Rioting in London

[sstype]

I totally agree with you. However that does not change my point about stolen money from anyone and fed to those with no desire to work hard or sacrifice.

The irony is that the tea-party fought against this very thing in the latest round of debt talks, and yet were accused of terrorism by the Democrat party, the very party that claims to support the poor. And yet here we are, with another 2 Trillion added to our credit limit.....which reduces the middle and lower class pay to even smaller amounts via inflation.

You get rid of the top-tier looters by eliminating campaign finance by Corporations and reducing .gov to very limited services.
You get rid of the bottom-tier looters by re-enacting property rights and reducing .gov to very limited services.

If you believe in small government and free markets, you also believe that private businesses should not be allowed to form government chartered "corporations" which are perpetual legal entities with limited shareholder/agent liability but with the same rights as an individual. According to free market ideology, corporations would be subject to to unlimited liability and, absent of a legal will, would cease to exist upon death of its owners. Agree?

 

[joverby]

I definitely agree about the tax breaks, for big corporations in general, not just the ones shipping jobs overseas. Most companies structure their businesses in ways so they don't have to pay taxes. Flat tax corporate profits, no loopholes. But considering government and big business go hand in hand, this will never happen. And it is both parties at fault.

You can't get elected without incurring favors to pay back, politics is an ugly business. But it would be nice to get a guy in there that said f-it to all the favors, and did what was best for the country.

Bold# 1.) Absolutely true. They(both parties / media) get people to focus on moot stupid arguements like gays getting married instead of real issues like these. Which is why I am so adament on Independants.

Bold# 2.) Unless you are independantly wealthy. Such as FDR. IDK much about Sen. Bernie Sanders but I believe he is as well.

There is a quote from one of the founders of the constitution talking about how terrible bi-partisism is. I forget who. Maybe TJ?

 

[Leporello]

I support you Danger, your arguments are unassailable, Leporello is a typical vagina squelshing leftard cvnt bag saggy tit worshipping fvck wit. The only reason leftards think that way is because of feminist influences corroding their brain.

That was definitely the finest series of adjectives that have ever been applied to me.

Good for you. You're the exception that proves the rule.

Your logic is essentially: 'If 1 in every 10,000 Americans born into poverty manages to make something of themselves then this is the land of opportunity! The rest are just lazy!' Erm. What?

Anyway that fails to take into account thousands of other factors outside of a child's control.

It's hopeless, SL. Some people are just hardwired to believe that making money is the only virtue (and having money the only sign of virtue). No doubt the French aristocrats thought like that before finding their heads in the gutter.

If it were up to people like Danger and Quicksilver we'd all still be living in the Great Depression.

 

[user43770]

If it were up to people like Danger and Quicksilver we'd all still be living in the Great Depression.

How so? Please elaborate.

 

[Leporello]

How so? Please elaborate.

Well, to put it simply - it was people who believed in 'personal initiative' and the infallibility of the market who opposed all of Roosevelt's efforts. A lot of people forget that after the first years of the New Deal Roosevelt was convinced to cut back on many of his programs, causing an immediate downturn (the 'Roosevelt Recession').

No man is an island. We all rely on some way on each other, and the belief that I can survive while everyone else is dying just isn't true.

 

[sstype]

Well, to put it simply - it was people who believed in 'personal initiative' and the infallibility of the market who opposed all of Roosevelt's efforts. A lot of people forget that after the first years of the New Deal Roosevelt was convinced to cut back on many of his programs, causing an immediate downturn (the 'Roosevelt Recession').

No man is an island. We all rely on some way on each other, and the belief that I can survive while everyone else is dying just isn't true.

What bothers me is when I hear this talk from the "personal responsibility" crowd and the infallibility of the free market for individuals

Yet they don't direct their scorn towards the people running C-Corporations, LLCs, and limited liability partnerships who shun "personal responsibility" thanks to these government-sanctioned legal structures.

Why do shareholders demand legal protection from unlimited personal liability? Does this not go against the free-market? Does this not fall hand in hand with "something for nothing?" What did they do to earn limited legal liability?

A CEO can make millions of dollars slashing payroll and outsourcing labor, but then drive the company to the ground and he is not personally liable thanks to government (aka taxpayers) essentially "subsidizing the losses" via the limited liability corporate structure. If he's real crafty, he even get's a golden parachute worth millions more!

I won't even start on the trillions of dollars of taxpayer funded backstops, subsidies, and bailouts, sweetheart loans, and tax loopholes that our government and Federal Reserve has given away to the uber-wealthy and corporations. Again, privatize the gains and socialize the losses.

Socialism for the elites, free-markets for the rest of us.

They are exponentially worse when it comes to entitlement and "something for nothing" than someone who simply wants a decent education and access to good healthcare.

Unlike you free-market hypocrites, I'll gladly demand an end to all middle and working class entitlements as soon as the welfare queens at the top give up theirs.

 

[user43770]

Well, to put it simply - it was people who believed in 'personal initiative' and the infallibility of the market who opposed all of Roosevelt's efforts. A lot of people forget that after the first years of the New Deal Roosevelt was convinced to cut back on many of his programs, causing an immediate downturn (the 'Roosevelt Recession').

No man is an island. We all rely on some way on each other, and the belief that I can survive while everyone else is dying just isn't true.

So, the reason the New Deal failed was because they didn't spend enough money? That sounds like what was said about the most recent stimulus. How much money has to be wasted before we can call it a failure?

 

[Leporello]

So, the reason the New Deal failed was because they didn't spend enough money? That sounds like what was said about the most recent stimulus. How much money has to be wasted before we can call it a failure?

Buh? the New Deal was not a failure. It spurred economic growth and established economic precepts which helped the country out of the Depression, and laid the groundwork for the '30 Glorious Years' which followed. How was that a waste?

Economists are mixed on the recent stimulus. Some (like Paul Krugman) do argue that it was too small, and even now most of the money allotted for it has yet to be spent.

You know who else employed a gigantic stimulus program? The Chinese. Except that their stimulus was (relative to the size of their economy) more than twice what we had in the US. Their economy picked up and recovered almost immediately; ours is still languishing.

 

[user43770]

Buh? the New Deal was not a failure. It spurred economic growth and established economic precepts which helped the country out of the Depression, and laid the groundwork for the '30 Glorious Years' which followed. How was that a waste?

No it didn't. WWII and its aftermath were what brought us out of the depression and made us a superpower.

Economists are mixed on the recent stimulus. Some (like Paul Krugman) do argue that it was too small, and even now most of the money allotted for it has yet to be spent.

Economists are always mixed. I don't like the idea of trillions of tax dollars being tossed around based on theories. And when their plan doesn't work they say they just need another trillion. Just one more trillion, America.


You know who else employed a gigantic stimulus program? The Chinese. Except that their stimulus was (relative to the size of their economy) more than twice what we had in the US. Their economy picked up and recovered almost immediately; ours is still languishing.

Completely different economies. What may have worked in China wouldn't necessarily work in America.

Responses in bold. I'm not trying to come off as an economist or anything. I just like to point out that economists don't seem to know sh1t.

 

[user43770]

'Laissez Faire' government doesn't work. Where governments were lobbied into moving towards free markets through extensive deregulation (thanks Reagan), most notably in the banking industry...well we know how that turned out...

Maybe so, but over-regulation isn't going to solve any problems. The government doesn't produce wealth.

 

[user43770]

Agree to an extent. Over regulation can stifle initiative and create more problems than it solves but some regulation is necessary to keep our animal spirit in check (we have a habit of screwing over our own people if there's a dollar in it).

Agreed.

Government spending can stimulate wealth creation and is necessary for the provision of public goods that have a positive effect on the functioning of the economy.

Sure, but sometimes it's like putting a band-aid on an arterial bleed. You can't always fix a problem by throwing money at it. And what happens if government intervention doesn't work? What do we do about our increasing debt? Maybe the government should focus more on creating an environment where businesses can succeed. And how do we do that? By lowering taxes. And we're back to the beginning of the argument...

 

[wait_out]

...focus more on creating an environment where businesses can succeed. And how do we do that? By lowering taxes. And we're back to the beginning of the argument...

Obviously high taxes can strangle businesses but low taxes are a facet of the business environment, not the entirety. There are still some wild and lawless places out there... you wouldn't pay taxes but you need to build roads, furnish electricity, hire security, bribe the powerful etc. On the social welfare side, its obviously easy to piss money away but if you don't have a passable labor pool (literate, reliable/drug-free, can function in society) businesses will pay more for workers or be unable to expand when it's time to grow. Taxes are one expense among others and vaporizing the state makes business expensive. This is obvious if you've ever been anywhere where there is a total breakdown in governance (Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, etc).

I'm not going to offer further opinion as this is not my field -- but to me the important questions are "does this work" and "can we actually afford it". A lot of political discussion (above all in the US) frames these issues as moral questions and identity issues (left vs. right), so compromise isn't possible. Let's take Tottenham as a hypothetical example. Lets say if you spent 10M on youth clubs you could have averted 100M worth of damages -- regardless of entitlement culture isn't that the better choice? Conversely, let's say you closed down a local clinic, and as a result 100 people died.... but you created enough jobs in the neighborhood that the area recovered and the new better clinic you built 5 years later saved 1000 lives. Doesn't this make sense?

Humans are irrational and make decisions based on emotion not reason; why else would you burn down your own neighborhood? That's why all this passion in politics is ultimately destructive. The left and right are very similar in that they will both nosedive their ideas right into the ground rather than give way. And then blame the other party and learn nothing. Capitalism and socialism should be competing modes of governance -- not a moral crusade. But I suppose if they didn't reflect the electorate, they wouldn't be fronting political parties...

 

[Serialized3]

LOL, finally the corruption has visibly manifested itself in that inbred sick little island (England).

I hate these anglo values of hyper-competitiveness, worship of capital, and giving none of a shit of your fellow countryman. Time to replace that system.

 

[user43770]

Obviously high taxes can strangle businesses but low taxes are a facet of the business environment, not the entirety. There are still some wild and lawless places out there... you wouldn't pay taxes but you need to build roads, furnish electricity, hire security, bribe the powerful etc. On the social welfare side, its obviously easy to piss money away but if you don't have a passable labor pool (literate, reliable/drug-free, can function in society) businesses will pay more for workers or be unable to expand when it's time to grow. Taxes are one expense among others and vaporizing the state makes business expensive. This is obvious if you've ever been anywhere where there is a total breakdown in governance (Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, etc).

I understand that taxes are necessary. I just wish that politicians would cut out the wasteful spending.

I'm not going to offer further opinion as this is not my field -- but to me the important questions are "does this work" and "can we actually afford it". A lot of political discussion (above all in the US) frames these issues as moral questions and identity issues (left vs. right), so compromise isn't possible. Let's take Tottenham as a hypothetical example. Lets say if you spent 10M on youth clubs you could have averted 100M worth of damages -- regardless of entitlement culture isn't that the better choice? Conversely, let's say you closed down a local clinic, and as a result 100 people died.... but you created enough jobs in the neighborhood that the area recovered and the new better clinic you built 5 years later saved 1000 lives. Doesn't this make sense?

I'm not against all social welfare - I'm just against it when it's given to lazy bastards who refuse to contribute to society.

Humans are irrational and make decisions based on emotion not reason; why else would you burn down your own neighborhood? That's why all this passion in politics is ultimately destructive. The left and right are very similar in that they will both nosedive their ideas right into the ground rather than give way. And then blame the other party and learn nothing. Capitalism and socialism should be competing modes of governance -- not a moral crusade. But I suppose if they didn't reflect the electorate, they wouldn't be fronting political parties...

Right on. I have a hard time understanding the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, moderates don't seem to make it very far in the political world. And the ones that do are typically full of sh1t.

 

[sstype]

Social,

We agree on the aspects of Corporations taking Government favors for money.

In essence, your response to corporation socialism is to have public socialism.

My resopnse to coproration socialism is to keep it from spreading and end the corporate socialism.

We have had decade after decade of both parties supporting socialism in one form or another.

All I ask is, why? Why should we have it for either? My voting record goes along with those beliefs as I continue to vote Libertarian, or for Ron Paul who supports my same beliefs.

I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries...I like the guy..what he lacks in style he makes up for it ten-fold in substance. Some of his ideas are definitely out there, but its good that he is bringing attention to the Federal Reserve and welfare for the rich.

I can't say the same for his son.....he is of the Tea-Party astroturf variety aka a hypocrite. He refuses to cut Medicare.....which conveniently is half of his income as a physician. Michelle Bachman was an IRS tax attorney and received farm and medicare subsidies. Sarah Palin....no need to elaborate. You seem principled Danger, but unfortunately the people claiming to represent "small government" are anything but in their own personal affairs. For them, railing against others taking the same benefits they themselves take advantage of represents hypocrisy and deception of the highest magnitude. At least the welfare bum admits he wants something for nothing.

As for social programs, I will admit I am left-leaning as I agree with wait out that if the benefits to society outweighs the initial outlay, I don't see a problem with it. Education, Healthcare, programs that protect the most vulnerable may be considered socialism but, if properly administered, I think could work quite well with a robust, corrupt-free private sector. Wait_Out is correct, it does not have to be ONLY capitalism or ONLY socialism. Most of us AGREE that we need a healthy competitive private sector, not over-regulated, over-taxed, and in bed with the government.

But if government help in creating a healthy, educated workforce with strong purchasing power attracts more capital investment and job opportunities then I see that as a win-win for both sides. Look at Germany's economy for proof.

I'm glad we at least agree on the big picture. Now, more than ever, people from both sides need to come together. The greatest fear for the elite and their supporters are a unified citizenry.

 

[sstype]

...

 

[Leporello]

You know who did an outright default instead of a stealh printing default?

Iceland. And they are recovering nicely.

You cannot compare China with the US because one has a budget surplus while the other has a budget defecit.

One is a creditor, one is a debtor.

Borrowing more money into existence does not cure the problem. It steals just as much from the poor as it does from the rich, that is irony of your argument.

And do you suppose there is a difference between Iceland (which has an economy of $12 billion) defaulting vs. the world's largest economy defaulting?

What does China being a creditor nation have to do with the impact of an economic stimulus?

Of course I don't like borrowing, but sometimes it has to be done. if you're so worried about debt then we need to go where the money is - the wealthiest 1% of the population. Abolish the Bush tax cuts and we're well on the way to erasing the deficit.

Also:

Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined

WASHINGTON—Members of the U.S. Congress reported Wednesday they were continuing to carefully debate the issue of whether or not they should allow the country to descend into a roiling economic meltdown of historically dire proportions. "It is a question that, I think, is worthy of serious consideration: Should we take steps to avoid a crippling, decades-long depression that would lead to disastrous consequences on a worldwide scale? Or should we not do that?" asked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), adding that arguments could be made for both sides, and that the debate over ensuring America’s financial solvency versus allowing the nation to default on its debt—which would torpedo stock markets, cause mortgage and interests rates to skyrocket, and decimate the value of the U.S. dollar—is “certainly a conversation worth having.” "Obviously, we don't want to rush to consensus on whether it is or isn't a good idea to save the American economy and all our respective livelihoods from certain peril until we've examined this thorny dilemma from every angle. And if we’re still discussing this matter on Aug. 2, well, then, so be it.” At press time, President Obama said he personally believed the country should not be economically ruined

Sometimes, the Onion says it best.

 

[joverby]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen...nancial_world_dominated_by_a_few_deep_pockets

A study to prove what we already knew. The money being controlled by a select few.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

Danger, why are you even bothering with this kid? He's obviously a college parasite who believes himself superior to everyone who deals with reality, because he knows that reality doesn't exist and he lives on some metaphysical dream cloud inside that insulated bubble of college. Like all of us, the real world gives a rude awakening to everybody who goes through that phase, and who regrets their appauling arrogance and ignorance for the rest of their years. As for the economics debate...

Don't you have eyes and a brain? The Keynesian economics they teach in colleges are BULL****E. The last 3 years are indisputable proof of this--from TARP to corporate bailouts to Cash for Clunkers to the Mortgage Deduction Holiday to QE1 to QE2 to whatever other "Keynesian stimuli" I have forgotten, they are an abysmal failure (except for driving up my gold investment, so I thank my Keynesian ****tards for their incompetence). All it has achieved was a temporary pop in the stock market; no GDP growth, no employment growth, the only thing that grew (exponentially) was our national debt. Keynesian economics has no respect for the principle of money: that it is a product of effort. The people who teach it also have no respect for your mind; they expect you to be stupid enough to ignore reality and trade your gold for their paper. No thanks.

What are they going to do next, dump cash out of helicopters? lol

Even more proof of how stupid Keynesianism is: look at a 100 year chart of the value of the dollar. You'll notice that from 1913-on, the chart is a short-sellers dream...geronimooooooo! What happened in 1913? The new Federal Reserve started to take the dollar away from a substantive valuation (1/20th an oz. of gold) to a faked-up, academic, symbolic standard of value. One dollar is now worth roughly 1/1800th of an oz of gold, and banks are starting to charge (not pay) interest on savings accounts! It's so worthless you have to pay banks to keep it! Only backwards and upside-down Keynesian economists, who are convinced that you can consume before producing, could watch this happen over the decades and just keep doing it. Stupid!

Here's another mind-blower: there is no distribution of wealth, despite the countless hours you spend whining about it. It's impossible, it cannot exist, because wealth is not "distributed"; it is created by your effort and earned by the value you create. If you don't respect money, if you create grandiose and fantastical academic theories in an attempt to evade the basic truth of money, you will never have any, despite your mastery of trumped-up theories.

You want to study some real economics, look up Ludwig von Mises and the Austrians.

As for the tragic events in London, it's good that labour party liberals finally get to see, first hand, on their doorsteps, the monster they've created. Is it really a surprise to anybody? This is the outcome of every "idealistic" welfare state-a nation of subhuman animals who snarl and grunt and destroy each other between free meals. Welfare states, despite claiming the sanction of inviolate moral honor, are in fact concentration camps that dehumanize and destroy the human lives they claim to hold in such high regard.

I know personally that there are many conservative men of honor in England, the same kind of British steel that was once the pride of the world, and I think they can take their country back. I sure hope they can.

 

[DJ Logic]

Great post Julius. I myself had not even heard of Austrian economics until I realized Ron Paul had written 6 books on the topic. Still educating myself as we speak, but its eye-opening to say the least. It is showing me that American economics have been nothing more than an elaborate scam for the past century - 95% of the dollar's value pilfered from the working class into the pockets of the filthy rich. Possibly the greatest heist in history, and not one person will be penalized for it. What a disgrace!

And then the media wonders why our youth is going ape****. It's not like the people at the top of the food chain are setting such a stellar example

http://www.russellbrand.tv/2011/08/big-brother-isnt-watching-you/