10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto: Look Familiar?

[Mad Scientist]

I think some of you are missing the point. Go back and re-read the OP and tell me which Political Party was mentioned.

 

[bripat9643]

Undoubtedly an economist. After all, he's the progenitor of marxism, an economic (among other things) system.

That's like calling a chimpanzee who pours paint on a canvas and then smears it around an "artist." Marx didn't know the first thing about economics. He came up with convincing sounding excuses for organized plunder.

He was a propaganda artist, but not in a way exclusive to his widely recognized role as an economist among his contemporaries and any modern expert in economics.

He is only recognized as an economist by those who don't know anything about economics. He contributed nothing to the field of economics.

How many economic textbooks fail to mention Marx?
Marx was indeed into history, philosophy, economics and other subjects.
As for propaganda, can we call the Declaration of Independence or Paine's "Common Sense" propaganda?

Economists always discuss erroneous beliefs about economics in order to combat them. Marx is the source of all the worst fallacies. That's why he gets mentioned.

And, yes, the declaration of Independence and "Common Sense" are propaganda. Not all propaganda is a lie.

 

[occupied]

"Lax?" Are you trying to be a comedian?

Not at all, if regulation was as draconian as people make it out to be we would not be faced with so many instances of it failing to prevent the wrongs it is intended to prevent.

Wrong again. Furthermore, regulation causes many of the problems turds like you blame on the market. Take the sub-prime mortgage debacle, for instance.

You would have just agreed with my point except you are one of those who think the bankers are innocent lambs who only crashed the economy because the bad old government made them defraud millions of people.

 

[kaz]

Not at all, if regulation was as draconian as people make it out to be we would not be faced with so many instances of it failing to prevent the wrongs it is intended to prevent.

That's hilarious. You actually think government is effective. The whole point of what makes you so wrong is that government ... doesn't ... work. Clinton set out to force banks to loan to anyone so anyone could buy a home and it started what became the mortgage meltdown.

Government taxes repatriation of offshore money at up to 30%, so companies then don't bring it home and then the Democrats whine they aren't bringing it home which would help our economy.

Government forces companies to pay low end workers more then they are worth, then they can't get jobs and Democrats whine about unemployment.

Government keeps changing the rules and increasing taxes and regulations on business, so they sit on cash rather than investing in projects and you whine about that.

But then you come out with, there aren't regulations, it's proven because of course they would work! And it's not! Clueless is as clueless does. The existence of the problems is far more compelling evidence of government intrusion.

Our economy isn't suffering from anything it couldn't solve if government would stop "helping" it...

 

[kaz]

Not at all, if regulation was as draconian as people make it out to be we would not be faced with so many instances of it failing to prevent the wrongs it is intended to prevent.

Wrong again. Furthermore, regulation causes many of the problems turds like you blame on the market. Take the sub-prime mortgage debacle, for instance.

You would have just agreed with my point except you are one of those who think the bankers are innocent lambs who only crashed the economy because the bad old government made them defraud millions of people.

The Fed is a criminal organization that constantly steals from the American people, but it's the bankers trying to make money serving their customers you hate.

 

[kaz]

I think some of you are missing the point. Go back and re-read the OP and tell me which Political Party was mentioned.

They aren't missing the point, they are deflecting.

 

[occupied]

Not at all, if regulation was as draconian as people make it out to be we would not be faced with so many instances of it failing to prevent the wrongs it is intended to prevent.

That's hilarious. You actually think government is effective. The whole point of what makes you so wrong is that government ... doesn't ... work. Clinton set out to force banks to loan to anyone so anyone could buy a home and it started what became the mortgage meltdown.

Government taxes repatriation of offshore money at up to 30%, so companies then don't bring it home and then the Democrats whine they aren't bringing it home which would help our economy.

Government forces companies to pay low end workers more then they are worth, then they can't get jobs and Democrats whine about unemployment.

Government keeps changing the rules and increasing taxes and regulations on business, so they sit on cash rather than investing in projects and you whine about that.

But then you come out with, there aren't regulations, it's proven because of course they would work! And it's not! Clueless is as clueless does. The existence of the problems is far more compelling evidence of government intrusion.

Our economy isn't suffering from anything it couldn't solve if government would stop "helping" it...

Sorry, the more people try to tell me that the answer to economic woes is to tell the financial cops to go home and pay people even less the more unlikely it sounds.

 

[bripat9643]

Not at all, if regulation was as draconian as people make it out to be we would not be faced with so many instances of it failing to prevent the wrongs it is intended to prevent.

Wrong again. Furthermore, regulation causes many of the problems turds like you blame on the market. Take the sub-prime mortgage debacle, for instance.

You would have just agreed with my point except you are one of those who think the bankers are innocent lambs who only crashed the economy because the bad old government made them defraud millions of people.

The idea that thousands of bankers could all join together to form a vast conspiracy that would cause a world panic doesn't pass the laugh test. Government is the only individual entity capable of having such an impact on the economy. Bankers follow the laws as written. When those laws cause a disaster, you blame the people who are obligated to obey them rather than the laws themselves.

if regulation works so well, then why do we still have problems? Democrats have piled regulation after regulation after regulation. yet they still claim the economy isn't regulated enough. That excuse is wearing thin.

 

[kaz]

Sorry, the more people try to tell me that the answer to economic woes is to tell the financial cops to go home and pay people even less the more unlikely it sounds.

You know nothing about business. Wages are an agreement. As a multiple business owner who spent my career in management and management consulting, we are always looking for good employees and paying them whatever it takes to keep them.

What you want to force us to do is keep bad employees and pay them what you want us to. And that is what's destroying free markets in this country.

I like though how you fear companies that have to compete with each other or their customers will go to their competitors because you trust politicians who so shallowly obviously seek power and have guns and the power to shut down their competition.

Talk about bass ackwards.

 

[occupied]

Wrong again. Furthermore, regulation causes many of the problems turds like you blame on the market. Take the sub-prime mortgage debacle, for instance.

You would have just agreed with my point except you are one of those who think the bankers are innocent lambs who only crashed the economy because the bad old government made them defraud millions of people.

The idea that thousands of bankers could all join together to form a vast conspiracy that would cause a world panic doesn't pass the laugh test. Government is the only individual entity capable of having such an impact on the economy. Bankers follow the laws as written. When those laws cause a disaster, you blame the people who are obligated to obey them rather than the laws themselves.

if regulation works so well, then why do we still have problems? Democrats have piled regulation after regulation after regulation. yet they still claim the economy isn't regulated enough. That excuse is wearing thin.

There has been FAR more deregulation and lowering of standards the last 20 years than "piling on" regulation, especially in the financial sector, but you knew that.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Not at all, if regulation was as draconian as people make it out to be we would not be faced with so many instances of it failing to prevent the wrongs it is intended to prevent.

Wrong again. Furthermore, regulation causes many of the problems turds like you blame on the market. Take the sub-prime mortgage debacle, for instance.

You would have just agreed with my point except you are one of those who think the bankers are innocent lambs who only crashed the economy because the bad old government made them defraud millions of people.

The banks failed for several reasons - our government used banks as tools, the FED prints fiat money and forced lending is tyrannical...

It really all started with the Community Reinvestment Act or as I call it - forcing banks to loan money to people who can't pay it back to buy homes, then using their status as home owners to get credit cards to buy useless shit then defaulting on their credit....

When credit is a right and not a privilege you're going to have a lot of problems and now we're paying the price.......

Of course that idea is just one of many mental retardation issues with progressives...

Progressives believe ALL people will pay back their debt if credit is a right -- well our economy has certainly proved them wrong.... Either that or they just wanted free shit and didn't care what the consequences were - yeah no they were going to deal with the consequences at a later date. Well that date is NOW.....

 

[occupied]

Sorry, the more people try to tell me that the answer to economic woes is to tell the financial cops to go home and pay people even less the more unlikely it sounds.

You know nothing about business. Wages are an agreement. As a multiple business owner who spent my career in management and management consulting, we are always looking for good employees and paying them whatever it takes to keep them.

What you want to force us to do is keep bad employees and pay them what you want us to. And that is what's destroying free markets in this country.

I like though how you fear companies that have to compete with each other or their customers will go to their competitors because you trust politicians who so shallowly obviously seek power and have guns and the power to shut down their competition.

Talk about bass ackwards.

If you are looking to pay people less than minimum wage then you just suck.

 

[kaz]

but you knew that.

Yes, everyone knows that liberalism is truth. It's only our greed and bigotry and love of the rich and corporations that prevents us from admitting it. I wish you'd stop nailing us for that.

 

[kaz]

If you are looking to pay people less than minimum wage then you just suck.

I'm not looking for that, I don't hire them and if I find out afterwards they suck I fire them. I'm pointing out the consequence of your policy to "help" them. Good job on that.

 

[occupied]

If you are looking to pay people less than minimum wage then you just suck.

I'm not looking for that, I don't hire them and if I find out afterwards they suck I fire them. I'm pointing out the consequence of your policy to "help" them. Good job on that.

Still haven't explained your attack on the minimum wage as if it was some unreasonably high amount, are you of the opinion that it is too high? In real buying power the minimum wage has been in decline for a very long time.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Wrong again. Furthermore, regulation causes many of the problems turds like you blame on the market. Take the sub-prime mortgage debacle, for instance.

You would have just agreed with my point except you are one of those who think the bankers are innocent lambs who only crashed the economy because the bad old government made them defraud millions of people.

The idea that thousands of bankers could all join together to form a vast conspiracy that would cause a world panic doesn't pass the laugh test. Government is the only individual entity capable of having such an impact on the economy. Bankers follow the laws as written. When those laws cause a disaster, you blame the people who are obligated to obey them rather than the laws themselves.

if regulation works so well, then why do we still have problems? Democrats have piled regulation after regulation after regulation. yet they still claim the economy isn't regulated enough. That excuse is wearing thin.

You're absolutely right and it started with Bill Clinton and his Welfare Reform Act and his Community Reinvestment Act amendments..

This is pretty much what happened with that....

"Fine republicans, you want the federal government to stop handing out free welfare money. I'm cool with that but I'm going to force the banks to pick up the slack and loan to anyone and everyone"

Of course the banks WERE forced to lend to anyone and everyone... So people got credit cards maxed them out - got a new one maxed it out - then another.....

All that unpaid debt has to go somewhere - some bank is going to eat it... Oh they ate it all right - that's why bailouts were needed...

 

[Mr.Nick]

Sorry, the more people try to tell me that the answer to economic woes is to tell the financial cops to go home and pay people even less the more unlikely it sounds.

You know nothing about business. Wages are an agreement. As a multiple business owner who spent my career in management and management consulting, we are always looking for good employees and paying them whatever it takes to keep them.

What you want to force us to do is keep bad employees and pay them what you want us to. And that is what's destroying free markets in this country.

I like though how you fear companies that have to compete with each other or their customers will go to their competitors because you trust politicians who so shallowly obviously seek power and have guns and the power to shut down their competition.

Talk about bass ackwards.

If you are looking to pay people less than minimum wage then you just suck.

Different regions have different wages...... You can live in Green Bay on 6 bucks an hour but you cant live in Chicago on 6 bucks an hour..... No living in Chicago requires at least 10 an hour.... Do you know what that means?? It means businesses in Chicago wouldn't have any employees unless they paid 10 minimum an hour because that is the living standard in Chicago...

Every region has its own monetary standard of living, however when you adjust the cost of living to wages and compare regions there is really no difference...

 

[antagon]

Marx wasn't an economist. He was a propagandist.

Undoubtedly an economist. After all, he's the progenitor of marxism, an economic (among other things) system.

That's like calling a chimpanzee who pours paint on a canvas and then smears it around an "artist." Marx didn't know the first thing about economics. He came up with convincing sounding excuses for organized plunder.

He was a propaganda artist, but not in a way exclusive to his widely recognized role as an economist among his contemporaries and any modern expert in economics.

He is only recognized as an economist by those who don't know anything about economics. He contributed nothing to the field of economics.

Nah. Marx is an economist... one of the most influential ever, as I had stated earlier. Like chimpanzees, you have clearly been insulated from people who "know anything about economics" on the matter of whether or not Marx is regarded as one. Academia does not operate like your political extremism, where one opinion is agreed with over and over. Most of the argumentation in macroeconomics stems between Marx-influenced theory and classical-influenced theory. It has been that way since Marx.

 

[kaz]

If you are looking to pay people less than minimum wage then you just suck.

I'm not looking for that, I don't hire them and if I find out afterwards they suck I fire them. I'm pointing out the consequence of your policy to "help" them. Good job on that.

Still haven't explained your attack on the minimum wage as if it was some unreasonably high amount, are you of the opinion that it is too high? In real buying power the minimum wage has been in decline for a very long time.

I can hire plenty of people for minimum wage and then weed out the ones who aren't worth it. Most of the people who aren't worth it are unemployed because employers aren't stupid, we don't pay people what they are not worth. If government says toasters can't be sold for less then $30, are consumers going to buy a $15 toaster for $30 or just buy a $30 toaster that's worth $30? Maybe they didn't need the $30 toaster, but if they are forced to pay $30 they are going to at least get the value for the money.

But once again you demonstrate liberalism so perfectly. You chastise me for not paying people $7.25 who aren't worth $7.25. Your "charity" costs you nothing, I'm expected to pay it. And yet you're the one all sanctimonious about it.

 

[antagon]

Fuck Mr. Nick for flying Old Glory upside-down next to that shitrag.