, so suddenly it's not worth as much. They can pay less for it, because they know I don't have a choice. When you're talking about bond issues instead of huge blocks of stock, this could drop the price by a good 1Thanks Ian... that was an awesome explanation... :-D
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Josh, we've all been through this... Socialism by itself is no good. Capitalism by itself is no good. You need a combination to keep everything balanced and at least semi-fair. But if we're talking specifics... The big Wall Street bailout was a Bad Thing (tm). I think that's undisputed, even here. It was a necessary evil, though. GS didn't deserve to survive, but the various firms are so intertwined that if one large one dies (Or enough small ones), it could bring the entire economy crashing down. We're talking a LOT worse than our current recession. The big firms all own each others' debt, and borrow money from each other... Basically, the best solution would have been a systematic liquidation of the dying firms by the FDIC, but those types of procedures just weren't in place at the time (And still aren't, I believe). If they were, then those firms could have been shut down cleanly, without destroying everyone around them. That would have been an ideal solution, a combination of capitalism (Weak business failing) and socialism (Government intervention to keep everything running). The trick is the domino effect in the bond market. Now, with the stock market, any one company going bankrupt isn't going to change things too much. There's enough volume spread out over enough people that it can absorb any problems. Some of the bond markets aren't like that at all. With those, the vast majority of each issue is owned by a small number of firms/funds. One company might own 15-20% of an issue. (Terminology: An "issue" is a certain package of bonds sold by a company to raise money. Basically, a company takes out an $X billion loan, breaks in into lots and lots of $1000 chunks, and all of those together are referred to as an "issue"... As in, the company "issued" bonds. If they do it again next week, that's a different issue)
So let's say I own 15% of an issue, and suddenly my firm is dying. That means I have to sell off my entire portfolio. Now, the actual "price" of that issue is basically calculated as me calling up some of the guys who own it, and asking them, "What would you give me for it?" This isn't listed stock, so there's no published price. The problem, of course, is that if people know I'm going out of business, they know I HAVE to sell, so suddenly it's not worth as much. They can pay less for it, because they know I don't have a choice. When you're talking about bond issues instead of huge blocks of stock, this could drop the price by a good 1Wow Ian, what a huge response... and well said. I do agree with most of it, actually. Especially the simple fact that if one were to bust (ex. Goldman), then most of the rest of that market would collapse, and we'd have what the pundits like to call a crisis. HOWEVER! One important point: we do not have Capitalism, and we do not have Socialism, and I think you'd agree. But with this fact, we do have Fascism. We have the government working with the private entities, and they took our tax money to bailout certain entities, while letting others fail. I call that fascist, you could call it corporatist. It's not capitalist, that's to be sure. And that, my friend, should scare the living shit out of you. For this very reason (letting some fail while letting others continue), Argentina went through a crisis. And for this very reason, the government should not be involved in so much "regulation". It causes corruption. All the government should be doing is making people or corporations pay for committing fraud (for the example we have been talking about). There is nothing capitalist about bailing out entities that the government likes, and there is nothing socialist about having banks in the first place. They should have let them fail. Instead, we're on a very slippery slope in history, and things could get real ugly.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
It takes a higher intelligence to understand that Marxism and Keynesianism are fundamentally flawed systems. Only Liberty, Property Rights, and Free Markets work.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
You have a higher intelligence ? I can't think of anything dumber than you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Josh, we've all been through this... Socialism by itself is no good. Capitalism by itself is no good. You need a combination to keep everything balanced and at least semi-fair. But if we're talking specifics... The big Wall Street bailout was a Bad Thing (tm). I think that's undisputed, even here. It was a necessary evil, though. GS didn't deserve to survive, but the various firms are so intertwined that if one large one dies (Or enough small ones), it could bring the entire economy crashing down. We're talking a LOT worse than our current recession. The big firms all own each others' debt, and borrow money from each other... Basically, the best solution would have been a systematic liquidation of the dying firms by the FDIC, but those types of procedures just weren't in place at the time (And still aren't, I believe). If they were, then those firms could have been shut down cleanly, without destroying everyone around them. That would have been an ideal solution, a combination of capitalism (Weak business failing) and socialism (Government intervention to keep everything running). The trick is the domino effect in the bond market. Now, with the stock market, any one company going bankrupt isn't going to change things too much. There's enough volume spread out over enough people that it can absorb any problems. Some of the bond markets aren't like that at all. With those, the vast majority of each issue is owned by a small number of firms/funds. One company might own 15-20% of an issue. (Terminology: An "issue" is a certain package of bonds sold by a company to raise money. Basically, a company takes out an $X billion loan, breaks in into lots and lots of $1000 chunks, and all of those together are referred to as an "issue"... As in, the company "issued" bonds. If they do it again next week, that's a different issue)
So let's say I own 15% of an issue, and suddenly my firm is dying. That means I have to sell off my entire portfolio. Now, the actual "price" of that issue is basically calculated as me calling up some of the guys who own it, and asking them, "What would you give me for it?" This isn't listed stock, so there's no published price. The problem, of course, is that if people know I'm going out of business, they know I HAVE to sell, so suddenly it's not worth as much. They can pay less for it, because they know I don't have a choice. When you're talking about bond issues instead of huge blocks of stock, this could drop the price by a good 1I can't see why I'd reply after you've said this. No-one has said that 'socialism rocks', that's an over simplification, the point is entirely that an element of socialism balances the evils of pure capitalism ( and vice versa )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I can't see why I'd reply after you've said this. No-one has said that 'socialism rocks', that's an over simplification, the point is entirely that an element of socialism balances the evils of pure capitalism ( and vice versa )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I think you replied to Ian... but to retort, "pure capitalism" does not exist in the US. We are fascist. It's almost a mix of both of the two, as you say. And that scares me, because it is a form of totalitarianism. We are, truly, like nazi Germany. We have interned Japanese Americans in my mother's lifetime. We have auto companies' presidents taken out by our "president" and replaced. We have financial companies bailed out. We have misinformation in the media (big time). So I don't see how this "meshing" of socialism and capitalism is at all a good thing. The merger of state and corporate powers is in fact fascism. If you subscribe to that and think it's ok, then I'm barking up the wrong tree. I just want to make sure you know exactly what we have.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I think you replied to Ian... but to retort, "pure capitalism" does not exist in the US. We are fascist. It's almost a mix of both of the two, as you say. And that scares me, because it is a form of totalitarianism. We are, truly, like nazi Germany. We have interned Japanese Americans in my mother's lifetime. We have auto companies' presidents taken out by our "president" and replaced. We have financial companies bailed out. We have misinformation in the media (big time). So I don't see how this "meshing" of socialism and capitalism is at all a good thing. The merger of state and corporate powers is in fact fascism. If you subscribe to that and think it's ok, then I'm barking up the wrong tree. I just want to make sure you know exactly what we have.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
"pure capitalism" does not exist in the US
Not for a while, no. And when it did, the result was that people were very rich or very poor. Our current mix allows for a middle class, which is where most of our economy runs.
josda1000 wrote:
And that scares me, because it is a form of totalitarianism.
You mean, not pure capitalist ? By not being pure capitalist, by not just grinding the bones of the poor to make our bread, it's obviously a 'form' of societal control.
josda1000 wrote:
We are, truly, like nazi Germany.
It seems to take less and less time for Nazism to be used as an analogy online nowadays. Is that Godwins law ?
josda1000 wrote:
We have interned Japanese Americans in my mother's lifetime.
Wait - something done in the early 40s is reflective of society today ?
josda1000 wrote:
We have auto companies' presidents taken out by our "president" and replaced.
He should have just let them go broke. Trouble is, he can't afford to.
josda1000 wrote:
We have misinformation in the media (big time).
Your problem is that you see some grand plan in this. There is none, except that the owners of papers like to see their views in print, and newspapers like to sell copy more than to tell the truth. That's actually capitalism.
josda1000 wrote:
So I don't see how this "meshing" of socialism and capitalism is at all a good thing.
And yet, capitalism is to blame for most of the things you complain about.
josda1000 wrote:
The merger of state and corporate powers is in fact fascism. If you subscribe to that and think it's ok, then I'm barking up the wrong tree
I do think it may be better in the long run for companies to be allowed to fail, or for government to flat our own them when it buys them. I just think that the solutions you put forward are a little too simple, and a little short of the mark. I do think it is a good thing that society works to protect the rights of it's weakest members in the workforce, for example.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
josda1000 wrote:
"pure capitalism" does not exist in the US
Not for a while, no. And when it did, the result was that people were very rich or very poor. Our current mix allows for a middle class, which is where most of our economy runs.
josda1000 wrote:
And that scares me, because it is a form of totalitarianism.
You mean, not pure capitalist ? By not being pure capitalist, by not just grinding the bones of the poor to make our bread, it's obviously a 'form' of societal control.
josda1000 wrote:
We are, truly, like nazi Germany.
It seems to take less and less time for Nazism to be used as an analogy online nowadays. Is that Godwins law ?
josda1000 wrote:
We have interned Japanese Americans in my mother's lifetime.
Wait - something done in the early 40s is reflective of society today ?
josda1000 wrote:
We have auto companies' presidents taken out by our "president" and replaced.
He should have just let them go broke. Trouble is, he can't afford to.
josda1000 wrote:
We have misinformation in the media (big time).
Your problem is that you see some grand plan in this. There is none, except that the owners of papers like to see their views in print, and newspapers like to sell copy more than to tell the truth. That's actually capitalism.
josda1000 wrote:
So I don't see how this "meshing" of socialism and capitalism is at all a good thing.
And yet, capitalism is to blame for most of the things you complain about.
josda1000 wrote:
The merger of state and corporate powers is in fact fascism. If you subscribe to that and think it's ok, then I'm barking up the wrong tree
I do think it may be better in the long run for companies to be allowed to fail, or for government to flat our own them when it buys them. I just think that the solutions you put forward are a little too simple, and a little short of the mark. I do think it is a good thing that society works to protect the rights of it's weakest members in the workforce, for example.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Not for a while, no. And when it did, the result was that people were very rich or very poor. Our current mix allows for a middle class, which is where most of our economy runs.
100% disagreed. In totalitarian states (as we are starting to see again just about everywhere), you see the big divide. Look back in time in the United States. You saw a healthy middle class, and now our incomes are dying down. It takes two incomes to feed a family of four, as opposed to one back in the sixties. Look back at the USSR. There was never much of a middle class, except in the beginning of it all. Freedom breeds prosperity.
Christian Graus wrote:
You mean, not pure capitalist ? By not being pure capitalist, by not just grinding the bones of the poor to make our bread, it's obviously a 'form' of societal control.
I'm sorry, but that's utter bull. "You mean, not pure capitalistsocialist ? By not being pure capitalistsocialist, by not just grinding the bones of the poor to make our bread, it's obviously a 'form' of societal control." FTFY
Christian Graus wrote:
It seems to take less and less time for Nazism to be used as an analogy online nowadays. Is that Godwins law ?
Yes, I expected more rhetoric out of you. I was debating on whether to use it or not. I decided to, because I expected debate. I had plenty of facts for you to dispute.
Christian Graus wrote:
Wait - something done in the early 40s is reflective of society today ?
Yes. It's not exactly my generation, but can't you see the trend? It's called history. Usually written in books? Ever hear of it? Things in history just don't magically disappear. If you learn from the mistakes of history, that's one thing. But to ignore it is a mistake as well, and only a fool would make that mistake.
Christian Graus wrote:
He should have just let them go broke. Trouble is, he can't afford to.
Why is that? Care to explain that one?
Christian Graus wrote:
Your problem is that you see some grand plan in this. There is none, except that the owners of papers like to see their views in print, and newspapers like to sell copy more than to tell the tr
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not for a while, no. And when it did, the result was that people were very rich or very poor. Our current mix allows for a middle class, which is where most of our economy runs.
100% disagreed. In totalitarian states (as we are starting to see again just about everywhere), you see the big divide. Look back in time in the United States. You saw a healthy middle class, and now our incomes are dying down. It takes two incomes to feed a family of four, as opposed to one back in the sixties. Look back at the USSR. There was never much of a middle class, except in the beginning of it all. Freedom breeds prosperity.
Christian Graus wrote:
You mean, not pure capitalist ? By not being pure capitalist, by not just grinding the bones of the poor to make our bread, it's obviously a 'form' of societal control.
I'm sorry, but that's utter bull. "You mean, not pure capitalistsocialist ? By not being pure capitalistsocialist, by not just grinding the bones of the poor to make our bread, it's obviously a 'form' of societal control." FTFY
Christian Graus wrote:
It seems to take less and less time for Nazism to be used as an analogy online nowadays. Is that Godwins law ?
Yes, I expected more rhetoric out of you. I was debating on whether to use it or not. I decided to, because I expected debate. I had plenty of facts for you to dispute.
Christian Graus wrote:
Wait - something done in the early 40s is reflective of society today ?
Yes. It's not exactly my generation, but can't you see the trend? It's called history. Usually written in books? Ever hear of it? Things in history just don't magically disappear. If you learn from the mistakes of history, that's one thing. But to ignore it is a mistake as well, and only a fool would make that mistake.
Christian Graus wrote:
He should have just let them go broke. Trouble is, he can't afford to.
Why is that? Care to explain that one?
Christian Graus wrote:
Your problem is that you see some grand plan in this. There is none, except that the owners of papers like to see their views in print, and newspapers like to sell copy more than to tell the tr
josda1000 wrote:
Look back in time in the United States. You saw a healthy middle class, and now our incomes are dying down. It takes two incomes to feed a family of four, as opposed to one back in the sixties.
Well, that much is true. The main cause is the rise in house prices. i.e. capitalism. It's the same at home. You need two jobs for two reasons: 1 - people have higher expectations now 2 - they need a house to live in The amount people pay for food has steadily declined. Don't get me started on that.
josda1000 wrote:
Freedom breeds prosperity.
It breeds great prosperity, for some. I am not against freedom, but pure capitalism makes some VERY rich precisely because they can abuse the poor.
josda1000 wrote:
FTFY
So it's capitalist to have unions, minimum wage, etc ?
josda1000 wrote:
Yes. It's not exactly my generation, but can't you see the trend? It's called history. Usually written in books? Ever hear of it?
The definition of 'trend' is not 'we did something once and are ashamed' but 'our path continues to travel down this road'. Who are we locking up today ( well, you, I'm an Aussie ).
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, I expected more rhetoric out of you. I was debating on whether to use it or not. I decided to, because I expected debate. I had plenty of facts for you to dispute.
The Nazism thing is tired. Yes, the Nazis took people's guns. No, that does not mean that every society that doesn't arm itself to the hilt will end up Nazi. For example.
josda1000 wrote:
Why is that? Care to explain that one?
It's simple. Democracy means everyone gets a vote. Including all the people put out of work of those big car companies fail.
josda1000 wrote:
Papers, or other media, should not be going to the government to be cradled. They should truly be independent, and giving the truth, not opinion. Just the facts.
That is a fantasy. My reference to capitalism was simple. Papers are not there to provide facts. They are there to sell papers so that people read the ads, which pays for them. That's the bottom line.
josda1000 w
-
josda1000 wrote:
Look back in time in the United States. You saw a healthy middle class, and now our incomes are dying down. It takes two incomes to feed a family of four, as opposed to one back in the sixties.
Well, that much is true. The main cause is the rise in house prices. i.e. capitalism. It's the same at home. You need two jobs for two reasons: 1 - people have higher expectations now 2 - they need a house to live in The amount people pay for food has steadily declined. Don't get me started on that.
josda1000 wrote:
Freedom breeds prosperity.
It breeds great prosperity, for some. I am not against freedom, but pure capitalism makes some VERY rich precisely because they can abuse the poor.
josda1000 wrote:
FTFY
So it's capitalist to have unions, minimum wage, etc ?
josda1000 wrote:
Yes. It's not exactly my generation, but can't you see the trend? It's called history. Usually written in books? Ever hear of it?
The definition of 'trend' is not 'we did something once and are ashamed' but 'our path continues to travel down this road'. Who are we locking up today ( well, you, I'm an Aussie ).
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, I expected more rhetoric out of you. I was debating on whether to use it or not. I decided to, because I expected debate. I had plenty of facts for you to dispute.
The Nazism thing is tired. Yes, the Nazis took people's guns. No, that does not mean that every society that doesn't arm itself to the hilt will end up Nazi. For example.
josda1000 wrote:
Why is that? Care to explain that one?
It's simple. Democracy means everyone gets a vote. Including all the people put out of work of those big car companies fail.
josda1000 wrote:
Papers, or other media, should not be going to the government to be cradled. They should truly be independent, and giving the truth, not opinion. Just the facts.
That is a fantasy. My reference to capitalism was simple. Papers are not there to provide facts. They are there to sell papers so that people read the ads, which pays for them. That's the bottom line.
josda1000 w
Wow... we're really good at this debating stuff. Anyway.
Christian Graus wrote:
The main cause is the rise in house prices. i.e. capitalism.
Wrong, that's regulation, i.e. fascism. Governments telling what the corporations to do, in this case actually, but fascism nonetheless.
Christian Graus wrote:
You need two jobs for two reasons: 1 - people have higher expectations now 2 - they need a house to live in
Agreed. People are now too caught up in living the "good life" during bubbles created by the central bank, i.e. the ultimate fascism.
Christian Graus wrote:
The amount people pay for food has steadily declined. Don't get me started on that.
Actually, I am kind of interested in your opinions on this. Because this is actually true capitalism. Through the competitive nature of the market, the prices went down, so people can buy more and be more gluttonous(I'm no exception).
Christian Graus wrote:
It breeds great prosperity, for some. I am not against freedom, but pure capitalism makes some VERY rich precisely because they can abuse the poor.
Disagreed. Pure capitalism breeds competition, just as in the food prices going down as you say. Totality of the state breeds the "very rich", because the power of the state allows corporations to create monopolies or cartels.
Christian Graus wrote:
So it's capitalist to have unions, minimum wage, etc ?
Unions are actually a smaller form of collectivism, creating a binding with the state to gang up on companies and corporations. I'm actually for the free creation of a union, but if your sector requires you to be in a union, that should be abolished. Minimum wages are antithetical to free markets, and actually create a much worse situation for the little guy. The little guy may not get hired, for the fact that the company can only hire so many workers, whereas if the company and worker were free to contract at any wage, the company may have been able to hire more and there would be less unemployment. Personally, I'd rather be employed at a smaller salary than not be hired at all. I could go on, but you stopped there lol
Christian Graus wrote:
The definition of 'trend' is not 'we did
-
Wow... we're really good at this debating stuff. Anyway.
Christian Graus wrote:
The main cause is the rise in house prices. i.e. capitalism.
Wrong, that's regulation, i.e. fascism. Governments telling what the corporations to do, in this case actually, but fascism nonetheless.
Christian Graus wrote:
You need two jobs for two reasons: 1 - people have higher expectations now 2 - they need a house to live in
Agreed. People are now too caught up in living the "good life" during bubbles created by the central bank, i.e. the ultimate fascism.
Christian Graus wrote:
The amount people pay for food has steadily declined. Don't get me started on that.
Actually, I am kind of interested in your opinions on this. Because this is actually true capitalism. Through the competitive nature of the market, the prices went down, so people can buy more and be more gluttonous(I'm no exception).
Christian Graus wrote:
It breeds great prosperity, for some. I am not against freedom, but pure capitalism makes some VERY rich precisely because they can abuse the poor.
Disagreed. Pure capitalism breeds competition, just as in the food prices going down as you say. Totality of the state breeds the "very rich", because the power of the state allows corporations to create monopolies or cartels.
Christian Graus wrote:
So it's capitalist to have unions, minimum wage, etc ?
Unions are actually a smaller form of collectivism, creating a binding with the state to gang up on companies and corporations. I'm actually for the free creation of a union, but if your sector requires you to be in a union, that should be abolished. Minimum wages are antithetical to free markets, and actually create a much worse situation for the little guy. The little guy may not get hired, for the fact that the company can only hire so many workers, whereas if the company and worker were free to contract at any wage, the company may have been able to hire more and there would be less unemployment. Personally, I'd rather be employed at a smaller salary than not be hired at all. I could go on, but you stopped there lol
Christian Graus wrote:
The definition of 'trend' is not 'we did
josda1000 wrote:
Wrong, that's regulation, i.e. fascism. Governments telling what the corporations to do, in this case actually, but fascism nonetheless.
How does that drive house prices ?
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. People are now too caught up in living the "good life" during bubbles created by the central bank, i.e. the ultimate fascism.
Bubbles are created by capitalism. They are largely created by greed, by people trying to make money without looking at where their money is going. Real estate is an obvious example. Only an idiot buys a house they cannot afford if rates are low, because they ALWAYS will go up in the life of the loan. So, the borrowers are to blame, not the Fed.
josda1000 wrote:
Actually, I am kind of interested in your opinions on this. Because this is actually true capitalism. Through the competitive nature of the market, the prices went down, so people can buy more and be more gluttonous(I'm no exception).
The core issues are 1 - food companies can only sell more by convincing us to eat more than we need 2 - most of what is sold in the US is based on corn, one way or the other, and it's further and further away from being 'food' in any traditional sense. 3 - the price of 'food' is made artificially low by corn subsidies, which promote huge monocultures ( ever driven through Indiana or Illinois ? ), which are incredibly fragile and destructive to the environment
josda1000 wrote:
Pure capitalism breeds competition, just as in the food prices going down as you say. Totality of the state breeds the "very rich", because the power of the state allows corporations to create monopolies or cartels.
Then why did such monopolies thrive before what you see as the downfall of your countries financial system ? Standard Oil, the meat cartels of the late 1800s, etc. Capitalism breeds competition. That is great for people who can compete. Those who cannot, just get eaten up as they have no rights or worth to a pure capitalistic system
josda1000 wrote:
Unions are actually a smaller form of collectivism, creating a binding with the state to gang up on companies and corporations. I'm actually for the free creation of a union, but if your sector requires you to be in a union, that should be abolished
-
josda1000 wrote:
Wrong, that's regulation, i.e. fascism. Governments telling what the corporations to do, in this case actually, but fascism nonetheless.
How does that drive house prices ?
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. People are now too caught up in living the "good life" during bubbles created by the central bank, i.e. the ultimate fascism.
Bubbles are created by capitalism. They are largely created by greed, by people trying to make money without looking at where their money is going. Real estate is an obvious example. Only an idiot buys a house they cannot afford if rates are low, because they ALWAYS will go up in the life of the loan. So, the borrowers are to blame, not the Fed.
josda1000 wrote:
Actually, I am kind of interested in your opinions on this. Because this is actually true capitalism. Through the competitive nature of the market, the prices went down, so people can buy more and be more gluttonous(I'm no exception).
The core issues are 1 - food companies can only sell more by convincing us to eat more than we need 2 - most of what is sold in the US is based on corn, one way or the other, and it's further and further away from being 'food' in any traditional sense. 3 - the price of 'food' is made artificially low by corn subsidies, which promote huge monocultures ( ever driven through Indiana or Illinois ? ), which are incredibly fragile and destructive to the environment
josda1000 wrote:
Pure capitalism breeds competition, just as in the food prices going down as you say. Totality of the state breeds the "very rich", because the power of the state allows corporations to create monopolies or cartels.
Then why did such monopolies thrive before what you see as the downfall of your countries financial system ? Standard Oil, the meat cartels of the late 1800s, etc. Capitalism breeds competition. That is great for people who can compete. Those who cannot, just get eaten up as they have no rights or worth to a pure capitalistic system
josda1000 wrote:
Unions are actually a smaller form of collectivism, creating a binding with the state to gang up on companies and corporations. I'm actually for the free creation of a union, but if your sector requires you to be in a union, that should be abolished
Christian Graus wrote:
How does that drive house prices ?
Because of the extra overhead and needing to fit in line with government regulations/standards. Because of the overhead, the burden is passed on to the consumer. It's also because the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates on the housing market, allowing the banks to offer lower prices and interest rates that in a normal market would not work for the consumer but did work. When the interest rates went up, the market bubble collapsed. That's government intervention at its finest.
Christian Graus wrote:
Bubbles are created by capitalism. They are largely created by greed, by people trying to make money without looking at where their money is going. Real estate is an obvious example. Only an idiot buys a house they cannot afford if rates are low, because they ALWAYS will go up in the life of the loan. So, the borrowers are to blame, not the Fed.
Read above. Bubbles are created by the central bank (FASCISM). It's not capitalist to have the government intervene in markets. I can agree that the borrower is also to blame for stupidity, but not everyone is an economist either.
Christian Graus wrote:
Then why did such monopolies thrive before what you see as the downfall of your countries financial system ?
Do you know what a monopoly is?! Some banks failed, some didn't and were bailed out. That's called a cartel. No one business was bailed out. To the actual argument: it's the business cycle. Booming and busting. All should have failed in order to have a correction (depression) for only a couple of years. Now, instead, we drag out the pain and will have a much harsher correction in probably a couple years.
Christian Graus wrote:
Capitalism breeds competition. That is great for people who can compete. Those who cannot, just get eaten up as they have no rights or worth to a pure capitalistic system
Those who cannot don't have the mental will to compete and complain, and do not try to help themselves. You for example, sold your product on the market for a time and got money for it. Are you a capitalist? Should you be considered a greedy guy and thrown in societal jail or exiled? Do I not have rights and no worth because I haven't started a business? No, I have plenty of skill, and I'm co
-
josda1000 wrote:
Wrong, that's regulation, i.e. fascism. Governments telling what the corporations to do, in this case actually, but fascism nonetheless.
How does that drive house prices ?
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. People are now too caught up in living the "good life" during bubbles created by the central bank, i.e. the ultimate fascism.
Bubbles are created by capitalism. They are largely created by greed, by people trying to make money without looking at where their money is going. Real estate is an obvious example. Only an idiot buys a house they cannot afford if rates are low, because they ALWAYS will go up in the life of the loan. So, the borrowers are to blame, not the Fed.
josda1000 wrote:
Actually, I am kind of interested in your opinions on this. Because this is actually true capitalism. Through the competitive nature of the market, the prices went down, so people can buy more and be more gluttonous(I'm no exception).
The core issues are 1 - food companies can only sell more by convincing us to eat more than we need 2 - most of what is sold in the US is based on corn, one way or the other, and it's further and further away from being 'food' in any traditional sense. 3 - the price of 'food' is made artificially low by corn subsidies, which promote huge monocultures ( ever driven through Indiana or Illinois ? ), which are incredibly fragile and destructive to the environment
josda1000 wrote:
Pure capitalism breeds competition, just as in the food prices going down as you say. Totality of the state breeds the "very rich", because the power of the state allows corporations to create monopolies or cartels.
Then why did such monopolies thrive before what you see as the downfall of your countries financial system ? Standard Oil, the meat cartels of the late 1800s, etc. Capitalism breeds competition. That is great for people who can compete. Those who cannot, just get eaten up as they have no rights or worth to a pure capitalistic system
josda1000 wrote:
Unions are actually a smaller form of collectivism, creating a binding with the state to gang up on companies and corporations. I'm actually for the free creation of a union, but if your sector requires you to be in a union, that should be abolished
I accidently hit Post... I need to continue.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that has next to nothing to do with what happened to the Japanese, in that it's not racially motivated, for a start. It's stupid, but, you know, when I go somewhere, or if I live somewhere, I find out what the law is, and obey it. That's differnt to being locked up for your race.
I agree. It has nothing to do with racism. But life is getting worse for EVERYONE at the same time.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, I'm not. I'm simply saying that the reason they do this, is the system you love so much, they do it for money.
Fair. There's flaws in every system. But nobody seems to complain about it, and that's a problem.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, I'm saying THEIR market is in 'hidden stories' and 'disturbing facts'. They sell to their market the same as everyone else. I don't believe anything I read from a single source, and I'd consider an independant source as much as a mainstream one.
Yes, you would. But there are plenty of people, the majority, that doesn't care. And that's a problem.
Christian Graus wrote:
It's about a 3. I assume some basis in fact. And so I don't 'believe everything they say', you've completely misunderstood me, there.
Sorry. Agreed.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, then you need some government controls on the media, instead of a free market where they can publish whatever they like. (evil laugh)
There, I disagree. What we need is a smarter population. One that isn't dumbed down, and knows its history.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, they are easily replaced because it's manual labour that my 13 yo could do.
Ahhh, yes. And that brings up the point that kids should be able to work (though I'm NOT advocating child "labor", as in slave work for nothing.) Though I do believe they should have the choice to work or not.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, I don't deny this is an issue. But to tie the cost of health care to the employer is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard of.
VERY good point. I like it.
Christian Graus wrote: